>We've been trying to solve inflation for millenia. As frustrating as it sounds, we haven't found the solution.
America solved it in the 1800s with commodity money; the US dollar was worth as much at 1900 as it was at 1800, and there weren't any financial collapses in the 1800s comparable in magnitude to the Great Depression or Global Financial Crisis.
> the US dollar was worth as much at 1900 as it was at 1800
Uh, no it wasn't. From the very first search result I got on Google, a rough CPI measure of inflation would indicate that the US dollar was worth twice as much in 1900 as at 1800, a total inflation of -50% [1].
Now, that's not the most accurate assessment of inflation because the very concept of a single number for "inflation" doesn't work out well when you start trying to compare monetary amounts across decades, and it especially breaks down when you're bracketing the Industrial Revolution. But the broader point here is that the US dollar wasn't some mythically stable thing during the 19th century that somehow galloped out of control in the 20th century.
> and there weren't any financial collapses in the 1800s comparable in magnitude to the Great Depression or Global Financial Crisis.
This is "never-cracked-a-history-book" levels of incorrect. Severe depressions recurred about every other decade, and practically every decade had some sort of Global Financial Crisis-esque financial meltdown. Back then, most of these were called "Panic of <year>" instead of "depression" or "recession", until you got to the Long Depression, which was called the Great Depression before the Great Depression itself actually existed.
If you're familiar with US economic history, far from being a century of economic stability, 19th century American history was an economic roller coaster of soaring heights and terrifying crashes and the transitions between them being sharp, sudden, jarring, and without warning; by those standards, 20th and 21st American economic history is tame. (Indeed, commodity money is one of the causes of the rollercoaster nature of the economy, far from being a moderating force.)
[1] Yes, the sign is right. Because, again, bracketing the Industrial Revolution.
> This is "never-cracked-a-history-book" levels of incorrect. Severe depressions recurred about every other decade, and practically every decade had some sort of Global Financial Crisis-esque financial meltdown. Back then, most of these were called "Panic of <year>" instead of "depression" or "recession", until you got to the Long Depression, which was called the Great Depression before the Great Depression itself actually existed.
This is all true. However, average economic growth rates for the American economy were dramatically higher in the 1800s than they have been in the last 50 years.
> a rough CPI measure of inflation would indicate that the US dollar was worth twice as much in 1900 as at 1800, a total inflation of -50%
Nitpick: you're comparing two currencies that happen to both have been called the dollar.
A dollar in 1800 referred to "371+4⁄16 grain (24.1 g) pure or 416 grain (27.0 g) standard silver" [1]. (To drive home how confusing commodity money is, $2.50, $5 and $10 were defined in gold; cents and half cents in copper.) Because "silver prices rose relative to gold as a reaction to the California Gold Rush" [2], in 1873, the silver dollar was redefined at "371.25 grains" and the gold dollar at "23.22 grains" [3].
None of this, of course, has anything to do with the fiat greenbacks we printed during the Civil War [4] and the ensuing nonsense we had to deal with getting that to play with our metal standards [5], all of which culminated in the Gold Standard Act of 1900 defining a dollar at "25.8 grains of 90% pure gold" [6]. (94% the amount of pure gold per dollar as was in a 1792 Half Eagle per dollar. But again, we're comparing pre- and post-Gold Rush gold. And early industrial versus well industrialised economies.)
The Panic of 1873 and the Long Depression seem to directly contradict you on that. The crashes were maybe not as large but that's because the economy of 1873 was an order of magnitude smaller than the economy of 1929.
No, they were smaller in relative terms too (as a percentage of GDP). The Long Depression wasn't even a real depression in modern terms because GDP kept growing throughout it.
> they were smaller in relative terms too (as a percentage of GDP)
Where are you getting your GDP numbers from? (Our economic metrics for 19th century America are notoriously shoddy. What with the civil war and frontier and all.)
You're correct if we look at GNP. But by that standard, we haven't had a real depression since 1971 [1]. Certainly not one that reduced e.g. steel production by 45% [2][3].
> America solved it in the 1800s with commodity money; the US dollar was worth as much at 1900 as it was at 1800
What? No it wasn't. The value of gold relative to commodities or industrial products wasn't stable over that interval. It would be ridiculous if it had been. Not only were we in the throes of the Industrial Revolution, the California gold rush had just started a two-century boom in the quantity of gold [1].
> there weren't any financial collapses in the 1800s comparable in magnitude to the Great Depression or Global Financial Crisis
Free banking was a constant drumbeat of bank failures, inflation and scams [2][3]. (Also financial crises [4].)
If you want a country that didn't have a civil war in the 19th century to go off, grab a copy of Bagehot's Lombard Street [5]. It's written by arguably the world's first modern central banker. He battles credit crises, bank runs, inflation, et cetera. All while Britain was firmly on the gold standard.
America solved it in the 1800s with commodity money; the US dollar was worth as much at 1900 as it was at 1800, and there weren't any financial collapses in the 1800s comparable in magnitude to the Great Depression or Global Financial Crisis.