Like many, @JFrankelEcon here treats the 1873-96 deflation under the gold standard as a serious defect. But numerous studies suggest that that period& #39;s downward price trend (an average annual rate of 2.3%) was not itself a cause of any serious strife. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/24/price-of-gold-should-not-determine-us-monetary-policy">https://www.theguardian.com/business/... 1/2

Friedman and Schwartz--neither of whom was a gold bug-- reached that conclusion in their Monetary History. And So have many other monetary historians, most notably Bordo, Lane, and Redish: https://www.nber.org/papers/w10329 ">https://www.nber.org/papers/w1...

A similar point has been made about Great Britain& #39;s deflation of that period: https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9780333049723">https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9... (See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation).">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_...

There are also good theoretical reasons why mild deflation need not be harmful so long as it is driven by and reflects real productivity gains. https://www.amazon.com/Less-Than-Zero-Falling-Growing/dp/1948647109">https://www.amazon.com/Less-Than...

It doesn& #39;t follow, of course, that a revived gold standard would only or mainly permit"good" deflation only, or that there aren& #39;t reasons why such deflation would be more problematic today than it was in the 19th c.

Still, it& #39;s important to not exaggerate the historical old standard& #39;s shortcomings in forming an opinion of its merits.