Is debasement/hyperinflation sufficient for the collapse of an empire or are events such as invasions also necessary?
Does bad monetary policy alone kill empires?
Is debasement/hyperinflation sufficient for the collapse of an empire or are events such as invasions also necessary?
Its basically women, the more prosperous a country is the more wealth women demand in exchange for having kids, at the end it's never enough and the whole thing collapses.
Why do women take 70% of men's wealth during a divorce? isn't it supposed to be 50/50?
Because they’re lazy
> when a woman literally hyperinflates the currency and profits from suppressing supply
Debasement is a symptom not a cause that makes things increasingly worse
it's both
Ancient people didn't even use coins that much. Even in societies were the money system was normative and in common use actual exchange of coins did not happen very often
Silver coins were not used during and after the reign of Diocletian other than to pay soldiers sometimes. It was basically irrelevant in the Late Roman economy.
>Does bad monetary policy alone kill empires?
Yes.
Stephen Zarlenga's book has a few good chapters about the Roman Empire's monetary policy and its monetary decline.
https://archive.org/details/economics-nat-soc-federal-reserve-stephen-zarlenga-the-lost-science-of-money-the_202309/page/86/mode/2up?view=theater
Then, if you want to read even more about it, you can read the sources he cites, Peruzzi's and Del Mar's books would be good next steps.
Zarlenga also talks about monetary attacks on roman coinage and how the ~~*merchants*~~ had an infinite rare metals loop of buying cheap gold in the east and cheap silver in the west.
>had an infinite rare metals loop of buying cheap gold in the east
This was a problem which was solved in Nero's reign with the debasement. It was selling Roman coin for bullion. It was stopped after the debasement
Are you alleging that loop disappeared with Nero's reign? Because that's not true, because the discrepancy continued to exist throughout history and lead to the Byzantines piling up gold in Constantinople which then lead the Crusaders to raid Constantinople, etc. Constantinople used this, Venice used this, the British Empire used this.
We know in 1625 the ratio was still 15:1 in Europe and 6:1 in Japan which would net you a 150% gross profit each time you make the trade.
Because you could take 1kg of gold eastwards, buy 15kg of silver, take the silver back, and now you can buy 2.5kg of gold in Europe.
When you have more gold, you can now field larger armies and pay their wages with in gold coins.
So you ship it somewhere and use it to take out a commercial enemy. If you are successful you can take their gold and silver and accelerate even faster. I'm sure you get the idea by now.
>Byzantines piling up gold in Constantinople
Having reserves does not equate to trying to stop the loss of bullion from a region. That's like saying Scottish Kings attempted to stop people from selling Scottish Gold overseas because they had a Royal cabinet where they kept israeliteels and other precious materials.
>which then lead the Crusaders to raid Constantinople,
Not at all why it happened
Why do you claim it's a problem that was 'solved' during Nero's reign, when that clearly wasn't the case? Nero didn't even do anything to stop it. You would have to control the Eurasian trade routes and its cities to do so.
>Why do you claim it's a problem that was 'solved' during Nero's reign, when that clearly wasn't the case?
Because it was no longer profitable to sell Roman coin for bullion in India after the debasement of gold coinage during Nero's reign. So, it clearly was the case.
>Because you could take 1kg of gold eastwards, buy 15kg of silver, take the silver back, and now you can buy 2.5kg of gold in Europe.
You got it the wrong way around, you would buy 1kg of gold in asia with 6kg of silver, then you would buy 15kg of silver in europe with said gold
Caesar set the ratio to 1:12, not Nero. And it would not change until the fall of Constantinople. A bunch of emperors did introduce new laws regarding coinage and money, though. An emperor would have needed to set the ratio to 1:5-6 for it to no longer be profitable
>Caesar set the ratio to 1:12, not Nero. And it would not change until the fall of Constantinople. A bunch of emperors did introduce new laws regarding coinage and money, though. An emperor would have needed to set the ratio to 1:5-6 for it to no longer be profitable
What does that even mean?
The ratio?
25 silver denarii = 1 golden aureus
aureus was twice the weight of a denarri so 1:12
local vassals would be allowed silver coinage, only the pontifex maximus was allowed gold coinage until the fall of constantinople.
