^there is no difference between a government printing currency and a bank loaning money, or a company selling stock it doesn't have, then collecting interest which materializes magically out of nowhere.^

Most of your post is pretty accurate, but this statement needs filling out a bit. Ideally, a bank loans money to someone who uses it to create real wealth. Let's use a farmer as an example, who uses it to buy seed and equipment. The harvest (hopefully) ends up more valuable than the amount of money that was borrowed. The farmer pays back the loan, with interest, and still has a profit. Now, so does the bank. All of it real new wealth. No "funny money" needs to be created. Farming and other businesses in America have run on this investment loan basis for decades. Selling stock is supposed to work the same way.

Ideally, the government borrows money in times of economic stress (war bonds and such), and pays it back in better times from tax receipts on productive activities (again, real wealth). No real harm done if kept under control.

Of course, in reality we are dealing with a government that is paying loans with borrowed money, and gets a lot more people elected with profuse spending than frugality. The equivalent of paying one credit card off by using another. Our debt approaches levels that boggle the imagination.

And in reality, banks have been playing with a lot of gimmicks that don't reflect real productive wealth. Loaning money backed not by productivity, but raw speculation. The equivalent of investing in skyrocketing tulip bulbs in the old Netherlands.

The gold standard (or more practically any connection between currency and real wealth or assets) is the enemy of being able to create money from nothing. Small wonder governments - and too many private financial interests - don't like the idea.