I think gold is a good standard. The state cannot be trusted with the fiatness of the currency system. Value should be based on labor and commodity for honesty, not on the level of printing. Devaluation of private reserves is a risk of fiat currency, especially of those who have very little. They can at least gather gold.

The gold standard could potentially be adjusted intelligently rather than paper money systems. They could say that we're going to try to increase the value of gold, and begin paying more for gold. Then the gold would still be the rock, and they would adjust the competing paper trades in relation to gold. A dollar is worth one unit of gold, where a unit is a set amount which can be changed, but which does not float.

Negotiating financial difficulties should not be done with paper. That is like looking away to stop an attacker. If they're earnest they will kill you, but if they care they might change their ways. Try it.

We should instead change our level of industrial or commercial readiness than print more or less money. Maybe change an interest rate. But changing the amount of money we print is probably not going to work.

End of dense information.

For those who are tricked by the simple: let's say there's only enough gold for everyone to have one pound of it. This does not limit the ability of gold to be a value marker. We could substitute it for lead slugs, of which there are plenty. The $/ounce ratio is the only thing that changes. Make it $/grain if you like, the important thing is that the price is reasonably set. Quantity of gold is a hollow argument.