So your contention is, that outlawing gold was the hallmark of extreme dictatorship.
It necessarily follows this includes St. Roosevelt, understand. You’ve laid this out quite succinctly. Congratulations! LOL!
I just came across this Forbes article which states:
“It’s hard to believe, but the world is beginning to lurch toward a gold-based monetary system,” …“This, despite the fact that the historical gold standard is held in almost universal contempt by economists and financial officials.”
This is the original article (really an opinion article) written by Steve Forbes.
No. My contention is- your examples were bad. Try again.
So the Nazis and Communist regimes aren’t an example of oppressive government? That’s a stretch. Good luck with that. (I know that’s not your belief, but these two governments outlawing gold are most assuredly not “bad” examples, just highly toxic to your argument)
Someone upthread sort of alluded that hardly anyone else outlawed gold, to suggest these guys are “bad examples” takes some seriously contorted pretzel logic.
Getting past all this nonsense, as it is tedious, I think it is interesting to make the claim that money by definition is a “medium of exchange” that people agree on. OK. All sorts of things can be used as money.
But you seem to believe that only a legal tender can be money. To hold that view, you necessarily the have to be OK in principal with oppressive regimes confiscating the wealth of its citizens. How is that even rational?
Does it occur to you that there might be some connection between gold and human liberty?
Nonsense.
OK, I’m curious; what’s the connection?
[Moderating]
Since this thread seems to have devolved entirely into “@Common_Tater endlessly advertises for the gold standard”, which is not at all the original topic, I think it’s best to just close this. If anyone wishes to continue the current discussion, do so in a thread on that topic, in the appropriate forum.