Hubbry Logo
DebasementDebasementMain
Open search
Debasement
Community hub
Debasement
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Debasement
Debasement
Debasement
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Starting with Nero in AD 64, the Romans continuously debased their silver coins until, by the end of the 3rd century, hardly any silver was left.

A debasement of coinage is the practice of lowering the intrinsic value of coins, especially when used in connection with commodity money, such as gold or silver coins, while continuing to circulate it at face value. A coin is said to be debased if the quantity of gold, silver, copper or nickel in the coin is reduced.

Examples

[edit]

Roman Empire

[edit]

In Roman currency, the value of the denarius was gradually decreased over time as the Roman government altered both the size and the silver content of the coin.[1] Originally, the silver used was nearly pure, weighing about 4.5 grams. From time to time, this was reduced. During the Julio-Claudian dynasty, the denarius contained approximately 4 grams of silver, and then was reduced to 3.8 grams under Nero. The denarius continued to shrink in size and purity, until by the second half of the third century, it was only about 2% silver, and was replaced by the Argenteus.

Ottoman Empire

[edit]

Weight of akçe in grams of silver and index.[2]

Year Silver (g) Index
1450–60 0.85 100
1490–1500 0.68 80
1600 0.29 34
1700 0.13 15
1800 0.048 6

Siam and Thailand

[edit]
Debasement of Thai Currency

Throughout Thai history, the silver content of the Siamese currency was quite pure, hovering around 0.900 fineness ever since its adoption in 1238 AD. There were various debasements of the silver content of these coins. Initially, the composition was 0.900 fineness, which was debased to 0.800 in 1915. In 1918, during World War I, silver prices surged, leading to a change in the composition to 0.650. In 1919, the silver percentage dropped further to 0.500. After the war, in 1919, the composition returned to 0.650. In 1917, the price of silver rose and exceeded the face value of silver coins. The coins were then melted down and sold. The government solved this by changing the pure silver coin to alloy. Rama VI eventually forbade exports of Siamese coins. In 1918, the usage of 1-baht coins was nullified and 1-baht banknotes were introduced. Coins were recalled and kept as a national reserve, while the lower denominated silver coin were sill minted, which was seen when Rama VII coin was produced in two silver coin: 50 Satang and 25 Satang in 0.650 fineness.

After World War II, the silver content of the coin was debased to 0.030, and was subsequently depegged from silver after 1962.

Effects

[edit]

Debasement lowers the intrinsic value of the coinage and so more coins can be made with the same quantity of precious metal. If done too frequently, debasement may lead to a new coin being adopted as a standard currency, as when the Ottoman akçe was replaced by the kuruş (1 kuruş = 120 akçe), with the para (1/40 kuruş) as a subunit. The kuruş in turn later became a subdivision of the lira.

Methods

[edit]
See also: Coin counterfeiting and Counterfeit money

An administrative method to debase currency is for the mint to start issuing coins of a certain face value, but with less metal content than previous issues. There will be an incentive to bring the old coins to the mint for re-minting – see Gresham's law. A revenue, called seigniorage, is made on this minting process.

A 16th or 17th century hoard of coin clippings discovered in Derbyshire and recorded in the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

When done by an individual, precious metal was physically removed from the coin, which could then be passed on at the original face value, leaving the debaser with a profit. This physical debasement was effected by several methods, including clipping (shaving metal from the coin's circumference) and sweating (shaking the coins in a bag and collecting the dust worn off).

Until the mid-20th century, coins were often made of silver or (rarely) gold, which were quite soft and prone to wear. This meant coins naturally got lighter (and thus less valuable) as they aged, so coins that had lost a small amount of bullion would go unnoticed. Modern coins used as currency are made of hard, cheap metals such as steel, copper, or a copper-nickel alloy, reducing wear and making it difficult and unprofitable to debase them.

Coin clipping

[edit]
Shears used for coin clipping in the 17th century

Clipping is the act of shaving off a small portion of a precious metal coin for profit. Over time, the precious metal clippings could be saved up and melted into bullion or used to make new coins.[3][4]

Coin clipping was usually considered by the law to be of a similar magnitude to counterfeiting, and was occasionally punished by death,[3][5][6] a fate which befell English counterfeiters Thomas Rogers and Anne Rogers in 1690.[7] Even among pirates, clipping coins was considered a serious breach of trust. Henry Avery's pirate fleet attacked the treasure ship Gunsway in 1695 and netted one of the largest pirate captures in history. When fellow pirate William May's crew were found to have traded clipped coins to Avery's crew, Avery took back nearly all the treasure he had shared with May and his men and sent them away.[8]

Coin clipping is why many coins have the rim of the coin marked with stripes (milling or reeding), text (engraving) or some other pattern that would be destroyed if the coin were clipped. This practice is attributed to Isaac Newton, who was appointed Master of the Royal Mint 1699.[9] Although most modern fiat coins are unprofitable to clip, modern milling can be a deterrent to counterfeiting, an aid to the blind to distinguish different denominations, or purely decorative.

Comparison of unclipped and clipped Siliqua from the Hoxne Hoard
  • A silver coin in the centre a helmeted head surrounded by a circle of inscription with edging between that and the rim.
    An unclipped siliqua
  • A smaller silver coin in the centre a head - still a fairly round coin but the inscription is not intact and there is no space between it and the rim
    A clipped siliqua
  • A small silver coin mostly consisting of a human head and shoulders. The shape is irregular and there is only a vestige of writing.
    A further clipped siliqua

Sweating

[edit]
Modern example of a sweated silver coin

In the process of sweating, coins were placed in a bag and shaken. The bits of metal that had worn off the coins were recovered from the bottom of the bag.[10] Sweating tended to wear the coin in a more natural way than clipping, and so was harder to detect.[11]

Plugging

[edit]

If the coin was large, a hole could be punched out of the middle, and the face of the coin hammered to close up the hole.[12] Or the coin could be sawn in half, and a plug of metal extracted from the interior. After filling the hole with a cheaper metal, the two halves would be welded back together again.[13] Verbal references to plugged quarters and plugged dimes eventually yielded the common phrase "not worth a plugged nickel" (or 'plug nickel', or even a plugged cent), emphasizing the worthlessness of such a tampered coin.[14]

[edit]
  • "Debasement" is also sometimes used to refer to the tendency of silver or gold coins to be "shaved", that is, to have small amounts shaved off the edges of the coins by unscrupulous users, thereby reducing the actual precious metal content of the coin. In order to prevent this, silver and gold coins began to be produced with milled edges, as many coins still do by tradition, although they no longer contain valuable metals. For example, the U.S. quarter and dime have milled edges. Coins that have traditionally been made purely of base metals, such as the U.S. nickel or the penny, are more likely to have unmilled edges.
  • By analogy, "debased currency" is sometimes used for anything whose value has been reduced, such as "Stardom is an utterly debased currency" [15]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Debasement

