In the past 60 years, US$ is now worth 1.6% of what it once was. Gold has not gotten more expensive. It takes more dollars to purchase an ounce of gold because the dollars are worth less. Not "worthless," but devalued to less than 2% of their value by government money printing. Oh, and the joke? If you purchase a commodity like gold, or a house, the purchase price is subtracted from the sales price to determine your profit. If you bought gold for $35 per ounce, and sell it for $2135, you now have to pay tax on your $2,100 gain. Welcome to the inflation tax. Hope this helps
It was not the coin that destroyed Rome, but the greed of its leaders. Modern monetary policy says 2% is the correct amount of annual inflation. This corolates to devaluing the currency to 13% every century. Those are rookie numbers! Our government has done far better than this! Like the drunk who said, "I limit myself to one drink a day. If I stop now, I'll live another 275 years!"
@Progamermove_2003 Gold is easy to verify. A strike plate doesn't take but a few atoms, but tells you the purity of the coin. Why don't people use gold and silver coins? Because most people don't want the verification fee. If the transaction cost doesn't exceed 10%, most people didn't
I heard an interesting quote recently. "I'm making more money today than I ever have, yet I'm more broke than I've ever been." What's worse? A depression hits, 1/4 of people don't have a job and can't make ends meet. Or Half of people need to work over 40 hours a week, yet can't make ends meet. $20 filled my tank years ago, $20 isn't worth anything anymore. Modern Rome burning, let it burn.
Only for a short while. It would eventually become so worthless that Constantine would've to issue a new coin (Solidus), and even that would decline in value over time.
A thing to remember, the slavery was the biggest factor in the need to keep the people entertained, because slaves now did all the work and left nothing for the roman people to do, so the government had to provide food and leisure activities to avoid revolts.
Great video! Very compact but with all info you would need. I am going to recommend it to people who are more interested in the topic (and have too less time or are distracted by long videos :D)
Rome was sacked in the year 410 but continued on until it slowly disintegrated. They even managed to defeat the Huns in 454, even after Rome was sacked again. 230 years from 180 to 410 is not a relatively short time in human history. There is also the plagues, more powerful enemies, and other considerations that could be blame for the empires fall.
There will always be people who want to have their cake and eat it too. Greedy men who think the solution to all problems is to create money out of thin air.. and pass the problems off onto the next guy. Hmm. Wonder who that sounds like right now.
An illustration of the importance of separation of money and State. Arguably, the Federal Reserve and the creation of fiat currency are both unconstitutional. “Coining” money presupposes that gold or silver is money - I.e. money is private and the government simply establishes a standard unit for use in trade.
While I agree that this clearly played a significant part of Rome's fall, if society itself was healthier, they could have weathered it. But degeneracy famously spread throughout Rome and its people were useless in maintaining it.
Also they were dealing with climate cooling that led to mass migrations into the equatorial empire regions which provoked hostilities, brought plagues and generally destroyed the ability to produce. Focus on the capital led to some regions being neglected, becoming the lairs of pirates, criminals and tax revolts. And the citizens grew entitled while simultaneously holding less and less wealth until it was a debt farce that fell apart when the Germans arrived. Nobody wanted to serve in the army and corruption crippled the equipment, contrasted with Romes enemies who were developing herds of stronger horses to support their cavalry tactics. With cavalry they gained advantages in scouting, speed, shock and the ability to pick their fights compared to the Roman infantry.
Great video. Would be even better if some extra time were given to cover how the Roman Empire later recovered from the hyperinflation. Was the silver content of the Denarius coin restored? Or another coinage system was created to get round the problem?
@@krishnayogi the empire itself may have never recovered but what I was looking for is how the empire recovered from hyperinflation. I don’t suppose the hyperinflation mentioned in this video continued unabated all the way for 200 years from AD 270 till its demise in the mid 5th century ?
@@py8554 At least in the Western Roman Empire, the currency never recovered. Once a currency is debased in whatever form, history shows it's incredibly hard to regain trust in it. Especially in the case of the Romans, the majority of Emperors were debasing the coinage, rather than keeping it whole. There were Emperors who did try to bring back the original weight and purity of the denarius, but they never lasted long. This is in part due to what we call Gresham's Law today. People spend the bad money (ex. coins with less silver in them) and save the coins with more silver. In the Eastern Roman Empire, one of their fundamental coins was the Solidus, a nearly pure gold coin, about 4.5 grams in weight. For size & weight comparison, think of the US nickel. This stayed pure to it's original design until about the 11th century when it too, began to be debased and never recovered from that. Hope this helps, cheers!
