I always find it interesting that one of the first arguments used against a gold standard is that people who argue for it are idiots -- something economists in

I always find it interesting that one of the first arguments used against a gold standard is that people who argue for it are idiots -- something economists in the US magically discovered when, contrary to previous agreements, we moved off the gold standard in 1968. The argument for gold (or a fixed peg to a basket of commodities, also suggested by intelligent economists) is not for the commodities themselves, but against a centralized banking authority that cannot be trusted not to spend into a huge deficit and then print money. The fact that the dollar post-Bretton Woods II is the de facto world currency amplifies all of these problems -- meaning that other national banks (e.g. Korea, Japan and China) have to put massive amounts of their money into dollars. This also means that any devaluation in the dollar will have catastrophic impact on their economies -- basically meaning that many other governments (and, of course, individuals) are subject to the whim of the Fed and Executive Branch of the US Government. There is no very obvious solution to this given the substantial inertia in the system and the fact that not everyone plays nicely with each other. For example, even if it were certain that an alternative currency like BitCoin were entirely legal, this wouldn't prevent the powers that be finding some excuse to shut it down.