International Man: For decades, mainstream financial commentators have dismissed gold as a "barbarous relic." Federal Reserve officials and policymakers routinely downplay its importance, insisting that fiat currency and central banking make gold obsolete.

Yet, despite this public stance, the US government still holds one of the world's largest gold reserves.

So, what's really going on here? If gold is truly irrelevant, why does the government still treat it as a strategic asset?

Doug Casey: Governments hate gold because it's a discipline on the amount of currency they can create. Gold is money. Governments can't create it out of thin air. You might say that gold needs the government about as much as a fish needs a bicycle.

Gold is not a strategic asset. It shouldn't be viewed as something to buy or sell, like land, copper, or a factory. You don't buy or sell money; that's almost a contradictory concept. Gold is money itself, although fiat currencies are treated as money in today's world. Confusing gold with fiat currency is one of the terrible notions created by Keynesian economists. It's allowed mainstream financial commentators to dismiss gold as a pet rock.

As you said, the Federal Reserve officials and policy makers routinely downplay the importance of gold. They believe that fiat currency and central banking have made gold obsolete. They're 100% wrong.