3 ms·

Some currencies have survived for centuries. But that's hardly a concern. When currencies fail, it's usually just another symptom of a deeper problem. Imagine

Some currencies have survived for centuries. But that's hardly a concern. When currencies fail, it's usually just another symptom of a deeper problem. Imagine Germany in the late 1920s with Bitcoin. There would still be mass unemployment, there would still be riots on the street, the Rheinland was still occupied, the government would still have to pay reparations, US companies would still be unwilling to continue investments in Germany. Almost none of the problems were caused by monetary policies. And if a government destroys their monetary system with monetary policies alone, they can just introduce a new currency. That's not a apocalyptic measure.

vintermann 5y ago
> Almost none of the problems were caused by monetary policies. Exactly. In that case, hyperinflation was a willed policy to get at anything of value, regardless of how destructive it would be in the long term, so that it could be shipped abroad (in this case, as war reparations). Making people dip into safe assets, trade them for rapidly worthless currency just to get by, is the whole point of hyperinflation. Maybe an asset-rich person could get by for a while trading directly in his assets, but sooner or later they, or who they traded with, would have to deal someone who was forced to use government currency. At which point they would have to trade something valuable for something (rapidly) worthless: mission accomplished as far as foreign creditors are concerned.
- cedilla 5y ago
  I'm sorry but I can only answer that by saying that it's complete nonsense. It's not even wrong because all its assumptions are historically incorrect.
  - vintermann 5y ago
    I think you should explain what historical assumptions are wrong then? because I have been looking for counterexamples for a while. Can you give me an instance of hyper (say, > 100% monthly) inflation where the government wasn't desperately paying off foreign creditors, or were otherwise desperate to ship value abroad?

vintermann 5y ago

> Almost none of the problems were caused by monetary policies. Exactly. In that case, hyperinflation was a willed policy to get at anything of value, regardless of how destructive it would be in the long term, so that it could be shipped abroad (in this case, as war reparations). Making people dip into safe assets, trade them for rapidly worthless currency just to get by, is the whole point of hyperinflation. Maybe an asset-rich person could get by for a while trading directly in his assets, but sooner or later they, or who they traded with, would have to deal someone who was forced to use government currency. At which point they would have to trade something valuable for something (rapidly) worthless: mission accomplished as far as foreign creditors are concerned.

cedilla 5y ago
I'm sorry but I can only answer that by saying that it's complete nonsense. It's not even wrong because all its assumptions are historically incorrect.
- vintermann 5y ago
  I think you should explain what historical assumptions are wrong then? because I have been looking for counterexamples for a while. Can you give me an instance of hyper (say, > 100% monthly) inflation where the government wasn't desperately paying off foreign creditors, or were otherwise desperate to ship value abroad?