And this is rather interesting: "Bernanke also said that gold couldn't return as the world standard because there's not enough gold in the world to effectively support the U.S. money supply."
I googled-searched and found this from The Atlantic:
"So Bernanke's definition of a dollar is constantly moving, while Paul's would be static. Which framework is better is a far more complicated and controversial question. We'll leave that for another time, but both methodologies have pros and cons."Ah, a punt!
Regardless, it's hard to see the gold standard as a panacea given that 1929-1933 was the worst economic period in our history despite being on the gold standard.