And why it had debased? not just because there's more money being made, it's because a coin doesn't have the same gram anymore, meaning doesn't have the same purchasing power as before, they were chipped and chipped to make new coins until the supply ran out and other materials of lower value was used
There were, of course, other factors. One that we overlook today is climate change. Rome became an empire because of global warming. Warmer climate meant people could produce more food. This meant they could afford to pay more in taxes. Thus, they could afford the ports, roads, aqueducts, and armies that built the empire. When the Roman Warm Period ended, they could no longer collect the taxes needed to maintain these things. That ended the Roman Empire. (Of course, no amount of tax collection was enough to sustain the Imperial government. Thus, they had to start debauching their currency while the weather was still warm. But colder weather ended any chance of recovery.)
And here we are.....following in the footsteps of history.
Oh look another brain dead youtube comment
In the past 60 years, US$ is now worth 1.6% of what it once was.
Gold has not gotten more expensive. It takes more dollars to purchase an ounce of gold because the dollars are worth less. Not "worthless," but devalued to less than 2% of their value by government money printing.
Oh, and the joke? If you purchase a commodity like gold, or a house, the purchase price is subtracted from the sales price to determine your profit. If you bought gold for $35 per ounce, and sell it for $2135, you now have to pay tax on your $2,100 gain. Welcome to the inflation tax.
Hope this helps
It was not the coin that destroyed Rome, but the greed of its leaders.
Modern monetary policy says 2% is the correct amount of annual inflation. This corolates to devaluing the currency to 13% every century. Those are rookie numbers! Our government has done far better than this!
Like the drunk who said, "I limit myself to one drink a day. If I stop now, I'll live another 275 years!"
@@geraldfrost4710 Why don't people start using gold as an alternative currency. Afterall, it's relatively easier to measure it's purity nowadays.
@Progamermove_2003 Gold is easy to verify. A strike plate doesn't take but a few atoms, but tells you the purity of the coin.
Why don't people use gold and silver coins? Because most people don't want the verification fee. If the transaction cost doesn't exceed 10%, most people didn't
Interesting video. I've never heard this part of Romes history. Scary to think about current implications.
I heard an interesting quote recently.
"I'm making more money today than I ever have, yet I'm more broke than I've ever been."
What's worse? A depression hits, 1/4 of people don't have a job and can't make ends meet.
Or Half of people need to work over 40 hours a week, yet can't make ends meet.
$20 filled my tank years ago, $20 isn't worth anything anymore.
Modern Rome burning, let it burn.
Seeing the value go up one final time with Aurelian 😢
Only for a short while. It would eventually become so worthless that Constantine would've to issue a new coin (Solidus), and even that would decline in value over time.
Corruption at its finest.
Also, Rome was shipping a lot of gold and silver out of the Empire to buy spices and other luxury good from Asia...including China.
To add to that, Rome was shipping said metals to pay off their invaders.
And also the rampant use of lead pipes for drinking water.
A thing to remember, the slavery was the biggest factor in the need to keep the people entertained, because slaves now did all the work and left nothing for the roman people to do, so the government had to provide food and leisure activities to avoid revolts.
Not all Romans had slaves. Majority were simple citizens/subjects engaged in Agrarian activities for their livelihood.
Sounds like working for billionaires now
Great video! Very compact but with all info you would need. I am going to recommend it to people who are more interested in the topic (and have too less time or are distracted by long videos :D)
Do we learn from our mistakes? I have my doubts.
it's planned.
Rome was sacked in the year 410 but continued on until it slowly disintegrated. They even managed to defeat the Huns in 454, even after Rome was sacked again. 230 years from 180 to 410 is not a relatively short time in human history. There is also the plagues, more powerful enemies, and other considerations that could be blame for the empires fall.
It’s also usually not just one thing that caused it to collapse, but a series of things/events that caused it to collapse.
There will always be people who want to have their cake and eat it too. Greedy men who think the solution to all problems is to create money out of thin air.. and pass the problems off onto the next guy.
Hmm. Wonder who that sounds like right now.