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
![Decline in silver fineness of early Roman Imperial coins illustrating debasement][float-right] Debasement is the deliberate reduction of a currency's intrinsic value, historically achieved by mints lowering the content in coins while maintaining their nominal , and in contemporary systems through excessive expansion of the money supply. This practice enables governments to finance expenditures, such as wars or deficits, without immediate recourse to taxation or borrowing, effectively transferring wealth from holders of the to the state via . Throughout history, debasement has been a recurring fiscal with profound economic repercussions, often precipitating , erosion of , and diminished public confidence in monetary systems. In , Emperor initiated widespread debasement around 60 A.D. by reducing the silver content of the from near-pure to about 90%, a trend that accelerated under subsequent emperors, contributing to economic instability and the empire's eventual fiscal woes. Similarly, England's under and in the involved alloying silver and gold coins, leading to rapid price increases and market disruptions until reforms restored standards. The economic effects of debasement extend beyond short-term fiscal relief, frequently resulting in higher prices for as the diluted chases the same volume of output, disproportionately harming savers and fixed-income recipients while benefiting debtors. In extreme cases, unchecked debasement has fueled and currency collapses, underscoring its role as a malefactor in long-term economic health rather than a sustainable policy tool. Modern parallels in currencies highlight ongoing risks, where , absent corresponding gains, mirrors historical dilutions and invites similar inflationary pressures.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Historical Origins

Currency debasement denotes the deliberate dilution of a currency's intrinsic value, historically achieved by reducing the precious metal content or weight of coins while preserving their . This allowed minting authorities to expand the money supply from finite stocks, often to meet fiscal demands such as warfare or public spending. In commodity-based systems, debasement typically involved alloying silver or with baser metals like , thereby enabling the production of additional coins without acquiring more precious material. The practice emerged shortly after the advent of coined money in the ancient Near East around the 7th century BCE, with rulers exploiting minting monopolies to surreptitiously lower standards. One of the earliest recorded instances transpired in in 412 BCE amid the , where the resorted to issuing silver-plated coins—contrasting the renowned pure-silver owl tetradrachms—to finance naval operations, an act decried in contemporary literature like Aristophanes' for eroding trust in the currency. In the , debasement gained prominence under Emperor (r. 54–68 CE), who around 64 CE initiated reforms diminishing the ' silver fineness from near 98% purity to roughly 90% and reducing its weight from about 3.9 grams to 3.4 grams. These adjustments marked an early imperial shift toward systematic monetary manipulation, setting precedents for subsequent emperors facing analogous pressures, though Nero's measures were relatively modest compared to the severe dilutions of the CE. Such origins underscore debasement's role as a recurring expedient in pre-modern , often precipitating inflationary spirals despite short-term gains.

First-Principles Mechanisms

Currency maintains value through and the intrinsic worth of its backing , such as precious metals, which limits supply relative to economic output. Debasement occurs when authorities dilute this standard by reducing metal content in coins or expanding supply without corresponding value addition, effectively increasing nominal units while eroding real . This mechanism exploits the difference between production costs and , yielding profits that enable governments to fund expenditures—such as wars or deficits—without overt taxation, as the dilution transfers wealth from holders to issuers stealthily. The causal chain proceeds via quantity theory dynamics: an excess money supply relative to goods prompts price rises, as more units compete for fixed resources, diminishing each unit's command over commodities. Empirical patterns confirm this, with debasements historically correlating to inflationary surges, though lags occur due to sticky prices and initial hoarding. amplifies distortions, stating that when inferior (debased) money circulates at parity with superior money via mandates, users expend the bad while retaining the good, depleting high-quality currency from circulation and fostering reliance on degraded standards. This hoarding incentivizes further debasement, as circulating coins bear the burden of transactions, accelerating systemic erosion. Institutional incentives underpin persistence: rulers facing fiscal pressures opt for debasement over politically costly alternatives like hikes, as it disperses costs across holders diffusely while concentrating benefits. Over time, repeated dilutions undermine trust in the monetary unit, prompting shifts or alternative stores of value, though short-term stimuli—like illusory effects—may temporarily boost activity before full adjustment. These mechanisms reveal debasement not as neutral but as a redistributive tool with predictable inflationary and allocative consequences.

Methods of Debasement

Physical Techniques in Coinage

Physical techniques of debasement in coinage encompassed both official manipulations during minting and illicit alterations after circulation, aimed at extracting or diluting precious metals while preserving nominal value. Official methods primarily involved reducing the coin's weight, diameter, or by alloying or with base metals such as , thereby lowering the intrinsic metallic content without altering the inscribed denomination. For instance, initiated systematic debasement in 64 AD by decreasing the silver purity of the from nearly pure to approximately 93.5%, a process repeated and intensified by subsequent emperors, culminating in the coin containing less than 5% silver by the AD. This alloying diluted the currency's value, enabling the issuance of more coins from fixed metal stocks to fund expenditures. Illicit physical techniques, often perpetrated by individuals or organized groups, included coin clipping, sweating, and plugging, which mechanically removed metal from circulating coins for personal gain. Coin clipping entailed using shears or files to shave small slivers from the edges of coins, particularly those with irregular or hand-hammered borders, allowing clippers to amass shavings for melting into or new coins while passing the lightened originals at full value. This practice was rampant in medieval , contributing to monetary instability; in during the 1270s under Edward I, widespread clipping prompted mass arrests, executions, and a major recoinage in 1279 to restore trust in the currency. Sweating involved placing coins in a with an abrasive material and shaking them to erode edges gradually, collecting the resulting filings similarly to clipping shavings. Plugging, more common with thicker gold coins, consisted of drilling out a central core, replacing it with a plug, and re-engraving the surface to conceal the alteration. These techniques exploited the reliance on weight and appearance for valuation in pre-modern economies, where assays were infrequent, leading to cumulative debasement as altered coins recirculated. Archaeological evidence, such as clipped Roman from the (circa 5th century AD), illustrates the prevalence of edge trimming in , with coins showing irregular shapes and diminished margins. To combat such , authorities eventually introduced milled edges and mechanized minting in the , as during England's , which standardized coin integrity and reduced clipping incentives. Despite punitive measures, including death penalties in Tudor England, physical debasement persisted until technological safeguards rendered it inefficient.

