To What Extent is a Return to a Gold Standard a Desirable and Feasible Option for the United States of America?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper was to evaluate both the feasibility and desirability for the United States to return to a form of gold-backed currency, such as a gold standard. It was first necessary to provide a definition of a gold standard, as well as explain how one functions, before exploring some of the contemporary arguments as to why a return to a system such as this would be a good policy decision. The typical benefits that proponents of a gold standard cite are increased price stability, decreased inflation, and a decrease in the federal deficit through reduced spending. This investigation yielded the findings that not only do these benefits typically fail to materialize under a gold standard, but such a system can actually be detrimental to price stability in the consumer price index. Among other reasons explored that calls a gold standard’s feasibility into question, the consensus of eminent economists and journalists points to a political climate inhospitable to a return to a gold-backed currency. It is for these reasons that I conclude a return to a form of gold standard to be neither desirable nor feasible for the United States.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".