<p>&quot;Should&quot; is not a good word to use in this context, it implies a generally agreed upon norm. There are always several upsides and downsides, and it is difficult to assess these in a given moment, without assessing the planned trajectory of a currency exchange.</p>
<p>An example of a downside of depreciation, since you seem to be asking for such, is that a strong Shekel benefits Israeli consumers of foreign goods and services.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-27T07:49:15.977Z
2021-11-27T15:26:55.373Z
2021-11-27T15:26:55.373Z
Giskard
<p>In a given situation where a local currency becomes very strong compared to other major currencies (like the USD, EUR, etc...), should the government / central bank leverage the opportunity to print money and fund infrastructure / public projects with it?</p>
<p>On the surface that looks like a good opportunity to &quot;kill two birds with one stone&quot; - you get &quot;free&quot; money to fund projects while applying down pressure on the currency (high exchange too high can hurt exporters). What undesired effect am I missing?</p>
<p>The specific example in mind is Israel where the Shekel is very strong right now compared to the US dollar...</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-27T13:53:53.297Z
As pointed by Giskard's  answer, there is no way how economics can answer the should question. For example, science/evidence is crystal clear on the health benefits of exercising. Should you exercise? That is value question, and science cannot really answer value questions. Maybe you should never exercise, maybe governments should pursue policies that keep every person as poor as possible. Who is to say these goals would be wrong other than moral philosophers?  Moral questions belong to Philosophy.se, not Economics.se. Please consider editing your question to  make sure its about economics
1muflon1
<macroeconomics><currency><central-banking><government>
Should governments print money while the currency gets stronger
byteSlayer
# Should governments print money while the currency gets stronger

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-11-27)

In a given situation where a local currency becomes very strong compared to other major currencies (like the USD, EUR, etc...), should the government / central bank leverage the opportunity to print money and fund infrastructure / public projects with it?

On the surface that looks like a good opportunity to "kill two birds with one stone" - you get "free" money to fund projects while applying down pressure on the currency (high exchange too high can hurt exporters). What undesired effect am I missing?

The specific example in mind is Israel where the Shekel is very strong right now compared to the US dollar...

**Tags:** macroeconomics, currency, central-banking, government
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: As pointed by Giskard's  answer, there is no way how economics can answer the should question. For example, science/evidence is crystal clear on the health benefits of exercising. Should you exercise? That is value question, and science cannot really answer value questions. Maybe you should never exercise, maybe governments should pursue policies that keep every person as poor as possible. Who is to say these goals would be wrong other than moral philosophers?  Moral questions belong to Philosophy.se, not Economics.se. Please consider editing your question to  make sure its about economics  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-11-27. Score: 1

"Should" is not a good word to use in this context, it implies a generally agreed upon norm. There are always several upsides and downsides, and it is difficult to assess these in a given moment, without assessing the planned trajectory of a currency exchange.

An example of a downside of depreciation, since you seem to be asking for such, is that a strong Shekel benefits Israeli consumers of foreign goods and services.


---

