He said FR notes are backed by bonds, they aren't. That's an enormous error. He doesn't understand how you can have more derivatives than there are bonds. It's easy. I can explain it to you. If you understood derivatives, you could explain it to me. So why don't you? To show you are credible.
He said that FR notes are backed by *assets,* such as government bonds. I see nothing wrong with this statement:
"Government bonds today are not a legitimate instrument of saving as gold bonds of yesteryear were. They are supposed to have value because they are payable in FR notes at maturity. But what gives value to the FR notes? Why, it is the fact that they are liabilities of the issuing FR bank, backed by assets such as government bonds."