What is your solution against inflation? The gold standard was proven not work, and it still saw inflation.
If the Panic of 1879, the Panic of 1897, and the Great Depression don't count as "financial collapse", sure. I don't think that I agree with your definitions, though.
> Gold standard wasn't great but in hindsight it actually worked better what we have now.
You didn't specify what it worked better at, just asserted that overall it worked better.
I replied that it was specifically worse at preventing crashes (implying that it therefore was reasonable to question whether it was overall better).
You reply that the crashes were not specifically caused by the gold standard. Perhaps not, but they were part of the way things worked under the gold standard. You can't argue that things as a whole worked better, and then argue that all the parts that didn't work better weren't part of what you were talking about.
Is there any particular reason to blame the crashes on the gold standard? Well, the gold standard prevented someone like the Fed from doing what the Fed does these days to keep them from being so severe. So, maybe the gold standard wasn't the cause, but it was part of the problem.
> The gold standard wasn't great but at least it kept the monetary policy anchored to the reality.
I will agree with you that the Fed policy is less constrained by reality than it would be under the gold standard. I think the new actually works better, but I admit that the lack of constraint is a serious concern.
Was the inflation observed with the gold standard ever as bad as what's seen with government/central bank-issued money i.e. fiat?
So the gold standard failed because it was bound to fail. It was bound on the false illusion that every penny in circulation was backed up by a gold brick, which it wasn't.
It could still have happened, the mechanism is basically the same as in a bank run. If there isn't enough gold and too much demand for gold payouts, the central bank will run out and the system will explode.
The "other" "abolishment of the gold standard" is actually something different: The transition from commodity money to fiat money. Commodity money is when your money is something of intrinsic value such as gold. Stamping coins in commodity money only serves to assure the holder of weight and purity, but the value of a coin is 1:1 the metal value. In commodity money, it is pointless to mint any coins out of metals other than the precious ones, so that transition is marked by the abolition of actual gold coins. There you transit from intrinsic value to putative ("fiat" means "believe" in latin) value, usually through instilling some kind of trust into that coin by payout guarantees (you may still get some gold if you really want), force of law and guarantees of purchase power (a loaf of bread will always cost some fixed amout, or else...) or just plain trust that it will continue to work as it always has (which is the current state of things). So the actual abolishment of the gold standard was quite some time after the commodity to fiat money transition and just exchanged the "fiat base" of a promised gold payout by plain trust.
However, that "plain trust" can only work if the amount of money in circulation doesn't increase too rapidly compared to the amount of goods and services available and provided. Which is why you really really need strict control of the amount of money in circulation, thus central bank interest rates, austerity and other limitations on "printing" of money.
So, inflation under the gold standard was even worse than under fiat at times.