Republicans Consider Returning To Gold Standard: Real Or Red Herring?

Tyler Durden's picture

Stranger than fiction perhaps but the FT is reporting that the gold standard has returned to mainstream US politics for the first time in 30 years with a 'gold commission' set to become part of official Republican party policy. While this could simply be a reach for as many Ron Paul marginal voters as possible (with the view that the GOP would never really go for it); it appears drafts of the party platform from the forthcoming rain-soaked convention call for an audit of the Fed and a commission to look at restoring the link between the dollar and gold. The FT, citing a spokesperson, adds that "There is a growing recognition within the Republican party and in America more generally that we’re not going to be able to print our way to prosperity," but "We’re not going to go from a standing start to the gold standard," although it would provide a chance to educate politicians and the public about the merits of a return to gold. Interestingly, the Republican platform in 1980 referred to "restoration of a dependable monetary standard", while the 1984 platform said that "the gold standard may be a useful mechanism."


The FT does its best to placate the hysteria and walk it back with:

A return to a fixed money supply would also remove the central bank’s ability to offset demand shocks by varying interest rates. That could mean a more volatile economy and higher average unemployment over time.

But we remind readers of the actual lengths (and volatilities) of economic cycles over time (as per Deutsche's Jim Reid):

...we think that the three ‘super-cycles’ between 1982-2007 were the exception rather than the norm and existed largely because of a near 30 year secular global decline in inflation that transcended the business cycle.


...every business cycle threatening incident was dealt with using aggressive intervention. This led to more and more confidence in the ability of the authorities which coupled with lower and lower interest rates increased public and private leverage to previously unthinkable levels.





One could argue that the most recent three 'Golden-Era' mega-business-cycles are 'unsustainable' fiat-driven monstrosities. The business cycle appears to be naturally shorter but we have centrally-planned it by creating more and more debt since 1971 - perhaps a return to the gold standard or hard money will increase the frequency of recessions but they can be projected and planned for and managed - as opposed to the cliff-like plunges and bubblicious thrusts of their current unsustainable experiment.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Meesohaawnee's picture

obummer promised to tackle Wall Street corruption... and how did that work out?

Bastiat's picture

Yep, trying to suck in some RP supporters and breath life into the Zombie campaign.

Mark Carney's picture



Stop it, you're killing me, Gold standard..HAHAHHAHA

malikai's picture

Luckily for us, we know we can trust Romney to keep our interests at heart. After all, that's why he voted for TARP, The Patrio Act, NDAA, and the other glorious pieces of legislation that has created the great prosperity we now live in.

AldousHuxley's picture

no fucking way....


you think Uncle sam is going to pay back Chinese with Gold backed currency???????


Not enough gold my friend.

kaa1016's picture

I really hope no one falls for this shit. Like I said before, every single one of these guys will say whatever they need to say to get elected. I can't believe people still fall for this. Gold standard? Over the bankers dead bodies. Anyone remember what happened the last time a president supported a currency backed by a precious metal (here's a clue: Kennedy and a silver backed Dollar)? I didn't end well for him.

Michael's picture

Registered Republican Ron Paul supporters are pledging millions of their votes to Obama for Revenge on the MSM/GOP/CNN/MSNBC/FOX. I believe their starting a website to register revenge vote pledges.

There's not a cunt hair's worth of difference between Romney and Obama!

This is Carroll Quigley's vision come true;

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.

—Carroll Quigley[1]

I'm voting for Obama directly. Romney invented Obamacare for crying out loud.

Reason #1: Revenge on Fox/MSM/GOP for not playing fair just like in the McCain/Obama election of 2008, except I'm not writing in Ron Paul this time.

Reason #2: To get a liberty candidate elected in 2016.

Reason #3: To tell Mitt Romney/Wall Street to go fuck themselves.

Reason #4: To let the MSM know they don't get to pick our presidents anymore, the alternative media and internet does.

Reason #5: So the democrats get to preside over the complete and total economic collapse of the USA.

AldousHuxley's picture


S&P500  up 33% in 2 years

Gold      up 33% in 2 years




in 2 years of QE, Twist ops, etc.....SPY = GLD



AldousHuxley's picture

bankers hate gold and banksters are backing romney over obama...

romney himself is bain cap private equity textbook overload debt pension cash extractor.

republicans are going to load debt on americans and go to war with iran, then dump debt obligations to your children.

they don't care about internal affairs such as unemployment or labor is all foreign policy to them.


but presidents are just going to make matters worse because problems are SYSTEMATIC....and BIG



economics9698's picture

Fiat is more addictive than crack cocaine to a monkey with a unlimited supply.  the money will kill itself before he give up his rocks.  All these mother fuckers are doing is throwing the Ron Paul supporters a bone.

economics9698's picture

"One could argue that the most recent three 'Golden-Era' mega-business-cycles are 'unsustainable' fiat-driven monstrosities. The business cycle appears to be naturally shorter but we have centrally-planned it by creating more and more debt since 1971 - perhaps a return to the gold standard or hard money will increase the frequency of recessions but they can be projected and planned for and managed - as opposed to the cliff-like plunges and bubblicious thrusts of their current unsustainable experiment."

