To get to your point: comparisons work for a surprisingly long time, when you compare societies on metallic monetary standards.
It's not really obvious why using eg gold or silver as money should keep the prices of goods and services we actually care about so stable over long times. One explanation I read is that the real cost of mining more gold is relatively stable (in terms of real labour and resources expended).
So if the market price of gold in terms of those real resources goes up, more mines will open and existing mines will work harder, eventually restoring long running equilibrium.
Similar when relative gold prices are dropping.
Another fun fact: modern economies on fiat money spend more real resources on mining gold than classic gold standard economies (like Scotland). Perhaps because people feel more of a need to invest in gold as an inflation hedge?
To get to your point: comparisons work for a surprisingly long time, when you compare societies on metallic monetary standards.
It's not really obvious why using eg gold or silver as money should keep the prices of goods and services we actually care about so stable over long times. One explanation I read is that the real cost of mining more gold is relatively stable (in terms of real labour and resources expended).
So if the market price of gold in terms of those real resources goes up, more mines will open and existing mines will work harder, eventually restoring long running equilibrium.
Similar when relative gold prices are dropping.
Another fun fact: modern economies on fiat money spend more real resources on mining gold than classic gold standard economies (like Scotland). Perhaps because people feel more of a need to invest in gold as an inflation hedge?
See 'The Resource Costs of Fiat Money Exceed Those of a Gold Standard' https://www.econlib.org/the-resource-costs-of-fiat-money-exc...