If I may, this article is an excellent account of the case against the gold standard. The case for it is that it limits (theoretically) the amount of money that can be created.

More broadly, the lesson from economic history is as simple as it is irrefutable: for the (monetary) economy to function optimally the amount of money in existence must be sufficient yet limited.

With 'paper' money (which is mostly digital nowadays), creating a sufficient amount of money is easy: it can be created in any amount.

The problem is that once money has been created, it is in the economy forever. The amount of money that can accumulate in the economy is therefore unlimited. With the integrated global economy of today, money created in any nation is an addition of money to 'the economy'. (What humanity really needs is a single global currency administered by a supranational entity.)

For the amount of money in the economy to be limited, the 'monetary loop' must be closed: a mechanism must exist for money to be returned to its place of origination. Presumably, that would be a nation's central bank.

So far, no nation has even considered establishing a mechanism for closing the monetary loop. That lack is the root cause of the chronic instability of the existing economy. Establishing a limit in how much money could be hoarded would be no price at all for making the existing economy fully self-regulating (with built-in safeguards against inflation), with no unemployment, poverty, taxes, or public debt and increased sustainability.

Many people over the millennia of civilization's existence have noted the essential problem of money. As far as I know (and I know a lot of economics, including its history), I am the first person to come up with a viable (irrefutable, actually) solution for it. If curious: "Same Economy, Way Better Outcomes for Society" or (for, primarily, economists) "Paradigm Shift" [both here in Medium].