“if it is destroyed”
How would you propose that it be protected? Shouldn’t there be some official control over its value to protect the value? What good is a standard that has no degree of uniformity over time? There is no market process which will ensure that the supply of money grows at a rate that will ensure uniformity over time. Since that is the case, the only thing you can do is go to the institution that created the money in the first place, and ask them to make sure that the supply of the money they created is growing at some particular rate. Otherwise, you’ll likely have spurts of inopportune growth, as well as inopportune contractions.
Now, I realize that classical economic theory will tell you that it doesn’t matter whether the supply of money goes up or down because prices will simply adjust to accommodate any level, but unfortunately, the price adjustment mechanism is not that perfect. It takes time, and in the meantime, you’ve got real economic dislocations. Otherwise, we would not be having this conversation because the supply of money would not be important.
Well, as I said the market is dynamic, not perfect.
The problem with putting its control into the hands of men is that they and not millions of consumers make the decisions.
The Market deals with price differences by people who attempt to profit on these and predict what is going to happen next.
The Socialists could never figure out how millions of prices could be made and everything got sold.
Thus, they tried to make the market 'fair' and 'predictable' and ofcourse, they did neither.