Regardless of the merits (or lack of them) of any specific change to the definition of the dollar, freedom of choice in currencies seems like an obvious thing to permit. If people would rather use some other currency for some purposes -- or all purposes -- makes sense to let them.
That also sends a signal to the Fed to get their act together, if people increasingly prefer to use Canadian dollars or Euros or British pounds or whatever when ordering printer ink or getting paid at their job or getting (or offering) a home mortgage. (It sends an even more powerful signal if they prefer first-class "forever stamps" or pre-1965 silver coins or Big-Mac-fifty-percent-off coupons.
Not me, of course.
Until they realized it wasn't.
The homeowner provided them some assistance in learning their own ordinances, but it took a looong time.
If he doesn't know but has a hunch and feels like taking a risk, he's gambling. If he thinks he knows but he doesn't, he's gambling -- he just doesn't know it yet.
How to tell the one who knows from one who doesn't know, but doesn't know he doesn't know? Check on him later to see if he made money in the futures market. The longer until "later", the more certain you'll be of your conclusion.
Those people tend to leave the futures markets, either because they wise up, or because they run out of money to squander.
Side note: the posts I've noticed are about farmers protecting themselves from the risk of a price drop and speculators who can afford to take a few hits if there's an unexpected price change, and play the percentages (possibly supplemented by their own supposed expertise in analyzing markets).
It does work the other way. A baked goods manufacturer might want to insulate itself from rising prices, and be willing to pay to reduce or eliminate that risk, in the same way the farmer wants to reduce or eliminate the risk of falling prices. (My farming relatives that have used futures only hedge a portion of their expected crop.)
If there were no speculators, there would still be those who would want to insulate themselves against price swings (one direction or the other) who through the futures markets would find one another.
And if the speculators are, on balance, wrong about a commodity's future prices at any given time? They, as a group, have just subsidized the future buyers or sellers (depending on which way they were wrong) of that commodity.
There's a reason why Robin Williams' character in "Moscow On the Hudson" passed out in a grocery store, looking at all the varieties (and quantities) of coffee, or whatever the hell it was.
And that's why people become, um, "disenchanted" with the news media in general. If they botch or slant the coverage of some event or topic about which you are familiar, why believe their other coverage?
This can be overdone. Just because a venerated newspaper keeps a plagiarist on staff, or a popular documentary maker edits footage dishonestly to portray events out of their actual sequence doesn't mean you should automatically ignore everything in all newspapers and all documentaries. If the offending newspaper/documentarian/pundit/broadcaster/whatever appears to have addressed the problem in competence/honesty/supervision/bias/whatever, even ignoring that offender might be overdoing it.
I've accumulated an informal list of news sources that I approach with much skepticism, because they have less credibility with me than a random page of Wikipedia, especially if there's politics involved. Lying about yesterday's h/i/g/h/ t/e/m/p/e/r/a/t/u/r/e/ rainfall would not advance any political cause, and would also be pretty easy to detect, so I would tend to take such reporting at face value.
Plus, I can check it for plausibility. Rainfall of 5000 inches would set off my B.S. dectector. So would a report of a huge lizzard approaching Cincinnatti, even though I believe, with God as my witness, that Les Nessman would not deliberately tell a lie. -Eric