An illustration of the importance of separation of money and State. Arguably, the Federal Reserve and the creation of fiat currency are both unconstitutional. “Coining” money presupposes that gold or silver is money - I.e. money is private and the government simply establishes a standard unit for use in trade.
While I agree that this clearly played a significant part of Rome's fall, if society itself was healthier, they could have weathered it. But degeneracy famously spread throughout Rome and its people were useless in maintaining it.
It's astonishing that this old lesson still gets ignored.
They did the same thing with their gold coins.
"Reliable medium of exchange" should be rendered as "Sound money."
owch, this one hit hard. The end may have already happened and we're not going to see it till it's too late...
Also they were dealing with climate cooling that led to mass migrations into the equatorial empire regions which provoked hostilities, brought plagues and generally destroyed the ability to produce.
Focus on the capital led to some regions being neglected, becoming the lairs of pirates, criminals and tax revolts.
And the citizens grew entitled while simultaneously holding less and less wealth until it was a debt farce that fell apart when the Germans arrived. Nobody wanted to serve in the army and corruption crippled the equipment, contrasted with Romes enemies who were developing herds of stronger horses to support their cavalry tactics. With cavalry they gained advantages in scouting, speed, shock and the ability to pick their fights compared to the Roman infantry.
The U.S. quarter was 90 percent silver until 1964 when it was replaced afterwards with with a copper-nickel amalgam...a familiar pattern huh?
What Romans should do?
Simple :
Conquest
If this is how it always works, then we're way closer to the end.
Great video. Would be even better if some extra time were given to cover how the Roman Empire later recovered from the hyperinflation. Was the silver content of the Denarius coin restored? Or another coinage system was created to get round the problem?
Roman empire never recovered
@@krishnayogi the empire itself may have never recovered but what I was looking for is how the empire recovered from hyperinflation. I don’t suppose the hyperinflation mentioned in this video continued unabated all the way for 200 years from AD 270 till its demise in the mid 5th century ?
@@py8554 well they introduced full silver coins after the civil war but the empire never reached it's former glory
@@py8554 At least in the Western Roman Empire, the currency never recovered. Once a currency is debased in whatever form, history shows it's incredibly hard to regain trust in it. Especially in the case of the Romans, the majority of Emperors were debasing the coinage, rather than keeping it whole. There were Emperors who did try to bring back the original weight and purity of the denarius, but they never lasted long. This is in part due to what we call Gresham's Law today. People spend the bad money (ex. coins with less silver in them) and save the coins with more silver. In the Eastern Roman Empire, one of their fundamental coins was the Solidus, a nearly pure gold coin, about 4.5 grams in weight. For size & weight comparison, think of the US nickel. This stayed pure to it's original design until about the 11th century when it too, began to be debased and never recovered from that. Hope this helps, cheers!
@@TheItalianPepe Thanks a great deal. This is truly helpful!
I've heard from somewhere that limited inflation (within 3%) is considered more desirable for a healthy economy than no inflation. If yes why?
And why it had debased? not just because there's more money being made, it's because a coin doesn't have the same gram anymore, meaning doesn't have the same purchasing power as before, they were chipped and chipped to make new coins until the supply ran out and other materials of lower value was used
Beard Wednesday!
Print Print Print US$ = Inflation = The $ becomes toilet paper.
Something Something history repeating Something.
BITCOIN duh
Fake money
This is oversimplification. The fall of the Roman Empire was a complex process.
What is more dangerous: climate change or inflation?
Inflation.
Commenting 4 algorithm
US is heading that way.
Will the USA go the way of Rome? Will the dollar become the denarius?
Now, that is a gross oversimplification that is historically incorrect.
Please enlighten us, oh wise one. Simply saying "this is incorrect" without explaining why doesn't mean a whole lot.
There were, of course, other factors. One that we overlook today is climate change. Rome became an empire because of global warming. Warmer climate meant people could produce more food. This meant they could afford to pay more in taxes. Thus, they could afford the ports, roads, aqueducts, and armies that built the empire. When the Roman Warm Period ended, they could no longer collect the taxes needed to maintain these things. That ended the Roman Empire. (Of course, no amount of tax collection was enough to sustain the Imperial government. Thus, they had to start debauching their currency while the weather was still warm. But colder weather ended any chance of recovery.)