There's nothing wrong with this argument except
... that it ignores the purpose of paper money in the first place.
Perhaps the most important information that Marco Polo brought back from China was kept secret at the time. It may have also contributed to his being incarcerated - to keep the masses from learning what he had reported privately.
His shocking news was that the Khan could afford anything he wanted - war, domestic programs, harems, whatever - simply by printing money.
The only money in Europe at the time was gold, which despite the best efforts of all the kings' wizards, could not be counterfeited. Therefore, everything had to be paid for.
The benefit of the hardest monetary instrument of all - gold - is that it forces discipline on greedy governments (is there any other kind?). Likewise for the "hard" currencies, although even they lose probably half their value each generation. Still, that's a far cry from what happens to 3rd world currencies.
As for the Euro, only a few of it's members (German Mark, Dutch Guilder, Austrian Schilling) were "hard". Why they chose to link with weak ones like the Italian Lira, Spanish Peseta, even the French Franc is an incredible display of contempt for the German, Dutch, and Austrian people.
I don't think that the Euro can last. What will happen when those countries with traditionally weak currencies refuse to rein in their deficit spending? Only a strong political union, with loss of national sovereignty, can save the Euro, in my opinion.
This argument is even more forceful against dollarization of the DR. Unless the US gives the DR a printing press, which is unlikely (unless Hillary becomes president), the DR's spendthrift ways would be seriously curtailed.
Remember where you heard it first.
