3 ms·

There's a discussion of it here: https://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44517778.pdf https://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44517778.pdf Not

There's a discussion of it here: https://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44517778.pdf https://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44517778.pdf Not sure if it's the same method, but there they say these kinds of analyses are produced by using known exchange rates for different currencies, and then sort of back-estimating the value of the dollar based on those exchange rates. So if you know the value of the USD in 1792, you can use different exchange rates with existing currencies to retroactively estimate the value of the USD if it had existed. Ideally it seems you'd somehow aggregate over different currency exchange rates; maybe they all produce a unique solution, or maybe that aggregate is done some other way.

hbrav 5y ago
If you were to do this with a new currency that was created today, that would not giver you a unique solution. e.g. if you said "well Bitcoin started its existence in 2009, and had an exchange rate of X USD = 1 BTC, so before this date we'll use X USD to stand in for 1 BTC", you get a different solution if you change USD to EUR, or GBP, or CAD, etc. because the EUR/USD rate changes over time prior to 2009. But back around the 1700s, were most currencies pegged to precious metals? In which case I think you have a lot less freedom in your solution (I think you're basically choosing between gold and silver).
- derbOac 5y ago
  I agree it's odd. I could see some kind of legitimate rationale if it were specified clearly, depending on the rationale, but there's some sort of fuzz going on that makes it sketchy. I'm also not sure where the 1635 date comes from -- that implies something meaningful but not necessarily, and what exactly I don't know.
- kd5bjo 5y ago
  > But back around the 1700s, were most currencies pegged to precious metals? From 1792 to 1853, the US Dollar was pegged to a fixed amount of both gold and silver. It seems reasonable to extrapolate backwards in time using that fixed standard, though the changing relative values of those metals might give you some problems. (According to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#In_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#In_the_United_St... )

hbrav 5y ago

If you were to do this with a new currency that was created today, that would not giver you a unique solution. e.g. if you said "well Bitcoin started its existence in 2009, and had an exchange rate of X USD = 1 BTC, so before this date we'll use X USD to stand in for 1 BTC", you get a different solution if you change USD to EUR, or GBP, or CAD, etc. because the EUR/USD rate changes over time prior to 2009. But back around the 1700s, were most currencies pegged to precious metals? In which case I think you have a lot less freedom in your solution (I think you're basically choosing between gold and silver).

derbOac 5y ago
I agree it's odd. I could see some kind of legitimate rationale if it were specified clearly, depending on the rationale, but there's some sort of fuzz going on that makes it sketchy. I'm also not sure where the 1635 date comes from -- that implies something meaningful but not necessarily, and what exactly I don't know.
kd5bjo 5y ago
> But back around the 1700s, were most currencies pegged to precious metals? From 1792 to 1853, the US Dollar was pegged to a fixed amount of both gold and silver. It seems reasonable to extrapolate backwards in time using that fixed standard, though the changing relative values of those metals might give you some problems. (According to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#In_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#In_the_United_St... )