Does a Gold standard make sense?

There has been a post unconnected to an OP in a different thread.

So the proponents and the opponents of "Gold standard" can exchange their arguments.

So the pro argument goes on the line of:
* All money can directly be exchanged into a given amount of Gold.
Exporting countries will thus amass Gold while importing countries will lose their Gold. So roles have to change or exports will cease at least when no more Gold is outside the exporting country. So there will be a global balance. (This is from Hume in the 18th century)
* Since all money is coupled to Gold there will be no variation in exchange rates, and thus there will be no speculation on exchange rates making the financial market much more transparent.
* Governments can't finance their deficit by inflation. So the government is forced to keep house well. (This is actually why the Donald will never make a step in that direction).

The contra runs:

* Since the amount of Gold is limited the amount of money is limited. Since there is no "fiat money"there is no leverage in lending money, and thus investment is very hard to gain.
* Populations develop independently from the amount of Gold that is available. If the population increase is higher that the gold amount increase, prices will fall (or people will starve) making investments economically unfavourable.

lets try to have a good discussion without mud slinging.

Edit: typoes

No because the wealthy people will hoard all the gold and there won't be any currency in circulation.

@AThousandYoung said
No because the wealthy people will hoard all the gold and there won't be any currency in circulation.

@moonbus said
The ultra-wealthy are invested in imaginary currencies anyway--crypto and stock options--or real estate. Both of which are unrelated to gold or a hypothetical gold standard.

@Ponderable said
There has been a post unconnected to an OP in a different thread.

So the proponents and the opponents of "Gold standard" can exchange their arguments.

So the pro argument goes on the line of:
* All money can directly be exchanged into a given amount of Gold.
Exporting countries will thus amass Gold while importing countries will lose their Gold. So roles have to c ...[text shortened]... onomically unfavourable.

lets try to have a good discussion without mud slinging.

Edit: typoes

@AThousandYoung said
No because the wealthy people will hoard all the gold and there won't be any currency in circulation.

If made out of thin air Bitcoin can reach 150k then gold can be revalued.

Obviously the USA doesn't want a gold standard because they won't be able to print money constantly and they would also lose their world currency status.

BRICS and others, want to use gold.

@PuzZuLz said
Gold for wealth and country transactions.

Silver for currency.

@AThousandYoung said
Silver dimes are worth nearly five bucks. What will you use for smaller transactions?

@AThousandYoung said
Silver dimes are worth nearly five bucks. What will you use for smaller transactions?