I don't understand how such a simple and straightforward statement I made turned into such a complicated discussion. Given all the responses I read, it appears that the only responder who truly understood what I said is Raghu. How you economists manage to create such complicated discussions from simple statements such as mine is beyond my comprehension.
What I said is not about anything other than changing the numeriare and altering the units of measurement. In theory, I can change the numeriare in any way I like, as well as the units of measurement. If I can do what I say and most people agree with me, I am done, right? In other words, gold money is as arbitrary as fiat money. Therefore, that the world gold supply is fixed or finite does not mean that the world gold-based money supply must be fixed also. As long as sellers are willing to sell what they used to sell in the past for less gold now, everything is nice and dandy, and we all live happily ever after. The question is this: why should the world go with my choice and cope with my changing my mind whenever I want? It won't. But then we have the nation states, an international system of states and all that nice things such as social classes, and from their struggles come a system of currencies whether they are based on some metal or on any other commodity or on fiat. Hence, all moneys are fiat moneys, because they are all social constructs. Best, Sabri _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
