Debasing the dollar

I don't know ANY historian who has ever said that excessive spending was the problem in Classical Rome. If anything, the crumbling infrastructure from LACK of maintenance is generally seen as the more likely blame.

Look again. Finding enough money to function was a huge problem. Look up "coin debasement." The late Roman empire destroyed their economy with price controls, excessive bureaucracy, corruption, debasing the currency, and overspending. Some provinces minted their own coins and bartering was used. Roads and infrastructure suffered because of a lack of funds. Rome became weak and was overrun because it could not fund adequate defense. https://finds.org.uk/counties/worcestershire/some-reasons-behind-the-debasement-of-the-roman-coinage/#:~:text=Overtime%2C%20the%20coinage%20of%20the,system%20with%20a%20new%20one.

If you're talking about this aticle, then it appears you have it backwards:

https://finds.org.uk/counties/worcestershire/some-reasons-behind-the-debasement-of-the-roman-coinage/

Debasing their coinage was a reponse to, rather than the cause of, their economic woes.

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen someone try to argue that the Romans had both too much money and not enough money at the same time before. Are you ok after all that contortion?

Rome had too much money? I don't remember saying that. Please explain your contortion.

Look, I can do this too:

One of the contributions of the fall of the Roman Empire - and historians DO talk about his - is the failure of Rome to expand citizenship. The Goths had actually lived peacefully within the borders of Rome for a long time, but the Senate kept reneging on their promises to integrate them into Roman citizenship - and ultimately, conflict was the result.

That's all true, but it would incorrect if I were to start claiming that lack of pathways to citizenship was THE cause of the fall of the Roman Empire. The actual process was too complicated and had its own historical context for me to be inserting an issue that I care about in our modern conversations, isn't it?

So, yeah, you are talking nonsense. Rome had their own thing going on. Public debt was run differently. Provinces that were profitable and tax-generating one year would be expensive in another year and the reason could often be completely military. Corruption was always a problem to different degrees but it was thought of as manageable during times of stability - which means that corruption was nothing compared to the problems that would happen if Emperors had short reigns and there would be multiple ones in a few short years. Even your narrative of "Rome became weak and was overrun" is HUGELY inaccurate because it went through periods of weakness and then periods of strength! It cycled back and forth for a long long time, and historians can't even agree on when the killing blow actually happened! Goths sacked Rome in 410 but Justinian captured Rome BACK from the Goths in 538! If Rome was weak and overrun, that would have been impossible!

No one said the economy was the only reason Rome fell, but it was a major reason. The economy was clearly mismanaged. The OP compares the debasement of the denarius to the devaluation of the dollar. You are avoiding the OP with strawman arguments. I am surprised you have not shoehorned Trump into the argument yet.

Except he USD has not only not been devalued by Biden, it's been strengthened.

You're confusing presidents, as Biden's taken measures specifically designed to make the Dollar stronger, namely having the Federal Reserve raise interest rates, whereas Trump not only had them lowered, he wanted to bring the key interest rates go into the NEGATIVE!
Bush likewise deliberately had the $ weakened, while Obama had it strengthened.

the*

I agree that Trump spent too much money, but still, inflation was under control. Biden inherited a problem from Trump and made it ten times worse. Quantitative easing "printing money" is increasing the money supply, which is one of the major reasons for inflation/devaluation of the dollar. Increasing interest rates without cutting spending, and decreasing the money supply will only cause a recession. This is basic economics from microeconomics 101. Printing money causes inflation. It's not a theory. It's a fact proven by many historical examples.

Agree? There is nothing to agree with. Facts are facts, not Facebook statuses looking for likes.

The current QE began in 2020. Interest ates were also lowered to near zero.
Biden wasn't president then. There was this Covid plague thingy going on that pretty much stopped the world and it's economy. Resulting shortages and increased demands afterwards added to higher prices, supply and demand being a thing. Welcome to Capitalism 101.

No, again, for the nth time, that's not how fiat currency works, money isn't just printed.
The USD has strengthened in value, not weakened under Biden - as intended. This despite the net selloff of Treasuries held by China and EU countries that began in 2017, lack in confidence in the US$ being a growing thing thanks to Trump.

You can look this up you know,,

No, no no no no and no. Comparison is one thing but what your OP was very clearly doing was an equivalence. You very explicitly saying inflation in Ancient Rome IS the inflation that is happening now. Not is similar to, not has similarities to, IS.

How many global pandemics, Suez canal blockages, wars between far-off nations causing global grain disruption, and collapse of international trade deals with their primary trading allies all happening at once did your Roman history text book mention?

Parsing my sentences like a shit-house lawyer is ridiculous. You know damn well what I mean.

See, that's the entire problem: I know EXACTLY what you mean, and you are wrong.

How exactly am I wrong? The money supply and government spending are growing to an unsustainable level. The dollar is worth less every day.

OP compares the devaluation of the denarius to the devaluation of the dollar. Rome used less and less silver in the denarius to finance spending, US prints more and more dollars to finance spending.

False.
We have a fiat currency. Dollars aren't simply printed and released into circulation, they have to be basically bought first (monetized) via the purchase of Treasury Securities.

OK. Printing money means increasing the money supply, but you knew what I meant. You are just doing the jail-house lawyer thing. Lots of people refer to the process of increasing the money supply as "printing money." More money in circulation because of government procedures which include selling bonds and lowering the prime lending rate. Please don't play dumb. It just slows things down.

Good grief, like I'm supposed to play along with your partisan hack fanfic out of pity for your deliberate(?) ignorance because it's just so nifty?

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain

The article he posted a link for is interesting, albeit not exactly putting it as he claims it does.
Go by the title if you want, "some-reasons-behind-the-debasement-of-the-roman-coinage," the source is named Worcestershire.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?????! He posted a link to an article that didn't actually support what he was saying?

But CraigThompson NEVER does that................

I'm shocked. SHOCKED! Well, not that shocked.

But at least the silver content part was right!

Now let's see if he now cites his source to make an argument for raising taxes in order to help alleviate the conditions which necessitated currency debasement.

Sure, debasing currency is a real thing that has happened many times throughout history in humanity's collective journey to understand what currency even is and how it works.

But at the same time, Rome didn't have banks. Money lending was handled by temples, if at all. And Rome didn't have a central bank. CT mentioned how some provinces minted their own coins - they were actually supposed to! Especially from the point onwards at which Rome began to be administered by two to four emperors at once - and of the things their coins did was to tell you who your emperor was. (For many people, this was the only way they would find out that there'd been a change in the head honcho.)

It is impossible to condense all of Roman economic history in one meme so give me a break. Focus on the debasement of the denarius.

Focus on the issue that YOU want us to worry about? Well, that's kind of what I'm calling you out on.

When did I say Rome had too much money? You never answered that. You are putting words in my mouth.

So why do you keep repeating your assertion if you're not?

Modda, please put down the bong before you post. I have no idea what you are talking about. Anyway, you never addressed the OP.