You are full of shit.  Propaganda and protecting the Yids with the printing press.  Do your fucking reasearch moron and stop the bull shit. 

Pinto Currency's picture


The "gold standard" is not gold money where the market sets interest rates.  It is a paper money regime where they (usually but not always) promise not to print more paper money than they have gold.  Of course having gold "backing" is just an illusion.

The US was on the "gold standard" in the 1920s when the Fed and the BofE in collusion blew the bubble that collapsed the US economy

Bernanke found that the mistake of the Fed was to not print enough money after they printed too much and blew an economic bubble that collapsed the US economy.  We can see how that is working out.

Paper or digital money is lethal.  It is the compost standard because it is always abused and ultimately destroyed.

Only gold (and silver) as money works.


AldousHuxley's picture

way to prevent bubbles is not to have one in the first place.

but fed can't seem to stop printing every election time.


print money and keep the status quo


don't print money, face harsh reality, and perhaps a bloody regime change


either way, the money has been spent on parties and wars.....matter of who is going to pay....

blunderdog's picture

don't print money, face harsh reality

That's pretty silly.  It's like you're saying institutional suicide is a real option for the BANKERS.


Muppet of the Universe's picture

YOU'RE ALL FUCKING IDIOTS.  They are the SAME.  THEY WORK for the SAME PEOPLE...  Are we seriously going to have a hypno toad episode on ZH right now over... fucking us politics?  wow.

Michael's picture

Revenge is a dish best served cold and the democrats need to learn their mathematics lesson, this time the hard way.

Michael's picture

CNN: Paul supporters: Tampa to be a Starting Point for Future Liberty Movements

Many Ron Paul supporters, though, remain unconvinced.

"The reason why Ron Paul got such a following was because he was pillar with his principles," Salvi said. "I don't see that in Rand."

This apprehension, with the whole system, from Rand to Romney, has led to major questions about who Paul supporters will support in November.

Some are leaning to Johnson, others to Obama. Few love Romney and some plan to write in Ron Paul's name. There is widespread disagreement among Paul supporters.

In a group that values free thought and self determination, they don't see that as a bad thing.

Michael's picture

I never give investment advice out on this blog for any particular company or enterprise.

I don't see why companies like EBAY and Craigs List wouldn't be useful and valuable to our countryman in the future for purchases of like new/used products sold on the secondary market?

It would make my day to see the Federal Government shut down the Internet permanently until further notice. All Internet related stocks would go to zero almost instantaneously.

This is our insurance.

They Won't!

Check Mate or Make My Day.

dcj98gst's picture

Politcal implications of the future currency crisis:


FACT IS >>>>> WE ARE GOING OFF A CLIFF WITH EITHER OBAMA OR ROMNEY.  It is too late to change course.  And Repubs endorsing a gold standard is laughable.  We are looking at a currency collapse in the next few years.  As soon as we loose our reserve currency status, our rates will spike and we will be TOAST.

Given that a majority of the US public is very uneducated from an economic standpoint, they are very likely going to blame this collapse on the politics on who is currently in office.  I think we can agree that neither Obama nor Romney are going enact measures that will prevent this collapse.

Therefore, we need to ask our selves the following:  Do we want an economic collapse under an “Overt Socialist” i.e. Obama?  Or do we want the collapse during the administration of a RINO that supposedly (at least in the minds of the ignorant US public) stands for Free Market Capitalism?

I am scared of a back lash against Free Market Capitalism if the Economic Collapse happens during Romney’s administration.  This could very well lead to the government enacting much harsher economic controls and lead to a totalitarianism state. 

 But if the Economic Collapse happens during the Obama administration, then the US public will more likely see the actual writing on the wall and finally return to Free Markets.

Therefore I will be voting for the man that is the furthest from my point of view.  Obama.  I think a collapse in his term would be better, he will get the blame and rightly so.

Michael's picture

The Ashkenazi Jew news CNN knows they have to try to get in front of this topic we started, so they can try to control the narrative. Good luck CNN,  you have less that 500,000 viewers per day, Ha Ha.

AgShaman's picture

I agree. There is no such thing as  Republicans.....

It's just neo-feudalistic monikers to give the slaves the illusion that their masters give a shit about their opinions

Michael's picture

I call it Fascist Feudalism.

