> This is factually wrong. We've been miraculously efficient since 18th century.
Being more efficient than the 1700's is an astonishingly low bar.
Being more efficient than the 1700's is an astonishingly low bar.
So the point is correct - stable currencies have allowed vast increases in economic growth and vastly better standards of living than were possible the millennia before it.
Being locked to other forms of money, such as the rate a country can amass gold, slowed growth to that rate. The current system is vastly better.
"Standard of living" is more complicated than good and bad.