The author is confusing cause and effect. The gold market is a minor part of the world economy–there’s no reason to suppose that a collapse in it would have major repercussions. Instead, the price of gold is an effect–that means it’s an (one of many) indicator of what the economy is doing.
No one thinks that the price of gold created the economic turbulence of the 1980s. Likewise, the price isn’t causing any problems now. It does indicate that many investors think inflation is a risk, but the Fed tries to keep the broad-market inflation in control. And current data shows that inflation is not currently a problem and is unlikely to be in the short-term. While there is disagreement about whether the Fed should try to influence some asset classes (real estate or stocks, for example), this is the first I’ve heard anyone advocate using an extremely specific asset as an inflation proxy.
I suppose one could say material commodities should be an asset class that the Fed tries to keep within inflation targets, but I think most economists would say they’re factored into the core inflation rate via the cost of finished goods. Since core inflation is very low right now, the high prices of materials is not significant. (There is debate about whether or not core inflation is capturing the right thing, but this article does not address that problem at all.)