...interestingly, the author of "The secret of OZ" Youtube documentary, Still, also makes the case for silver over gold, as a preferred tender, exactly because gold, being much more scarce, is easier to hoard, and thus effectively to take control of it by bankers/central bankers. There is a historic case of goldsmiths in UK, being able to control the gold market, when acting in orchestrated way (and thus, to control money supply, and orchestrating boom/bust cycles - later, being able to pick up real assets for pennies on a dollar, during busts).
It would be interesting to compare the percentage of phys gold/silver held by CBs/banks, versus the size of the market, if it is even possible - like, US has about 8000 tons of gold, Europe about 10,000, etc, but what is the whole market size? And how about the silver?
Regarding the look on Bernanke's face when shown silver OZ, I'd rather say it was completely new, uncomprehended concept to him, and he was trying hard, to reconcile that new disruptive factor into his (undoubtedly, complex and sophisticated - even if based on false assumptions, but sophisticated nonetheless) understanding and view of the economic theory - and figuring out the way how to respond at all - because he just went disturbed, and caught off balance.
I think, because of the generations of academics now being educated in a dogmatic way, that Keynes is the only way forward - they are really living in their dreamworld of numbers (that abstract the real factors impacting macro economy), models (that do not scale up nor can model anything in a real world), etc. And since there is no discussion, no questioning of the status quo, they are frankly unprepared to discuss the issues on arguments, when called on/challenged.
Case in point: I went on the local economic forum here in Ireland, and one would think, that Irish people interested in economics, should really know better than swallowing all that crap coming out of their economic overlords' mouths, but you know what - once you start talking about the gold as money, they will rise together and ridicule, diminish you, and get personal - without even SINGLE REAL argument fired against my points! No need to discuss, just drown your adversary in the stream of insults and jeers. And eventually, I did get two warnings from mods, for "talking pseudoeconomics", and been asked to not post in these two topics I participated in anymore Which I did, no point of preaching to the deaf.
Obviously, Bernanke here could hardly use the above tactics on sen. Paul, which is where trouble starts for Keynesians, when called on their dogmatic assumptions of money as debt, and "infinite growth" taking care of it.
Well as the saying goes, when you are one step before the crowd, they will call you a genius, if you are two steps, they will call you a lunatic and lock you up in an institution. That is why, if you provide some clever explanation, why the mainstream view failed "just this time" (for umpteenth time), you will get PhD in Economics, but when you start to question the very assumptions on which this whole house of cards was build upon- well, you are pseudo-economist
Kind of reminds me the story of pre-Newtonian efforts to reconcile the discrepancies between observed planet's positions, and the supposed geo-centric Universe. They were adding these "epicycles" upon "epicycles", and the whole theory was getting more paranoid and delusional. Until Copernicus came out and said that we are going around the Sun, not the opposite. And everything just clicked in place. Kind of the same story here, it just takes time to break through with the masses, or even specialists - who were educated to see only one side of the coin (or a banknote, should I say ).