Keith Evans
Jul 30, 2017 · 1 min read

I guess it’s easier than making America smart again. lol

Monetizing potential productivity is what a fiat currency is, so why is that different than monetizing gold that we “potentially” have? Or even gold that we have? It (gold) is really not of much use for anything besides assuaging mythical concepts of economics for people more adept at wrapping their hands around things than their minds.

The concept of currency as a “thing” that is subject to property rights is comforting to those who possess a lot of the “thing” we accept as currency, but it severely limits potential investment in future productivity. I have my own reservations about fiat currency when I realize that its management is in the hands of people like Rep Louis Gomhert, but that’s a problem best addressed at the ballot box, not the Treasury.

The other thing usually missed, or not included, in articles favorable to gold based currency is that the low hanging fruit of gold in the US was long ago depleted. Current large scale mining of gold here is done at the molecular level with the destruction of a lot of potable water, similar to how we “frack” for oil and gas. I, for one, am not comfortable trading my drinking water for someone’s “feels” about the currency. Making water the next scarce commodity to be monetized for profit scares the bejebus out of me.

    Keith Evans

    Written by

    Meandering to a different drummer.