What happened doesn't really invalidate what the author is saying. The article briefly touches upon the housing bubble and how it will inevitably burst, and he

What happened doesn't really invalidate what the author is saying. The article briefly touches upon the housing bubble and how it will inevitably burst, and he/she was on the money there. But that was just a side-point. The main point is pointing out a perceived risk in the system - just because it hasn't come to pass does not necessarily prove that it isn't real. His/her argument is that a 'spontaneous remonetisation of gold' is possible (though unpredictable) and that it would indeed cause the collapse of the global financial system. To summarize: - there is a floor on the price of gold due to demand from industrial users, but there is no cap to how high it could rise due to demand from speculators/savers (as unlike asset bubbles like housing or tulips, no extra supply can flood into the market) - if the remonetisation begins, it is a Nash equilibrium for everyone to buy and keep buying gold (at the expense of the dollar) - in the past such an event has been kept at bay by 'insulation' (the difficulty people faced in actually acquiring gold) and by intervention by central banks. This has created the illusion that a rise in gold prices will be halted by the same sort of dynamics that govern other asset bubbles - these obstacles to remonetisation are much weaker now due to several things: ETFs allowing savings to easily/instantly/electronically flow into gold/silver; panic spreading via the internet rather than 'responsible' broadcast media; Federal reserve is a comparatively smaller player in the much larger more complex financial system of today (which includes hedge funds who will sniff fear in any central bank plans to interfere in the gold market) I think the analysis deserves a reply/critique rather than just a 'that's not what happened' blanket dismissal