Feel free to elaborate as to why fiat paper controlled by a unelected [i]private bank[/i] is better than a currency backed by something with intrinsic value such as gold.

Because prices are [i]ungodly[/i] unstable with a gold standard.

"Unstable" is an inaccurate term to describe price adjustments assumed by a self-regulating market. What's unstable is devaluing the dollar, and allowing a handful of unelected megawealthy bankers manipulate the economy and interests rates in their favor. In short, currency backed by something with intrinsic value, is far more stable than it being backed by "the faith and credibility" of elites.

And yet prices swing far more drastically with a gold standard in place than when it is abandoned. There is a reason no economist supports it Edit: Here is a graph of CPI over a 14 year period leading from 1919 to 1933. Does not look stable to me: http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/503c1a26ecad04d84c00000f/image.png Edit 2: And here is polling revealing that exactly zero economists think the gold standard is a good idea: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw1nNUYOXSAKwrq

[quote]And yet prices swing far more drastically with a gold standard in place than when it is abandoned.[/quote] Sure, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. That's the market telling investors and entrepreneurs where the demand is, and what needs to be supplied, and how much of it. Central banking destroys that crucial feedback that allows people to invest wisely, and allow society to prosper. [quote]There is a reason no economist supports it[/quote] That's bc most (mainstream)economists are indoctrinated with the Keynesian school of thought(simply bc that's our current system). Altho their are many who are in favor of the gold standard, and for good reason. If printing money, and allowing unelected bankers manage the economy was at all good long term policy, we wouldn't be in the economic shit hole we're in right now. What's the solution to this? If we ask the economists you referred to, their answer is typically "more printing and more manipulating interest rates". A fiat system is almost guaranteed to collapse over time, it's happened over and over throughout history. [quote]Edit: Here is a graph of CPI over a 14 year period leading from 1919 to 1933. Does not look stable to me: http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/503c1a26ecad04d84c00000f/image.png Edit 2: And here is polling revealing that exactly zero economists think the gold standard is a good idea: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw1nNUYOXSAKwrq[/quote] We've had a central bank since 1913. The problems you sourced are largely due to the incompatibility between Govt meddling and the gold standard, rather than the gold standard itself. If you believe in free markets, a gold standard is a must. If you believe in cronyism, than the gold standard will hold you back. Ron Paul doesn't advocate a Keynesian + gold standard combo, that's just ludicrous. He advocates austrian economics + gold standard, that's sound money.

Actually to contradict what you're saying, the moment countries dumped the gold standard, their economies started booming. Tying money to gold means that the value of money is dependent on how much of the stuff can be dug up. when it is in short supply, interest rates will rise -- even among stable economic conditions. For an example of the instability of prices in the US, please see the graph in my previous post (I added it after the initial post). also, the "instability" of prices under the current currency regime: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/CPIQE.png looks pretty damn stable to me case closed