Usually there's at least some question of viewpoint, or value judgment, or some other way where two people can reach different conclusions from the same facts, especially in economics. But there's simply no way to know anything about American history and believe that the gold standard solidified its economy.
It's like flat-earthing for economics. I'd have thought that impossible for such a vague and poorly-defined field.
Au contraire.
I don't think a gold standard prevented such a thing.
I do think that it was irresponsible to lurch into the current (post 1970s) arrangement without more thoughtful preparation, or at the least, higher expectations than 'more of the same, slightly ameliorated'.
Claims regarding previous boom-bust cycles (under vastly different socio-economic structures) and wealth inequality (Rockefellers, Carnegies, etc) to my mind fall under the category of whataboutism.
If we've just risen above the worst possible scenarios, it's only due to a poverty of expectations.
We should have done much better.
Look at the boom-bust cycle in the second half of the 1800s. We were on the gold standard. We still had horrific crashes in a perpetual boom-bust cycle. To think the gold standard wasn't giving regular crashes requires ignoring all economic history before World War II.
They may have a fondness for conditions as they exist in their imagination, but the reality of life on the gold standard was much less rosy...