Ah, Patrick. We agree on so much of what you write here, but…

First of all, you may upset some of the classicists by choice of names and persons on coins, as they may indicate some weakness in a plausible historical ordering.

But you really will upset historians of Rome by suggesting that “worthless money, soaring taxes and hyperinflation” did it in. As a once wannabe classicist and still occasional toe-dipper, I can nevertheless say this is complete nonsense. I would like to have your sources for such an assertion. Plus, you would have to provide when and under what emperor did it “end” and what does “end” mean. Or, even for that matter, when the decline began. Hint: very tricky. But great sound bite.

But where things really go wrong (IMHO) is when you make an analogy of the diminishing gold/silver content of Roman coins to inflation for “fiat” currencies and their correlated diminishment of value. As many in the crypto world point out, all kinds of things have been used as money… shells, beads, various stones, salt, opium, etc. What made these currencies was every bit as much related to consensus as it was their usefulness and/or constrained supply. Gold, silver, copper, brass, glass beads, etc. still continued to be used throughout the empire after coins came into use. And the overwhelming majority of Roman subjects used plain old barter. Coins were used primarily by the elite. And that continued up to and through the middle ages in Europe.

But it’s a weird analysis to say that the decreasing gold content contemporaneous with increasing use of the coins was a problem. The increasing demand and wider use (V for velocity?) for this consensus value store increased its value and therefore decreased the need for the volume. Not definitive, but more consistent with the base assumptions of crypto believers.

I understand you’re just trying to find an analogous circumstance to back up the belief that by crypto’s value relying on its finite supply (and ignoring its inaccessibility to the majority of people and general uselessness as a currency) that makes it a virtue beyond compare. I am always surprised at the apparent omission of the consequences of a crypto belief in MV=Py or PC=PH or.. whichever: if there is a finite supply of something of value and increasing need (expanding population, need for new investment to upgrade living standards, etc.), this would seem to rapidly create a huge incumbency oligarchy: those who had the most in the beginning, etc. No one really quite knows how such a thing would play out in the long term. Roosevelt’s decision to exit the gold standard and the reasons and results suggest some answers. But I never hear crypto folks elaborate on this.

Which brings us to good government and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. First off, saying something is “free” and then explaining it is paid through taxes is a contradiction. But never mind. The reality is AOC might as well be Angela Merkel. Or Lars Lokke Rasmussen or Stefan Loefven or Erna Solberg or Mark Rutte or Sebastian Kurz or Emanuel Macron or Theresa May or Justin Trudeau or Sauli Niinisto. Why? Because Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Austria, France, England, Canada, and Finland are being led by AOC’s and have repeatedly elected their predecessors from the left and the right.

AOC (and the above-named) simply says it is the job of (a good) government to assure that all citizens benefit from the system in basic ways. Not that they’re entitled to wealth, but that education, health and security in old age are a minimum responsibility. However, not only do these named countries provide “free” medical care, etc., they also have mandatory paid minimum time for vacation every year (Germany wins with 6 weeks), mandatory paid time off for illness and birth of children and massively subsidized comprehensive affordable high quality public transportation and, and, and. In short: the objective is to provide as much of a decent existence for its citizens as possible.

It would be well to hear from crypto-believers that they have a broader awareness of economics and its various practices and consequences in different economies. And, generally, to hear less theory (and edited for argument history) and more empirical analysis.