Can someone explain to me what Ron Paul's point was?
I just looked up some definitions of money, and "generally accepted medium of financial exchange" seems to be a key part of the definitions.
All sides agree that gold has value, and stable value at that. But is it money?
Will the grocery store or car dealer generally accept a chunk of gold as payment for goods?
He had multiple obvious goals in asking that question.
1) Pandering to the libertarians who back him, and "being tough" on Bernanke. This is not a bad thing.
2) Making clear and explicit Bernanke's view on the issue, and on "which side" he stands. Bernanke answered in such a way that not only is he clearly a supporter of the fiat-money status quo, but he's probably aware that he's wrong in being such (or at least, he understands his position requires a certain level of deception and subterfuge to support it.) Paul exposed Bernanke for the type of man that he is.
3) Pressuring Bernanke. Essentially, "We know the truth, and aren't afraid to ask you threatening questions about it."
4) Once again raising the issue in the public arena, hopefully causing many to pause and give some thought to it.
All good enough reasons in my book.