Is it better to have money now or in the future? Most people would unhestitatingly say that it is better to have it now. But why? Are our present needs more important than our future needs? The most common explanation given for the fact that money earns interest is because we prefer present consumption to future consumption. Therefore, in order to compensate people who are willing to delay their gratification they must be offered a financial reward for doing so. But does this logic really make sense?
„In a free society, when offered payment in a stable/rare currency, and a depreciating currency, a person will rationally chose the stable/rare. The general adoption of a depreciating currency would therefore require a deep invasion into the personal freedom of the citizens to prevent the spontaneous arising of black markets using stable/rare money.“
Regarding the question of how to implement Gesellian money, it is interesting to note Gresham‘s Law. It roughly says ‚bad’ (here: depreciating) money always supersedes ‚good‘ (here: value stable) money. This is because everyone wants to keep the value stable money and wants to pay with the depreciating money. Therefore, depreciating money is circulating more widely and eventually supersedes value stable money by means of a simple market mechanism. It is utterly possible that depreciating money, once introduced (maybe in crypto form), outperforms value stable money in the long run.
My complements on a thoughtful and stimulating presentation. As you invite comments it submit:
I read the excerpt from Gesell’s book. I liked it a lot. I am a great believer in the use of dialog to present a case.
Gesell cites a quotation form Marx.
‘Like all his disciples he (Marx) made the mistake of excluding money form the scope of his inquiry. He was fascinated by the shining metal disks, otherwise he could never have used the following words: "Gold and silver are not by nature money, but money is by nature gold and silver, witness the coincidence of their natural properties with its functions”.’.
In the spirit of fair debate, since he brought this up, I think the full context of the quote should be cited. It comes from a chapter of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy, entitled “The Precious Metals”.
Marx description of that natural evolution of precious metals as a store of value and medium of exchange seems quite convincing to me. If there is a flaw in this argument I would like to know where it is. Furthermore the adoption of stable/rare materials as money takes place across many cultures, supporting the assertion that it is natural.
If one accepts as true the natural evolution of stable/rare monetary systems, this does not imply that it is the best monetary system. I will stipulate that a depreciating monetary medium may well be better, in providing a more level bargaining field as you point out. However, there is the question of how such a system is to be implemented over the natural rare/stable system. In a free society, when offered payment in a stable/rare currency, and a depreciating currency, a person will rationally chose the stable/rare. The general adoption of a depreciating currency would therefore require a deep invasion into the personal freedom of the citizens to prevent the spontaneous arising of black markets using stable/rare money.
In my view, the amelioration of the faults of capitalism and stable/rare money can be accomplished with far less invasion, namely by welfare capitalism. Here the government redistributes resources, thereby undoing the exploitation inherent in capitalism, without repressing the natural stable/rare monetary system The good thing is that the poor will always outnumber the rich, so, in a democracy, the poor have the power to demand a fairer share then is provided them by pure capitalism. There are presently quite a few democratic countries which in which the effect welfare capitalism in reducing income inequality can be seen. The effectiveness of welfare capitalism is shown in the below chart of a measure on income inequality equality.
Hello everyone,
„In a free society, when offered payment in a stable/rare currency, and a depreciating currency, a person will rationally chose the stable/rare. The general adoption of a depreciating currency would therefore require a deep invasion into the personal freedom of the citizens to prevent the spontaneous arising of black markets using stable/rare money.“
Regarding the question of how to implement Gesellian money, it is interesting to note Gresham‘s Law. It roughly says ‚bad’ (here: depreciating) money always supersedes ‚good‘ (here: value stable) money. This is because everyone wants to keep the value stable money and wants to pay with the depreciating money. Therefore, depreciating money is circulating more widely and eventually supersedes value stable money by means of a simple market mechanism. It is utterly possible that depreciating money, once introduced (maybe in crypto form), outperforms value stable money in the long run.
My complements on a thoughtful and stimulating presentation. As you invite comments it submit:
I read the excerpt from Gesell’s book. I liked it a lot. I am a great believer in the use of dialog to present a case.
Gesell cites a quotation form Marx.
‘Like all his disciples he (Marx) made the mistake of excluding money form the scope of his inquiry. He was fascinated by the shining metal disks, otherwise he could never have used the following words: "Gold and silver are not by nature money, but money is by nature gold and silver, witness the coincidence of their natural properties with its functions”.’.
In the spirit of fair debate, since he brought this up, I think the full context of the quote should be cited. It comes from a chapter of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy, entitled “The Precious Metals”.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/ch02_4.htm
Marx description of that natural evolution of precious metals as a store of value and medium of exchange seems quite convincing to me. If there is a flaw in this argument I would like to know where it is. Furthermore the adoption of stable/rare materials as money takes place across many cultures, supporting the assertion that it is natural.
If one accepts as true the natural evolution of stable/rare monetary systems, this does not imply that it is the best monetary system. I will stipulate that a depreciating monetary medium may well be better, in providing a more level bargaining field as you point out. However, there is the question of how such a system is to be implemented over the natural rare/stable system. In a free society, when offered payment in a stable/rare currency, and a depreciating currency, a person will rationally chose the stable/rare. The general adoption of a depreciating currency would therefore require a deep invasion into the personal freedom of the citizens to prevent the spontaneous arising of black markets using stable/rare money.
In my view, the amelioration of the faults of capitalism and stable/rare money can be accomplished with far less invasion, namely by welfare capitalism. Here the government redistributes resources, thereby undoing the exploitation inherent in capitalism, without repressing the natural stable/rare monetary system The good thing is that the poor will always outnumber the rich, so, in a democracy, the poor have the power to demand a fairer share then is provided them by pure capitalism. There are presently quite a few democratic countries which in which the effect welfare capitalism in reducing income inequality can be seen. The effectiveness of welfare capitalism is shown in the below chart of a measure on income inequality equality.
https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm