[DallasMike]

Sorry, but most economists would argue that a specie-backed currency is neither necessary nor desirable. Currency is nothing more than a contract -- a method of easily exchanging one set of goods for another. If I work a few hours, get a paycheck, and buy a new suit, I'm effectively trading my labor for the suit. Without currency, I would have to find a clothing store that needs me to write code or whatever for the exact amount of time that I'm willing to put in to get a suit in return.

If you want to see what backs up your currency, look at the clothes you're wearing, the computer you're typing on, and the furnishings of your home.

[Texaggie79]

It seems that way. But the fact is, we pay an interest on our currency to use it. A LARGE interest. And it is private individuals that are financially benefiting from the nations forced use of their paper as currency.

[taxtruth]

LOL!Don't sign up for Harvard.

[Hank Kerchief]

...most economists would argue that a specie-backed currency is neither necessary nor desirable.

Man Argentinians have learned the hard way the difference between fiat money and specie. Is that what it will take to make you change your mind?

Hank

[TaxPayer2000]

there is so much you need to learn, yet so little time. do yourself a favor and investigate exactly how the "Federal" reserve system works. By the way, it is Federal in name only

[fineright]

Go DallasMike

[Aurelius]

Backing currency with specie provides a stability that fiat money doesn't have. It appears however that the huge deficits of the recent past did have something of a stabilizing effect, inasmuch as excessive government printing of money would have driven up interest costs on the national debt and left less in the Treasury for the Congress to buy votes with. This is the real reason Congress is interested in reducing or eliminating debt. Of course their claim to have done so is phoney, as they have simply been transfering the obligation from the public to the Social Security Administration.