Bull,

Never say never, but as Rickards alluded to in that interview, the central banks and governments are arrayed against a gold standard simply because it would enforce monetary discipline and/or make it blatantly obvious when they are degrading their currencies.

If we get to some sort of gold standard, it likely would only be after a catastrophic collapse, making it a last-ditch, desperate act to build from the ashes.

The PR campaign against gold has been going on since Keynes in the 1930s-- even before with Williams Jennings Bryant and his cross of gold speech (he labeled gold the cross the rich had been crucifying the underclass on). Bryant wanted silver included as a monetary metal, too. And we could get to something of that considering what seems to be a scarcity of silver.

The Rickards arithmetic projections for gold -- $5,000 an oz, even $20,000 -- based on matching it at a 20 percent ratio to M1 or M3 money supplies, are interesting, but if we get there and raging inflation has led to $20,000 loaves of bread, we won't be ahead.

A gold standard would be a good thing, which I believe means it's a low-probability event in the near future.

Goldcarp