Anopheles, the forms of money which meet your definition - “simply a means of transferring wealth, and a common, accepted measure of wealth.”, -include Government defined currencies, gold, crypto, and more. Each is used to transfer wealth and each are common accepted measures of wealth. Yet each holds value to a different extent.

Difference in the way each form of money depreciates, may not be relevant to your assumed 'intent' for money. But different rates of monetary depreciation are far from irrelevant for me.

For example the ability to transfer wealth with a specified amount of gold overtime, is much different than the ability to transfer wealth with a specified amount of fiat currency over time. See particularly the 'Dollar vs Gold over the last 50 Years Chart' at:

What I 'get', is that the rate at which each form of money depreciates (or appreciates), is highly relevant to my financial welfare.

I also get that governments use the violent force of law to limit the forms of money that people in their jurisdiction may use. I further 'get' that the form of fiat money that the U.S. government forcibly limits its population to use tends to further impoverish the already poor and the elderly. You are welcome to decide for yourself if doing so is evil or corrupt.

Your notion that depreciation in the value of money over time is irrelevant does not appear well thought out to me. But, I support your right to define money in whatever way that works well for you. Thank you for your comment.



Voluntarist, Agorist, not Pacifist. Don’t Tread on Anyone. Rely on Hard Assets, Hard Principles, and Hard People

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.