When I read opinions like that, I'm reminded of MMMs post on the benefits of optimism.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/
Optimism is great and can lead to great things, but realism keeps it all together - an optimmist may jump off a cliff thinking they can fly, an optimist with dose of realism understands that they can fly but will need some help such as a parachute, hanglider, etc.
1.) the gold standard is stupid, and nutjobs are the only people concerned about bringing it back.
2.) never a thread of financial great depression 2.0? thats quite the intuitive leap considering you could call the past 5 years exactly that.
3.) Keynesian economics vs Hayek is a very old argument with no clear winner, this guy is pretending that he knows for sure that keynes was wrong. Economists disagree over nearly every point he makes, with half lining up on either side. The only certain thing in the study of economics is that no one knows for sure the consequence of anything.
4.) Basically this is a scare piece by a conservative former Reagan administration official. It'll certainly get a lot of readers the same way Fox News gets a lot of viewers. I wouldn't put much weight on it.
The majority of the stats are real, and they are definitely worrisome. But look around to other corners of NYT and you'll find economists talking about the same issues with opposite views and equally convincing arguments. The longer answer is no one knows what to do about our fiscal problems it will take an actual debate with a willingness to listen to either side's arguments to come to the correct decision. Preaching disaster if a certain course isn't taken isn't constructive.
I'm going to caveat this by saying I'm not a gold standard guy. There, caveat complete. Are you an economist though? It is called an ad hominem attack or guilt by association when you say that a view is something that is only the province of crazies.
And I'm going to skip to your last point. The guy is no friend of the GOP - he is more libertarian if anything. He was a pro-choice congressman and has advocated for actual smaller government, something the GOP only says but never does.
Finally, you cannot ignore the moral hazard that bailouts create nor can you ignore the pernicious nature of the numerous subsidies, tax breaks and trade protectionism we provide large companies in this country. Crony capitalism combined with a massive federal government is not a recipe for long-term success.
Dropping off the gold standard is not the issue but the political mismanagement of our debt and currency as result of dropping it is the issue - if politicians were prudent and disciplined then we would have an issue.
Everything he wrote was fairly accurate and the apparent risks are real and concern me greatly and some of his recommendations make a lot of sense, but it doesn't make him right and wouldn't abandon investing altogether as he suggests.
Also, while he may have been a republican at some point it seemed to me he blamed/bashed both sides of the aisle and moreso the republicans - it had slight liberal bias IMO so I agree with NICE - libertarian at best.
The moral hazard/bailouts/entitlements are big issues and promotes concentration of wealth at the top - it hurts the average Joe.