Institutional and Policy-Based Approaches

Institutional and policy-based debasement refers to systematic reductions in value enacted through governmental decrees, legislative acts, or operations, distinct from unauthorized physical alterations like clipping. These methods leverage sovereign authority to expand the supply or diminish intrinsic backing, often to finance expenditures without raising taxes directly. In commodity-based systems, policies mandated lower content in coins; in regimes, they enable unchecked issuance of unbacked , leading to as the primary mechanism of value erosion. A prominent historical example is England's (1544–1551), initiated by royal proclamation under to fund wars against and , as well as the dissolution of monasteries. The policy directed the Royal Mint to progressively reduce silver fineness from 92.5% in 1542 to 83% by 1544, 50% in 1546, and as low as 25% by 1548, while increasing the number of coins struck from fixed stocks; this generated an estimated £1.3 million in profit for the crown but triggered price inflation exceeding 300% in some goods by 1550. The debasement was reversed under and Mary I, restoring standards by 1551 to stabilize the economy. In the 20th century, policy-driven debasement shifted to fiat frameworks, exemplified by the U.S. , which legislated the removal of 90% silver from dimes and quarters (previously 2.5 grams and 6.25 grams per coin, respectively), substituting copper-nickel clad compositions while preserving face values; this facilitated deficit financing amid rising silver prices and costs, with the gaining value from recaptured bullion. Modern central bank policies, such as (QE), further exemplify this approach: the Federal Reserve's QE1–QE3 programs (2008–2014) involved creating over $3 trillion in new reserves to buy and mortgage-backed securities, expanding the from $1.7 trillion to $4 trillion and prompting debates on induced and weakening, though official remained below 2% annually due to velocity declines. Critics, including economists at the , argue such expansions function as a covert inflation tax, transferring wealth from savers to debtors via purchasing power loss without explicit consent. These policies often depend on legal tender statutes, which compel acceptance of debased units at par, suppressing and prolonging the effects; for instance, U.S. law under 31 U.S.C. § 5103 requires payment in notes for debts, insulating expansions from immediate repudiation. Empirical patterns show systems prone to debasement, with growth outpacing output in most post-1971 cases, correlating with cumulative U.S. dollar loss of over 85% since then.

Economic and Social Effects

Short-Term Consequences

Debasement initiates inflationary pressures as the expanded exceeds the available goods, prompting merchants and consumers to raise s rapidly to maintain real value. This effect manifests within months, as seen in historical coin reductions where clipped or alloyed currency flooded markets, devaluing transactions and eroding immediate for savers and wage earners. Fixed-income recipients, such as pensioners or bondholders, experience the sharpest short-term losses, while early recipients of new money—often government or connected elites—gain a temporary advantage before price adjustments propagate. Gresham's law activates promptly, with individuals hoarding full-weight coins and circulating debased ones, which disrupts everyday exchange and fosters black-market premiums for sound money. In medieval and , coin clipping spurred widespread testing of specie at scales and led to transaction delays, as traders demanded verification to avoid losses, thereby slowing commerce and increasing costs. Governments may secure short-term revenues from minting lighter coins, funding deficits without immediate tax hikes, but this often triggers evasion like private clipping, amplifying supply and hastening distrust. Socially, short-term debasement correlates with heightened uncertainty, as households ration spending and shift to or foreign currencies, while speculative diverts capital from productive uses. Empirical records from England's under (1544–1551) show price spikes of 2–3 times within a year of major reductions, alongside merchant complaints of uneven coin quality that hampered fairs and markets. These dynamics create a feedback loop where perceived instability accelerates velocity of debased money, intensifying before long-term adaptations emerge.

Long-Term Ramifications

Prolonged currency debasement fosters chronic that erodes the of savings and wages over decades, disproportionately harming fixed-income households and retirees while benefiting debtors, including governments, through implicit wealth transfers. This dynamic discourages productive long-term investments, as individuals and firms prioritize hedges like or commodities over ; debasement can drive nominal gains in equity markets through monetary expansion but exposes equities to downturns upon tightening or reversal, while commodities and mining equities offer leveraged hedges against ongoing value erosion. These shifts lead to resource misallocation and subdued . Empirical analyses of historical episodes, such as the Roman Empire's silver reduction from near-pure content in the CE to under 5% by the , demonstrate how sustained debasement amplified fiscal pressures, necessitating higher taxes and contributing to systemic economic contraction. Socially, repeated debasement undermines public trust in monetary institutions, often culminating in capital controls, black markets, or shifts to alternative currencies, as savers seek preservation of value amid accelerating price instability. In the Roman context, this erosion of confidence exacerbated , with urban populations facing food shortages and , while elites hoarded precious metals, fostering resentment and weakening social cohesion over generations. Long-term, such policies correlate with heightened inequality, as acts as a on the non-asset-owning majority, potentially seeding political instability or demands for radical fiscal reforms. Institutionally, debasement entrenches dependency on inflationary financing, perpetuating cycles of accumulation and policy reversals that hinder ; for instance, post-debasement recoveries in pre-modern economies often required monetary resets or conquests to restore , delaying institutional evolution. Modern parallels, including the U.S. dollar's 96% value loss since due to expansion, illustrate how long-run debasement can diminish a currency's global reserve status, inviting competitive devaluations and geopolitical tensions. Ultimately, unchecked debasement risks hyperinflationary spirals, as seen in theoretical models and historical precedents, where surges amplify price disruptions, collapsing networks and prompting societal reconfiguration.

Historical Case Studies

Roman Empire Debasement

The debasement of Roman coinage during the imperial period primarily involved the gradual reduction of silver content in the denarius, the empire's principal silver coin, beginning under Emperor Nero in 64 AD. Nero reduced the pure silver content of the denarius from approximately 3.9 grams to 3.4 grams, lowering the fineness from near 98% to about 90% by alloying with copper, while also slightly decreasing the coin's overall weight to 3.41 grams. This reform financed reconstruction after the Great Fire of Rome, military expenditures, and Nero's lavish spending, marking the first significant imperial debasement after a period of relative stability under the Julio-Claudians. Subsequent emperors, including and the in the early 3rd century AD, continued minor adjustments, but systemic debasement accelerated during the Crisis of the Third Century (235–284 AD) amid civil wars, invasions, and fiscal pressures. The introduction of the under around 215 AD, intended as a double-denarius but containing less silver, exacerbated the trend, with silver dropping to 50% or lower by the 250s AD under emperors like . By the late 3rd century, coins often contained under 5% silver, effectively becoming with a silver wash, as rulers minted vast quantities to pay legions and cover deficits without sufficient reserves. These practices stemmed from chronic budget shortfalls caused by overextended commitments, administrative , and declining revenues, prompting emperors to exploit by producing more coins from fixed metal stocks. The economic consequences included , with prices rising exponentially—wheat costs, for instance, increased over 1,000% in some regions between the 3rd and 4th centuries—eroding , particularly for fixed-income soldiers and civilians. Loss of monetary confidence led to economies, of earlier pure coins, and social instability, contributing to the empire's fragmentation, though not as the sole causal factor amid broader structural weaknesses. Attempts at reform, such as Aurelian's stabilization around 270 AD by reintroducing a silvered with about 4% silver, and Diocletian's edict of 301 AD imposing alongside new coinage, provided temporary relief but failed to reverse entrenched inflationary dynamics until Constantine's solidus reforms in the early 4th century. Debasement thus exemplified how short-term fiscal expedients undermined long-term in the .

