This isn't correct. The gold standard caused a lot of problems with money shortages; in the 1800s they were called panics. The shortages powered William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic presidential nomination after his "Cross of Gold" speech. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech

Were those panics ultimately bad for growth? The US in the 1800s was one of the fastest growing economies we've ever seen in all of human history; growing from ~0% to ~20% of the world economy. It isn't often someone outpaces that. The gold standard clearly didn't limit growth in any concerning way if you are associating it with one of the top 10 all time growing economies. In fact, dropping the gold standard has been associated with the economic weakness that characterises the modern US as they mean regress and the Asian powers regain economic ascendancy.

Panics and crisises aren't automatically a bad thing. If people are doing something wildly stupid they need to stop and undertake alternative activities. Something has to make them do that; if it is a panic then that is better than persisting with stupidity. Besides, the US still has regular crisises. There is one every 10 years or so. They just don't see as much upside between them as they used to.

> The shortages powered William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic presidential nomination after his "Cross of Gold" speech.

If Trump says something does that automatically make it true in 100 years? No. Politicians aren't automatically right and neither are voters. People get stuff wrong in policy all the time. Popularity and truth are different.

And Wikipedia suggests that most people disagreed with him regardless, he lost the election and the US proceeded to adopt a gold standard. Which still doesn't tell us much about its policy merits I might add.

If you don't think panics are a bad thing I don't know what to tell you. Can you point to a panic that was good?

My point about Bryan is that the gold standard was causing so much pain that he rode his solution to the nomination. That his solution (bimetallism) was terrible helps explain his loss.

All panics are "good" in the sense that they represent the economy reorienting themselves to maximise returns. As you accidentally stumbled over, they are associated with the period of US history with the highest growth rate. The argument is basically that they are a necessary mechanism to purge inefficient actors from having capital. It isn't pleasant if the market tags a person as inefficient, but that is how to get to high growth.

It isn't like getting rid of the gold standard has helped the US grow, since then we've have seen them mean regress from being an unchallengeable global colossus to arguably the #2 economy. The government printing money at will and handing it out to asset owners who by rights should be going broke is a component of that.

If you'd like a computer metaphor, possibly think a program unexpectedly spitting out a stacktrace. The stacktrace is not, in and of itself, the problem. The problem is the thing causing the stacktrace and the stacktrace is actually helpful for diagnosing. In the case of economies, panics don't draw attention to the problem but actually fix it directly.

> ...that he rode his solution to the nomination

A lot of nominees around that time thought the gold standard was a good idea, which doesn't prove anything either. The opinions of nominees more than a century ago aren't really evidence. It is an appeal to authority except he wasn't an authority in any meaningful way. He didn't know much about economics and turned out not to represent the consensus of ordinary citizens either.

The US has not actually put leaving the gold standard to a vote as far as I know. In fact I don't think the current situation is a result of big deliberations, at Bretton Woods people thought they were agreeing to a gold standard and as the US's economy is eclipsed we might easily see a rethink of the global trade system where it comes back.