Hi Sean, thanks for the comment. For starters, I need to emphasize that there is no utopian ideal in economic matters - only trade-offs. So, while I favor hard money, I am not suggesting that it does not have its own issues. It does. However, fiat money gives governments and central banks way too much power. Let me give you one example. Interest rates set by the market reflect the ability and willingness of borrowers and lenders to borrow and lend at any point in time. Interest rates set by a central bank reflect what some group of 12 people think the ability and willingness of millions of borrowers and lenders have decided for themselves. It is preposterous. Naturally, the trade-off for arbitrarily setting rates lower than they otherwise might have been is that more people borrow more money than they otherwise would. Central banks are the principle cause of the debt crisis. Because most other governments follow the Fed's lead, (again, many feel forced to follow as changes in exchange rates affect exports), the Fed's actions have had global consequences. Moving away from hard money was the first mistake. Keeping rates artificially low at various points in time were major contributors (particularly Greenspan keeping rates low in 2004-2005 time frame). And a long list of government policies outside the Fed's control (e.g. U.S. trade policy, Fiscal deficits, mandated Affordable Housing/sub-prime goals, etc.) exacerbated the situation.