[PieterCasparzen]

Though I prefer to be a purist, partial backing would be better than none. It is the ability to exchange dollars for gold when one fears that too much paper currency is being issued that enforces the gold standard.

One can always exchange dollars by buying something.

People exchanging dollars for gold won't put any pressure on the financial elites when they create too many dollars. The elites control both dollar creation and the gold market, and they can invest in either at any time - and in advance of market moves. To wit, Soros was into gold prior to the run-up and exited just before the peak, when the retail customer was being whipped up into a frenzy of gold buying. Of course, he's just one, there certainly are many others that are tied in closely with new world order.

A gold or other precious metal standard does nothing to prevent money creation of such a large scale that it causes inflation. This is because those in control who desire to create more money will simply reduce the purity of the metal used for backing. It actually happened to the Spanish empire and was written about contemporaneously by Juan de Mariana. Strangely, economists of the Austrian school have written about this and are quite well aware of it. They obviously then know that a "gold standard" is no guard against excessive money printing.

One of de Mariana's works, "A Treatise on the Alteration of Money", is available online as a downloadable PDF...

"The Political Economy of Juan de Mariana" is available for free as a downloadable PDF from google books (you just have to click on the "gear" on the far top right, under the sign in button to see the option to download the PDF. You might have to allow cookies, at least temporarily, I'm not sure). It appears to have be republished by the Ludwig Von Mises Institute in 2008.

Corrupt financial elites are the source of continual problems, changing currencies won't affect that situation.

[BfloGuy]

One can always exchange dollars by buying something.

That is beside the point.

Under the classical gold system, banks held their reserves in gold. When dollar-users suspected that too many had been issued, they could present their dollars at the teller's window and receive their equivalent in gold.

This had the effect of drawing down the bank's reserves thus decreasing their ability to pyramid loans from it and also served as a warning to the bank's officers that the public was growing skeptical of their performance.

This was the crucial component to the gold standard's working as well as it did. The ersatz gold standards adopted in Europe after WWI did not allow citizens the ability to exchange their currency for gold and failed miserably.

To this day, many still blame the gold standard for the Depression in Europe but it really wasn't one.

This is because those in control who desire to create more money will simply reduce the purity of the metal used for backing.

Another reason for gold as currency. Tampering with its purity is very easy to determine. That kings got away with it several centuries ago is a testament only to the lack of education and economic understanding of their subjects.

Corrupt financial elites are the source of continual problems, changing currencies won't affect that situation.

No monetary system can work to the benefit of the individual if his leaders are corrupt. There are some who are not. If one of those someday gains power, I hope he will push to reinstate hard money for the reasons I've stated.