It's unnecessary to use any derogatory descriptions of Lester Golden's comments. He took the time to present a list of arguments, opening a dialogue. I am glad he did. In reference to John Stuart Mill, it's the dialogue that truly counts. Arguments deemed false from one perspective can suddenly hold their validity when seen from another. The art is to remain on the highest 3 steps of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement and try to make the implicit perspective of one more explicit and understandable for the other.

If I were to summarise this dialogue one part is about how to concentrate enough societal resources to achieve a collective goal. The second is: what is that goal? (a good life here, for some or for all or a new one on Mars:)

The argument can be made that US citizens allow a predatory system of corporate capitalism to concentrate wealth to the detriment of the majority of people (including millions of Americans) and the health of our shared planet. In his article on Dutch bonds, Lester forgets to mention that these "brilliant" financial inventions were also used to finance and popularise the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

As for the use of gold to back currencies, there are very valid arguments pointing to its limitations, and why we should seek a much smarter alternative.

And ps 2, It was the French general De Gaule who forced Nixon to abandon the gold standard. De Gaulle actively opposed the Bretton Woods system that made the dollar the global exchange currency, giving the US a huge unfair financial advantage.

https://live-sas-www-history.pantheon.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/Avaro%20-%20Penn%20Econhist%20Forum%20March%2017th.pdf