,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
So my own take on this is that we need to take apart the idea of "hyperinflation" as some "thing" that occurs for the same reason(s) across time and space, and for which "Weimar" is the short hand/locus classicus, etc. 1/n
Before there was a Weimar Republic, "hard money" men like AD White (first Press of Cornell, etc.) pointed to the case of the assignats in Fr Revolution as "fiat money inflation" caused by excess liquidity ... 2/n
White compared the assignats to every dangerous liquid imaginable (cheap alcohol, corrosive poisons, the North Sea if some crazy Dutchman opened the dikes)... 3/n
But opposition to assignats (refusal to take at face value) BEGAN for political reasons, because they were backed by value of property seized from Catholic Church. The Pope (and 50% of French clergy) said that meant they weren't backed at all... 4/n
... and that it would be sacrilege to accept them. Only during the period we now call "the Terror" did Fr Revn govt attempt to enforce circulation of assignats on par with metal. Otherwise, it's a "free" country, you're free to take the nation's money or not...5/n
Extension of "free market" principles to money left govt in very weak position. Prices rose, they had to print more assignats to pay clerks and priests, provide (minimal) poor relief, buy office supplies. Bonaparte's army "lived off the land) (i.e., pillaged, stole) 6/n
So understanding "the first modern hyperinflation" (France in 1790s) absolutely requires putting money in political-social history context and my hunch is that's always true. Every hyperinflation has its own dynamics... 7/n
For more on the Fr Rev hyperinflation, see my Stuff and Money in the Time of the French Revn, chap. 6 (though you may need chaps. 4-5 too!) hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?is…
