alt Hacker NewsHuh, what? Population increased a lot in the 19th century, and many countries did not have fiat currencies back then; and the price level most went down slowly as the population grew.
(Modern day 2%-ish stable inflation is mostly fine for the economy, even if it technically erodes the value of money in the long term. The classic pre-WW1 gold standard was also fine-ish. The Frankenstein gold standard-ish they until the 1970s was bad. And so was the rampant inflation that followed for a while.)
I specifically mentioned that population growth precedes fiat currency. Where's your confusion? I'm explicitly telling you to broaden your perspective and look at overarching political currents across the centuries succeeding the renaissance. For instance many countries also were not so extensively bureaucratized, particularly in how they interfaced with the public, until the late 19th century and early 20th century.
Political evolution is spread over many years and is structurally anisotropic. Metallism's death was inevitable by the 18th century at best, but don't misunderstand that to mean it was going to happen immediately. It's also just a symptom. The enlightenment's political revolution is a manifold spread across centuries. Don't just look at the symptoms, you won't understand anything and it will lead you to half-baked conclusions.