Ottoman Empire Practices

The 's primary currency was the , a introduced in the late , which served as the standard until the . Sultans periodically debased it by reducing its silver content and weight to generate revenue amid fiscal pressures, such as military campaigns and administrative costs, rather than through taxation or borrowing. This practice was state-directed via the imperial mint in , where officials alloyed coins with more base metals like , lowering from near-pure silver (around 0.83 fineness initially) to as low as 0.10 by the late . Medieval debasements remained modest compared to contemporary Western , with silver content reductions typically under 20% per episode, preserving relative stability until the . A major debasement crisis erupted in the 1580s under Sultan Murad III (r. 1574–1595), driven by war expenditures against the Safavids and Habsburgs. In 1585–1586, the 's silver content was slashed by approximately 44% between 1566 and 1600, rendering coins smaller, lighter, and of diminished intrinsic value, which accelerated and eroded public trust. This prompted widespread unrest, including the Beylerbeyi in April 1589, where artisans and soldiers protested the policy's role in price surges for essentials like grain, leading to partial reversals and the execution of fiscal officials. Janissaries in also mutinied in response, highlighting how debasement exacerbated regional inequalities as debased coins circulated unevenly. The most severe episode, known as the Great Ottoman Debasement (1808–1844), occurred under Sultan Mahmud II (r. 1808–1839) amid Greek independence wars and centralizing reforms. The silver (introduced in the 17th century as a multiple of the ) saw its fineness and weight repeatedly lowered, with the against the British pound deteriorating from 8 per pound in 1808 to 104 by 1839, representing the highest debasement rates in Ottoman history. Fiscal deficits from military modernization prompted these measures, yielding short-term revenue but fueling —prices rose over 1,000% in some sectors—and prompting with stable foreign coins like the Dutch lion dollar. Reforms under the era (post-1839) stabilized the system by adopting fixed standards and European minting techniques, though legacy effects included persistent monetary instability until the empire's collapse. Throughout, debasement avoided outright coin clipping by private actors, which was punishable by death under Islamic law, but state actions mirrored its effects by systematically diluting metallic value.

Other Pre-Modern Instances

In the , currency debasement accelerated after the , with the gold (solidus) undergoing significant reduction in purity. During the reign of from 1042 to 1055, the coin's gold content was debased, ending over seven centuries of relative stability in standards and contributing to broader economic strains. By the 13th century, following the empire's restoration in 1261, rulers continued issuing debased gold coins, with purity declining further to as low as 14 carats (58% gold) under later emperors like . Medieval European monarchies frequently resorted to debasement to fund warfare and fiscal deficits, particularly in and during the later . In , widespread debasements from the 13th to 15th centuries reduced silver content in coinage, correlating with demographic declines and economic disruptions such as those following the . A notable example occurred under Edward III in the 1340s, where silver was lowered to finance the , leading to and loss of public trust in the currency. In , similar policies under Philip IV (the Fair) around 1300 involved clipping and alloying coins, exacerbating monetary instability amid royal expenditures. The Tudor-era in England from 1542 to 1551 under represented an extreme instance, with ten successive reductions lowering silver from 92.5% to as little as 25% in some denominations to support military campaigns and palace constructions. This policy increased revenues short-term but triggered rapid , estimated at over 300% in coin values, before partial reversals under . In ancient and imperial , dynasties periodically debased bronze coinage amid fiscal pressures, as seen in the late Ming period (1500–1644), where inferior coins flooded circulation, undermining and contributing to alongside silver inflows from . Earlier, during the Western (206 BCE–9 CE), imperial monopolies on minting enabled subtle debasements of ban liang coins, though reforms under Emperor Wu sought to standardize weights to combat counterfeiting and wear. Such practices often reflected declining state fortunes, with reduced metal content signaling broader institutional weaknesses.

Modern Manifestations

Transition to Fiat Currencies

The Bretton Woods Agreement of July 1944 established a post-World War II in which the was pegged to at $35 per ounce, with other major currencies fixed to the dollar at specified par values, facilitating global trade stability through partial gold convertibility. This system imposed constraints on monetary expansion, as U.S. authorities were obligated to redeem dollars for gold held by foreign central banks, limiting deficit-financed spending. However, by the late 1960s, persistent U.S. balance-of-payments deficits—exacerbated by expenditures on the and domestic programs—increased dollar holdings abroad, eroding confidence and prompting gold redemptions that depleted U.S. reserves from 574 million ounces in 1945 to 261 million by 1971. On August 15, 1971, President announced the suspension of dollar convertibility into gold, a unilateral action known as the , which effectively dismantled the Bretton Woods framework without prior international consultation. This decision addressed immediate pressures from speculative attacks on the dollar and gold drains but severed the nominal link between major currencies and commodities, transitioning the global economy toward systems where value derives primarily from government decree and public acceptance rather than intrinsic backing. By 1973, the remaining fixed exchange rates collapsed, ushering in widespread floating rates among industrialized nations. The shift to fiat currencies removed the disciplinary mechanism of gold convertibility, enabling central banks to expand supplies more freely to accommodate fiscal policies, which economists like those critiquing the "monetary sin" of excess liquidity issuance argue facilitated modern debasement through sustained rather than metallic dilution. Post-1971, U.S. consumer price averaged 4.1% annually through the 1970s, peaking at 13.5% in 1980 amid oil shocks and loose policy, contrasting with the near-zero inflation under the classical from 1870 to 1914. This transition prioritized short-term policy flexibility—such as countering recessions via quantitative easing precursors—but amplified risks of currency value erosion, as governments could issue unbacked liabilities without automatic reserve drains, a dynamic historically linked to fiscal profligacy. Empirical analyses indicate that regimes have correlated with higher volatility and cumulative price level increases, with the U.S. dollar losing over 85% of its since 1971.

