In the literature, nominal money has been decried as a reliable measure. However, before condemning money as a defective measure, it is necessary to examine in a historical context the nature and the role of money in a money economic system, and the changes over time in the types of money (commodity money versus paper money). Using historical evidence and logical analysis, this paper attempts to establish the validity of nominal money as a valid device for the measurement of organizational perfor mance. This paper reveals that: (1) the deficiencies of commodity money (and the historical arguments associated with it) are attributed to paper (fiat) money; (2) in a historical setting, there are very restrictive conditions under which paper money would be a defective measuring device; and (3) under general economic conditions, paper money is a reliable measure.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by EconWPA in its series Macroeconomics with number
0502018.
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)