I like many of the stances of Ron Paul, currently in the U.S. House of   Representatives for Texas and seeker of the Republican nomination to become   President of the United States. I even agree with him on some of his critique of   the Federal Reserve System. But his idea of returning to the gold standard for   money is crazy, and it is important to understand why.
          
        Let me begin by   asking this: what would you think of a candidate that urged returning to the   wampum standard? What do the gold standard and wampum standard have in common,   and how are they different? What does the U.S. Constitution say? How does Ron   Paul's proposal differ from the gold standard used in the 19th century in the United   States? Finally, having covered that extensive ground, I
        
        First of all,   you should know that none of Ron Paul's ideas are new. They have been discussed   by those interested in monetary policy since before Alexander Hamilton laid out the blueprint for   the U.S. financial system (though he did not foresee the need for a Federal   Reserve).
        
        Wampum (see Wampum) is a kind of money made   from sea shells that used to be used by Native American Indians. It had value   because it was believed to have value. Like other forms of money, it could   facilitate trade, lifting an economy above the pure barter level. While the   shells themselves might have some ornamental value, mainly they were a symbol   for work done. Much like a modern dollar bill. There were two problems with   using wampum for money that would have shown up in a more trade-oriented, modern   society. One is that there could be a shortage of wampum if not enough of the   appropriate shells could be found. That could constrain trade. The other is that   either too much wampum could be produced, or that it could be counterfeited.   Then the value of wampum would fall relative to real goods; in effect, you can   have inflation even on the wampum standard.
        
        Gold (see Gold) is a metal used for   ornamentation and other purposes; it used to be used as money. While more   difficult to counterfeit than wampum, it had the same problems when used as   money. It did not always prevent inflation. For instance, when the Spanish   conquered Mexico and Peru, so much gold and silver was mined that there was   inflation in Europe. In the 19th and 20th century, with major veins of native (metallic) gold mostly   tapped out, there was not enough gold available to facilitate the rapid growth   of commerce. With the introduction of modern methods of extracting low-grade   gold ores a related problem arose: the high cost of producing metallic gold.
        
        Even paper money is becoming obsolete; most money today is tracked   electronically.
        
        Ron Paul proposes to fix the problem of gold by allowing   the value of gold relative to silver to float in value as determined by markets   shows how far his mind has wandered from reality. This was a real issue in the   U.S. in the 1880's. The Democratic Party, having lost the Civil War (it was the   party of Slavery), tried to get back in power at a national level by changing   the official silver-to-gold exchange ratio, as exemplified in (losing)   presidential candidate William Jennings   Bryan's famous Cross of Gold   speech. The problem with gold and silver used as money lies not in their   exchange ratio, but in the fact that the supply from mining varies over time and   does not match the variation in economic activity.
        
        So forget the gold   standard.
        
        Ron Paul does remind us that the U.S.   Constitution does not clearly allow for paper money, much less authorize the   Federal Reserve System. It specifically states in Article I, Section 10 "No   State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of   Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold   and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." However, here "state" is   specifically one of the states, not the federal government. In Section 8 it had   already given Congress the power "To coin Money, regulate the   Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and   Measures;To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting   the Securities and current Coin of the United States;" which seems to give it   the power to issue securities, which could be bonds, but has been interpreted as   the ability to issue paper money. Why allow issuance of federal paper money and   then prohibit the states from accepting it for the payment of debts? This issue   was got around for a time by issuing paper money backed by gold or silver. As in   so many cases, when the Constitution should have been amended, it was simply   re-interpreted.
        
        As to the Federal Reserve, I agree there are   problems with it. It is supposed to allow for creation of a money supply   sufficient to allow the economy to improve, but not so great as to cause   inflation. But it is composed of bankers. Bankers are not like the rest of us.   They have a long history of being far more sympathetic to the perceived problems   of the rich than to the very real problems of the poor, the working class, and   the middle class.
        
        So sure, let's talk about reforming the Federal Reserve   to make it responsive to all the people, not just the banks and Wall Street. Let   us make it more transparent and find a way to hold those running the Federal   Reserve System accountable. But forget the gold standard.
        
        More   data:
        
        Ron Paul's Presidential   campaign site