Most of the economists – or would I be labeled as ‘sarcastic’? If I say all the top economists from renowned universities disagreed the idea of Ron Paul of restoring the gold standards. None of the experts, not even 1% supported it.
Have look at this article from WSJ to have a more clearer picture:
One of the linchpins of Ron Paul’s insurgent campaign is a return to the gold standard. The Initiative on Global Markets, at the University of Chicago’s business school, asked its panel of economic experts — all of them scholars at the top research universities, Republicans and Democrats alike — whether they agreed with the following statement:
If the US replaced its discretionary monetary policy regime with a gold standard, defining a “dollar” as a specific number of ounces of gold, the price-stability and employment outcomes would be better for the average American.
The results were unambiguous, with the only disagreement among the experts lying in the degree to which they disagreed with the proposition. (Forty-three percent merely disagreed, while 57% strongly disagreed.)
The experts had the chance to make additional comments. Here, by far the most sympathetic statement came from Daron Acemoglu, of M.I.T., who said: “A gold standard would have avoided the policy mistakes of the 2000s, but [it is] still likely that discretionary policy is useful during recessions.” Chicago’s Anil Kashyap says, curtly, “Love of the G.S. implies macroeconomic illiteracy.” But others take a more playful tack.
Chicago’s Richard Thaler:
Why tie to gold? why not 1982 Bordeaux?
Chicago’s Austan Goolsbee, a former adviser to President Obama:
eesh. Has it come to this?