Meaning the return of backing our currency with physical gold and silver. The gold/silver standard.

So, do you? Why or why not?

I ask because I don't really know. There would obviously be perks to having our currency backed by something solid and to be able to exchange readily between gold/silver and the paper, but at the same time it seems like it might be economically improbable.

ETA: I do support the Liberty Dollars idea, in that a free exchange between the two by consenting people is a good idea. Those who will accept specie as currency may, and those who won't will still take greenbacks.

i dont think it would work.  there is so much of our currency in circulation that to put it back on the gold standard would kill the value of it.  there is more currency in foreign hands alone (not even counting the stuff in circulation in CONUS) to destroy the value.

Quoted: So, do you? Why or why not?

No, because it is a stupid idea that would be impossible to implement.

Quoted: Quoted: So, do you? Why or why not? No, because it is a stupid idea that would be impossible to implement.

+ eleventy billion

It would cause a depression. Having a fixed amount of currency is a bad idea.

While we are on this idiotic topic, perhaps the original poster can point out all the nations that currently have currencies that are backed by bullion.

Quoted: Yes, I do.    Without it,  value of currency is arbitrary. I'd like to see us create a New Gold Standard Dollar,  with .gov first going on a long, secretive spending spree, buying up as much gold as possible with the existing dollars,  and when a sufficiently large reserve has been cornered,   abruptly switch over to the new GS dollar which is backed by the gold that the old dollar bought.    Establish an exchange rate and give the rest of the world a VERY limited time to exchange their US currency for the new money and after that grace period is over,  totally divorce the old dollar from the new one in all respects.    The old dollar would become worthless except as a collector's item for those who collect currency. The most important thing about a hard currency money system is that there has to be enough gold to actually back up each dollar in circulation.    If that fails,  the system is a sham. CJ

that's a brilliantly dastardly plan!  we could crush the chinese!  their whole economy is based on the hard dollars they have in reserve.  their fort knox is full of US paper money

Quoted: Yes, I do.    Without it,  value of currency is arbitrary.

The 'value' of anything is arbitrary. That includes gold and silver.

thought it was a question about those strips that are all bendy when you heat them.  I hate them.

The entire gold currently held across the globe totals a bit over 31,000 metric tons. There are 32,151 ounces in a metric ton. Gold currently sells for $572 an ounce. That means the total value of ALL gold in the ENTIRE WORLD is about $570 billion USD. Last year, the US GDP was over $12 TRILLION. The federal government alone spends more in a year than the value of all the gold in the world.  

My thermostat has a bimetal spring thingy in it that makes it work, but it's the old skool kind, just like the idea of real money. Forget about it.

An ounce of silver is now worth an arbitrary $11

It certainly is an interesting time to be here.....

Quoted: The entire gold currently held across the globe totals a bit over 31,000 metric tons. There are 32,151 ounces in a metric ton. Gold currently sells for $572 an ounce. That means the total value of ALL gold in the ENTIRE WORLD is about $570 billion USD. Last year, the US GDP was over $12 TRILLION. The federal government alone spends more in a year than the value of all the gold in the world.

Yeah, and it also means that if Gold drops, our dollar could hit the skids beyond our control = depression.

Bimetalism is a bad idea because it implies a fixed ratio between one and the other.

A "Gold dollar" is an equally bad idea.

The idea that a limited supply of money would cause a depression is false. In 1913 the federal reserve act created a source of essentially unlimited credit, that's why the '20s roared, and why  we had the great depression. A limited supply of money worked just fine for centuries, it only took 16 years for the FED to cause a depression by providing unlimited credit in a finite money environment.

Blaming the depression on a finite money supply is like blaming a car crash on the telephone pole.

It isn't about gold, it's about an alternative to debt instruments as legal tender in payment of debts, which is quite possibly the worst idea in the history of the world.

The utility of gold as money isn't dependent on intrinsic value.

The intrinsic value of gold is its utility as money.

The solution to the monetary question isn't a "gold standard" a bimetal standard, paper standard, oil standard, or any other kind of standard.

The solution is simply to eliminate legal tender from the equation entirely, write contracts in any means of exchange you choose, and whatever the most liquid asset is will rise to the top and be money on its own.

In the past, absent coercion, it's always been metals, maybe someday something else will work better. It really doesn't matter, it's the force applied by legal tender laws, particularly when that law mandates use of government debt instruments, that is the source of the problem, and of the growth of federal government power in the last century.

Real money doesn't require force of law to make it good.

Quoted: It would cause a depression. Having a fixed amount of currency is a bad idea.

Having a currency baed in faith is a bad idea as well.
We are riding for a fall with fiat currency.
I do agree with Tomislav that we can't go back to bimetalism though.
I just think we never should have gone away from it.

If it were based on faith, we'd be better off than we are.

The current system is based on debt, dollars are created by loaning them into circulation, at interest.

As I've heard it explained, in 1900 an ounce of gold would buy you a decent suit.

In 2006, an ounce of gold will get you about $450, which will buy you a decent suit.

Quoted: As I've heard it explained, in 1900 an ounce of gold would buy you a decent suit. In 2006, an ounce of gold will get you about $450, which will buy you a decent suit.

I heard Paul Harvey say something similar many, many years ago. Probably sometime between 1975 and 1985 or so. He said once upon a time a man could buy a decent suit with a $20 gold piece. He still can today.

Yes.

Actually I support trimetalism. Copper should be tossed into the mix too since I've been saving up my copper pennies.

Also since I dont think we have enough gold/silver to go around.

Quoted: While we are on this idiotic topic, perhaps the original poster can point out all the nations that currently have currencies that are backed by bullion.

What part of "I don't really know" don't you understand? Don't assume I'm an idiot because I'm not an economist. Should I likewise assume you're a dumbass if you don't understand the problems with using red enamels in conjunction with other colors?