>>11952467
>>11952463
Say, we go further in time. Like, 11th century.
You have just enough gold to buy a mail, armor, a horse with all the acessories and a sword.
Fast forward to now.
If the same amount of gold still gets you all this, it has actually lost a freat deal of purchasing power.
Back in 11th century, if you had a horse and weapons, you were a king. You could pillage villages, face dozens of farmers in a fight and win, then impose tax nd get passive income for life.
Nowadays, cold weapons and a horse are hardly useful.
> if your weekly pay held good in Golden terms you would be making good money
True, steady gold salary would be better. But gold would still lose purchasing power. Slower than fiat, but it would
> So you are saying people has to work harder for that 20$ back then?
Yep. You didnt have that many easy money opportunities as now. I could probably flip some shit for extra $1200 every other day. Back then you'd be lucky to land yourself one of those production line jobs and not be worried about where to go once your job contract for canal digging expires.
> My value was stored for 100 years.
It wasnt.
If you measure gold's value in products it can buy, you need to account for the economic output of global economy.
What part of global economy your gold ounce was in 1900? What is it now?