Central Bank Policies and Inflation

Central banks, through policies such as (QE) and adjustments to interest rates and reserve requirements, expand the in fiat currency systems, effectively debasing the currency by reducing its over time. This process mirrors historical debasement but occurs without altering metal content, instead relying on increasing the quantity of money relative to , as posited by the (MV = PQ), where an rise in M () tends to elevate P () if velocity (V) and output (Q) remain relatively stable. supports this causal link, particularly when expansions are rapid and sustained, leading to that erodes savings and . In the United States, the Federal Reserve's response to the exemplifies this dynamic: money supply surged by approximately 40% between February 2020 and April 2022, from $15.4 trillion to $21.7 trillion, coinciding with CPI accelerating from 1.2% year-over-year in March 2020 to a peak of 9.1% in June 2022. This correlation aligns with monetarist predictions, as the influx of liquidity—via asset purchases and fiscal stimulus facilitation—outpaced economic output recovery, fueling demand-pull and cost-push pressures. Excessive dollar issuance in this period contributed to inflation alongside debt accumulation, with federal debt exceeding $34 trillion by late 2023, credit overextension in leveraged sectors, and a deepening trust crisis in the fiat system, exposing structural risks such as potential financial collapse, global instability from the dollar's reserve role, exchange rate fluctuations, and distorted asset pricing favoring financial speculation over productive investment. While some mainstream analyses attribute the primarily to supply disruptions, the lagged effects of prior money growth (2019-2020) and the persistence post-2022 underscore monetary policy's role in amplifying price instability. Extreme cases highlight the risks of unchecked expansion. In Weimar Germany (1921-1923), the printed marks to finance reparations and deficits, expanding exponentially and triggering with prices doubling every few days by November 1923. Similarly, Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank, from 2000 onward, monetized fiscal deficits amid land reforms and sanctions, increasing by over 10,000% annually by 2008, resulting in peak of 79.6 billion percent monthly. These instances demonstrate how accommodation of , without fiscal restraint, can devolve into velocity accelerations and total loss of confidence, debasing it to near-worthlessness.
PeriodM2 Growth (YoY Peak)CPI Inflation PeakPolicy Trigger
US 2020-2022~27% (Feb 2021)9.1% (Jun 2022)QE and stimulus
Weimar 1922-1923Exponential (thousands %)Hyperinflation (>50%/month)Deficit monetization
Zimbabwe 2007-2008>10,000% annual79.6B% monthlyFiscal printing
Even in less severe scenarios, such as post-2008 QE rounds where the Fed's balance sheet tripled to $4.5 trillion by 2014, subdued inflation (averaging ~1.7% CPI) delayed visible debasement due to high velocity suppression from banking hoarding and deleveraging. However, this underscores a non-linear relationship: moderate expansions may temporarily evade high inflation if absorbed by financial assets, but they still transfer wealth via the Cantillon effect and set precedents for future escalations. Central banks' mandates, often prioritizing employment over strict price stability, incentivize such policies, perpetuating gradual debasement as a hidden tax on holders of fiat money.

Recent Developments (2020-2025)

In response to the , major central banks dramatically expanded their s through and asset purchases, facilitating unprecedented fiscal stimulus that increased global money supplies. The U.S. Federal Reserve's grew from approximately $4.2 trillion in early 2020 to over $8.9 trillion by mid-2022, primarily via purchases of Treasury securities and mortgage-backed assets to support liquidity amid lockdowns. Similarly, the launched the €1.35 trillion Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme in March 2020, expanding its by about €4 trillion overall during the crisis period. These actions enabled governments to issue trillions in —$5.9 trillion in U.S. federal outlays for relief packages alone from 2020 to 2022—effectively monetizing debt and diluting currency . The U.S. M2 money supply measure surged 38.5% from 2019 to 2021, the sharpest two-year increase since records began in 1959, peaking at $21.7 trillion in April 2022. This expansion correlated with a global surge starting mid-2021, with U.S. CPI reaching 9.1% year-over-year in June 2022—the highest since 1981—and advanced economies averaging peaks above 10% in 2022. Empirical analyses, including those from the , attribute much of this to the interplay of fiscal-monetary stimulus overwhelming supply constraints, rather than solely exogenous shocks like energy prices or supply chains. Critics from institutions like Brookings emphasize demand-pull factors from transfers, but the temporal precedence of growth over price accelerations supports a causal role for monetary debasement. Central banks responded with aggressive rate hikes from 2022 onward: the Fed raised its from near-zero to 5.25-5.50% by mid-2023, while the ECB lifted its deposit rate to 4% by late 2023, alongside to shrink balance sheets. subsequently moderated, with U.S. CPI falling to around 3% by mid-2024 and global rates easing toward targets, accompanied by M2 contraction of about 4% from its 2022 peak. However, by 2025, persistent fiscal deficits—U.S. exceeding $35 trillion—and renewed rate cuts amid softening growth raised debasement concerns, evidenced by central banks increasing gold reserves and investor shifts toward hard assets. These dynamics underscored incentives for governments to erode currency value covertly, as real burdens declined with elevated nominal rates post-stimulus, while exposing serious consequences of dollar super issuance, including inflation, debt accumulation, credit overdraft, and a profound trust crisis in the fiat system; structural risks such as potential collapse, global financial instability, exchange rate fluctuations, and distorted asset pricing also emerged.

Theoretical Perspectives

Austrian School Critique

The views currency debasement—whether through reducing precious metal content in coins or expanding supply—as a deliberate governmental intervention that undermines the economy's natural price signals and erodes savings. characterized resulting from such debasement as a "continuation of war by other means," equating modern money printing to historical coinage manipulations that transfer wealth from savers to the state and its favored recipients. This process, Mises argued in The Theory of Money and Credit (1912), distorts relative prices by injecting new money unevenly, fostering artificial booms in capital-intensive sectors followed by inevitable busts, as resources are misallocated away from consumer preferences. Murray Rothbard extended this critique in What Has Government Done to Our Money? (1963), detailing how governments historically monopolized minting to debase coins—replacing full-weight specie with lighter versions bearing the same nominal value—yielding profits at the expense of holders' . In systems, Rothbard contended, central banks replicate this via fractional reserve expansion and deficit monetization, imposing a hidden that penalizes fixed-income groups while rewarding debtors, including governments with ballooning liabilities. Empirical patterns, such as Roman denarius debasement correlating with imperial decline or post-World War I hyperinflations in and , validate the Austrian prediction that unchecked expansion culminates in currency collapse and social unrest, rather than sustainable growth. Friedrich Hayek proposed denationalizing money through competitive private issuance to curb debasement incentives, arguing in Choice in Currency (1976) that monopolies enable rulers to inflate without accountability, whereas market competition would tie currencies to stable value bearers like , weeding out depreciating issues. maintain this framework reveals mainstream defenses of moderate inflation as illusory, ignoring how even low-level debasement (e.g., 2% annual targets) compounds to halve over decades, subsidizing state expansion while suppressing voluntary saving and long-term investment. Their praxeological approach—deducing from axioms—prioritizes these causal mechanisms over econometric models, which they critique for assuming equilibrium states absent in dynamic markets.

