Ron Paul and the Dollar.

Woolygimp · #1 05-27-2007, 12:40 PM

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?

Copernicus · #2 05-27-2007, 01:17 PM

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.

pvn · #3 05-27-2007, 01:30 PM

[ 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"?

adios · #4 05-27-2007, 01:40 PM

[ 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.

Woolygimp · #5 05-27-2007, 01:41 PM

[ 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.

AlexM · #6 05-27-2007, 02:22 PM

[ 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!!!

Woolygimp · #7 05-27-2007, 02:39 PM

[ 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.

Copernicus · #8 05-27-2007, 06:14 PM

[ 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 ]

Wrong. Recession and/or deflation are the worst case scenarios.

pvn · #9 05-27-2007, 08:18 PM

[ 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 ]

Bump for copernicus.

ShakeZula06 · #10 05-27-2007, 02:29 PM

[ 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?