>>18247581
bad for the jews who owned the banks. the jews held debt and the bimetallists held assets like land. if you add silver it would have caused massive inflation which would have allowed the land and other real asset owners to pay off their debts much easier.
It's basically what the jews now want to do, since FDR.
>have the government (or the banks) borrow a ton of money
>intentionally inflate the money by printing more because fiat (and even since FDR we basically had fiat in everything but name) and then pay off your debts with the inflation

>>18247581
Because the values of gold and silver fluctuated at different rates. A currency might be designed around having 100 silver coins because same value as one gold coin, but this would change over time. Either you constantly have to redesign the coins, live with the changing values of each coin (see how the British Guinea coin was intended to be worth £1, but overtime became worth £1 1 shilling, and people just stuck with it). Or keep the coins at their intended relations and get people melting down the gold/silver to sell off since they're worth more than what the coin's meant to be (see the Latin monetary union in the 1870s. This also involved an inverted form of this, Germans in particular would makes tons of LMU silver coins to the correct specifications, convert them to gold coins in France, then go home having made a profit.)
Essentially bimetallism is fine for something like the old British system of coinage, where the value of specific coins was separate from the actual value of a pound. But if you wanted a nice consistent organised system with 100¢ in each Franc/dollar, it's a terrible idea.