Keynesian and Mainstream Defenses

posits that moderate serves as a tool for macroeconomic stabilization, enabling governments to stimulate and achieve without the rigidities of nominal wage stickiness. In this view, insufficient demand causes , while expansionary fiscal or monetary policies to boost output may generate inflationary pressures, which are deemed preferable to persistent that exacerbates debt burdens and discourages investment. A cornerstone of this defense is the , derived from A.W. Phillips' 1958 analysis of data spanning 1861–1957, which revealed an inverse short-run relationship between wage and rates. Interpreted by and in their 1960 paper, it offered policymakers a perceived menu of choices: tolerating higher to secure lower , thereby prioritizing output stability over price level constancy. Mainstream macroeconomic models, blending neoclassical and New Keynesian elements, extend this rationale by advocating explicit targets around 2% annually, as adopted by central banks like the since 2012 and the since 1998. Proponents argue this level facilitates relative price and wage adjustments—termed the "greasing" effect—since nominal downward rigidity hinders real wage reductions needed for during downturns. Further justifications include moderate inflation's role in easing public and private debt servicing, as rising prices erode real debt values—evident in post-World War II U.S. data where averaged 5.7% from 1946–1951, reducing wartime debt-to-GDP ratios from 121% to 52% by 1956—and generating revenues for governments equivalent to 0.5–1% of GDP in advanced economies. It also buffers against the on nominal interest rates, allowing real rates to turn negative during recessions, as seen in Japan's deflationary trap. research, however, often reflects institutional incentives to validate accommodative policies, with empirical support for these benefits drawn selectively from periods of stable growth rather than episodes like the .

Empirical Validations and Counterexamples

Empirical analyses consistently demonstrate a negative relationship between rates exceeding low thresholds and . A study of countries found a significant negative , estimating that reducing by 10 percentage points could increase growth by 0.2–0.3 percentage points annually, with costs of moderate proving substantial due to and resource misallocation. Similarly, cross-country threshold models identify levels above 1–3% in industrial economies and 7–11% in developing ones as points where growth significantly decelerates, as higher rates erode and . These findings align with Austrian critiques, showing debasement via monetary expansion undermines real output rather than fostering it. Extreme cases of provide stark validations of debasement's destructive causality. In Weimar Germany during , rapid money printing to finance deficits resulted in monthly inflation rates exceeding 300%, driving from 3% to 27% in alone by and causing widespread economic paralysis through currency devaluation and savings erosion. Zimbabwe's episode, with peak monthly inflation at 79.6 billion percent, contracted GDP sharply, elevated above 90%, and halved , as unchecked from expansion disrupted markets and investment. Such instances refute defenses of controlled debasement, illustrating how proliferation leads to output collapse absent corresponding value creation. Counterexamples to mainstream assertions of beneficial moderate inflation abound, particularly in periods of . The U.S. in the experienced double-digit alongside stagnant growth and rising —reaching 12.0% in 1974 with only 0.5% real GDP growth—demonstrating that expansionary policies failed to stimulate employment or output while amplifying price distortions. Resolution required restrictive monetary measures under Chair , which curbed but induced , underscoring that inflation targets do not reliably trade off for growth and often exacerbate imbalances. Empirical reviews of low-inflation regimes, conversely, show stable or superior growth without the purported stimulus from mild debasement.

Key Controversies

Myths of Beneficial Inflation

One prevalent assertion in mainstream economic discourse holds that moderate , typically targeted at 2% annually by central banks, fosters by encouraging consumption over and facilitating adjustments across sectors. This view posits that zero or negative risks deflationary spirals where consumers delay purchases, stifling demand and growth. However, empirical analyses across countries reveal a negative between rates and long-term , with exerting detrimental effects even at low levels by distorting signals, eroding savings returns, and increasing . Cross-country studies confirm that inflation thresholds above 1-3% impede growth, as higher rates reduce and by taxing fixed nominal incomes and complicating contractual planning. For instance, econometric models applied to developing and advanced economies identify turning points where begins to harm output, often as low as 5-12%, beyond which each increase in correlates with 0.1-0.5% lower annual GDP growth. Historical from the U.S. era (1870-1913) further undermine the necessity of positive : real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 4%, accompanied by mild averaging -1% per year, driven by gains in industry and that lowered costs without triggering spirals. The fear of deflation as inherently contractionary overlooks distinctions between "good" deflation from technological progress and "bad" deflation tied to monetary contraction. Evidence from the National Banking era (1868-1913) shows deflation episodes coinciding with output stability or expansion when not linked to banking panics, as falling prices reflected supply-side efficiencies rather than demand collapse. In contrast, post-1930s consensus against deflation stems from the Great Depression's unique policy errors, including rigid wages and abandonment, rather than deflation per se; productivity deflations, like those in the 1920s U.S. electronics sector, boosted real incomes without economic harm. Modern simulations and reinforce that anticipated deflation from innovation enhances welfare by increasing purchasing power, whereas inflation's purported benefits ignore its role in arbitrary wealth transfers via the Cantillon effect, favoring early money recipients over savers. Another myth claims eases burdens for governments and households, promoting by reducing real interest rates. Yet, while it nominally lightens fixed , sustained above productivity growth (historically 1-2%) imposes deadweight losses through menu costs, shoe-leather costs from cash management, and reduced long-term lending due to eroded creditor confidence. Empirical thresholds from global datasets indicate no net growth dividend from such mechanisms; instead, inflation volatility correlates with lower -to-GDP ratios, as firms prioritize short horizons. Periods of stable low or , such as Britain's 1820-1914 experience under metallic standards, sustained industrialization without the fiscal incentives for debasement that regimes encourage. These patterns suggest the "beneficial " narrative, often advanced in Keynesian frameworks, conflates short-term stimulus with long-run efficiency, overlooking how monetary expansion masks underlying malinvestments revealed only in corrections.

