Gold is not used as "money" today, and there seems to be no strong movement to return it to that status. Ditto for silver. However, the power to create modern fiat money is awesome and easily capable of influencing public opinion.
Bankers despise gold, mostly because they could not loan it to their clients without first possessing it, for which they have none to "loan" out.
Politicians hate gold because to obtain it for their grandiose "public projects" would require astronomical levels of taxation which, in turn, would result in revolution.
However, fiat "money" enables the political government to tax "profits" which are, in reality, actually losses. They use these taxes on losses to pay their bills in depreciated currency (which is not really "money"). This makes it attractive to private borrowers dealing with banks; and since fiat "money" makes borrowers out of the sheeple, this masks the real damage incurred by the use of "imaginary money."
The backers of fiat currency have told the sheeple that gold possesses shortcomings. "What if we should run out of gold?" is the the principal objection given regarding the return to gold as our real money and currency. After all, the grand total sum of gold is finite, and sooner or later we might run out of it. In reality, that is true.
BUT, do we hear these same concerns about, for example, molybdenum or cobalt? What about iron or nickle? What about concrete? What if we ran out! What would we do? Decades ago, there was a shortage of whale oil in North America which created a serious problem as most people depended upon it for lighting. What if we ran out? Well, we almost did. But then along came kerosene which was even more efficient. When we eventually exhaust our supplies of petroleum, we will have highly developed electric or other alternative power source automobiles at our disposal. The point being that human ingenuity always copes with the challenges at hand.
Gold's physical properties make it ideal as a medium of exchange. But should the need arise, we could easily use platinum or silver as money. But, let's assume a worse case scenario and say we are running out of gold and there is hypothetically no substitute for it.
So what! Are the same people who are concerned about the possible shortage of gold concerned about the incessant growth of fiat money? Charts of the growth of the money supply, especially what they call the M3, are truly frightening. The line on the graph is going nearly straight up. Shouldn't this be of great concern? Why is it that those who willingly live with constant inflation of fiat currency are worried unnecessarily about the hypothetical deflation of gold money?
Let's say we currently used gold money and not fiat currency for our medium of exchange. If gold money became scarce, what would happen to the purchasing power of your savings? The gold money sitting in your bank account would acquire ever more exchange value. Retirement worries would ease, wouldn't they? Rather than the value of your savings constantly dropping through fiat currency inflation, as is the case now, you would see your gold money increase steadily through deflation. The money in your children's education account would become more and more valuable with time. Yet, the fiat currency backers claim this is cause for alarm and use this as an excuse for why gold is no longer our money.
If money were gold and no more gold were to be found, you might have to accept less gold (money) for your work. However, the actual purchasing power of that gold would increase in ratio to the actual supply.
With the present fiat currency system, you can earn more fiat currency for your labours (what they call a "raise" in wages), but in reality, you only have larger numbers on your paycheck and those numbers represent nothing but accounting figures. But now you realize that even though you're supposedly getting paid more, prices are rising faster than your income: The harder I work, the behinder I get syndrome.
The working man is usually paid according to a contract or a wage agreement. If he were paid in gold money, during the term of his contract he would receive the same amount of gold even if prices dropped during that time as gold became increasingly scarce. In other words, prices can change hourly and wages are fixed for the duration of a contract.
But the Banksters say, "Why should we bother digging gold out of the ground when it's just going to sit in somebody's account? What a waste of time and risk of life. As money, gold doesn't DO anything. It just sits there. Pieces of fiat paper could do as well."
If that were in any way true, why aren't those pieces of paper doing as well as the gold accounts? Why would anyone even consider using gold as money if paper did the job so well?
If you are working for at least forty hours of your life each week, you expect to get "something" for your labours: Some thing you can hold, evaluate, weigh, and measure. If you perform certain tasks according to certain standards in order to get your "money," isn't it reasonable that the money itself should correspond to the standard for money, whatever that may be?
Consider the weights used by a pharmacist. If the prescription calls for 100 mgs of the drug, does he place on the balance a piece of paper marked "100 mgs?" Would that be the same size piece of paper he uses for 1000 mgs., except for the number written on it? Obviously, the weights and measures which keep our society operating efficiently are important and necessarily precise.
So it should be with money. A certain job is worth a certain amount of gold. Of course, money needn't be gold. Whatever is used for money should be something: some thing. Otherwise, how do you know you've got it? Should you have to take the word of a stranger behind a counter who says "Yes, this check is good." That's downright scary!
And then there's the typical political objection to gold being used as money: "Lots of gold is found in Russia and in Africa. Using gold as money would give these countries unwarranted monetary power and influence over the rest of the world." Doesn't any worker find it odd that this question is never raised about fiat paper currency? Its creators most certainly have the whole world entangled in debt from which emergence is impossible, as they continue to collect the ever-growing interest on "money" that really has no substance and really isn't anything but accounting numbers. They simply create the purported "money" they lend with the stroke of a pen.
But the truth is, if Russia or South Africa want the material luxuries of more advanced societies, they have to exchange their gold for fiat currency in order to get them!
The purported "defects" of gold are actually its greatest advantages.