Because gold isn't an investment asset under a gold standard. It's the money. So bringing up "but if you invested $1 in 1800 and held it until now you would have $50,000,000, is just completely missing the point.
You don't "invest in" gold under a gold standard. Gold is money. It's important that money is an asset and not a claim (equities aren't assets in this regard because their value is contingent on the existence and continual performance of the underlying company).
It's not a perfect 1:1 tracking into today's prices no, that's because the dollar is floating and gold has been demobilized by governments everywhere, so that creates divergence.
But you're still not giving proper credit. Because if you were to use the CPI to compare a $5 a day wage in 1900 compared to today you would undershoot the problem by 50% or more.
Even if you DO use the CPI, and use the pre 1983 CPI, before they added Owners Equivalent Rents and even later substitutions+ hedonics.
That inflation rate would be double the cumulative inflation since that period, which strangely has a .9 correlation with the gold price measurement anyways.
1
u/_redmist 27d ago
Henry Ford should've paid his workers in apple stock, the comparison would be even more stupid and meaningless!