Plainly speaking money has no value as a unit of measure for value.
A meter has no value besides a unit of length, as soon as it is changed by a change to the standard, the new standard invalidates the old one, it is not the same unit of length anymore.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Well... I don't know what to say. What you're writing here is just false. People use money as a measure of value all the time. If someone tells me a craft beer is worth 50 pesos, I can compare that to the amount I earn per week or to the amount a standard domestic beer costs in that bar or in the supermarket. I do get an indication of the value from that. It's not a perfect measure, but it is a measure.
The numbers are a measure of value. The object is a store of value. If I mention the figure "5 ounces of silver", you have an idea of much that is worth. If I have the five ounces, I can keep them and store value with them.
I'm trying to think it through and see your point... Can you tell me this: what are the implications of it? And what should money look like in your opinion? Alternatively, what would an excellent measure of value look like or what would it do?
Okay, but even if I accept that's the case, I have no idea how it will affect my actions or my thinking, how I use money or how I evaluate prices.
It is a unit. It's not a perfect unit. You seem to be implying that's a contradiction, but it's not. A sweater might not be a blue sweater, but it's still a sweater.
Okay, then why did you say "either it is a unit or it isn't"?
I can measure things in pesos and dollars. I do it all the time. I literally do it every day, so I'm not sure how you can tell me that I can't.
That's fine if you say it's not a standard, because a standard implies that it will be consistent over time. But it is a measurement.