Michael's picture

Query from a Dr Ron Paul supporter;

Is The Federal Reserve System Wholly Owned by the Federal Government for the United States of America?

Yes or No?

AldousHuxley's picture

Gerald Cliente.....

"you know what state capitalism is? is the definition of fascism"

TwoShortPlanks's picture

If this is how it all begins, all I can say is...LET IT BE SO!

Praetorian Guard's picture

Hey dumb ass, #2 won't exist in 2016 if the "vase vacuo" gets re-elected!!!!!!

Michael's picture

At least the democrats will learn their mathematics lesson this time.

Praetorian Guard's picture

There will not be a next time, I doubt even an admin change will do anything, but better than the abyss...

The Big Ching-aso's picture



I think it's a real dead herring.

CH1's picture


2:1 odds!!!

Any takers?


Mysteerious Rooshian Vooman's picture



Faites vos jeux, mesdames et messieurs! Faites vos jeux!


Michael's picture

The economic abyss is a 100% mathematical certainty. So what's your point?

AldousHuxley's picture


Nouriel Roubini
  1. Fiscal Cliff in US
  2. Eurozone break up
  3. hard landing in China
  4. and in the middle east we have a war


perfect storm....

mendigo's picture

I love a good storm.

They are muddling furiously - I fear they will pull it off.

The only cost will be to sacrifice the older people dog food is going to get very expensive. It would be easier if they will just give up and die but either way live or die they will have a very tough ho to row. If they are so rude as to stick around the health care will take care of thier savings quickly. We'll have to inflate to revive housing and to pay off those student loans. So every so often we write-off a generation an reboot the system.

erg's picture

Agreed. It's the ultimate game of Texas hold-em and everyone who matters is all in.

In the furture we can look forward to even more wayward, insidious technologies like nano dust RFID devices. Wait a sec, they probably already have a fully operational  rudimentary, working version. The stuff DARPA has already figured out and is actively working should be enough to turn your hair glacier white.

It's last chance saloon folks.

Edit: fully operational was supposed to have a line through it. It looked good on screen but got lost in the translation somehow.

Al Gorerhythm's picture

Michael, this idea that you are proposing strikes me as another another can kicking contest. Personally, I'm over the political hopium solution of either party or Ron Paul, of ever over-riding the influence of the bankers . Look at the hell to pay when Andrew Jackson tried to kick those theiving bastards out and now their children's children run the show. 

Ron Paul wrote of revolution. I hope that he wasn't proposing a watered-down version of the first one because the first itteration is what it's going to take to stop this. Voting won't do it because voting perpetuates the treason. Politicians of the current persuasion won't do it because the entrenched system is to their treasonous financial advantage. Is there an alternative action? They won't get written into the pages of monetary history by means of their own doing. 

PiratePawpaw's picture

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

We do it every four years. So we are insane and slow.

Michael's picture

So why not change the rules and vote for the cunt hair's bit of greater evil this time by voting for Obama? There'll still be no difference in policy.

And tell me this doesn't boil your blood;

Romney lawyers took away Ron Paul's win in Maine making Paul ineligible

Al Gorerhythm's picture

Once again, we here (mostly, but not all) know that there is little difference between them and the differences are contrived, so why not just stop the charade completely. Do you really think the Dems will learn their lesson this time? If we vote that vacuous turd back in and the system collapses (completely) and we get some kind of gratification that the Dems were in charge when it happened, is that supposed to be some sort of a salve to the juggular wound?  Some consolation to my libertary and freedom that will be. Look, it's all feint and two-step strategies by them, so let's cut to the chase and end the charade. 

What makes my blood boil is that both parties pull the same egregious tactics, just to acquire power. Enough hopium and strategies already. Over it.

Michael's picture

You can't win if you don't play. Ron Paul supporters vote religiously. I usually vote against all the incumbents up for re-election on the ballot, except one this time around.

Al Gorerhythm's picture

Why has there to be a winning team over another when the only legitimate, constitutional and sane course is Liberty? Religiously? This has nothing to do with religion. Passionately yes but only for the elimination of this divisive game you endorse. Don't want to play no more.

Michael's picture

It's the only game in town.

The right to vote is the most sacred thing to have, cause if not, nothing else would matter.

Clashfan's picture

One does not lose one's right to vote by merely forgoing it. If more people simply refused to participate in the charade, its illegitimacy would be clear to all, globally, with eyes to see.

There are other options besides abstinence: Gary Johnson, Green Party, Constitution Party, etc.

Finally, work toward a NOTA choice or with such a group.

But voting for someone who signed the NDAA seems like a form of sacrilege (if voting is so sacred). You've already lost at that point.

mofreedom's picture


Al Gorerhythm's picture

I was trying to respond in a sage and reasonable manner but after 10 mins of considered thought, all that I can think of to say is: you are an idiot.