During the first half of the 20th century, many countries including France and England debased or eliminated (in full or in part) silver coinage, switching to cheaper metals. Why didn't the whole world quickly follow suit to save expense?

I started thinking on this and right now i think most people can see the public opinion of being that inflation is making life hard, renting/buying a house even is difficult. A lot of times people refeer to somewhere in the past, sometimes they say either 2000s, or even late 2010s or after ww2 decades as good times, economically. But the more i tought about it, the more i tought "But people in the late 2010s complained the same way over different issues" (I was born in 2002). Not to mention the financial 2008 crisis which must have been tough at the time, though i cant talk personally about this one as i was too young.

So to ask the question, am i the only one to notice the population in general never notices they are on a period of economic benevolence while its going on, and its observed aferwards?
This stems because, people are so doomer, either it be towards economy or the government, and while i can agree or disagree, i have the perception things arent as simple to solve as they look, and solutions often work but in long term, though i dont want to go too outside the topic, considering this is rather focused on Economy.

Mirroring this for visibility with the same question.

I made this one, so fair warning it's my own video. It's animated and the narration is a synthetic voice, but the research and script are mine.

What got me started was Andrew Odlyzko's paper on the Railway Mania. Charles Mackay wrote Extraordinary Popular Delusions in 1841, then spent the 1840s cheering railway shares in his own newspaper. And Charlotte Brontë wanted to sell the sisters' shares in 1846, but Emily wouldn't, so they held them all the way down.

The part I'm least sure how to frame is the end, where I compare it to AI spending today using Oxford Economics' estimate that only the Railway Mania had a bigger investment surge. Curious if people here think that comparison holds up or not.

Sources:

- Andrew Odlyzko, "Collective hallucinations and inefficient markets: The British Railway Mania of the 1840s" (2010): https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/hallucinations.pdf

- Andrew Odlyzko, "Charles Mackay's own extraordinary popular delusions and the Railway Mania" (2012): https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/mania04.pdf

- Dictionary of National Biography (1885-1900), "Hudson, George": https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900/Hudson,_George

- Charlotte Brontë's letters of 1845-1849, as quoted by Odlyzko (2010) and annebronte.org

- Thomas Carlyle, "Hudson's Statue," Latter-Day Pamphlets No. 7 (1850)

- The Economist (1855), quoted in Odlyzko (2010)

- Oxford Economics, "Is an AI downturn unavoidable?" (Sept 2026): https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/is-an-ai-downturn-unavoidable/

Happy to be corrected.

In the late 1800’s-early 1900’s banking system, all country banks had deposits in the money centers, mainly New York.

When farmers pulled cash for the harvest, this less to draws on reserves from New York, and the New York banks raised rates for call loans to stock speculators.

The creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 solved this seasonal liquidity issue.

But the artifact of this seasonal issue of tightening liquidity in the fall is one explanation for the seasonal predisposition for large downward moves in stocks in the fall.

For other explanations, this is a good summary of the “Halloween effect” in markets: https://journalistsresource.org/economics/halloween-strategy-stock-market-lore-or-scary-real/

I made a table chart of different types of liberalism, as they developed historically, focusing on their economic views.

What do you think about it? Did I miss something? Make some mistakes? Would you organize it differently?