Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Stronger" is tricky to measure. "Efficient" is bit better to measure. The introduction of standardized (and "policed") coins certainly opened up commerce a few thousand years back, but in the end it did not stop the Romans from taking over the Greek world, for example. There is a lot more to societies than money. Can you do huge damage to societies from hyperinflation - for sure, but outside of catastrophic failures…
> The introduction of standardized (and "policed") coins certainly opened up commerce a few thousand years back, but in the end it did not stop the Romans from taking over the Greek world, for example. Yes I'm assuming all else equal or when studied over a long period of time. Nowadays we can use our knowledge and intelligence to simply start using better money in advance. > Can you do huge damage to societies from h…
I struggle to see shifts in earning power as a fiat issue. Why isn't it weaker unions in the US or UK, for example? Why not (de-)regulation or any other long list of things. The shifts in power are not a result of fiat or devaluation (why were only a few powerful in times with very hard money?). You can have places where less GDP is in the financial sector and still lower earnings cohorts had a miserable history (or even the median earner). Germany has a rather smaller banking sector than the US, but real earnings over that last 25 years have only moved a little (so has productivity).
The hope that somehow by changing the money a complex set of problems goes away is in error, I believe, and not helpful in addressing those issues. (You can also look at monetary reforms and see that those didn't magically solve all problems.)