I think Paul and Bernanke were discussing apples and pears, they have different definitions of what money is. Barnanke doesn't say gold has no value, he just says it is not money. Just like diamonds are not money, but diamonds have value and are exchangeable for whatever people want to exchange it for, the medium for determining the value of the transaction is money, but money is a concept as well and is only used because of consensus over it as a useful medium of valuing transactions. Bernanke's comment about diamonds only sums up the truth, both gold and diamonds have value, but people have preferred to store that value in gold rather than diamonds because of tradition. Why is stating that a problem? If you think gold is money, take a lump of it to the convenience store to purchase some milk. Today in www.321gold.com Martin Armstrong takes a crack at that very issue. He thinks gold as money, i.e., as currency or as the basis of currency ie. in a gold standard, is a very bad idea. Ike