Gold will always have some intrinsic value unlike paper money. It's value will, of course, fluctuate due to supply and demand as well as perception, e.g., fear, greed, &c.

I enjoyed this article. Thanks for posting it! I want to go over his points in order followed by my long comments:
1. Monetary policy targeting 2% inflation causes inflation on the cost of food but not labor.
CG: If four hours of diagnosing and reworking circuit boards is worth a particular basket of groceries, the Fed can't change that. That would be true if you were using Bitcoin, gold, or even if you had the unlikely hypothetical case of mutual coincidence of wants where the grocery manager had a bin of circuit boards that needed troubleshooting. The issue is the value of what they're trading-- the market of grocery stores and the market of diag techs.

2. Lower rates decreases the cost of buying equipment, and some of that equipment competes with labor.
CG: This is a fascinating claim! I'm not knowledgeable about it. It may be true. I think of it as the equipment as being tied to labor, but that may not be true. I imagine a machine operator not making new purchases until the job market gets better. The machine collects dust because a company is afraid to buy it and hire people until its sales (the operator's purchases) improve. Loose monetary policy primes the pump, making it easier for the business to buy the machine and hire people, which makes the job market improve, which makes sales go up. So the machine collecting dust and unemployed worker are now put to use making things people want.

This article raises an exciting question of what if the loose monetary policy in today's automated world causes a company to buy equipment instead of labor, which primes the pump just as I described but only for customers who earn most of their money from return on equity, not labor.

If this interesting idea is true, I still say even in a tight monetary policy environment, the new equipment would have found its way to use. No monetary policy is going to keep that machine from running and competing with human labor.

3. He says the Fed can do it what it wants, but there's nothing “you” can do.
CG: Who's you? Market participants (i.e. you) can see what the Fed is doing and take action. Predicting and responding to monetary policy is a small part of whether someone succeeds or fails. The grocery manager's and diag tech's success is tied way more to meeting their customers' needs than their medium of exchange.

4. From 2011 to 2015 M1 nearly doubled, but gold fell. What gives?
CG: This just shows the value of gold is not stable and is not practical as a measure of value. It's easier to measure value in USD because it's designed as a medium of exchange and has no non-fiat use.

5. Excessive gov't regulation makes it harder to do business, which shifts the supply curve, which leads to a new higher equilibrium price and a lower equilibrium quantity produced.
CG: I agree with this, but it has nothing to do with monetary policy.

Thanks again for posting this article. #2 has me thinking. The tenor of the article reminds me to question the very notion of central banks managing monetary policy. I don't agree with this article or most central bank critics, but I do think there must be a better medium of exchange than what we have now.