Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
It may seem like an improvement, but it really isn't... to those calling the shots the ethics of it are nothing but incidental. When the Libyan government made a move to establish their own gold-backed currency the very same people in power now - along with Nato - toppled the Libyan government in short order in an allied assault, then filmed Gaddafi being raped in the ass with a bayonet and posted the video online for the world to see. The same people also funded the proxy war in Syria which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and displacement of millions, the geopolitical motives behind that war were similar to what's motivating the war in Ukraine now.
I kind of don't think gold-backed or silver-backed currency really matters either. I think we could have a fiat currency that works fine hypothetically, but we don't in practice. The reason we don't in practice is because the fiat currency is just used so the value can be changed on a whim. When we had a gold-backed currency there were problems too, they were just different ones. A gold-backed currency does seem to prevent endless charging of interest, true, but it didn't solve every other problem and the real problem is endless charging of interest. The real problem with endless charging of interest, also known in a more legalistic-sounding context as usury, can be shown to anyone who knows calculus: if interest is charged over an infinite amount of time, the value of money approaches zero. If the value of money approaches zero, then money is literally worthless. In the meantime, the value of it keeps going down. The people who run this scheme think as long as they concentrate it all in their hands, that doesn't matter, but they're wrong, they'll be affected too. They're just not that smart or they wouldn't be doing what they're doing. Devious, sure, cunning, sure, but ultimately, still not that smart.