> Did it really? Perhaps you should refer to the original definition of "debasement".
You're right of course. I was speaking in broad generalities rather than specifics. Yes the money was debased. But there was some kind of anchor on value because the dilutions had to be small.
From what I remember in history the government didn't go from 99% silver to 1% silver in a single re-issuance of money, it took many reissues over many generations to go from 99% to 50% (or something like that) which actually shows an incredible amount of restraint. I'd be rather pleased if that was the kind of debasement we were seeing in recent history but sadly it isn't.
The fact that you had to put SOME metal in the coins was what kept debasing "reasonable" but there are no such restrictions on money creation today. Even if you had to literally PRINT the money the Fed can make $100 bills for a few cents. With computers the marginal cost of creation falls further. There is no restraint save but what those in charge put on themselves.
> Hah, I wouldn't define it as such, but I do question: why? We live in a capitalist society that benefits from capital being put to work. There are many places you can put your money that will benefit you and others financially.
I agree and I do make efforts to put my money to work for exactly the reasons you've mentioned. I guess it boils down to my idealistic nature; I don't think there should be a "stupidity" tax whereby if you're not savvy enough to understand how finance and compound interest works, your life savings can slowly evaporate.
The reason for this in my mind is that everyone has expertise and it's a huge drain on the workings of the world that everyone has to spend who knows how much time every year trying to make sure that their savings don't slowly vanish. I think we would all be better off if people could focus on their field fully rather than having to try and be an expert in both their field and finance.