How NOT To Fight Inflation

As an Egyptian, this is sounding all too familiar...

“This is the third century Roman Empire” The third century Roman Empire: “AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH”

One thing to note is that the debasement of Roman currency had been occuring since the late Republic. The silver content in the denarius would slowly but exponentially drop from 98% during Augustus’ reign to >5% silver during the reign of Gallienus during the 260’s. It was a slowly collapse which snapped and then collapsed quickly. There is a reason Roman coins from the 3rd Century onwards are so plentiful and affordable for collectors. I wouldn’t blame Diocletian entirely for the economic causes of the Empire. After all, he was one of two emperors to actually try and fix the economy, the other being Aurelian who increased the silver content in coins. Diocletian, he tried.

The first step to fighting inflation is to identify what the causes of inflation are in the first place. We in the US are being misled as to where our inflation is coming from. We are being told it’s from the low interest rates and wage inflation, that may be a tiny source but is definitely not the whole picture.

"Diocletian debased coinage". Except that aureus was debased multiple times since the times of Augustus and denarii silver content was at 5% since Aurelian. You are blaming the dude for two centuries of anarchy and neglect. Diocletian reintroduced new high grade silver coinage in 293 CE.

From a historical perspective, it seems like Diocletian's reign is usually spoken of as a point of stability, after one of Rome's many periods of civil war. Soon after his death the Roman Empire would be brought to new heights by Constantine, although not without another civil war in between. So for me, the question isn't "why Diocletian's economic policies were terrible", but "why DIDN'T Rome collapse as a result?"

I found it weird how you talked about debasement of currency without attempting to define the term until a while after you’d started talking about it

Printing money is inflation. The most common consequence of inflation is rising prices.

This is why derivatives is important folks. Especially for agriculture. You wouldn't think your typical farmer is an expert in finance but you'd be wise to think otherwise. The exact term used to hedge against fluctuations in demand (which are subsequently impacted by weather and other events) is commodities trading.

With markets tumbling, inflation soaring, the Fed imposing large interest-rate hike, while treasury yields are rising rapidly—which means more red ink for portfolios this quarter. How can I profit from the current volatile market, I'm still at a crossroads deciding if to liquidate my $125k bond/stocck portfolio

The details of inflation are complex, but the essence is simple: governments spending beyond their revenues.

That is not a map of the 3rd century Roman empire. That is the second century. Also his introduction of higher quality currency actually made inflation even worse because it was expanding the money supply. Also despite the strict punishments for ignoring the price cap, so many people ignored it that it was rarely enforced.

Realistically, what should Diocletian have done instead? (Did ANYONE at the time have the understanding of economics that we in hindsight have?)

This is the pop history explanation. Newer research suggests government spending was actually not too bad at this time. Inflation was primarily located in the Gaullic province (rather than empire-wide) and caused by supply shocks. Despite Diocletian’s poor monetary policy, the political stability he created actually solved the root of the inflation. Also, this is a simplistic take on capitatio-iugatio (his tax policy). It did have some negative effects, but it also allowed better government budget planning and survived until the 7th century.

"this is the third centuri roman empire" puts a map of trajans roman empire . the denarii went from 98% silver under domitian to 5% at the time of diocletian , its weird how domitian is a bad emperor but he was the only one who had the idea to increase silver from 90% to 98%. also i think the solidus(gold coins) didnt got devaluated that much as it was a solid gold coin later under constatine ,but the transactions were mainly made in silver coins which were heavely devaluated so the currency mostly used by the masses were subject to high inflation

Even though I plan to stick with it, inflation is wasting my money and my portfolio is losing gains every day, so I need a cure right away. My main concern is how to raise the value of my cash reserve because it has been lying there for a very long time with little to no increases and inflation is currently about 10%.

This video is... Well. I can't say there is a lot of wrong information here, rather that the context had been murdered and desecrated. First of all, the debasing of the coinage was something that was going on for a LONG time. Diocletian wasn't special in that regard, that was standard practice. While we can point at earlier examples, emperor Severus brought this practice to a new high and effectively doomed the empire into the third century crisis. Secondly, you missed the fact that this is the CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY. Rome was on fire for about a 50 years at this point, with invasions and civil wars being the norm, the head of government being assassinated and replaced by his assassin every two months or so, and breakaway states running an entirely different operation. Diocletian doesn't get all the credit for ending the crisis, a large part of it was thanks to Aurelian, but we need to look at the economic troubles of his reign and remember that the empire is coming out of the biggest crisis in it's history. The fact that his economic reforms weren't solving all of its issues came in large part due to the fact that he had to effectively build the entire system from scratch. Thirdly, despite your doom and gloom, you forget the reason why his reign is considered a time of stability. While his economic reforms weren't optimal, his political reforms were working well at the time. He managed to stabilize the government and bureaucracy, pacified the army, secure the borders, and gave the empire the time it needed to rebuild. The fact that the empire didn't immediately return to civil war and crisis after his economic reforms shows that they really weren't that bad in the grand scheme of things, and he managed to balance them with political stability and security. And finally, the last point: The empire survived. It survived, at least the western portion of it, for almost 200 more years after his reign. Yes, there were civil wars. Yes, there was instability, and through the 5th century the empire would slowly lose more and more grounds and become a shadow of itself until it's demise. But it survived. The way this video is made, portrays it as if Diocletian was the last emperor of Rome, when he is largely credited as one of the people responsible for it surviving that long after it should have fallen. His economic reforms were eventually balanced by decisions made by Constantine and people further down the line, and eventually the empire did collapse under its own weight, but his reforms were the last thing that caused that fall. The entire premise of this video is misleading and false, portraying it as if Diocletian had no idea what he was doing and throwing the empire into the pit.

Oh man, I learned about this in some detail in the podcast "The History of Rome" by Mike Duncan.

Take a shot every time you hear the word "inflation"

As for economists Will Rogers described an economist as (not a perfect quote) - A very intelligent and highly educated person who would try to predict future economic events. From what I can see their inspired guesses seem to be about as good as anybody's.