During the 19th century, on the gold standard, we had no inflation. During the 20th century, using fiat currency, the dollar lost 95%+ of its value to inflation. WHich one do you prefer?

The "liquidity by mining output" statement makes no sense to anyone that understands how a gold standard works. Professor Antal Fekete has written numerous papers on real bills and self-liquidating credit under a gold standard. (See www.financialsense.com). There is absolutely no problem financing production under a gold standard. (Which is what I assume you meant by liquidity).

Over the last 100 years the Fed has gone to a lot of trouble to discredit the gold standard, since it is the natural enemy of a fiat currency. FIat currencies allow governments to spend without any voter restraint (other than worrying about creating excessive inflation). The gold standard on the other hand limits government spending to what can be raised by taxes and borrowed against future tax income.

Why would anyone therefore (other than a banker that is) NOT support a gold standard? In today's world, you could use electronic debit cards linked to your gold account just as easily as cards linked to your fiat dollar account, and you could spend .001 oz of gold on a cup of coffee as easily as you would $2.50. The difference is that under the gold standard you can sleep at night not worrying about the bankers printing additional money and devaluing the notes in your pocket.

The general misunderstanding and ignorance of how a gold standard works/has worked in the past is beyond belief.

Francois.