This simplistic explanation seems to elide the very point it makes ... a gold backed currency becoming a non-gold backed currency was done via a political decision making process, just as any decision to default on US national debt would be.
You seem to suggest that people should worry about a default claiming if we had still had a gold backed currency the risk would go away ... "if you hold your money it cannot be made worthless by a third party" ... but it can be made worthless by a government any time that government chooses.
The government (having defaulted on gold-backed debt) could simply refuse to convert the paper of the debt to gold (sure, that would be bad, but hey, they've already chosen to default, so not much worse ...)
Oh no! You have found the fatal flaw of using paper currency backed by anything. Before 1913 money was gold and silver. Not paper bills backed by those metals.
Many people doubt that returning to gold and silver coinage is possible. Going to gold backed currency is a step in the right direction.
A full reserve requirement might work for paper currency. But the only way the plebs that are stuck with paper can truly secure their wealth is to use metal the same as countries do.
Congrats on missing my point.
To whatever extent government could return a full-reserve backed currency, government can move away from that again. Thus, there's no builtin security for anyone in a return to a full reserve backed currency.If no government in the history of the world had ever done this, then arguing for a full-reserve backed currency might have a bit more weight. But they have, and it really has done.
the timeframe of losing the gold backing is typically measured in decades, while reserve currencies are used in a day-to-day basis.
it took decades when the US did it. there's no inherent reason for that.