The answer, by the way, is: Yes!
It's human nature to emphasize the points that advance your claims while minimizing the facts that undermine it. We all do it in some degree, and sometimes for practical reasons, such as brevity. But there are limits to cherry picking the facts. At some point your credibility suffers if you go too far and slice your reasoning too thin. Yet that's a risk that advocates for reviving the gold standard don't seem to understand.
When you listen to the arguments in favor of tying the nation's monetary policy to gold, the associated claims for why this is reasonable are often presented as airtight. One example that I hear frequently is the claim that the gold standard's application in U.S. history was virtually flawless in promoting economic growth. The implication: any one who questions a policy that genuflects to a certain shiny, malleable metal is either uninformed, inebriated, or part of some vast big-government monetary conspiracy.
Read the whole article: Is Extremism in the Defense of the Gold Standard an Economic Vice?.
Oh, I love it when I read things I didn't know already and that make good sense. I was already opposed to the Gold Standard for a number of solid reasons, but I didn't know some of the details mentioned by James Picerno. Of course, there are things he didn't mention, but as he did mention: brevity.