Spot on. One of the greatest fallacies out there (sometimes propagated even by sound-money economists) is that "money is like a ruler that serves as a measurement of value". No such thing exists, nor ever will.https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/1099781274036711424 …
That said, there were a very few trust-minimized monies that spanned many centuries and continents. Gold and silver came closest to being an accurate ruler, and can in some historical contexts and with some cautions and caveats be usefully used as such.
![Giacomo Zucco [I identify as a -e^iπ vampire]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1172971162919415813/Pn8O2gkx_normal.jpg)
-
-
Emphasis on "caustions and caveats". I'd rather use "gold and silver were historically the most stable goods for pricing" than "ruler", as the latter entails the notion of fixed and objective measurement.
-
Yes, it's really only useful for economic historians, since there was nothing that came closer. Think of it as a toddler's rubber play ruler. :-)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.