"Ron Paul and the Gold Standard Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 24 October 2007 | 16 responses Itâs no secret that Ron Paul has become the libertarianâs standard bearer in the 2008 presidential election. The Libertarian Party nominee has even agreed to endorse Ron Paul if he were to get the Republican nomination. Never before has a libertarian candidate received so much attention and so much support. As a libertarian-minded conservative, there is much for me to like about Ron Paul. He is unquestionably the staunchest defender of federalism, small government and individual liberty of all candidates. He opposes the interventionist foreign policy of so-called neoconservatives, and it doesnât hurt that heâs a thorn in the side of generally detestable, ignorant and unprincipled candidates. Yet Paul has a quirky obsession with the gold standard that just doesnât add up. Last week, on the heels of a tremendous fundraising quarter and a solid debate performance, Paul sent a lengthy email to supporters attributing his recent success to his opposition to the Federal Reserve and support for the gold standard. In various debates, he has also discussed monetary policy in answering completely unrelated questions. One gets the impression that this is priority #1 for Paul. As such, it deserves some consideration. A common refrain by Paul is that the Fed âprints moneyâ or just issues new currency whenever it needs cash. Paul also blames much of the national debt on the Fed. These are mostly erroneous claims that stretch the truth." continued http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/10/ron_paul_and_the_gold_standard/
Actually, Article I, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution mandates a gold or silver standard. (It is easily the most ignored part of the Constitution, with the possible exception of the 10th Amendment.) Those opposed to a gold or silver standard should at least insist upon amending the Constitution so that we aren't in violation of that document 365 days a year. Anyhow, what Paul would like to see is to allow competing currencies. In particular, gold and silver would be free from capital gains taxes, and you wouldn't get sued for creating your own coins, as the Liberty Dollar people have.
If paper currency were to disappear it would be replaced by electronic currency. You have to understand the evolution of money and what money really means. Money is nothing more than a credit system. When you work and get paid your bank account gets marked up and your employers gets marked down. You buy groceries and your account gets marked down and the grocery stores gets marked up. It's a system of debits and credits. Nothing more. A return to the Gold standard isn't going to happen nor is it necessary but I do agree that measures have to be taken to curtail the Feds ability to create money at will because the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill. The Fed has far too much power and I think it's unlikely Ron Paul is going to be able to reduce it.
-I donât think I have exaggerated anything. Although weak, the US remains supreme. -US dollar supremacy started after 1945; a period where the US was the only standing economic power. In the future I do expect this economic influence to diminish as other countries develop their economies. But going to gold would destroy any good influence. - Your remarks about Obama and world policing are correct. The US government is virtually bankrupt. No so for the rest of us.
There will be a return to commodity money at some point, likely gold, silver, crude oil, or other metals. No point holding your breath though. It could happen when the current epoch is swept aside and the state crumbles, or it could happen sooner. We can't know.
maybe not in the US but other parts of the world wil, go at least partially to a goldstandard, as the influence of US continues to wane. on the other hand if conditions deteriorates sufficiently in the US anything is possible.