90 ms·

An interesting look at theories around "perishable" money. A very interesting concept. Most resources in the world have a lifespan - even an iron bar will even

An interesting look at theories around "perishable" money. A very interesting concept. Most resources in the world have a lifespan - even an iron bar will eventually rust. However, a dollar is as perpetual as the system itself. On top of that, the entire economic system is designed to reward those who take more and give less - that is how you become rich, and being rich is the highest ideal. However, if money had a lifespan... if it could "decay" just like the crops we grow, then things would change. If you try to sell a bushel of corn today, and there isn't much demand, you will need to lower the price to sell it. This is because it will go bad and then you will have nothing. If you get paid a dollar today, and you know that dollar has a lifespan, then you are incentivized to spend it! If you have a million dollars that can expire, there isn't much use in holding or hoarding it... like the corn, it will go bad. So, you want to spend it - on things you need, or services, or by investing in equipment, training, research,etc. Heck - even just going on a trip or getting a nice meal is better than letting the money "rot" in a bank account. I'm not so sure that something like this would work at scale. It seems to be more workable in smaller circles, like a LETS or local trade system. Still, the thought experiment is useful, and I thnk it helps to highlight how some of the problems we face are actually baked into the system. From the article: 'Gesell believed that the most-rewarded impulse in our present economy is to give as little as possible and to receive as much as possible, in every transaction. In doing so, he thought, we grow materially, morally and socially poorer. “The exploitation of our neighbor’s need, mutual plundering conducted with all the wiles of salesmanship, is the foundation of our economic life,” he lamented.'

bogantech 3y ago
> A very interesting concept. Most resources in the world have a lifespan - even an iron bar will eventually rust. Gold doesn't though, we'd just end up back at hoarding / investing in gold
garrickvanburen 3y ago
Grain is quite stable under the right conditions (dry, cool), which is one of the reasons there can be a futures market for it and sales can happen over the winter and even the spring following a harvest. It wouldn’t surprise me if the origin of currency began with grain.
- analog31 3y ago
  ... and possibly with futures. A clay tablet promising delivery of grain.
- alsogutalsogut 3y ago
  [flagged]
ToucanLoucan 3y ago
Call me cynical but I have a strong feeling that the wealthy elite who are already paying an entire cottage industry's worth of six-figure or more finance professionals and lawyers to dodge taxes will find a way to make this work for them too, while it creates an even stronger barrier to entering the truly monied classes from whatever remains of the middle class. If you want to get money moving in the economy again, we already know how to do that. Tax the shit out of the wealthy in such a way that they can't weasel out of it, and turn that money over to the people, be it through hiring them for public works projects, more and wider spread research grants, Universal Basic Income, or economic stimulus. We have tons of mechanisms to move money "down the hierarchy" as Dr. Peterson would say, but the problem is all of our politicians and media are owned by the very rich, and so taking money from the very rich is not on the table, which is how you do that. So we're left with this entire group of two professionals scratching their heads as to how we solve the problem of "the rich have too much money and the poor don't have enough" without having the rich give the poor money, which rather predictably lands at "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas." I'm not even necessarily arguing pro or con here (though if you're curious, I'm extremely pro) I'm just saying that the rich accumulating too much is doing exactly what economists have always said it will do: it stalls the economy, and it will continue to do that. No amount of thumb on the scale by the rich will change this fundamental fact, and even some of them are saying this. If you totally strip mine the consumer base in the never ending pursuit of number-go-up, eventually you have no one left to sell your products to and then the entire game is over.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > If you want to get money moving in the economy again, we already know how to do that. Tax the shit out of the wealthy in such a way that they can't weasel out of it, and turn that money over to the people, be it through hiring them for public works projects, more and wider spread research grants, Universal Basic Income, or economic stimulus. Yes, you will indeed increase the velocity of money if you steal it from people. But that is typically short lived and not sustained. It tends to be better to allow those wealthy folks with capital to use it to create new businesses that then have the same effect, and the benefit is that this solution is pareto optimal since it's composed of voluntary transactions.
monero-xmr 3y ago
It’s just too impractical. As a business I won’t accept expiring money, unless when it’s paid to me it converts into real money. But if that’s the case then everyone will either have their own “business” or be friends with someone with one in order to convert it to real cash. People already easily avoid the restrictions on foodstamps / SNAP by purchasing and reselling for cash. An interesting idea but totally unworkable.

bogantech 3y ago

> A very interesting concept. Most resources in the world have a lifespan - even an iron bar will eventually rust. Gold doesn't though, we'd just end up back at hoarding / investing in gold

garrickvanburen 3y ago

Grain is quite stable under the right conditions (dry, cool), which is one of the reasons there can be a futures market for it and sales can happen over the winter and even the spring following a harvest. It wouldn’t surprise me if the origin of currency began with grain.

analog31 3y ago
... and possibly with futures. A clay tablet promising delivery of grain.
alsogutalsogut 3y ago
[flagged]

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

Call me cynical but I have a strong feeling that the wealthy elite who are already paying an entire cottage industry's worth of six-figure or more finance professionals and lawyers to dodge taxes will find a way to make this work for them too, while it creates an even stronger barrier to entering the truly monied classes from whatever remains of the middle class. If you want to get money moving in the economy again, we already know how to do that. Tax the shit out of the wealthy in such a way that they can't weasel out of it, and turn that money over to the people, be it through hiring them for public works projects, more and wider spread research grants, Universal Basic Income, or economic stimulus. We have tons of mechanisms to move money "down the hierarchy" as Dr. Peterson would say, but the problem is all of our politicians and media are owned by the very rich, and so taking money from the very rich is not on the table, which is how you do that. So we're left with this entire group of two professionals scratching their heads as to how we solve the problem of "the rich have too much money and the poor don't have enough" without having the rich give the poor money, which rather predictably lands at "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas." I'm not even necessarily arguing pro or con here (though if you're curious, I'm extremely pro) I'm just saying that the rich accumulating too much is doing exactly what economists have always said it will do: it stalls the economy, and it will continue to do that. No amount of thumb on the scale by the rich will change this fundamental fact, and even some of them are saying this. If you totally strip mine the consumer base in the never ending pursuit of number-go-up, eventually you have no one left to sell your products to and then the entire game is over.

hellojesus 3y ago
> If you want to get money moving in the economy again, we already know how to do that. Tax the shit out of the wealthy in such a way that they can't weasel out of it, and turn that money over to the people, be it through hiring them for public works projects, more and wider spread research grants, Universal Basic Income, or economic stimulus. Yes, you will indeed increase the velocity of money if you steal it from people. But that is typically short lived and not sustained. It tends to be better to allow those wealthy folks with capital to use it to create new businesses that then have the same effect, and the benefit is that this solution is pareto optimal since it's composed of voluntary transactions.

monero-xmr 3y ago

It’s just too impractical. As a business I won’t accept expiring money, unless when it’s paid to me it converts into real money. But if that’s the case then everyone will either have their own “business” or be friends with someone with one in order to convert it to real cash. People already easily avoid the restrictions on foodstamps / SNAP by purchasing and reselling for cash. An interesting idea but totally unworkable.