I think this is the worst defense you have ever given that is full of words but no economics.
Economics should be left to mathematicians and not con artists, and I am not talking about you, but those that come up with postulates that fail, and have repeatedly failed.
1) Monetary policy is a tool to be used in case of economic distress. There can be rules so that its excessive use does not lead to hyper-inflation. What has it got to do with fixed length of a metre?
Again, fixing the damage instead of addressing the root cause.
Let me rephrase that:
"You have a small leak in your radiator. You consistently refuse to acknowledge that you have a leak in your radiator. Instead, you keep topping up the coolant in your radiator every week, but never really fix the leak."
Your so called monetary policy is equivalent to this topping up of the coolant.
2) Yes, gold is stable, but how does that make it better? It rather implies no freedom in monetary policy. So, no way you can fight recession. Some counter-intuitive results for you:
The gold standard and the Great Depression | Econbrowser . It shows how sticking to gold standard prolonged great depression.
Gold is relatively more stable, that is the reason why it is better.
Excerpt:
Under a pure gold standard, the government would stand ready to trade dollars for gold at a fixed rate. Under such a monetary rule, it seems the dollar is "as good as gold."
Except that it really isn't– the dollar is only as good as the government's credibility to stick with the standard. If a government can go on a gold standard, it can go off, and historically countries have done exactly that all the time. The fact that speculators know this means that any currency adhering to a gold standard (or, in more modern times, a fixed exchange rate) may be subject to a speculative attack.
I am used to such inane arguments. Doesn't surprise me. Let me rephrase that.
"In winter, a person should wear warm clothes. Under such a rule, it seems that wearing warm clothes is as good as not catching pneumonia. Except that it isn't–warm clothes is only as good as the person's willingness to stick to that rule. If a person can wear warm clothes, he can also take his warm clothes off , and catch pneumonia."
Here is another one:
"It seems that exercise is good for health. Except that it isn't–exercise is only as good as a person't willingness to exercise, because, he can stop exercising anytime he wants."
I guess there is no cure for the mental pneumonia of people who write such rubbish articles.
BTW, I am saying again,
the currency should be free from manipulation. Also, I am saying, yet again,
a currency should be free from manipulation. So, the question of taking it off the gold standard does not arise. Ok, one more time,
the currency should be free from manipulation. Let me know if you want me to repeat this again. Because, apparently, you don't pay attention to what you respond to:
A free market economy does not mean we are free to do whatever we want. A currency is a unit of measure of value. A unit of measure should always be fixed, and for all practical purposes, it should be pegged to something that is least likely to change its value. Alternatively, look at it this way. The currency should be free from manipulation.
3) I will wait for your comments.
Thank you for waiting.