First the date wasn't cherry-picked to "sell it". The date was picked because it was the last date that the US currency was pegged (even slightly by that point) to an external governor (gold). So if one wants to compare the dollar to pegged to gold versus unpegged to gold, that's the date;Fair enough. Except it should come as no surprise that once price controls were lifted, the "store of value" became a commodity in play, and no longer "stored value" but was whipsawed by the market forces of supply and demand. There were periods where it didn't "store value" at all, indeed, during short period it fell nearly as much as stocks did in 1929.Here, it appears, you are conflating employing the dollar with just comparing what the value of the two different aspects of the gold backed dollar would have been from the date of removal of the gold standard.Well, that's true. But then it's impossible to "employ" gold, so you eliminate a more productive use of capital in favor of a flawed "store of value" argument.I would like to believe that this isn't so, but just look at the world around us, and we see that the more currency we throw at the problems that were caused by currency malinvestments the shorter the period between the next malinvestment bubble and burst cycle.Really? What has the monetary base of Japan done in 20 years sincer the collapse of the 80's asset bubble? Is there another one there? What about the dozen bubbles that formed in the 19th century when there was no monetary inflation at all? I think you have picked an effect and have decided that your favorable cause must be the reason.(For the record, we had a big bubble in 2000, as I recall, and a collapse in 2008. We have now increased the monetary base by magnitudes since 2008, and we haven't had a collapse yet, have we? Indeed, the cries of hyperinflation look more and more ridiculous by the month.) if you'd put it in a savings account at 5% you'd have $432,000.Help! Goofy is stuck in a time warp and he can't get out. :<)Good catch. I comflated a 30 year long bond (5% was actually a conservative number; heck, you could have picked up 12% for the asking!) with a "savings account." A savings account would have fluctuated, of course. Oh why wasn't I buying long bonds in the 80's? Anybody want to do the math on a 30-year bond at 12%? Of course you'd only be getting your devalued $100,000 back now, but I bet the payments along the way would have assuaged the pain a little.