On The Historical Validity Of Nominal Money As A Measure Of Organizational Performance: Some Evidence And Logical Analysis
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.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Hicks, J. R., 1987. "Capital and Time: A Neo-Austrian Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198772866, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpma:0502018. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.