That's an interesting comment. It says money is ALL relative.
Why the same logic might be applied to the Constitution -- the Constitution only means what others agree it is! Those others being, perhaps, the Supreme Court, or maybe the Democratic Caucus, or maybe the Trial Lawyers. It's all relative too!
Or to the Bible, why that only means what others agree it means! It has no absolute meaning.
Fiat everything!
Doesn't work. Oh, for a while it does. Sure. Small meanders are transitive. One can find one's way from point A to point B with assurance. But in after some time the accumulation becomes a tight knot of cornel bark, its intricate twists and turns no longer allow any examination of value. There's nothing to say about it besides that it is a tight complex knot, incapable of ever being untied.
Do you see the knot of paper? Of fiat money?
It is there, it is huge, it is complex as all get out.
There happens to be an entire book about, of all things, salt. I read it and learned some fascination facts. Ancient Rome paid it's soldiers in salt. China based it's wealth and currency on it, for more than two milling. They taxed, they used it, they dedicated images to it. There were wars in Italy, for centuries, over its production. There's NOTHING " relative " to my statements at all.
And YES, all currencies are " relative ", in that it's worth what everyone accepts it is; just as with gold, for that matter.
For a lot of the 20th century, gold was worth what our government said it was.That is a fact.
Currencies are traded and they are worth what the market says they are. How else would Soros and his kind, be able to bring down nations, by investing methods ?
But keep right on talking about subjects you neither understand,or know much about. That way, everyone will know to ignore your posts. ;^)