The article presents two graphs of arguably manipulated/unreliable CPI rates, and that's somehow being using as evidence for whether crises are larger or smaller? The article from the beginning uses obviously incredibly biased language throughout, it's a pure opinion hit piece; the author isn't even attempting to present an impartial view on the topic.
It always amuses me how strongly people come out in opposition to the idea of the gold standard, when it demonstrably seemed to work for America, it powered the country from the time it was a collection of colonies to the time it had men driving buggies around on the moon. The country was on the gold standard for hundreds of years. Coming off the gold standard is the experiment, is the outlier. The gold standard obviously worked well enough for that vast majority of the country's history, yet it's somehow regarded by certain people as an obviously horrible idea which is gross, repugnant, "a barbarous relic that belongs in the dustbin of history". It just doesn't add up. If it's such an insanely horrible idea, how did it work so well for so long?
> The article presents two graphs of arguably manipulated/unreliable CPI rates […]
And you can tell this because… ?
> […] the author isn't even attempting to present an impartial view on the topic.
Neither would someone who was arguing the Earth was round.
> It always amuses me how strongly people come out in opposition to the idea of the gold standard, when it demonstrably seemed to work for America, it powered the country from the time it was a collection of colonies to the time it had men driving buggies around on the moon.
No, it caused some huge boom and bust cycles, deflationary periods, and much suffering. It certainly made the Great Depression worse:
Gold-as-currency was useful when we didn't know better, but we've moved on. See The Power of Gold: The History of an Obsession by Bernstein for a good history:
The Atlantic article mentioned the necessity to abandon gold standard temporarily in order to fund WW1, however the American people did not want to enter the war and were unwilling to fund it directly.
An alternate telling would be that abandoning the gold standard allowed the government to circumvent the will of the people and enter a war there was no appetite to get involved in.
> […] circumvent the will of the people and enter a war there was no appetite to get involved in.
You may wish to re-examine that claim:
> Germany also made a secret offer to help Mexico regain territories lost in the Mexican–American War in an encoded telegram known as the Zimmermann Telegram, which was intercepted by British intelligence. Publication of that communique outraged Americans just as German submarines started sinking American merchant ships in the North Atlantic. Wilson then asked Congress for "a war to end all wars" that would "make the world safe for democracy", and Congress voted to declare war on Germany on April 6, 1917.[4] U.S. troops began major combat operations on the Western Front under General John J. Pershing in the summer of 1918.
Which of course does not match the historical record:
* https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/why-the...
* https://archive.ph/FWKcL