> Those aren't examples of perfect stores of value. In fact, they are. They meet the evolutionary requirement that brought them into being, meaning not too muc

> Those aren't examples of perfect stores of value. In fact, they are. They meet the evolutionary requirement that brought them into being, meaning not too much, not too little. If more resources were expended, that species would be outcompeted by another species who expended just the right amount of time and energy. That's what makes them perfect -- they're ideally suited to the environment and its requirements. > When you view currency for what it is--merely a proxy, the idea of currency that doesn't inflate is exposed for what it is--silly. But a noninflationary currency doesn't undermine the paper money thesis, all it does is change the rules by which one maximizes utility. A steady-state economy, one in which the value of a loaf of bread doesn't change over time, alongside a paper money system in which the value of a dollar doesn't change over time, works much like this one, but with some small differences, like the fact that one can hoard currency without seeing its value erode. If this were not true, people wouldn't invest in gold. Think about it.