So they set this ratio up in the west intentionally to profit from it? Holy shit ancient people were smarter than I thought
Yes and when some other asian rulers started coining gold they would immediately attack them, especially if the ratio was different
Western rules only started coining gold in the 13th century
>And it would not change until the fall of Constantinople.
The Aureus wasn't used by the later 3rd century and was replaced by the Solidus under Diocletian as the Aureus had became effectively worthless and it was based off of the Roman pound changing from 1/60th per Solidus under Diocletian to 1/72nd under Constantine which would be debased in the 11th century.
constantine replaced the aureus, not diocletian
https://www.citeco.fr/10000-years-history-economics/antiquity-to-middle-ages/creation-of-the-solidus-by-constantine
>constantine replaced the aureus, not diocletian
'Diocletian tried to curb inflation by outlawing it, which failed. He did, however, lay the foundation for a monerary recovery by issuing a stable gold coin, the solidus, which was struck at two weights, one at sixty to the Roman pound and one at seventy.' The New Roman Empire, Anthony Kaldellis, page 43.
So, Diocletian did create the Solidus.
you're not reading, i said constantine replaced the aureus. this is true even if diocletian coined a small amount of solidus
>even if diocletian coined a small amount of solidus
Diocletian did not use the Aureus. Imperial transactions in his reign were done using the Solidus.
>The solidus, the Latin word for solid, was originally a gold coin issued by the Romans. It was first introduced by Diocletian around 301 AD, with an initial value equal to 1,000 denarii. However, Diocletian's solidus was struck only in small quantities, and thus had only minimal economic effect.
Diocletian's Solidus was entirely irrelevant
>Not citing anything
>Ignoring the argument
Del Mar, History of Monetary Systems, pp. 70-99
redditcuck btfo
Why do you keep jerking yourself off every time you do that?
schizo
>Del Mar, History of Monetary Systems, pp. 70-99
This doesn't even talk about how the Solidus was used. It just goes on about a supposed rule which doesn't make sense for the Solidus because it was based off of the Roman pound in gold quantity.
The coinages of diocletian and constantine. the solidus wasn't introduced until constantine's second coinage.
>The coinages of diocletian and constantine. the solidus wasn't introduced until constantine's second coinage.
I have literally provided you a source which says the exact opposite.
And I have literally provided YOU the source which says the exact opposite of what you said, which is what YOU asked for
Idiot
>it was based off of the Roman pound in gold quantity.
>source: pulled out of my ass
The romand pound is the libra, morons
>Pound
Nonsensical term the romans did not use.
Might as well call the solidus a 100 dollar bill.
lmao btfo
I went to school with a guy whose last name was Zarlenga. He was a bully.
Alone? No. Conspiracy theorists like blow the effect way out of proportion, irrationally attributing nearly every event to a da jooz or somesuch.
Currency debasement has 2 main effects.
1: price instability
2: "stealth" taxation
In effect the state is transferring purchasing power from everyone with those particular coins to itself and the sudden change in prices means businesses and individuals use their money less efficiently.
The crisis of the third century began in 235 and the biggest dip before then appears to be from 73% to 57% in I assume a year, so 22% drop in value. However consider this is the value of one coin, and it does not represent the entire wealth of the Roman Empire, just the coins in wealthy people's chests. Like our economy, most wealth is in the form of assets not paper money under the mattress. So even in the worst case scenario it is effectively a tax of a few percentiles on the wealthy and temporary price instability. I don't see how this alone could collapse the economy so catastrophically that one thing leads to another and the empire collapses.
rome used copper coinage at first but their enemies kept smelting it
Would people even be aware of the debasing?
They had to be aware, why else would they hoard all the pure gold and silver coins if they couldn't tell the difference?
Death to all forms of machine intelligence GPT spambot.
Add something useful to the thread then
>"Does bad monetary policy alone kill empires?"
No. British monetary policy was fricked by Henry 8th (introducing fiat currency and debasing it to pay for his naval upgrades) but the British Empire recovered and continued for another several hundred years.
>"Is debasement/hyperinflation sufficient for the collapse of an empire or are events such as invasions also necessary?"
Yes. Many such cases.
You are obviously low IQ, but monetary issues is a symptom of collapse not a cause
Read this
No
stop thinking everyone is the same person moron
> Silver content of coins goes up 0.1%
> Domitian is an economic genius unparalleled in history, and the universal condemnation of mankind is just senatorial bias.