> Is this a straw man or a red herring? Try to avoid your logical fallacies on HN, regardless.
Neither, I was pointing out that just because we used to do things a certain way doesn't meant they were inherently better. In fact, "for much of human history" things were much worse, and we were approaching them in ways that are by and large inferior.
This is a kind of declinism bias or rosy retrospection bias. [1]
> There is a reason. Normal, hard-working people can thrive under that simple system, and wealth inequality does not systematically increase to the betterment of the financially savvy.
You're once again missing the forest for the trees. The unit itself doesn't matter. How much of it you have matters and what you put it to work doing matters.
> Where have you been? I don't know metric you are using to define stability, but keep in mind bear markets are the only periods in American history where wealth inequality reliably decreases as capital is reallocated.
Boom and bust cycles under the gold standard were dramatically exaggerated, in part because no entity could stabilize the medium of exchange. As bad as 2008 was, I guarantee you the Great Depression was worse.
> Betterment, which you linked, is a free market solution to a policy problem, but it's about 50 years too late, and unless they capture 100% market share, they aren't going to solve the problem going forward (and of course they will scoop some nice fees off your savings).
It's not a public policy problem, it's a public policy solution. Your job in a capitalist economy is to allocate capital to the most productive investment. If you choose to abdicate that responsibility you can pay a fee to Wealthfront of Betterment to do it for you, or you can pay a 2% per annum fee and keep it at home.
However, money only has value when it changes hands, not when its jammed under your gramma's mattress. Inflation encourages investment to keep capital flow moving. GDP is in fact money supply times velocity. This is how the economy functions.
> All of your points hinge on CPI being a correct measure of inflation. It isn't.
> The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure that examines the weighted average of prices of a basket of consumer goods and services, such as transportation, food, and medical care. It is calculated by taking price changes for each item in the predetermined basket of goods and averaging them. Changes in the CPI are used to assess price changes associated with the cost of living. The CPI is one of the most frequently used statistics for identifying periods of inflation or deflation. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declinism
[2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/consumerpriceindex.asp