Edit: The "depression" referred to in this post refers to the global economic instability that led to the collapse of the Bretton Woods System. It does not refer to the Great Depression. I was not able to address that due to time constraints. Please see child posts for clarification:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2670994

"Many economists disagree, for example George Robinson..."

I have been studying economics for a while and I have never heard of this George Robinson. I tried to google for some information on him and all that I can come up with is line noise. If George Robinson was an economist of some repute then he should at least have some published research available, but I am unable to find anything.

Side Note: Obviously, there is no formal licensing process, but in order to call themselves an economist, it is generally accepted that someone should have a graduate degree in economics or a related field. If someone is discussing Macroeconomics, then they really should have a graduate degree in order to be taken seriously. Macroeconomics is an incredibly complex subject and a layman's knowledge is not sufficient in order to have a good grasp of it.

Just for the record, it is actually commonly accepted by modern economists that the gold standard was responsible for the severity of the depression, but stimulus was not the reason for this. The real problem with the Bretton Woods System was that it functioned as an implicit dollar peg for the countries that were in it. Other currencies were pegged to the dollar and the dollar was pegged (at constant rate) to Gold.

Thus, other countries in the Bretton Woods System ended up taking on the risk of America's monetary policy, and American monetary policy had to be managed in such a way that it was perhaps not always in America's best interest. This is the principle argument against a modern global gold standard. To properly manage such a standard for the benefits of all participants would require a superhuman amount of even-handedness and situational awareness, and all of this would be for a system that basically approximates the system that we have today (in which countries are, mostly, free to set their own monetary policy to benefit themselves).

Now, for the idea of a gold standard here in America. The principle objection to this is that it would tie America's currency to a commodity. This seems like an obvious observation, but there are some geopolitical implications here that I rarely see mentioned. Let me put it like this: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

Yes, a lot of people have disagreements with the Fed. You can voice those disagreements, and we can make alterations to the Fed's structure as needed, but if the dollar was set on a gold standard tomorrow, then America would lose control of its monetary policy. Voicing your disagreement at that point becomes a little bit more complex.

That last line sounds a little bit extreme, but you need to think about it. Constantly, I hear people talk about gold as though making the dollar dependent on it would alleviate all concerns about the monetary supply. People seem to think that we adopt the gold standard, then, poof, suddenly there would be no monetary policy. This is completely untrue.

Like dollars, the amount of gold in the market at any given time is a mutable value. Gold can be added to the market and gold can be taken out of the market. If the dollar depends on gold, then we would still have a federal reserve bank. The only difference is that it would not be based in the U.S. and under American jurisdiction.

Now, here's a question to think about. Who would comprise our new federal reserve board? Let's take a look at the top ten board members[1]:

    Rank	Country/Region	Gold production (kilograms)
    1	    China	        320,000
    2	    Australia	    210,000
    3	    South Africa	210,000
    4	    United States	205,000
    5	    Russia	        205,000
    6	    Peru	        180,000
    7	    Indonesia	    140,000
    8	    Canada	        95,000
    9	    Ghana	        90,000
    10	    Uzbekistan	    80,000

Hmmm, looks like a bunch of countries that are unequivocally in favor of Americans' best interests. Of course, these are just the chief board members. There are many others. In fact, any country or organization with cash can weigh in on the market, and with the stakes being so high (the monetary policy of one of the most powerful nations on the face of the earth), you would be naive to think that interested parties would not take the necessary actions.

[1] Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gold_produ... (which in turn is sourced from the Economist)

Note: Originally, I intended to debunk all of the "points" raised by this George Robinson, but I am not able to due to time constraints. Time constraints also ensure that this is a much more brief post than would be necessary to fully argue my point. However, I hope that I have been able to provide a helpful angle on why economists are leery of a return to the gold standard.