[fergu]

We rather say the economy is stable, then. If most things go awry after a war, that's not because of the currency and nobody will care about the currency either ... except for traders crossing borders and exchanging currency. In the world market, if currency is treated as a commodity, other currencies count as most things, I guess.

So, you may be right and your parent will also.

[explorer666]

> If most things go awry after a war, that's not because of the currency and nobody will care about the currency either

Then why are you bringing this up? You said it yourself: "that's not because of the currency". It's because the things you buy became too expensive or too cheap. If the currency remains stable, you could still buy the same amount of most things in other countries not affected by the war.

[fergu]

> things you buy became too expensive or too cheap.

> if the currency remains stable

> you could still buy the same amount of most things in other countries not affected by the war

Sure I can, sure, but whether or not the currency remains stable is the very question, not a hypothesis. This is circular reasoning. If most things are still sold in exchange for the currency in question, then that currency is still only as stable as the economy that is selling most of the things, by your own definition of an economy of most things.

I'm just saying you have a dysfunctional definition.

[fergu]

to put it in other words, I'd readily assume a currency couldn't be stable if it wasn't serving its intended purpose, being representative of economic state.

[explorer666]

That's not its intended purpose. Its intended purpose is representing debt. That's why fiat money bills are called IOUs.