This part is highly debatable, to say the least:a ‘gold standard’ forces governments to be fiscally responsible and provides a stable economic environment and that the adoption of a ‘non-gold standard environment’ operated with fiat currencies (i.e. currencies not backed by gold) will never do,
Bring on the debate! That is what this is all about. Lets start with your explaination of the two jumps one at about 1930, and another at around 1971 in the flat line along the bottom of the chart below.
My point is... that if you think backwards in time for 100 years starting at the Great Depression, the US of A was on the gold standard for that 100 years. And yet we had no stable economic environment. There were other depressions, "busts", booms, economic over- and under-shoots from anything that might be considered a "stable economic environment". Mostly due to the same problem we have now - meddling politicians that don't know diddly squat about economics, and don't care if citizens are free and prosperous, or broke and economically chained. But those very same politicians were VERY interested in getting re-elected, and lining their pockets with the spoils of the system.
What "fiscal responsibility" was there when Abe Lincoln borrowed money to fight the Civil War? The national debt slowly increased over that entire 100 year time frame. Nothing like now, but still getting higher all the time. What "fiscal responsibility" did gold impress on the politicians in charge over that 100 year time frame? NOT MUCH !!!
I don't care about your graph.