sarai, I think Uncle Alan was just having a bit of fun with those who can't do math when he commented:
"...in the two decades following the abandonment of the gold standard in 1933, the consumer price index in the United States nearly doubled. And in the four decades after that, prices quintupled...."
...after all, that settles out to "nearly" 3.5% annually (<2^.05) for the 2 decades, and about 4.1% (5^.025) annually for the 4 decades (both of which periods included, btw, all of the rather inflationary WWII). No big deal, I would say.
I read Greenspan's speech right after he gave it, and the paragraphs this reporter has carefully snipped from context were offered as small elements of support to an extended historical commentary on Greenie's central (imho) argument that inflation is well under control and has been since it was killed dead by Paul Volcker in the late 70s/early 80s. (no, I don't know when the Chairman became a convert to this particular viewpoint)
The tone of the speech was quite plainly (again, imho) touting the success of the Fed in taming inflation, aot advocating a return to the gold standard, or any other radical moves.
What we appear to have here is a reporter (professor!) who needed a little supplemental income, or maybe just another publication for his resumé, (or maybe he just has a finandial/political ax to grind?) and thus decided to create a little controversy with a fanciful reinterpretation of some comments which, read in context , were pretty darn innocuous.
Perhaps the professor had a little trouble with the math, too? <g>
regards,
phill
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
