This is excellent—I’d agree. It’s also for this reason that I’d argue not only is this an economic issue, but a political one. Sound money adoption is necessary to restore that anchor, but that’s just one part of liberal democracy’s ‘ship of state,’ to torture a metaphor.

The structural incentives of governance—most especially those in voting systems for a democracy, as they either incentivize or constrain politicians’ freedom to argue the ideas and policies rather than along donor or partisan lines—also need re-stabilization. Here, the ‘truth-telling currency’ is votes, and the method of transfer is less continuous and necessarily more fixed. (The ‘compass, if you will.’) Unless votes can be aligned with genuine preferences (at least, way better than they can be now) and enable politicians to represent constituencies better, liberal democracy becomes unstable. Again—it’s not so much that vote counts lie, but that they are incapable of telling the truth.

Of course, ships still need to go somewhere—and that is the art of statecraft. Piloting a lopsided ship without a working compass and no stabilizing weights makes for quite a challenge. You have the expertise and ability to see far into the future (your eyeglass), but no clue where that leads and a less than stable ship to get you there. It’s unsurprising, then, that we repeatedly end up somewhere other than we intended to go—even with the best of intentions.

(Definitely used the metaphor too long; I hope you take my meaning.)