per person would necessarily increase it worth, the price of goods and service would therefore move in unison with the value of the gold and silver backed currency. This system worked for 5000 years before the creation of the Federal Reserve and mass printing of Fiat currencies starting in 1971. Gold and Silver currencies are the best monetary policy for the retention of wealth and living standards for people, Fiat currencies are the best monetary basis for governments and bankers. Choose your side the people or bankers and government! Guido I won't pretend that I am an expert by any standard, shape, or means, but I try to read up on the subject quite a bit and precious metals seem like the proper answer-we're just too darn irresponsible to be allowed to play with Monopoly Money. Take note-an ounce of gold in Rome a couple thousand years ago could have bought you a great toga, some good sandals, and a heck of a good meal. A gold ounce today could also buy you a great suit, some good shoes, and a heck of a good meal. Funny how that works, huh? I've also read the Founders fought over the idea of banning or severely restricting the issue of credit in the US. They almost succeeded, too, and a British paper of the era stated, with alarm, the new American restrictions would end the cycle of growth/recession caused by the accepted practice of fractional reserve banking. I don't see why we