Two recent studies from the Cato Institute examine the history of the gold standard, and highlight some barriers to the idea of reinstituting a gold standard. In the first paper, economist George Selgin reviews the history of the gold standard in the United States and explains how it eventually came to an end. And in the second, economist Lawrence H. White reviews the most important arguments against the gold standard that have been made by economists and economic journalists in recent years.

• “The Rise and Fall of the Gold Standard in the United States,” by George Selgin
• “Recent Arguments against the Gold Standard,” by Lawrence H. White
• The Case for Gold, by Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman

The New Starts program, created by Congress in 1991, “is the federal government’s primary financial resource for supporting locally-planned, implemented, and operated transit ‘guideway’ capital investments.” In a new paper, Cato scholar Randal O’Toole shows that New Starts has effectively given transit agencies incentives to select the costliest, rather than the most cost-effective, alternative to any transit problem, and argues that the program should be abolished.

• “‘Paint Is Cheaper Than Rails’: Why Congress Should Abolish New Starts,” by Randal O’Toole

The Congressional Budget Office has fiscally scored the Senate’s immigration bill, S. 744, and found that it will decrease fiscal deficits over the next 20 years—giving a huge boost to reform proponents. Cato scholar Alex Nowrasteh explains how the CBO’s findings broadly confirm Cato’s research that immigration reform will be economically beneficial to immigrants and the country as a whole.

• “CBO Dynamically Scores Immigration Bill,” by Alex Nowrasteh
• “The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” by Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda
• “Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a Lower Rate than Poor Native-Born Citizens,” by Leighton Ku and Brian Bruen
• More Cato Research on Immigration

The Obama administration reportedly has decided to provide “direct military aid” to Syria’s insurgents, after concluding that Syrian forces were using chemical weapons.  But according to Cato scholar Doug Bandow, this kind of messy conflict is precisely the sort that Washington should avoid. “Americans should have something fundamental at stake before their government calls them to arms,” says Bandow. “No such interest exists in Syria.”

• “Washington Foolishly Tilts Towards War in Syria,” by Doug Bandow
• “The Perils of Intervention in Syria,” by Doug Bandow
• “Erase the Red Line,” by John Mueller