If you look at money as a tool, and that tool only has value when it is used, and its primary purpose is to be half a liquidity pair in barter situations, to fa

If you look at money as a tool, and that tool only has value when it is used, and its primary purpose is to be half a liquidity pair in barter situations, to facilitate trade, having that same tool also be a store of wealth can cause a conflict of interest. As much as we try and hide it, using this tool has a cost each time, whether its a transaction fee, the management/storage/processing of cash, the physical money production itself. The convenience of everything being tradable with anything else, with only one conversion in-between is valuable. On one hand you want the velocity of money to stay up, so people use the tool frequently, and WANT to use the tool, because that's where it derives its usefulness from, from being used. On the other hand, you don't want to disincentivize savings, but may want to disincentivize hoarding. What's the difference? I've thought for a while now, that an optimal solution may be multiple currencies. In Singapore they have a savings account that acts like an HSA and you can pay rent from. Other nations have sovereign wealth funds propped up by the extraction of natural resources. Maybe it is time to have a forced checking account and a savings account and a living account trichotomy, denominated in three different currencies. Maybe the checking account is pure USD, the living account is untaxed TIPS, and the savings account is a conservative state managed investment portfolio. They can then control the exchange rate between these accounts if people need to move money from one to the other. Force point of sale systems to correctly tag what is eligible to be spent from the living account, and deduct part from each. There is room for a lot of automation, especially when you add a one month line of credit.