Acrually, it addressed the issue --- at times sarcastically. Gold-standard lovers do with gold fiat money what socialists do with capitalism. Socialists compare real capitalism, warts and all, with an ideal socialism, where people are supermoral, altruistic, law-abiding, etc. Naturally, capitalism appears to lose.
Gold-bugs do the same: they compare the ideal gold-standard system, managed by an omniscient, apolitical, benevolent government (do such exist?), against real fiat-money system managed by real people, with their limited information and speed of processing. Naturally, fiat money loses.
Both arguments are, of course, logical fallacies.
The article actually gave two examples (e.g., Ricardo) where proponents of gold standard dismiss its failures as perversions. The point is gold standard is as susceptible to perversions as fiat money.
2. failed to justify quantitatively its conclusions that the difficulties of the gold standard are as bad as those of the Keynesian fiat money system he appears to like.
You are arguing ad stramineus homo: it was neither an objective nor a duty of the article to demonstrate which system is better quantitatively. One cannot fail in something that he never attempted to do.
It is those that propose a change --- return to gold standard --- who have the duty to justify their proposal; it is they who must demonstrate that the advantages of their proposed system justify the cost of the transition.
I am not a “gold-bug” - a term that attempts to substitute ridicule for thought. And, I am not an advocate of a gold standard managed by any government, omnicient, benevolent, or otherwise.
As for your second comment, perhaps you didn’t read the first paragraph? In the spirit of being of service, it is copied below in full.
If you read that paragraph, the first thing you will notice is that the first sentence sets up a strawman. I realize that your point, which I am coming to, was different, but that sentence is a tip-off regarding the quality of the article as a whole.
Here is your point: “...it was neither an objective nor a duty of the article to demonstrate which system is better quantitatively. One cannot fail in something that he never attempted to do.”
I now direct your attention to the following, which appears in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph: “...800 years of Western monetary history shows that bullion-based systems offer no benefits over paper-based systems.”
This is obviously a quantitative claim. If he is going to assert that there are “no benefits” he does indeed have an obligation to show by what measure that claim is supported.
You also claim that the status quo has a privileged position when you assert that the burden of proof is on those who prefer a gold standard. There is no reason one has to accept this. In fact, it is no better than the global warming crowd’s attempt to “win” arguments by asserting the “precautionary principle.”
“The gold standard is a Holy Grail of otherworldly purity for which monetary knights perpetually quest. After all the stomach-churning, post-meltdown improvisations by central banks and governments worldwide—the Troubled Asset Relief Program, quantitative easing, and mortal entanglements with insolvent mega-debtors—it’s natural to long for nobler days. Thus World Bank President Robert Zoellick argues for returning to gold as a monetary reference point. And in the credit market, guru James Grant yearns again to pull the Excalibur of the classical gold standard from the stone. While the current run-up in gold is a signal (whether of inflation expectations, credit problems, or lemming-like investor behavior remains to be determined), 800 years of Western monetary history shows that bullion-based systems offer no benefits over paper-based systems. Like all technocratic fixes, their rigidity can make things worse.”
And then you have Fed apologists who then go on to compare Gold-standard lovers to Socialists and in doing so, of course, perpetuate the very same logical fallacy against which they rail.