4 ms·

>In 1993, the Treasure Valuation Committee valued the hoard at £1.75 million (about £3.79 million in 2021). Reminder that a Roman likely experienced almost no

>In 1993, the Treasure Valuation Committee valued the hoard at £1.75 million (about £3.79 million in 2021). Reminder that a Roman likely experienced almost no inflation in their lifetime until the Empire started falling apart. Their bread cost the same when they were born and died. Someone living in 1993, experienced their money losing value 2.16X in 28 years. Is this nuts to anyone else? https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/32182/how-important-was-currency-inflation-in-fall-of-roman-empire https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/32182/how-import...

macinjosh 3y ago
It is to me. I view fiat currency the same I view those tickets that come out of a skee-ball machine at the arcade. It is someone else's game that I am playing. The only difference is I am trying to feed my family here not buy a cheap toy so the stakes are bit higher.
cobbzilla 3y ago
huh? emperors regularly debased the currency; that’s inflation by another name. same effect
- User23 3y ago
  No, no it's not. It's not hard to understand why the emperor minting a 40% gold aureus isn't going to reduce the value of my hoard of 80% gold aurei. On the other hand, a fiat currency issuer doubling the money supply can (not necessarily will![1]) indeed reduce the value of any fiat I hold. And incidentally coin debasement in the late Empire was largely due to the empire's economy and thus need for currency growing and exceeding the available supply of precious metals. If only they'd had double-entry bookkeeping... [1] This is because money can't cause inflation, ie drive up prices, unless it's actually used to bid them up.
  - cobbzilla 3y ago
    the debasement was specifically so they could “print their way out of debt” — the effect is the same as with a fiat currency, “more dollars chasing the same quantity of goods” is a somewhat canonical definition of inflation and applies in both situations.
    - User23 3y ago
      I’m afraid you’re being intentionally obtuse. I already gave one example of how debasing coinage is a different operation than issuing more IOUs, with considerably different consequences for participants in the respective systems, and your only response is a libertarian platitude about printing money and a statement about fiat that isn't particularly germane. There has been a historical case of actual monetary inflation in a commodity based currency system and that was in Spain. The treasure fleets brought back so much gold that there really was too much money chasing too few goods and services. It should be obvious that that kind of inflation is operationally a very different thing than currency debasement and much closer to issuing new fiat.
      - cobbzilla 3y ago
        Sorry I’m not going to argue basic economics. If that’s too obtuse that tells me all I need to know. Good luck.
shoemakersteve 3y ago
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, considering the link you provided has a chart showing the progressive debasement of roman currency, but they definitely had inflation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century#Economic_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century#Ec...
tsimionescu 3y ago
The question you're posing cites "historian-philosopher" Stephen Molyneux's podcast. I once tried listening to a bit of that, but it was beyond ridiculous. One of the things he posited was a major cause of the fall of the Roman Empire was the loose morals of women, for which his main source was Cicero. Cicero, who died before the Roman Empire even existed. So I would take anything else they claim with a major pinch of salt, even if they also cite some real sources.

macinjosh 3y ago

It is to me. I view fiat currency the same I view those tickets that come out of a skee-ball machine at the arcade. It is someone else's game that I am playing. The only difference is I am trying to feed my family here not buy a cheap toy so the stakes are bit higher.

cobbzilla 3y ago

huh? emperors regularly debased the currency; that’s inflation by another name. same effect

User23 3y ago
No, no it's not. It's not hard to understand why the emperor minting a 40% gold aureus isn't going to reduce the value of my hoard of 80% gold aurei. On the other hand, a fiat currency issuer doubling the money supply can (not necessarily will![1]) indeed reduce the value of any fiat I hold. And incidentally coin debasement in the late Empire was largely due to the empire's economy and thus need for currency growing and exceeding the available supply of precious metals. If only they'd had double-entry bookkeeping... [1] This is because money can't cause inflation, ie drive up prices, unless it's actually used to bid them up.
- cobbzilla 3y ago
  the debasement was specifically so they could “print their way out of debt” — the effect is the same as with a fiat currency, “more dollars chasing the same quantity of goods” is a somewhat canonical definition of inflation and applies in both situations.
  - User23 3y ago
    I’m afraid you’re being intentionally obtuse. I already gave one example of how debasing coinage is a different operation than issuing more IOUs, with considerably different consequences for participants in the respective systems, and your only response is a libertarian platitude about printing money and a statement about fiat that isn't particularly germane. There has been a historical case of actual monetary inflation in a commodity based currency system and that was in Spain. The treasure fleets brought back so much gold that there really was too much money chasing too few goods and services. It should be obvious that that kind of inflation is operationally a very different thing than currency debasement and much closer to issuing new fiat.
    - cobbzilla 3y ago
      Sorry I’m not going to argue basic economics. If that’s too obtuse that tells me all I need to know. Good luck.

shoemakersteve 3y ago

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, considering the link you provided has a chart showing the progressive debasement of roman currency, but they definitely had inflation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century#Economic_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century#Ec...

tsimionescu 3y ago

The question you're posing cites "historian-philosopher" Stephen Molyneux's podcast. I once tried listening to a bit of that, but it was beyond ridiculous. One of the things he posited was a major cause of the fall of the Roman Empire was the loose morals of women, for which his main source was Cicero. Cicero, who died before the Roman Empire even existed. So I would take anything else they claim with a major pinch of salt, even if they also cite some real sources.