Cantillon Effect and Wealth Redistribution

The Cantillon effect, named after economist , refers to the non-neutral impact of expansion, where new money enters the economy at specific points, altering s and redistributing wealth unevenly before general manifests. In Cantillon's 1755 Essay on the Nature of Trade in General, he illustrated this through the influx of silver from American mines into , noting that initial recipients—such as mine owners and exporters—gained to acquire goods and land at pre-inflation prices, while subsequent recipients, like artisans and laborers, faced higher costs without equivalent gains, effectively transferring real wealth upstream. This process generates relative price changes that distort production incentives, favoring sectors closest to the money injection over those farther removed. In contexts of currency debasement via creation, the effect amplifies wealth redistribution by privileging entities with early access, such as central banks' counterparties. For instance, during programs, newly created reserves flow first to commercial banks and financial institutions, enabling them to expand lending or purchase assets like and before broader price adjustments occur. This benefits asset holders—disproportionately the wealthy—who see capital gains, while late recipients, including wage earners and savers in cash or fixed-income assets, experience eroded as consumer prices rise. Empirical analysis of post-2008 U.S. actions shows that such policies correlated with a 300% rise in equity indices from 2009 to 2021, primarily enriching the top income quintiles holding 90% of , contrasted with stagnant real median wages until 2019. Critics from Austrian economics traditions argue this constitutes a regressive mechanism akin to a hidden on savings, incentivizing and over productive , as debtors (including governments) repay nominal sums with devalued . Mainstream models often assume long-run neutrality, underestimating persistent Cantillon distortions, though some studies confirm short-term sectoral shifts, such as 's initial boost to export-oriented industries before domestic wage pressures. In recent debasement episodes, like the 2020-2022 global surge exceeding 25% in major economies, asset inflation outpaced consumer price indices, widening wealth gaps: U.S. net grew 88% from 2019 to 2022, while household savings rates plummeted amid rising living costs. This effect underscores debasement's role not as uniform erosion but as targeted redistribution favoring institutional insiders over broader populations.

Incentives for Governmental Debasement

Governments derive a primary incentive for currency debasement from the prospect of seigniorage revenue, which represents the profit obtained from issuing money at a cost below its nominal value. In historical coin-based systems, debasement—typically achieved by reducing the precious metal content while maintaining face value—allowed rulers to mint additional coins from a fixed bullion supply, effectively expanding fiscal resources without immediate parliamentary or public consent. This mechanism served as a convenient form of taxation, as debasement revenues could be collected swiftly to address urgent needs like military campaigns or administrative shortfalls. A prominent historical example occurred in the , where emperors initiated systematic debasement to finance escalating expenditures, particularly on the military and infrastructure. Starting with in AD 64, the silver content of the was reduced from near-pure silver to about 90 percent, with further dilutions under subsequent rulers like and , dropping it to as low as 50 percent by the AD; this enabled the issuance of more coins to pay legions and cover costs from events such as the Great Fire of Rome's rebuilding. Such policies were driven by chronic fiscal pressures, including war financing and a of precious metals from depleted mines, rather than mere monetary experimentation. In medieval and , similar fiscal imperatives prompted debasements, often tied to warfare. England's under from 1544 to 1551 involved slashing the silver of coins from 92.5 percent to as low as 25 percent, generating funds for conflicts with and while bypassing the need for tax hikes that required parliamentary approval; the policy yielded substantial short-term revenue but spurred exceeding 300 percent in some coin values. Governments faced temptations to debase due to the ease of capturing this revenue amid institutional constraints on alternative funding, though repeated episodes eroded trust in coinage and invited counterfeiting. In contemporary fiat currency regimes, debasement incentives persist through expansion and , enabling governments to finance deficits by eroding the real burden of nominal debt and extracting an inflation tax from savers. Central banks, frequently aligned with fiscal authorities, create base money to purchase government securities, as seen in post-2008 programs where the U.S. Federal Reserve's expanded from $900 billion in 2008 to over $8.9 trillion by 2022, indirectly supporting amid low interest rates. This approach disperses costs across the economy via reduced , avoiding the concentrated political backlash of explicit levies, while —estimated at 0.5-1 percent of GDP in advanced economies—provides ongoing revenue. However, reliance on such tactics risks long-term credibility losses, as historical patterns indicate governments exploit monetary control when fiscal discipline falters.

