4 ms·

So the US government, for example, funded a war in the 1960s by simply printing dollars and not making a good effort to collect the same amount in revenue. This

So the US government, for example, funded a war in the 1960s by simply printing dollars and not making a good effort to collect the same amount in revenue. This provoked currency market crises that led to suspension in dollar convertibility. That's simple and obvious. What's less simple is how any of this connects to the rise in the two-earner household. Prices went up, women enter the workforce to compensate, but demand for labor was stangnent? What then was everone spending on? There clearly are confounding variables that make this an interesting discussion, beyond "pretty rocks".

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the US government, for example, funded a war in the 1960s by simply printing dollars and not making a good effort to collect the same amount in revenue. This provoked currency market crises that led to suspension in dollar convertibility We also did this in the Revolution [1] and Civil War [2]. > how any of this connects to the rise in the two-earner household. Prices went up, women enter the workforce to compensate, but demand for labor was stangnent? Why do you suppose labour demand was stagnant? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_(1860s_money) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_(1860s_money) [2] https://www.amrevmuseum.org/collection/continental-currency-3-dollars https://www.amrevmuseum.org/collection/continental-currency-...