[lottin]

> The argument against the gold standard is that there isn’t “enough” to represent money

I literally have never heard this argument against the gold standard.

What amount of gold would be needed for it to be able to sufficiently "represent money"?

And why do you need gold to "represent money" anyway? Isn't gold itself money under the gold standard?

[not2b]

During the 19th century, the gold standard led to crazy inflation as new gold was found, followed by crazy deflation as the gold strikes got used up. Farmers were struggling because the money they borrowed to be able to grow crops would drop so much in value by harvest time.

This is what William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech was about: he was pushing for the free coinage of silver at a ratio of silver to gold of 16 to 1. This would have increased the money supply (silver as well as gold would be money) and replaced a deflationary environment to an inflationary one. Now, you can argue that this proposal was a gimmick and argue about whether it would have worked. But the point remains that the gold standard as implemented in the 19th century was a disaster for debtors and farmers had to borrow every year, unless new gold was discovered somewhere recently.