Yes-_ish_... Historical record doesn't bear that out. We keep using money weeeeelll into hyperinflation. It certainly fulfils this role in the Western world, covid inflation aside

> shove surplus into gold/bitcoin/stocks

That's just one version of the subsequent exchange that I'm talking about though. If the value were falling so quickly that you couldn't get a sufficient amount of gold/bitcoin/stocks, then people would stop using the currency as a MoE.

Undisciplined

That's sort of your value judgement. 

You look up the definition of money, what you outlined as fiat fits that. 

So, I disagree with your method/component but agree with your conclusion that it's a manufactured obstacle 

ZhangJiao

we accept something as MoE because it's value stores long enough to exchange it for something else of similar value.

hm... I don't actually think it matters. Both equilibria work:

I can see pros and cons of both those scenarios, but it's not obvious that, like 

 claims, either of them "fail" as money. They're both facilitating trade, doing money's role.

econ

MONEY CLASS OF THE DAY: Money Illusion and Unit Bias, Bitcoiner style

denlillaapan

> we accept something as MoE because it's value stores long enough to exchange it for something else of similar value.
hm... I don't actually think it matters. Both equilibria work: 

1) produce for money, hold money the PP of which appreciates (like bitcoin) or stays the same (like gold), exchange money for other goods/services. 
2) produce for money, pay bills and consume in same time period, shove surplus into gold/bitcoin/stocks, exchange gold/bitcoin/stocks for other goods/services in the future. 

I can see pros and cons of both those scenarios, but it's not obvious that, like @CliffBadger claims, either of them "fail" as money. They're both facilitating trade, doing money's role.  