[mnehring]

They generally never address the important 'how' part in any speeches or legislation. You can't accomplish anything if you don't deal with the how's. A lot of folks try to say that countries who have fiat currency never survive, but the fact is, neither do countries who have currencies based on a single commodity, it is just too risky to put all your eggs in one basket. It is why I like Milton Freedman's monetarism approach that is somewhat down the middle, currency based on the total production, but highly regulates the Fed's actions to only increase currency at a set rate below natural inflation- but reserving some power in the event of a real outside emergency (a national security fail-safe)

This way the currency is based on production, not debt, and the currency value isn't used as a way to socially engineer the economy. It is a harder currency. I've always been under the opinion a single commodity backed currency would only work in a closed system.

[djsherin]

Personally, I believe in simply letting the market determine the medium of exchange. Paul’s position is that legal tender laws should be abolished and I very much like the idea. Gold may end up being the medium chosen on the market, but IMO probably only for large transactions. Perhaps silver or even copper would be chosen for smaller transactions. I’m just speculating; hell it could be anything so long as it is divisible, serves as a store of value, relatively scarce (and by that I mean high value per unit; it would have to be common enough to be used), etc.

One reason I don’t favor a “standard” is because of bimetallism. If there are two metals with an official exchange rate, one will eventually be driven out of circulation because the market rates will be constantly fluctuating. The relatively undervalued metal will be driven out while the relatively overvalued will tend to take its place.

***...to only increase currency at a set rate below natural inflation...”

What do you mean by the natural rate of inflation?