> Which saw 40% increase in median real wages over 30 years. [1]

Which occurred in spite of the Gold Standard, rather than because of it:

* https://econbrowser.com/archives/2012/09/the_gold_standa_1

There were major periods of instability during that period. Growth that is unlikely to be repeated:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_...

> Prices are 475%* what they were 50 years ago, far exceeding price changes under the gold standard.*

And wages would have been worse under a Gold Standard:

* https://econbrowser.com/archives/2012/09/return_to_the_g

> It did make deflation worse. Deflation = Bad is an assumed tenant of modern economics.

It is not an assumed tenant, it is (or was for many millions) a lived experience.

Let us say a farmer had taken out a mortgage in 1928, and let us say his mortgage payment was US$20 (equivalent of 1 oz. of gold). In May 1929 he would have had to have sold 114 pounds of cotton to earn $20 (or 18 bushels of wheat, 23 of corn, 44 of oats). By May 1932 he would have had to sold 369 pounds of cotton (or 38 bushels of wheat, …):

* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030439...

* https://econbrowser.com/archives/2012/02/why_not_abolish

And it would have been the same for selling any good or service: to pay whatever debts you had (mortgage, car/business/student loans) you would have to work more to earn the same amount of money. Is that good?

> And it would have been the same for selling any good or service: to pay whatever debts you had (mortgage, car/business/student loans) you would have to work more to earn the same amount of money. Is that good?

That’s not apples to apples.

Deflation (or at least reduced inflation) means reduced interest rates.