The degree to which these differences are a function of various monetary systems is debatable, but it’s very hard to argue that fiat is worse on those timescales.
You could of course argue that Turkey isn't the US: there are important differences between the countries. And that's true, and surely the differences are relevant to the risk of hyperinflation. But the US today isn't the US of 50 years ago, either — economically speaking, it has a lot less in common with the US of 01972 than with today's Turkey (PPP GDP US$37000 per capita).
The Copper Panic of 1789 for example went spectacularly bad. New Jersey in 1787 declared currency from other states was no longer valid and New York banned copper coins entirely. “At the height of the debasement, there was a 430% inflation rate for copper and commerce ceased, forcing several businesses and manufacturers to close down.[1][2]”
There are lots of historical cases of debasement of coinage, yes.
Also, the top 10 highest US annual inflation rates all occurred before fiat.
1813: 20.3% 1862: 14.8% 1863: 24.7% 1864: 24.6% 1917: 17.4% 1918: 18% 1919: 14.6% 1920: 15.6% 1947: 14.4%
1970-2020 : ~560%
1920-1970 : ~ 94%
1870-1920 : ~ 53%
1820-1870 : ~ 12%
If memory serves, we went completely fiat in ~1974, or roughly the beginning of the 1970-2020 period.
But even including the high inflation in the 1970s and early 1980s (which Paul Volcker famously vanquished), that period from 1970 to 2020 averages less than 4% inflation a year. The four decades from 1982 to now have been pretty good on the inflation front.
Which is much preferable to +20% one year, and deflation another year, as in decades prior.
You say inflation is important when:
* you get a 30-year mortgage on a house. - true, but more inflation is better for you then.
* sign a 99-year lease. - true, but more inflation is better for you then.
* save money for retirement 45 years in the future. - that should not be in money, so the level of inflation is not relevant, real returns are (the difference between nominal returns and inflation).
* buy a life insurance policy that probably won't pay off for 50 years. - yes indeed. Some of them offer inflation protection.
* rent an apartment to someone under rent-control laws that can hold the rent fixed until they die. - yes indeed, good point. Also if you write a mortgage. That does not affect most average consumers, though.
The best measurement of stability is to take the absolute magnitude (1) value of inflation or deflation and average that. 20% deflation does horrific things to the economy and alternating randomly between 25% inflation or 20% deflation would insanely destructive.
(1) 20% increase and 20% decrease don’t cancel each other out you want the inverse for negatives.
You may or may not be aware that during that time period the US went from being a set of mostly agrarian colonies under the thumb of Great Britain to being the world's most prosperous economy, the world leader in industrialization, and the most popular destination for economic migrants, where supposedly "the streets were paved with gold" (a phrase originally used to ironically condemn London).
The overall GDP exploded due to a larger population and industrialization was in full swing, but people where also forced to farm more marginal land in the mid west largely using the same techniques from 130 years prior. The US started with extreme abundance of old growth forests, wild animal and fish populations, and farming some of the most productive land on the planet. The US was considered a land of opportunity for so long largely because there was so much to exploit, but people didn’t move to the west and then Alaska because the economy was booming.
From 1900 to 1970 things far more consistently expanded with multiple boom times, but the Great Depression also shouldn’t be ignored. If anything it shows that a steady and growing economy is largely preferable to one with moderately faster growth but significantly more wild swings.
What leaves you to believe that? And why do you want to move the dividing line to 01900 instead of 01933, when the US went off the gold standard?
Fiat currencies are often stabler than commodity money, but they very rarely deflate. Bitcoin so far seems to be acting a lot like commodity money in this sense; in the sense of prices rather than the money supply, it has currently inflated about 230% from its peak in value earlier this year.
The Warren–Pearson wholesale price index is the one usually used for measurements of pre-WWI inflation in the US, at least by people who don't simply use the price of gold; it is plotted on https://newworldeconomics.com/the-warren-pearson-index/ and appears to be about 80 in 01776 and about 80 in 01891, where they've suspiciously cut off the price data.
Warren and Pearson's book is apparently in the public domain in India and is available at https://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/handle/10973/22256. They did a plot from 01797 to 01932 on p.6 which looks pretty similar: it's about 100 in 01797 and also 100 in 01932. It is indeed 79–85 in 01891. At the end of 01776 in their data table (p. 7) it was 86; at the end of the data table in 01932 (p. 10) it was 95.
So we could say that the average inflation rate from 01776 to 01932 was 0.06% yearly ((95/86)*(1/(1932-1776))). But this is probably overstating the secular inflation rate and is better understood as random noise; at the end of 01920 it was 226 (13% higher than the 202 at the end of 01919, close enough to the 15.6% you quote) and in 01894 it was 70. The same calculation thus gives us an average inflation rate of -0.17% yearly from 01776 to 01894 (that is, 0.17% deflation) or +0.7% from 01776 to 01920.
Warren and Pearson also include H. M. Stoker's data for the colonial period, even though the title is "Wholesale Prices in the United States, 1797 to 1932". It starts at 58 in January 01720 and rises somewhat steadily until 01776, at the beginning of which it is 75 before reaching 86 at the end of the year. Stoker's suggestion is that prices were lower worldwide during this period "due to the changes in the value of precious metal," presumably due to the Spanish flooding the world with cheap American gold and silver from Potosí and their other colonies.
It’s less obvious, but the point of currency isn’t simply to have more value stored as currency which changes nothing. It’s to facilitate the exchange of goods over time. During inflation sellers are reluctant and during deflation buyers are reluctant, both of which are problems.
And while it’s easy to think of yourself as a buyer or a seller every transition requires both in exactly equal amounts.