References

  1. https://learn.apmex.com/answers/what-is-currency-debasement/
  2. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/glossary/debasement
  3. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debasement.asp
  4. https://www.dpaminvestments.com/professional-end-investor/at/en/angle/the-hidden-cost-of-monetary-debasement
  5. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-10-24/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-debasement-trade
  6. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2025/09/19/the-history-of-monetary-debasement-and-what-it-means-for-business-leaders/
  7. https://river.com/learn/terms/d/debasement/
  8. https://aier.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/MO99.pdf
  9. https://www.unrv.com/economy/currency-debasement.php
  10. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5397369
  11. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2000/043/article-A001-en.xml
  12. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/greshams-law/
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381917502_Coin_Clipping_Through_the_Ages_A_History_of_Monetary_Fraud
  14. https://tavexbullion.co.uk/what-is-coin-clipping-an-introduction/
  15. https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/public/workingPapers/tecipa-417.pdf
  16. https://auronum.co.uk/when-currency-lost-its-edge-the-era-of-coin-clipping-and-its-consequences/
  17. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/naughty-money-clippers-and-coiners-in-16th-century-england
  18. https://www.cato.org/policy-report/july/august-2011/deficits-debt-debasement
  19. https://ideas.repec.org/p/tor/tecipa/tecipa-417.html
  20. https://www.historyhit.com/old-coppernose-henry-viii-and-the-great-debasement/
  21. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quantitative-easing.asp
  22. https://nygoldco.com/coin-clipping-a-historical-practical-and-its-modern-implications/
  23. https://diversification.com/term/currency-debasement
  24. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greshams-law.asp
  25. https://www.vantagepointsoftware.com/blog/currency-debasement-economic-savior-or-silent-thief/
  26. https://advisorscapital.com/portfolio/greshams-law/
  27. https://bitcoinnews.com/opinion/inflation-the-reality-of-debased-currency/
  28. https://www.lynalden.com/december-2025-newsletter/
  29. https://sprott.com/insights/the-debasement-trade-broadens-across-precious-metals/
  30. https://moneyfortherestofus.com/475-currency-debasement/
  31. https://money.visualcapitalist.com/currency-and-the-collapse-of-the-roman-empire/
  32. https://www.equiti.com/sc-en/news/market-insights/the-debasement-of-the-us-dollar-a-long-descent/
  33. https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/debasement-what-it-is-and-isnt/
  34. https://www.thecollector.com/inflation-third-century-crisis/
  35. https://vaulted.com/nuggets/the-roman-denarius/
  36. https://money.visualcapitalist.com/deaths-roman-emperors-vs-silver-coin-content/
  37. https://eh.net/book_reviews/a-monetary-history-of-the-ottoman-empire/
  38. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=mecmsrps
  39. https://manicmalta.com/the-secret-currency-war-that-decided-maltas-fate/
  40. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=16358
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231843939_The_Debasement_of_the_Dollar_of_the_Middle_Ages
  42. https://barber.org.uk/late-byzantine/
  43. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/continuity-and-change/article/debasement-and-demography-in-england-and-france-in-the-later-middle-ages/C30D6C58A921ED5C2D8DB0482DF31B1E
  44. https://academic.oup.com/book/8347/chapter/154006824
  45. https://gwern.net/doc/economics/1999-kohn.pdf
  46. https://www.history.cuhk.edu.hk/project/debased-copper-coin-circulation-and-monetary-policy-in-the-late-ming-1500-1644/
  47. https://www.cato.org/blog/monetary-freedom-lessons-western-han-dynasty
  48. https://www.chinasage.info/money.htm
  49. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/bretton-woods-created
  50. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/operation-and-demise-bretton-woods-system-1958-1971
  51. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/nixon-shock
  52. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/gold-convertibility-ends
  53. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/how-the-nixon-shock-remade-the-world-economy
  54. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nixon-shock.asp
  55. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2021/08/16/from-the-history-books-the-rethinking-of-the-international-monetary-system
  56. https://www.cato.org/blog/end-bretton-woods-jacques-rueff-monetary-sin-west
  57. https://www.goldmarket.fr/en/labandon-de-letalon-or-en-1971/
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304393203001193
  59. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/money-growth-and-post-pandemic-inflation-surge-updating-evidence
  60. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL
  61. https://www.crfb.org/papers/risks-and-threats-deficits-and-debt
  62. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-council-strategy-paper-series/why-the-us-cannot-afford-to-lose-dollar-dominance/
  63. https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2024/03/28/the-fiscal-and-financial-risks-of-a-high-debt-slow-growth-world
  64. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2023/may/the-rise-and-fall-of-m2
  65. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/1995b_bpea_dornbusch_goldfajn_valdes_edwards_bruno.pdf
  66. https://honors.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/953
  67. https://river.com/learn/history-of-monetary-collapse-in-zimbabwe/
  68. https://www.longtermtrends.net/m2-money-supply-vs-inflation/
  69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022199624000898
  70. https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-the-money-supply-and-how-does-it-relate-to-inflation-and-the-federal-reserve/
  71. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-states/money-supply-m2
  72. https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/swp2024-38.pdf
  73. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-caused-the-u-s-pandemic-era-inflation/
  74. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/20250620_mprfullreport.pdf
  75. https://www.quiverquant.com/news/Debasement%2BTrade%2BRoils%2BFinancial%2BMarkets%2B%2528GLD%2529
  76. https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/dollar-debasement-reality-or-a-dangerous-narrative/
  77. https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/mises-on-classical-liberalism-and-the-gold-standard-1928
  78. https://books.google.com/books/about/Ludwig_von_Mises_on_Money_and_Inflation.html?id=vAmg5abG3H0C
  79. https://cdn.mises.org/files/2024-08/What%2520Has%2520Government%2520Done%2520to%2520Our%2520Money%25202024.pdf
  80. https://www.amazon.com/What-Has-Government-Done-Money/dp/1987817931
  81. https://mises.org/mises-daily/how-central-banks-fund-our-age-endless-war
  82. https://books.google.com/books?id=B6atesdlY_EC
  83. https://mises.org/mises-wire/sound-money-medieval-italy
  84. https://cdn.mises.org/The%2520Present%2520State%2520of%2520Austrian%2520Economics_2.pdf
  85. https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/macroeconomics/income-and-expenditure-topic/macroeconomics-keynesian-economics-and-its-critiques/a/the-phillips-curve-cnx
  86. https://www.richmondfed.org/~/media/richmondfedorg/publications/research/economic_review/1981/pdf/er670101.pdf
  87. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/phillipscurve.asp
  88. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-hutchins-center-explains-the-phillips-curve/
  89. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/315/inflation/inflation-advantages-and-disadvantages/
  90. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/03/Future-of-inflation-partII-Agarwal-kimball
  91. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1988/01/1988a_bpea_ball_mankiw_romer_akerlof_rose_yellen.pdf
  92. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111414/how-can-inflation-be-good-economy.asp
  93. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w6062/w6062.pdf
  94. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2000/wp00110.pdf
  95. https://www.econlib.org/the-economic-consequences-of-the-weimar-hyperinflation/
  96. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/390/inflation/hyper-inflation-in-zimbabwe/
  97. https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=ger
  98. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/1970-stagflation.asp
  99. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/inflation-back-1970s-arent
  100. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/doctor-econ/1998/06/inflation-economic-growth/
  101. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c7777/c7777.pdf
  102. https://www.nber.org/digest/dec97/does-inflation-harm-economic-growth
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8563472/
  104. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijfe.2368
  105. https://www.nber.org/digest/apr04/good-versus-bad-deflation-lessons-gold-standard-era
  106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164070424000569
  107. https://fee.org/articles/deflation-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
  108. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/should-we-be-spooked-deflation-look-historical-record
  109. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-deflation-the-worry/
  110. https://glintpay.com/blog/understanding-cantillon
  111. https://mises.org/mises-wire/cantillon-effects-why-inflation-helps-some-and-hurts-others
  112. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330972792_Money_Inflation_and_Business_Cycles_The_Cantillon_Effect_and_the_Economy
  113. https://www.promarket.org/2020/04/13/the-cantillon-effect-why-wall-street-gets-a-bailout-and-you-dont/
  114. https://fee.org/articles/the-cantillon-effect-because-of-inflation-we-re-financing-the-financiers/
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9702949/
  116. https://mises.org/quarterly-journal-austrian-economics/money-inflation-and-business-cycles-cantillon-effect-and-economy
  117. https://aier.org/article/is-inflation-really-a-problem/
  118. https://sahilbloom.substack.com/p/how-the-rich-get-richer
  119. https://www.georgegammon.com/the-cantillon-effect-money-printing-inequality-in-the-economy/
  120. https://premium-ancient-coins.com/blogs/news/the-fall-of-roman-coinage-the-silver-debasement-disaster
  121. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/roman-currency-debasement-brief-history-von-wooding
  122. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/86533/1/WP270.pdf
  123. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2018/april/debt-monetization-then-now
  124. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1995/11/cj15n2-3-2.pdf
  125. https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/heritage-explains/the-real-story-behind-inflation
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.