Paul has expressed his desire for the US to leave NAFTA and the WTO, calling the US's involvement in these organizations "managed trade". There's only one issue though - these agreements aren't around to ensure the US engages in free trade, they're around to ensure that the other countries engage in free trade. The United States is the largest economy in the world, with the smartest economists in the world, I'm pretty sure we've figured out the benefits of free trade and how they've helped our economy explode the past 20 years. It's the other nations we need to worry about - they're so small that they get defensive when they feel threatened, and slap tariffs on their goods in an attempt to "protect" their own economies.

The US involvement in these pacts acts as a "gentle nudge" for the other nations to join as well - they can't afford not to. If the US were to leave these treaties, world free trade would end, and prices for nearly everything would go up, hardly a good thing.

This really comes down to a central question - do you want politicians controlling our economy, or do you want professional economists? Let me rephrase that a little more - do you want someone like George W Bush controlling the economy, or Ben Bernanke?

The major advantage of the US Central Bank is that it's run by people who aren't politicians. Think about the common politician - they tend to be panderers who will say anything to anyone in order to get their vote (picture Hillary Clinton here). They think about only themselves when making decisions, and how they can stay in power until the next election. Their entire existence centers around fund-raising and winning elections, not helping Americans and economy.

The above being said, many economic decisions involve long-term decisions that could take months, years, even decades to take effect. Do you really think your average politician would make a decision that could take a decade to take hold, or would they quickly jump to the quick fix that makes them look good before the next election? (obvious answer here)

Further, as an example, look back over the past 30 years at what our politicians' financial decisions have brought to our country, including such memorable decisions as Reagan's deficit spending, Bush's tax increases and deficit spending, and W Bush's deficit spending. The Fed is really the only recourse we have against politicians and their decisions about our economy.

While Paul stops short of pledging to go back completely to the gold standard, his policy changes of making the dollar convertible at a set amount to gold & silver pretty much amounts to the same thing. It's not like this is a revolutionary concept here either - the US was on the gold standard from 1873 to 1933, but was forced to finally abandon it. There are a number of macroeconomic problems though with a monetary system based on the gold standard.

1) The first problem with the gold standard is the lack of power anyone has over the economy, including a central bank (Ron Paul advocates banning this as well, see elsewhere on the list). However, as history shows, an unmanaged economy can have extreme ups and downs, which can lead to panics and depressions that last for years. Take a look at an economic history of the US - all of the worst panics and depressions happened while the US was on the gold standard, including the Great Depression. This is not a coincidence. Everyone needs a little help once in a while, even the economy.

2) A gold standard results in stagnant GDP growth, as the money supply is limited in growth to match the growth in the supply of gold. However, gold supply is only increasing at 1-2% per year, meaning that any economy, in order to maintain the gold standard, can only increase GDP by 1-2% per year. The ramifications of GDP growth this small would wreak havoc on the US - a drastic increase in unemployment and a stock market crash.

3) Just like oil, gold supply is largely outside the control of the US, and we'd be dependent on outside nations for their gold supply. Just like oil, we'd be susceptible to supply side shocks. This time however, it would result from too much gold hitting the market at one time, causing unexpected inflation.

Ultimately, the goal of the gold standard is to create an economy in which prices are stable, hoping that with price stability, economic stability will follow. The lessons learned from 100 years ago should not be lost today though - the gold standard only leads to extreme ups and downs, and the lack of power to deal with them.

Ron Paul is a big believer in letting the states make laws and regulations when they aren't specifically addressed in the Constitution. He believes in "strict Constitutionality", whereby anything not mentioned in the Constitution would automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the state. However shortsighted this belief may be (and it's not addressed here, since it's a really an argument on fundamental beliefs, rather than policy), it has its shortcomings in certain situations. The drug policy is one aspect that should not be left to the states though.

Quick...how many of you readers can name all of the Schedule 2 drugs? Anyone, anyone? How about the standard punishment for 3 ounces of a Schedule 2 drug? Anyone? There are 5 Schedules of drugs, with about 100 drugs per schedule. Do we really want each state to decide on its own how to classify each drug, and then decide on their punishment levels?

The reason the federal DEA Schedule of Controlled Substances is a good thing is because it creates a known set of rules. Just like the Constitution creates a known set of rules for the country to abide by, the Schedule creates laws by which every citizen can be aware. Under state laws, imagine the possible problems arising from state legislature classifying 600 drugs and defining their punishments, and then imagine the problems in traveling from NYC to LA with some marijuana and the potential problems you'd face in each state.

Put this another way - 600 drugs x 50 state legislatures results in 334,234,203 different drug laws in the US (don't check that math!).

His supporters are more delusional than those that seem convinced that 20XX is the year of Linux on the desktop (insert any year in place of the XX).