> The value of the dollar. That is a meaningless metric. The numeric value of a currency doesn't matter. What matters is how much buying power people have. Wha

> The value of the dollar. That is a meaningless metric. The numeric value of a currency doesn't matter. What matters is how much buying power people have. What's the point of having a super overvalued currency if people don't have jobs and it makes it harder for you to export to other countries? > There's absolutely no reason to hold a currency that depreciates 25% every year First, to have one point with this high inflation does not mean that the monetary policy is meant to keep this inflation rate for an extended period of time. So the "every" qualifier from your sentence is a weasel word. Second and most important: currencies are not supposed to be held. Currencies are supposed to facilitate trading, investment and consequently economic activity. It's not a matter of "what governments want people to do", it's a matter of function. If a currency is so stable or deflationary, people won't use it to trade. If then, what's the point? (Aside: this is one of the many reasons that I am slowly selling my position in BTC and turning to Ethereum. BTC is failing as a currency and this "store of value" narrative is bogus. ETH is "digital oil": not meant to be a currency, but a required commodity to run the things on their chain, including transactions with actual currencies) > Plenty of stimulus packages ended up getting injected into the cryptocurrency market. Yeah, so? Plenty of stimulus checks also ended up putting food on people's tables, paying their rent, paying-off their debt... you know, things to avoid economic collapse. > Money printing was the means to their end: spending money they didn't have. > You're essentially saying that when a government has low amount of resources but still wants to spend money the only way it can do that is by printing money. No. you are going at this backwards. "Money" is just an instrument to facilitate economic activity. What Governments are supposed to do (and then we can have a separate debate on how much) is to manage the economy. The fact that terrible decisions were made (like building a city in the middle of nowhere) and wasting resources on things that were never needed leads to the consequence of the government having to print money. > Surely the impact would have been mitigated. Say you have a rich uncle that likes to gamble. One day he tells you he lost $100k one night at the Casino. Another day he is happy, because he made the money back. Some weeks later he goes on to make $200k. Another week, he loses $300k. Later he makes $200k back. Do you measure the "impact" based on the amount of money that he lost (or gained) relative to his wealth or do you just think that he is too stupid to be gambling like that and might risk losing it all one day?