Was the slow debasement of coinage (which is more of symptom than a disease, but for these purposes we will consider it a disease) the ultimate cause of most empires fall? Given that premodern tax rates were impossibly low compared to those of todays welfare states, would it even be possible for a state to meaningfully restore the value of a metals based currency, which would have multiple generations worth in circulation? They would have to drain their own treasury by exchanging less valuable coins for more valuable coins to accomplish it. And I don't think that at a 5-10% tax rate, they'd have enough to accomplish that and still run the state. I'm not sure how you could possibly accomplish it without a fiat system.
>>16543752*more valuable coins for less valuable coins
>>16543752You know nothing about the history of currency. The United States has never "officially" been on a metallic currency standard. For much of the 19th century it was on a de facto bimetallic standard that traded coinage at below market bullion value, which is retarded. There is no actual advantage to basing currency off of rare metals. In fact if anything it puts you at a disadvantage because the supply of said metals is not reflective of market forces like a growing economy
>>16543752Currency lends its power from the law. It was practical metalism which in itself lead to the slow decline of empires.
>>16543794>didn't even read the fucking post to know this isn't talking about the US>still madYou're so fucking dumb dude
>>16543752it wasn't slow, the sumerians had tokens of value that might as well have been fiat"yes this is good for a tenth of a talent of meteorite iron, trust me bro"
>>16543752you literally just said it was a symptom, not the disease, and then asked if that symptom is what killed the patient?
>>16545195how the fuck wasn't 99% of these counterfeit=
