What does it mean to be "taken the gold standard" (i.e. under Nixon)?
454338
Before Nixon took us "off the gold standard", the nation had gold reserves that were equal to, or more, than the amount of dollars in circulation.  So back then, money actually had a tangible value and was backed by the country's gold reserves.  Coming "off the gold standard" allowed the dollar to become more artificial and debt-ridden.
561826
the purpose of the gold standard (in any market really) is to provide a real physical backbone to the economic flow (by setting aside gold and saying that all currency in circulation has an exact gold equivalent. This is the gold STANDARD. However, its use in foreign markets would put a gold value on more than one type of currency . . . that would effectively balance out the currencies (not equivalnet exchange 1dollar for one peso but you knwo what I mean) and aid in controlling the value of money (preventing money from having NO value as it currently does, which is why the exchange rates change so frequently).
644172
Gold is a pretty good standard. :) And it should be worth...well...gold.
69814
Bush's edge was 2.5 percent, smaller than Wooddrow Wilson's pathetic 1916 margin of 3.2 percent. Bu$h, Cheney and all the cronies called it a mandate. Neocons on TV called it a mandate. In 1936 FDR had a mandate. In 1956 Eisenhower had a mandate, In 1964 Johnson had a mandate, 1972 Nixon had a mandate. In 1996 Clinton had a mandate, he beat Dole by 8.5 percent. the numbers you need are at www.secretaryofstate.gov.
607098
Show me the Gold first
1005436
Well never know.\n\nFrom what I read, people didn't believe Nixon could have known about that watergate thing.
952546
Rockerfeller, Kennedy=Privilege\n\nClinton, Nixon= came from very poor backround and earned it (and then screwed  it up.
752593
I believe that you're referring to a 'Silver CERTIFICATE'...back before FDR took us off the Gold Standard (back in the day, you could cash in your bills for silver or gold...the government used to actually guarantee the $$$ was there)\nThey ARE collector's items; I've always been better at spending money than holding on to it, so I have no idea what they're actually worth, but I'm pretty sure it's worth more than a dollar.  Like any other old stuff, the better condition it's in, the more it'll be worth.  My suggestion would be to go to e-Bay and run a search for "1935 Silver Certificate" - that should give you a fair idea of what they go for, without having somebody try to run a fast one on you.\n\nAlso, try this link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Certificate\n\nHope this helps...let me know what you find out.
41310
The golden rule:  They that have the gold, make the rules.\n\nSimple answer is that the power of money acts to entrench itself, and it's far more effective at swaying the masses than political activism. \n\nDespite the high sounding rhetoric of the founding fathers, they were a bunch of rich white landowners, and while mouthing the principles of equality and liberty, they denied equal rights to women, kept slaves, and instituted voting laws that ensured only property owners could cast a vote.  Despite the romanticized version of our early history being concerned with individual rights and freedoms, a whole lot of the impetus for the American revolution was about property rights and wealth management.  The "haves" have always wielded great power over the "have nots", and I suspect, always will.
933047
taken out of context, the quote's meaning is hard to dtermine with certainty.  my take is that without knowledge, people cannot "stand up" for their rights or values.\n\nin relation to bush, i guess you could say that since he has cut education spending so much, he will create a population of "empty bags" who will be easy to manipulate
895480
I think Nixon failed because he did not adhere to these principles.  A 'Prince' must be thought publically to be beyond reproach.  He may carry out underhanded dealing to acheive a purpose.   Machiavelli specified that the only acceptable end was the stabilization and health of the state; individual power for its own sake is not an acceptable end and does not justify evil actions.  In this way both Nixon and Reagan sought power for personal ambition, not the benefit of the country.
568676
The only thing they change is the party in power.  Sorry but I can't see 10 cents worth of difference if you look at the parties in power over the years. So scandals hurt the party not the presidency.  Nixon got full retirement pay and all the benefits that the good guys got.
68683
One positive is that one can be assured that your money can, at any time, be exchanged for gold. The big negative is that the value of the dollar is extremely volatile. The reason the world left the gold standard is it exacerbated the problems during the great depression.
52974
It's illegal everywhere, why do you think Nixon left the Presidency?
348983
President Richard Milhous Nixon\n(It really is Milhous without an 'e')
710937
Anywhere from very effective to not effective at all. Some examples: The populists campaigned in 1896 (primarily) on a platform of free coinage of silver, as opposed to gold. This was a measure to help the American farmer. The measure was finally adopted in the 1930's changing the basis of  our currency from gold to silver. This was a sound move. Now of course we have the "Federal Reserve Note" which is only as good as the U.S. credit in the world market. The Progressive Party in 1904 and 1908 enacted such measures as the direct election of Senators by the residents of the States, The Food and Drug Adminisrtration which to this day assures the quality of almost every item of food, the law which makes the 40 hr work week standard (as well as outlawwing child labor) and the law guaranteeing labor the right to strike. Other legacies of this period are the right of women to vote, the Federal Income Tax, The Federal Reserve System, and the Establishm,ent of the National Park System. Less long lived was the effort launched by the temperance movement to ban alcohol(passed as a Constitutional Amendment in 1919), which was a general disaster and was repealed in 1933. While in effect, Prohibition fostered the growth of organized crime in the U.S. and this is still with us today. So there were both positive and negative aspects of the changes occurring between 1890 and 1935.
979349
Nixon indded was a strong leader.  I am 49 so I clearly remember the Nixon years.  When the recession became frightening he took the unprecedented step of a wage and price freeze.  A gutsy move that was not real popular.  It did help.  His quiet negotiations to China and the USSR were very impressive.\n\nOn the flip side Nixon did more than just lie.  His administrations use of the IRS to hound administration enemies was certainly criminal and his secret enemies lists were frightening.\n\nI hope history will eventually treat him as it should any president.  There were amazing strong points to his presidency and incredible weak points.  True historians usually give both sides and acknowledge that he was amazing with foreign policy and some internal policies while being a deeply paranoid one.  I do differ with some of those answering your question though.  He did indeed have to resign.  The votes for impeachment and removal for office were clearly there.\n\nIn short Richard Nixon was a human being.