It would seem so, yes. But I disagree with the GP’s premise: claiming economies rise and fall based on monetary policy alone is like claiming the Roman empire fell because they debased their currency. It’s a contributory factor, but certainly not the only one.
We’d need to assess the merit of anarcho-capitalism vs collectivist democracy to understand whether disempowering governments would in fact decrease economic stability.
Yes there is a hole in the article. He didn't mention that Germany lost WW1. Every other nation suffered the same problems but they could get away from them without hyperinflation, Germany couldn't because increasing the monetary supply does not repair an economy.
If one were to completely oversimplify everything the roman empire fell into the "war + debasement" bucket though but it also had a lot of other problems. They were actively fighting a war which meant they couldn't control the influx of barbarian refugees (huns drove them out) at their border. They then committed a grave mistake. They deported all barbarians and killed those who stayed. Some barbarians gathered near the border and formed a big army which then proceeded to plunder Rome. The problems didn't start with money, they got worse because of money.
Governments that overspend or misallocate capital are a burden to the economy. With sound money, a badly managed country can go bankrupt because they can't print more money. It isn't the fault of the money, while this is the usual argument. It's just the nature of honest money.
So, it results in destabilizing governments that are overspending, but stabilizing those that are not.
You don't see the side-effects of destabilizing a government as potentially disastrous for an economy? Governments and economies can have many different forms, but there are clear cases where destabilizing one will destabilize the other and ultimately lead to mass suffering for a period of time. Imagine what would happen if a government in a place like the Middle East or parts of Africa collapsed. History has shown that a new government often doesn't rise up from the ashes without lots of tears and bloodshed. What do you think happens to people's standards of living? How much of their time and money do you think it will take just to get back what they used to have?
Allowing corrupt governments continue to steal the wealth of their citizens through printing money isn't a great alternative. At the end of the day people will use the money that works best for them if they have a choice.
>Allowing corrupt governments continue to steal the wealth of their citizens through printing money isn't a great alternative.
How many times does this get repeated? No money is being printed right now. No MMT is happening. No helicopter money is happening. Barely any Keynesian fiscal stimulus is happening (the US has stimulus checks but the EU doesn't and it's suffering for it) and the fiscal stimulus that is happening is financed via debt. No money is being printed right now.
The majority of money that the Fed creates is primarily issued via debt. The part that isn't is used to buy assets that are being put on a balance sheet and the sale of the assets will often remove more money from the economy than it added. QE does nothing but fill bank reserves so that banks lend out more money.
Yeah, and that's the problem. All the debt is basically money that is stolen from people's savings in the form of inflation.
"Financed with debt" that is never going to be paid back. You have to think who is doing the actual financing here, and why they aren't getting interest on their financing.
The world is much bigger than the US and Eurozone, maybe try travelling a bit once covid dies down.
Citizens of Turkey, Lebanon, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Venezuela, Iran, Belarus, for example, all have their savings being stolen through inflation to greater or lesser extents.
Of course, but adopting another currency doesn't make a dysfunctional government any more functional. It's like fixing a wobbly table while your house is on fire... probably not the most pressing problem under the circumstances.
Technically it collapsed the moment land was forcibly repossessed because from that day on Zimbabwe could no longer feed itself. The government merely managed to survive longer than it should.
We’d need to assess the merit of anarcho-capitalism vs collectivist democracy to understand whether disempowering governments would in fact decrease economic stability.