[throw0101d]

The Gilded Age was the 1870-1900, the gold standard was from 1870-1920s. Gold did not help stop inequality, and many progressive elements rallied against it when it was in effect:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech

> A comparison of 35 years against 4?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moderation

Panics and economic downturns during the Gold Standard period were much more frequency. The term "Great Depression" used to refer to something else besides what happened in the 1930s, and the gold standard was a contributing factor to that as well:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression

> Take a look at the fed balance sheet [2]; under Kaynsian ideology you were supposed to sell that off during the boom years so you can take on debt during the busts but politicians are not disciplined enough to do that so the Gold Standard would've never let them.

On the Gold Standard the flexibility of emergency spending during bad years would not be possible: see 1930-1932, and then again in 1937–1938 when FDR tried to go back to balanced budgets through austerity.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937–1938

The politicians that tend to talk about "hard money" and responsible spending are the GOP—but who only seem to talk about it when a Democrat is in the White House. When their guy is in then it's all tax cuts, which do not pay for themselves:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment

and spending (see >$1T Pentagon budget(s)). They're mostly trying to roll back the New Deal (and later Great Society) and cut social programs:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

[Noaidi]

> the gold standard was from 1870-1920s.

The U.S. officially left the gold standard on August 15, 1971.

https://blog.swissamerica.com/glossary/gold-standard/

> many progressive elements rallied against it when it was in effect:

Bryan wanted a gold and silver standard, not fiat currency. There was also the Greenback-Labor Party who wanted to get off both gold and silver standard. They favored inflation because the gold and silver backed currencies were causing deflation.

You seem to be cherry picking in hopes that people do not know the history of the time.

[Spooky23]

Bryan wanted to solve the same problem that we solve today with central banking and fiat. Basically, the gold standard limited money supply and the interest of the big money interests was to gather all of the wealth. There were no taxes or carrying costs for wealth, so that’s how they won the game.

Farmers and regular people were drowning in debt while the money shortage created a deflationary cycle.

Silver is more plentiful and more volatile - Bryan wanted a fixed 16:1 ratio with gold.

The magic of fiat is that as long as you have working governance, modest inflation and plentiful credit equals prosperity.

[throw0101d]

> Bryan wanted a gold and silver standard, not fiat currency.

Yes, but what does "bimetallism" mean?

> The Cross of Gold speech was delivered by William Jennings Bryan, a former United States Representative from Nebraska, at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on July 9, 1896. In his address, Bryan supported "free silver" (i.e. bimetallism), which he believed would bring the nation prosperity.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech

> Free silver was a major economic policy issue in the United States in the late 19th century. Its advocates were in favor of an expansionary monetary policy featuring the unlimited coinage of silver into money on demand, as opposed to strict adherence to the more carefully fixed money supply implicit in the gold standard.

[…]

> While all agreed that an expanded money supply would inevitably inflate prices, the issue was whether this inflation would be beneficial or not. The issue peaked from 1893 to 1896, when the economy was suffering from a severe depression characterized by falling prices (deflation), high unemployment in industrial areas, and severe distress for farmers.[1] It ranks as the 11th largest decline in U.S. stock market history.[2]

[…]

> As a result, the monetary value of silver coins was based on government fiat rather than on the commodity value of their contents, and this became especially true following silver strikes in the West, which further depressed the silver price. From that time until the early 1960s the silver content in United States dimes, quarters, half-dollars, and silver dollars was worth only a fraction of their face values.[10] Free coinage of silver would have amounted to an increase in the money supply, resulting in inflation.[3]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_silver

Hard and soft money exists on a spectrum, and it seems to be that "free silver" is a move away from hard and towards soft/fiat, and more monetary flexibility.