Ron Paul and the Dollar.
 

I've read that he wants to push for a hard currency, abolish the IRS, and get rid of the dollar as a fiat money.

This sounds like a sudden change coming from a M.D.
Anything sudden is going to have a drastic effect, for better or worse and I may be wrong but one of the worst things for a currency is inconsistency, or instability.

Are there any reports analyzing these changes and the effects they would have on the American economy more in depth?

Re: Ron Paul and the Dollar.
 

There are plenty of economic analyses that show that as long as there are sufficient reserves of whatever is backing the currency, there is ultimately no effect on the economy of "fiat money". If there are insufficient reserves to accomodate economic growth a hard currency is a disaster. Eg staying on the gold standard would have held back the economic growth that has occurred since it was abandoned.

The best non technical analysis is probably "There Is No Such Thing As Fiat Currency" , from the UCLA economics department, but I havent been able to track it down online.

Re: Ron Paul and the Dollar.
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of economic analyses that show that as long as there are sufficient reserves of whatever is backing the currency, there is ultimately no effect on the economy of "fiat money". If there are insufficient reserves to accomodate economic growth a hard currency is a disaster. Eg staying on the gold standard would have held back the economic growth that has occurred since it was abandoned.

The best non technical analysis is probably "There Is No Such Thing As Fiat Currency" , from the UCLA economics department, but I havent been able to track it down online.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, what's the "whatever" that's "backing the currency"?

Re: Ron Paul and the Dollar.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of economic analyses that show that as long as there are sufficient reserves of whatever is backing the currency, there is ultimately no effect on the economy of "fiat money". If there are insufficient reserves to accomodate economic growth a hard currency is a disaster. Eg staying on the gold standard would have held back the economic growth that has occurred since it was abandoned.

The best non technical analysis is probably "There Is No Such Thing As Fiat Currency" , from the UCLA economics department, but I havent been able to track it down online.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, what's the "whatever" that's "backing the currency"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yen, Yuan, Euro, Loonie, Australian dollar, Pound Sterling, .... lots of other central bank backed currencies.

Re: Ron Paul and the Dollar.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of economic analyses that show that as long as there are sufficient reserves of whatever is backing the currency, there is ultimately no effect on the economy of "fiat money". If there are insufficient reserves to accomodate economic growth a hard currency is a disaster. Eg staying on the gold standard would have held back the economic growth that has occurred since it was abandoned.

The best non technical analysis is probably "There Is No Such Thing As Fiat Currency" , from the UCLA economics department, but I havent been able to track it down online.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, what's the "whatever" that's "backing the currency"?

[/ QUOTE ]

So Ron Paul could possibly be a disaster to the economy?

...and to the question asked, our word.

Re: Ron Paul and the Dollar.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of economic analyses that show that as long as there are sufficient reserves of whatever is backing the currency, there is ultimately no effect on the economy of "fiat money". If there are insufficient reserves to accomodate economic growth a hard currency is a disaster. Eg staying on the gold standard would have held back the economic growth that has occurred since it was abandoned.

The best non technical analysis is probably "There Is No Such Thing As Fiat Currency" , from the UCLA economics department, but I havent been able to track it down online.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, what's the "whatever" that's "backing the currency"?

[/ QUOTE ]

So Ron Paul could possibly be a disaster to the economy?

...and to the question asked, our word.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is a bunch of nonsense. What's the worst case scenario if the demand for money is greater than the supply? The value of money goes up? Oh noez!!!

Re: Ron Paul and the Dollar.
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of economic analyses that show that as long as there are sufficient reserves of whatever is backing the currency, there is ultimately no effect on the economy of "fiat money". If there are insufficient reserves to accomodate economic growth a hard currency is a disaster. Eg staying on the gold standard would have held back the economic growth that has occurred since it was abandoned.

The best non technical analysis is probably "There Is No Such Thing As Fiat Currency" , from the UCLA economics department, but I havent been able to track it down online.

[/ QUOTE ]
why?

Re: Ron Paul and the Dollar.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of economic analyses that show that as long as there are sufficient reserves of whatever is backing the currency, there is ultimately no effect on the economy of "fiat money". If there are insufficient reserves to accomodate economic growth a hard currency is a disaster. Eg staying on the gold standard would have held back the economic growth that has occurred since it was abandoned.

The best non technical analysis is probably "There Is No Such Thing As Fiat Currency" , from the UCLA economics department, but I havent been able to track it down online.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, what's the "whatever" that's "backing the currency"?

[/ QUOTE ]

So Ron Paul could possibly be a disaster to the economy?

...and to the question asked, our word.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is a bunch of nonsense. What's the worst case scenario if the demand for money is greater than the supply? The value of money goes up? Oh noez!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh noez!!! another self proclaimed Alan Greenspan.

If people don't have money to spend they stop buying goods, wages go down, unemployment goes up, and the economy slows. This is economics 101, moron.

Re: Ron Paul and the Dollar.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of economic analyses that show that as long as there are sufficient reserves of whatever is backing the currency, there is ultimately no effect on the economy of "fiat money". If there are insufficient reserves to accomodate economic growth a hard currency is a disaster. Eg staying on the gold standard would have held back the economic growth that has occurred since it was abandoned.

The best non technical analysis is probably "There Is No Such Thing As Fiat Currency" , from the UCLA economics department, but I havent been able to track it down online.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, what's the "whatever" that's "backing the currency"?

[/ QUOTE ]

So Ron Paul could possibly be a disaster to the economy?

...and to the question asked, our word.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is a bunch of nonsense. What's the worst case scenario if the demand for money is greater than the supply? The value of money goes up? Oh noez!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh noez!!! another self proclaimed Alan Greenspan.

If people don't have money to spend they stop buying goods, wages go down, unemployment goes up, and the economy slows. This is economics 101, moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never taken economics 101 so maybe you can help me understand. Why wouldn't they simply be able to buy more with the money they already have?

If I own some land, and demand for land goes up, I don't suddenly have less land... the land I already possess is more valuable. I really don't get what you're trying to say. How is a backed currency any different from land? In fact, a backed currency could theoretically be backed by land.

Please help me, because I don't get it.

Re: Ron Paul and the Dollar.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of economic analyses that show that as long as there are sufficient reserves of whatever is backing the currency, there is ultimately no effect on the economy of "fiat money". If there are insufficient reserves to accomodate economic growth a hard currency is a disaster. Eg staying on the gold standard would have held back the economic growth that has occurred since it was abandoned.

The best non technical analysis is probably "There Is No Such Thing As Fiat Currency" , from the UCLA economics department, but I havent been able to track it down online.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, what's the "whatever" that's "backing the currency"?

[/ QUOTE ]

So Ron Paul could possibly be a disaster to the economy?

...and to the question asked, our word.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is a bunch of nonsense. What's the worst case scenario if the demand for money is greater than the supply? The value of money goes up? Oh noez!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh noez!!! another self proclaimed Alan Greenspan.

If people don't have money to spend they stop buying goods, wages go down, unemployment goes up, and the economy slows. This is economics 101, moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

When in doubt, call the other guy a moron instead of presenting an argument. Maybe when your sister gets into Harvard or Yale, she can explain you how to form arguments.