And your denying the influence of a stable currency during that time is to make the entire purpose of this discussion null. Telling.
Your argument ignores the point that even the modified gold standard after WW I had major economic and financial consequences.
Nonsense. The fact that Europe adopted a modified gold standard which had major economic and financial consequences was my point. How could I have possibly ignored it.
As predicted, this put Britain and her Empire economies into a painful deflation.
Yes. That is what I said. Did you even read it?
On balance, whatever the merits of the gold standard in the abstract, it made the world vulnerable to the errors of a single country. As bad as our politicians may be, I prefer to be governed by them than by those of other countries.
As do I. But your analysis is wrong, though I'm sure you'll cling to it. It was the last period in which individuals owned their money and governments were constricted [even by a bit] to debauch it.
Once the Federal Reserve had been created and WWI begun, government took over the "responsibility" for managing the currency and it's been downhill ever since.
Moreover, your preferred measure -- price stability -- can be and often is accomplished by a fiat currency combined with sound economic policies. The supposed advantages of the gold standard are not unique to it.