29 ms·
Compare it to gold or silver. It has very stable price for centuries or even millennia, when compared to daily salary of skilled worker.
by throw2738489 2y ago
Compare it to gold or silver. It has very stable price for centuries or even millennia, when compared to daily salary of skilled worker.
- itsoktocry 2y ago>Compare it to gold or silver. It has very stable price for centuries or even millennia, when compared to daily salary of skilled worker. You have to show your work, without to resorting to "one ounce of gold buys a nice suit" kind of stuff.
- throw2738489 2y agoBut it kind of does. Salaries of workers in ancient China, Rome, medieval Europe... are well known.
- seanhunter 2y agoThis is one of those things that people say as though it's a good thing, but since precious metals are a negative carry asset (ie it costs money to store and insure gold or silver) this means that when you take compounding into effect they have been responsible for a devastating destruction in wealth over that time. Even more so if you consider the opportunity cost of holding metals when you could be holding a productive asset.
- SideQuark 2y agoThat's simply untrue. There's been constant swings in valuation of around 20x recorded through the past 3000+ years (and decent evidence this also happened before that). https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-archaeological-journal/article/gold-and-silver-relative-values-in-the-ancient-past/406D8B078C66ACB266932D51A0E2F205 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-archaeolog... Pretty much all of recorded history is local govts trying to fix the price of gold to remove this instability, and in pretty much every case those govts had to abandoned the fix as actual market values caused local mints to implode. There's ample research available on google scholar covering all of these points.