[OK]

So you are saying that there was no growth in the US from 1789 until 1900? That is different from what I thought. The dollar was worth the same amount of gold in 1900 as in 1789. I think prosperity and freedom were the result there.

The British Empire was built on a solid gold British Pound for 250 years. It started to decline after they severed the Pound from gold.

I wish you would read "Gold Wars" by Ferdinand Lips.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Obviously I did not say that. However, it was a period of very uneven growth and boom and bust. That growth was possible because Hamilton's financial program had created an instant money supply NOT based on gold but on funded government credit.

There was no dollar in 1789 and thus your comment about the relative value in 1900 is fallicious. However, the value of the dollar in 1900 was higher than in 1865 because of systematic appreciation due to removing greenbacks from circulation.

The British Empire was NOT build on gold. War had bankrupted the government and drained away its gold to such an extent that the Bank of England was created in 1692 in order to allow financing of the nation's wars. It was never truly on the Gold Standard and at one point removed the pound from convertibility for almost 40 yrs. Most of the time the pound was a fiat currency with a fig leaf of convertibility which could have never been used if desired.

If your contentions above came from reading "Gold Wars" there is no reason for me to read it since they are clearly false. However, I appreciate the suggestion.