In a sense, the US had a dual currency system from 1944 to 1971. Internationally, the dollar was convertible to gold at $35/oz, but not domestically (since it was illegal to own gold other than numismatics and jewelry from 1933-1974).
Patterson states, "I want every one...to think carefully about this...because we are coming very, very close to the end of the freely convertible domestic dollar. They cut in value could be as much as 50%...
What does this mean, really? Cut against what? You can't devalue with a pen stroke like FDR did in 1934 when the dollar was convertible.
End of the freely convertible dollar? In today's global economy, it's inconceivable. How would transnational corporations function? How would people travel? How would people with foreign real estate pay their bills?
End of the freely convertible dollar? In today's global economy, it's inconceivable. How would transnational corporations function? How would people travel? How would people with foreign real estate pay their bills?
If in fact a dual currency were re-instated, I assume the international dollars would be treated as a foreign sovereign currency complete with exchange rates for personal and business transactions, and currency exchanges (at banks and customs at the US border) for travelers with cash. Transactions would proceed as if you were paying for something denominated in a foreign currency.
The new wrinkle would be the reporting requirements of where the old greenbacks came from when converting to new 'peachbacks', much as is done today if you bring in/out more than $10K. Domestically, they would have to outlaw old-design greenabcks as no longer being legal tender domestically (forcing one the bank to exchange bills - and report where you got the greenbacks). This point of outlawing what was legal tender (raised only by one poster) seems fraught with problems and the biggest obstacle unaddressed by the article.
Technologically, it seems quite feasible.
The motivation (ostensibly to thwart money laundering by 'filtering' the exchange/flow of new and old currency domestically while not 'inflciting' that new currency on international populations whose confidence and use of dollars we wish to retain) seems plausible.
The 'unintended' consequences of two values for US currency to the detriment of domestic bill holders seems plausible.
But your point about Droke's credibility is noted.