[dragonwriter]

> Any theory of money needs to explain how the US went from subsistence farming in 1800 to superpower in WW1 on the gold standard

No, it doesn't. Especially since the the US was on a bimetallic standard, not the gold standard, for much of that time.

> which more or less means balanced budgets

No, it doesn't. Either in theory or US practice.

[WalterBright]

> on a bimetallic standard

Sort of, but the point is it was not fiat money. There was no net inflation from 1800-1914.

> No, it doesn't.

Since the government at the time did pay off the national debt, that means balanced budgets.

[dragonwriter]

> Since the government at the time did pay off the national debt

There was a brief period in the early half of the 19th Century where it paid off the debt, but the it ramped up beforen the secession crisis, went sky high during the civil war, and was never paid off after that, so, no, in net budgets weren't balanced in the Revolution to WWI period.

Also, other problem with your scenario is that the US didn't start as a subsistence farming economy (which would have made it near worthless as a set of colonies.)

[WalterBright]

> in net budgets weren't balanced in the Revolution to WWI period.

According to this, they were:

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_history

> US didn't start as a subsistence farming economy

Yes, it did. A consistent food surplus did not appear until around 1800. Bone evidence from the colonists showed repeated episodes of starvation.