You are right, Rookie, the promise to pay is only a piece of paper and is only backed by the backer's ability to pay what is promised. But anything worth $20 can be exchanged for that promise if the parties agree, not just gold and silver. And there is no value inherent in gold and silver either, it is only tradition or by agreement - as Bernanke says - that a certain amount of gold or silver is worth a certain amount of money. And this changes, as we know, g and s are worth much more now than they were in 2002 in money terms. Even given inflation. So then what is $20? What is money? Ultimately they are simply concepts - useful concepts but they still depend on social consensus for their assigned value which is a social construct not something ultimately real. That is why economics is a social science not a physical science. But your statement is absolutely correct - for now. And gold and silver are currency right now, as Cramer says often. My concern is that if we go the whole way and adopt silver and gold as the ONLY currency or as the standard by which all else is measured, by social consensus - which is what is on the table right now - according to Martin Armstrong's ideas we run into problems. How do you run a complex modern economy without debt or without credit in some form? How would anyone buy a house or a car? "No place to live and can't get to work so can't make any money so can't buy a house or a car". Or, "I have a great idea for a new product, but need some money to develop it, but can't make any money to develop it until I can sell the product". Ike