> The term backing has a very precise meaning. It definitely doesn't, at least not the way you're suggesting - you can find article after article talking about

> The term backing has a very precise meaning. It definitely doesn't, at least not the way you're suggesting - you can find article after article talking about oil backed USD. Further, you can find plenty of definitions for the gold standard that don't use the word "backed" because it's not a precise term. > It says that these economic models assume fiat money costs nothing to produce You can either use this models parameters as a definition for fiat or as simply parameters for the model, you don't get to pick and choose only the parts that support your argument while ignoring the parts that explicitly don't.