Also I just don't see the point in a gold standard. Currency does not need to be backed up with something material; that is not how currency works. The value of the dollar going up and down is normal and natural. Going back to the gold standard wouldn't solve anything at all and create plenty of problems besides.
Umm, that's exactly how it works. I give you potatoes from my farm, you give me something shiny that I know will be accepted universally. Traditionally, when you have a bill it is more than a piece of paper, it's essentially a deed entitling you to
$x of
y backing item stored in the central bank. Backing your currency on thin air is convenient, and so long as people believe "that is not how currency works" it will work, but it's not perfect.
Think of a town on a river that floods. Traditionally the townspeople only build on the hill, since this was above the floodline. A levy was then built, keeping flood waters out and thereby freeing up much land around the hill. That works all well and good, like the USD with no backing, but if a once in a thousand year flood breaches the levy the townspeople are stuffed. Hyperinflation creates a flood of money through the economy, and without backing, you have no lifeboat.
(Hmm, unless you could paper-mache your trillion dollar notes into one...) Like all things in economics, it seems to be risk vs reward, and unfortunately at least partial thin-air backing is required to maintain our modern economy. Nevertheless, as Bodine put it, I'd love to hear an expert's opinion on why a "backing floor" at 0% inflation could not be kept.