I am one of them, registering republican.

[DCrazy]

I would be happy to discuss with you our currency, the FR, the gold standard, etc..

We went through this before and you very respectfully(and admirably) ended the conversation. Something like: "I am just a student, but I do like Economics.. This is the point were I have to stop because I'm not fully confident" ..
You seem far more confident now.. what changed?

Might be a good conversation.. you never know.

Not increased confidence so much as a slightly reactionary defensive position. (Yeah, I admit it, I kind of came out with all guns firing.) It was, and still is, my perception that Blue is speaking from ignorance and was attempting to dodge my prodding to explain the system he's deriding. Obviously, you and Sky possess a good understanding of the Fed, so I wouldn't hold nearly the same tone with you. I took my position with Blue a little too far.

[Fusion pimp]

Dcrazy,

Fair enough..
but, I have to admit I was hoping that our conversation from last year sparked an interest and you were going to come back at me with some new/updated info that would force more research on my part. I enjoy reading and REALLY enjoy reading about money.

You sound irritated by the idea that what you're hearing may be true. Is that correct? If so, why?

[Foil]

I'll make the disclaimer that I'm not as knowledgeable about economics as other subjects, but I'm pretty wary of some of these 'gold-standard conspiracy' & 'the Fed/IRS is illegal' ideas.

This is simply because they often fit at least a couple of the \"conspiracy theory m.o.\" criteria I mentioned in this thread.

If these ideas were presented without all the sensational \"doomsday\" rhetoric (\"The IRS and the Federal Reserve are scams...\", \"the U.S. dollar is on its way out... it will cease to exist altogether, along with this entire country...\", etc.), YouTube videos, and the implication of a huge government cover-up, I'd probably take them more seriously.

[DCrazy]

Dcrazy,

Fair enough..
but, I have to admit I was hoping that our conversation from last year sparked an interest and you were going to come back at me with some new/updated info that would force more research on my part. I enjoy reading and REALLY enjoy reading about money.

Nope, I spent the intervening time fully immersed in comp sci (study and IT work), so I have no more exposure to economics.

You sound irritated by the idea that what you're hearing may be true. Is that correct? If so, why?

No, I'm no more worried now than I was last year.

I have many problems with people who advocate the gold standard:

1. They think they are far more numerous than they are. The same exact phenomenon happens with Ron Paul supporters. It's a common symptom arising from surrounding oneself only with like-minded people and viewpoints (just like the current administration). This thread neatly tied the two topics together.
2. They rely on anecdotal evidence and other logical fallacies to augment their claims. The perfect example of this is people who think "Even Alan Greenspan liked the gold system!" is a defensible, solid point. The other major logical fallacy involved is that of decomposition: people like to pick apart the current system and analyze "layers" as if we were talking about a cake. This arrangement unfortunately ignores interaction between the "layers".
   
   Coincidentally, this is the same thought process that trapped sub-prime lenders into their current position. They were playing their game in a vacuum. The invisible hand gropes everyone, even Capital One cardholders.
3. Advocates of returning to the gold standard fail to take into account what happens if we move from A to B. Do we just declare U.S. currency invalid and move on? That would go over well.
4. Why gold anyway? Gold's value is not immutable. In fact, I've actually seen champions of the gold standard turn around and decry the commodities market as evil, especially in the case of oil. Who do you think is going to set the price of gold?
5. When the quantity of your store of value is fixed, your economy is far more susceptible to shocks. This is absolute fact. I can imagine someone comparable to Warren Buffet shorting gold and screwing us all to hell. That's why we had laws preventing the possession, hoarding, etc. of gold... doesn't seem very free market to me!

[Birdseye]

I just got to this thread, sorry I don't have time to write a more intelligent reply, but I have to say Skyalmian's post is riddled with some brash conjecture without much basis (mainly the quoted articles he posted).

I back the Federal Reserve as a part of Keynesian economic policy, but I think it can be misused.

I think our current Fiat system is superior, unless you get a congress and fed that doesn't know how to do their job, which is how it is right now. We're going massively into debt and devaluing our currency, which would have been harder to do with a Gold standard. The Gold standard is safer for the economy, but I think it inhibits long term growth. It's a matter of perspective of what you want -- some argue we want to have the safest business cycle possible, and I can understand that. We would need some of the bank-safety measures involved in the fed kept if we went to gold standard though.