Would an educated, informed public demand fiat currency over gold/silver based money? History would say the answer is no.
Well, the bulk of transactions balances are held as "inside money", ledger balances, and the amount of currency and coin issued has almost no bearing on the economy.
This is money created out of thin air, so to speak. The first part of your sentence above is certainly correct, and is the biggest reason banks love fiat money. The reason the second part of your sentence isn't correct is because the "economy" isn't really made-up ledger entries in computers. It is the sweat of labor, the work of true capital investment in plant and machine. It is people working and striving.
You have a fascination with currency that is not uncommon, but has little to do with banking and the value of money. Read a work like Selgin's The Theory of Free Banking and broaden your horizons.
Unfortunately, there is coming a day when you, along with millions of other people, will be hit smack in the face with strong evidence that what you call "the value of money" is an illusion.
But I don't expect to change your mind, and I'm not really trying. I'm mostly talking to myself. Mumble, mumble. ;-)
Actually history shows us a preference for currency over specie, and inside money over currency. It's far more convenient. The vast majority of currency and inside money has always been "unbacked", even pre 1933, under various gold systems- would you call that "fiat"?
This is money created out of thin air, so to speak.
No, it's simply "banking", as it has always been practiced. It's "credit money". Banks have always employed fractional reserves to increase credit. That's what they do. You can find this in Mises' Theory of Money and Credit, Selgin's Theory of Free Banking, and most any other book on the history of banking.
The reason the second part of your sentence isn't correct is because the "economy" isn't really made-up ledger entries in computers. It is the sweat of labor, the work of true capital investment in plant and machine. It is people working and striving.
Congratulations. You have just rediscovered "the labor theory of value", one of the perennial heresies of economics. It appealed to Marx, but Adam Smith had already put a stake through it. To find out why it's nonsense you could read Thomas Sowell's Say's Law. Production does indeed create demand, but there's no inherent value in labor per se. Ledger entries have been used to perform one of the functions of money for hundreds of years, maybe no one got the news to you yet. But if you're worried about ledger entries not being guaranteed by gold, then why not convert your savings to bullion or shares in mining stocks?
I'm mostly talking to myself.
You are certainly doing that. Mises has a section at the beginning of Human Action where he complains about "money cranks", you might experience a sense of recognition at his description.
Someone posted earlier (this weekend?) about paper money that people work for in his home town. It takes barter to a higher realm. With barter, there is always the problem that what you can do for a living is hard to trade for what you need (think of Placido Domingo having to sing for his supper). The beauty of money is that it makes highly specialized occupations possible. I don't really care what money it is I work for, as long as I can trade it for what I really want. I don't want gold. I want to pay my mortgage, I want groceries on the table, I want gas in my car, I want medical care and pharmaceuticals, I want education. Gold doesn't rate very high on my list of wants. I don't care what thing I trade for the things I want, I just want it to be acceptable to the person on the other side of the transaction.
I don't expect my money to be a store of value, I just want it to be a medium of exchange.