I've said it before...

... but it's worth saying again:

What you lack in quantity, you make up for in quality.

I think its important to point out that the "gold standard" you referred to as having been removed in 1971 wasn't the system of gold bullion-backed dollars. That system of currency ended with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and all the gold ever mined in all of human history couldn't back the number of US dollars in circulation right now. The "gold standard" that Nixon ended was the Federally mandated and controlled price of gold on the US commodities exchanges. If I'm not mistaken, it was $39.50 from before the depression era all the way to '71 with no variation or change.

Backing our currency with a commodity might not help, anyway. Even if we reduced the number of dollars in circulation, or revalued them to where they actually reflected US gold deposits, as long as the price of gold remained unfixed... the value of the dollar is as likely to rise and fall as gold. Not much is gained there, is it?

Not to drag the point on, though... your essay was excellent, and covered all the ground very very well. Nicely done, sir. What is so glaringly painful for anyone to see in all of this is that it is going to get much worse before it gets any better, no matter the affiliation of the man sitting in the Oval Office. I'm not sure were at the same point as the Weimar Republic, mind you... but you can bet your bottom dollar (if you'll pardon the pun) we haven't seen the worst that inflation can do yet, either.