No, you didn't explain anything at all. You provided a link to a wiki article about dead people from a primitive time long ago.
It's not about the US Mint. It's about a central bank, fractional banking, speculation, insider deals, etc.
Is this the point of Jeb Bush's article? He writes: When he refers to current economic indicators as "straight lines" and advocates a "jagged line of economic freedom" he sounds like he wants to return to a time before all the economic regulation created in the 20th and 21st centuries.
He refers to statists' promises of straight line growth, a promise not delivered. It is quite clear that he is not opposed to rules and regulations, but how they are deliberated and enacted are very different from what's going on now: If it's hard to parse: 1) FEWER rules (not NO RULES) 2) Simpler rules (not NO RULES) 3) Rules that make economic sense (cost-benefit analysis) and don't crush our ability to "rise" 4) Sunset provisions (I love this concept) that force congress to revisit them periodically to see if they're still popular and make sense. 5) Quick and fair redress of grievences by those punished by the regulations. If you disagree with any of these, feel free to explain why. Regarding #5, tell me what you think of this story: http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/15/the-epa-vs-the-constitution
Speaking of making things more efficient and simple, when are we going to enforce lower incomes for corporate leaders and message board owners?