Grrr... Austrian economics. The ultimate value of a currency has never been shiny metal, even when we were on the gold standard. The value of a currency is that it allows you to invest in companies in a particular country. That is, if you think there are a lot of companies in the US that are going to return high profits, you need to exchange your money for the USD.

This line is laughable: "It is easiest to define "real value" as the price in gold." Why is this any more valid than the price in silver, corn, wheat, dollars, yen, or cocoa puffs?

Is it because the supply of gold is, in theory, somewhat stable?

It is, but not only is that not true in practice, its irrelevant. Gold is an industrial good, just like anything else. Its price fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including simple changes in taste.

"Moreover, unlike Japan and like Argentina and Iceland, the US is a debtor nation -- not a lender. This increases the likelihood of a run on the currency, which will result in significant currency devaluation."

I'm confused. Isn't Japan's national debt about 120% of its GDP? And our is about 75%. Doesn't that make Japan more of a debtor nation than us?

I'm guessing, but the article is probably talking about total debt, public + private. IIRC Japan has lots of govt debt, but private savings. U.S. has high-average govt debt and also lots of private debt.

The sentence is certainly arguable, I agree.

I think he means the trade deficit/surplus.

Last line: "Disclosure: Long gold and silver." That was about as predictable as winter in December in Canada.

Austrian BCT ftw! Well, at least China's not going to put up with it. They're grumbling for a new reserve currency, and hopefully that will be backed up by something of stable value and finite quantities.