Home

(This item originally appeared at Forbes.com on December 12, 2025.) In 2019, I was involved in a crypto project that aimed to provide a usable basis of large-scale commerce in an environment where existing fiat currencies were failing badly. Of course, I was in support of a 100% gold system – which has always worked in the past. And, people agreed that this was a good idea “theoretically,” and “eventually.” But, the perception at the time was that there should be some kind of intermediate step. For example, if a country had a regular gold-based currency today, then the value of the currency would be fixed to gold. In other words, foreign exchange rates with the other major fiat currencies would be terribly volatile, and also, would introduce a lot of trade and finance difficulties. Yes, you don’t want to follow those fiat currencies into the oblivion they deserve. But, you don’t want to beat yourself to death with forex chaos in the interim period either. The solution, in that 2019 project, was to have a currency with 40% Gold and 60% US Dollars, a proxy for the whole global fiat currency space, since all the major currencies (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, others) tend to stay pretty close to one another to reduce forex volatility. In the future, maybe that 60% of fiat would devalue away to dirt, and you would be left with an effective gold-only currency. But for now, having one foot in both worlds seemed like the best solution. Recently, the BRICS consortium unveiled its plan for a similar solution, rather boringly called the “unit.” It is to be composed of 40% gold, and 60% of a basket of the domestic fiat currencies of the participating governments, including China, India, Brazil, Russia and so forth. For one thing, this allows the

(This item originally appeared at Forbes.com on November 7, 2025.) The BRICS – a consortium of eleven countries, with 22 more in application stages, led by China, Russia, India and Brazil – declared in October the building of a new “gold settlement architecture as a strategic safeguard against global financial volatility.” This is a fine goal, which can take many specific forms. The quickest and easiest way (although not necessarily the “best” way) to get this done is to introduce “gold checking accounts” at major existing financial institutions, that already have all the vast infrastructure needed to process payments on a large scale, and are already trusted by other big corporations. A “gold checking account” is an account, denominated in grams of gold, that you can use to make a payment to another “gold checking account.” This differs from a “gold savings account,” which only allows deposits and withdrawals by the account owner. With such a “gold checking account,” using all the usual existing bank infrastructure including ACH transfers, wire transfers, SWIFT, debit cards, checks etc., you can make payments for goods and services, and provide the necessary infrastructure for things like gold-denominated bonds. The term “checking account” is somewhat American; in British English, this is known as a “current account.” Many of the big existing banks in the BRICS realm already have “gold savings accounts,” denominated in gold, but which do not apparently allow payments to other accounts. Banks with such “savings accounts” include the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China; Russia’s Sberbank; the State Bank of India, and the Saudi National Bank.  Monkey-see monkey-do is the general way things get done, so it would be useful if there was an example to follow, a big bank that not only had a “gold savings account,” but also a “gold checking account” that allowed payments to other gold checking

(This item originally appeared at Forbes.com on October 26, 2025.) The “BRICS” is now a consortium of ten countries, with 22 more countries in application stages, led by Russia, China and India. Events since 2022 have lit a fire under the BRICS members to establish a new global financial and currency architecture that is wholly independent of the US dollar system, which has been the main focus since the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944. At Bretton Woods, John Maynard Keynes introduced the idea of some kind of global floating fiat currency system, based on the “bancor,” and managed through a proposed International Clearing Union. But other countries, including the United States, threw up on that idea. Who, exactly, was going to manage this “bancor” and “International Clearing Union”? And when they screwed up, again, how would they be replaced? For literally thousands of years, the only thing that served as money throughout the world were the precious metals – gold and silver – and after the 1870s, gold alone. The Bretton Woods arrangement was based on gold. They came to the same conclusion as President James Madison laid out more than a century earlier: The only adequate guarantee for the uniform and stable value of a paper currency is its convertibility into specie [gold]—the least fluctuating and the only universal currency. Recently, the BRICS themselves had a similar sort of discussion, and many proposals were laid forth that involved some kind of supranational floating fiat currency, or possibly, a currency basket based on the domestic floating fiat currencies of the BRICS members. But these currencies themselves have had such a dismal track record (Russia, Brazil, India, South Africa …) that nobody got very excited about being tied to this grab-bag of losers. They were certainly not the “least fluctuating and only universal currency.” Just as at Bretton Woods, the only thing

(This item originally appeared at Forbes.com on September 28, 2025.) Africa too can get rich, as once-poor Asian countries have, but not if governments keep doing what they’ve been doing. Basically, they will have to throw off the stifling tax systems inherited from their prior colonial governments. There are other things you can add to that. But, I think we can say, with confidence, that if things stay as they are, nothing is possible. Much of Africa was once ruled by European governments, including those of France, Germany and Britain. These countries gained their independence in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, but still, particularly among those with a prior connection to France, they retained close ties with French influences. These included various forms of corruption and exploitation – basically sweet deals for entities in France. Several countries, particularly in West Africa, have recently thrown off these French influences – including Guinea (2021), and joined by Burkina Faso (2022), Mali (2021), Chad (2021), Sudan (2021), Niger (2023) and Gabon (2023), all of which were former French colonies. Along the way, they also inherited the French currency, now the Euro. These are the West African CFA Franc, and the Central African CFA Franc, originally pegged to the French franc in 1945, and pegged to the euro since 1999. With all this, they also inherited the French tax system. In Guinea, the individual income tax has a top rate of 40%, hit at an income of 20 million francs, or about 30,000 euros. The 35% rate starts at 10 million francs, or about 15,000 euros. The standard rate on Corporate Income is 35%. Then, there is a payroll tax, totaling a 24.5% combined rate. Plus, a VAT, of 18%. And, a universal tariff of 10%, rising to 20% on “final consumer goods.” See what I mean

This is from Mike Shedlock: This is an amazing decline in trust in a major institution just since 2010. It is why I put together the Build Your Own College series in 2020. Build Your Own College series Among all adults, we find that the percent that view college as “very important” has fallen from 70% to 35%. However, the support among men is even less, at 29%. There doesn’t seem to be much difference based on age. Support among college graduates is higher, but not that much higher, at only 40%. Only 40% of those that have actually gone to college think it is “very important.” Whites have a surprisingly low support rate, only 28%. And Republicans are even lower, at 20%. This is no surprise since colleges have been openly hostile to Whites and Conservatives for decades. Of course, this raises the question: How about White Conservative Men? I would guess it must be around 15%. Educating White Conservative Men is, of course, the original purpose of college education. The top schools, including the Ivy League, were Men-only until about 1970. My view of college today is: Women mostly shouldn’t be attending college at all. They should live at home with their fathers until they are married — around Age 18-22. The main advantage for women attending college is finding husbands, of a certain level of intelligence, education and social class. Basically, men like themselves. Likewise, men should also aim to find a wife at college, also of a certain level of intelligence, education and social class. Women can still be educated, while they are living at home with their fathers. Even just reading a couple hours a day, in a somewhat casual fashion, would be a far better education than is available at nearly any college today.