|
Post by kramer on Feb 12, 2009 17:05:41 GMT -6
In the last few months, I have all of a sudden been reading or hearing people say that we should go back to the Gold Standard. First it was Ron Paul (I thought this made him appear a little nutty), then in the book that I am reading called 'Tragedy and Hope' by Carroll Quigley. The latest was today in the WSJ.
Here's an excerpt from the WSJ opinion:
So, is it a good idea to go back to the Gold Standard?
Kramer
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Feb 13, 2009 0:22:06 GMT -6
I don't think it matters, as long as you have lawless banksters and no regulation.
GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 13, 2009 1:19:49 GMT -6
I'd sure like to see us go back to the gold standard. It limits the amount of credit that can be created by the government or by private parties, and that would certainly be a good thing. That's how we came to have a recurring bubble economy.
The current bubble and crash is partly the product of the unlimited money-creation ability afforded by not having our currency attached to anything, like gold or silver.
I agree with Graybeard. We'd still have problems without better regulation of banks and investment brokers. But returning to the gold standard would help.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Feb 13, 2009 9:38:14 GMT -6
A gold standard means a govt must have hard gold in a vault to back up its currency. That takes the gold out of circulation and away from its use in industry and jewelry. Is that what we want?
GB
|
|