Indirect exchange was not invented with paper pushing central bankers... Read some economic history, even a bad one and you'd know that already. Aside from French experiments with paper during their revolution, hyperinflation is very much a modern, paper induced phenomenon.
There are many, many problems involved in pinning your value system to a random, naturally occurring substance. See [1] for one argument.
Another obvious problem: if we pin our money supply on gold, what happens if we find an asteroid made up entirely of gold - enough to triple the quantity of gold on earth? The person who grabs that gold now owns the whole planet and the entire economy is ruined, even though no actual production has occurred.
As with democracy, paper money is the worst possible system except for every other system anybody has tried.
Notice that I haven't mentioned precious metals once, it's only been imputed by others including yourself.
Nevertheless if that's the road you want to go down then the impact on Spain from it's South American conquest is an example from history that somewhat parallels your asteroid of gold.
And yet where Spain's experience serves as a warning we have to look to the modern central bank and revolutionary France in order to gain a true glimpse of what unfolds when a single entity has in it's possession an asteroid of money. Paper money imposed imposed by fiat.
Subjectively in the opinion of many, gold fails in one aspect that is essential to a functional money in that it lacks what would generally considered a wide demand for "useful" applications. The subject value bestowed on it for being yellow and shiny is hardly considered a virtue but perhaps that says more about the human condition than gold? It does however satisfy the remaining requirements of a money very well. It's detractors in favour of paper should perhaps ask the same questions of their beloved wood pulp and see if it doesn't come up short.
The Atlantic article, is in my opinion weak and childish. I don't blame you for opinions, they are inevitable conclusions reached my the majority of bright minds educated by the system. Having been a successful CFA candidate I'm readily familiar with all the received "wisdom".
If there is one reason I would hope might persuade someone to reconsider the validity of the economic consensus if it would be the fact that I can assure you that if you do a little digging you will discover that the architects of the fiat, paper, fractional, central banking system; certainly agreed with me rather than you.
The reason today's system is so fragile is the their progeny have by and large bought into the economic snake oil that poured through education system to justify their monopoly.
I don't disagree with you at all - paper money is terrible. However, everything else is worse. The only better option is the complete removal of any kind of barter exchange - like a Star Trek economy - but that relies on a lack of scarcity and automation we haven't achieved yet. We are heading in the right direction fairly rapidly though - completely autonomous mines, factories and vehicles are one of the big turning points of the economy and we are very close to achieving that (50 years optimistically?).
