By going off the gold standard, we abstracted away from the real economy, and moved further away from reality. We measure productivity through GDP, but this increases when we print money, so it isn’t really a useful measurement, similar to a scale always telling you, you’re at your desired weight.

Similar to this, we use proof of memory as proof of understanding, but you can memorize a poem in another language and understand nothing.

Interestingly, Newton established the gold standard after a decade of dabbling in alchemy, failing to transmute other material into gold.

Abstractions are like a lossy compression algorithm in that there are trade offs. 

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-is-a-blurry-jpeg-of-the-web

Trying to process this video. https://youtu.be/BHu5h26c4nc
In it, he says a better measure would be measuring fertility rate or the weight of the products produced.

Founder of venture DAO Chainforest (www.chainforest.xyz). Also treasury Co-Lead @ FWB. Liftcaster. Fashioncaster. Dadcaster. NYCaster. NBA Caster.

Interesting! This is similar to saying that productivity is whether or not you can produce more with the same amount of capital. Where can I explore these arguments further?

I agree that using GDP as a metric of health is more complicated, but I wouldn't say moving off of gold means moving off of reality. We are much better off being able to create money that is controlled by interest rates. Now, productivity is determined by the delta between federal fund rate and ROIC for new projects