Natural economic order

Fair enough. Anyway, it is a price control.

Maybe it is a question of definition. I you assume fiat is not money, you are right.

You are correct.

This is what this discussion is about. It is more about systems theory than about economics. Systems theory and economics are conflicting on some points. Economic statements do not always make sense in the real world.

If everybody agrees on this subject, we did not have a discussion.

You may call it totalitarianism. This is ok with me. But we disagree.

For me it is difficult to argue with that.

I said I have some understanding in general and I have read some articles, but I never said I have read complete books.

Indeed. Especially considering that most of modern economics is built off the idea that assumptions need not be true, which is a major beef Austrians have with it.

Sorry if I am blunt, but generally ask before asserting something if you’re not sure about it. Rothbard definitely thought fiat money is possible.

Indeed, but it’s a complex topic, and one that requires some basic knowledge of the major Austrian tomes. Have you at least read George Reisman’s article on the matter of fiat money and wealth inequalities?

-Jon

I was just reading some other works.

I will try to show some understanding of the Austrian view:

Why should you surrender you work or your goods and services for money that is not a commodity and is having no real value at all?

The answer lies in the trust you have that you can get something back for this money.

When trusting this money, your work and goods and services can be stolen from you, by inflation.

Therefore you should never trust fiat money. Therefore natural money is just money and should not be a store of value. If you want to store value, and you choose not to lend the money at 0% avoiding the tax, and you choose not to buy stock, you are free to buy gold.

This is the bit that throws me off. Why should it be taxed? Price controls are not known to provide stability of any sort, so why is such necessary?

-Jon

First of all, the tax is not a price control, but the forbiddenness of interest is the price control.

If you are with me, that money may not need to be a commodity, you see it is not a real price control in the sense of a price control on goods or services.

It is a limit on lending money. When the price is fixed, the amount of money available for lending, is also very inflexible. Only the highest quality borrowers will qualify for a loan. If there is more demand for money, only the best borrowers will get the money.

Why should this be?

If you are with me that boom and bust creates instability in the system, you see the point more clearly.

There will be no overspending, no overborrowing, therefore a stable growing of capital and wealth. For people it now becomes clear that government intervention is not needed.

I hope this explanation is clear enough.

Yeah, that’s correct.

But it isn’t a price control on money… it’s a price control on loanable funds. Anything can be loaned.

Indeed, but it first needs to be shown that lending money at an interest rate is the cause of the boom/bust cycle, given that all interest rates do is show to what extent present as opposed to future consumption is generally preferred. It’s the fed’s setting the interest rate too low (i.e. a price control) that misleads individuals into thinking there are in fact more loanable funds than there really are, leading them to engage in unsustainable investments in higher order goods and durable consumer’s goods, that cannot be completed when it is revealed that funds were indeed inadequate.

But as a price control on loanable funds there will most certainly be over-borrowing, resulting in scarcity.

-Jon

If you borrow a car and pay money for it, I do not see the problem. The car was already in existence and can not be created out of thin air.

I have some problems with the theory of preferring present consumption above future consumption. This sounds quite odd when you apply this on the real world: Would I prefer having two new cars now to having one new car now and another new car in five years time? Would I prefer 365 loafs of bread today in stead of one loaf of bread every day of the year?

If you analyze this strange economic theory, it is based upon the assumption of interest on money.

Low interest rates can only result in unsustainable investment, if there is supply of money, which is not there if you have natural money.

If the money is not available, you cannot borrow it, because supply is very inflexible. The market mechanism still works here, only selecting the highest quality borrowers in stead of setting a price.

No, I mean you can lend anything out, e.g. a car, and expect more (e.g. the car plus some corn) in repayment for what you lent out, given that you were deprived from using the good during the time it was lent out. Money is not unique in this regard, and in the case of commodity money there is no difference at all.

No, it applies strictly to the same unit of a homogeneous good (i.e. one of identical serviceability), i.e. one car (of the same serviceability) now as opposed to one car (of the same serviceability) in the future.

How does that work, exactly? Low interest rates mean nothing if they reflect time preferences. It is only if they are beneath the equilibrium level by government mandate that they become problematic, like any price under a control.

Yes, but it’s still over-borrowing, at least until the supply of loanable funds runs dry.

-Jon

There’s nothing wrong with the charging of interest. If there are only two people in the world, you and I, and I loan you $10 with 5% interest, you can work for me and make enough money to pay me back all of the loan.

No money is created through charging interest by itself.

This misconception arises because you assume the current fractional-reserve banking with on-demand deposits. But consider other combos:

  • Fractional-reserve + time deposits → Won’t increase the money supply, since you can’t demand your money back before the bank got back what it had lended. But you earn interest. This is more like an investment fund.

  • Full-reserve + on-demand deposits → Banks won’t give you interest because they can’t use the money (full-reserve requirement). Instead, they might actually charge interest for storing your money. This is more like a warehouse.

Current banking (fractional-reserve + on-demand deposits) creates “virtual” money because all participants assume they can withdraw the money at any given moment. The “virtual” money migrates when payments/transfers are made. Real money creation occurs when the central bank supplies the private banks with the “missing” liquidities in order to pay back those deposits.

As I have said before, capital should earn interest. That is only natural. A car is a form of capital.

If money is a commodity, it is a form of capital. But there is a twist. If you assume money to be a commodity, you assume money to be capital. As we have seen, money can be anything, even only an agreement. Natural money should therefore not be capital.

Might be. But not being an economist, and using the train every day, I do not need a car now but in 5 years. Then I would like to travel to Spain by car. I rather would like to have a car in 5 years. So in the real world, there are some problems with this assumption.

I am not an economist, so I might go wrong here. In plain English I see it working like this: there is only a limited supply at a given price. So therefore all would be borrowers should do a beauty contest, and only the best will get the loan. This is a market functioning at a fixed price, how strange this may seem. It is a cap on the risk people will take. Maybe I am missing something, but it does make sense to me.

If there is a large supply of money to be lent, it may be possible that the price of money for the best borrowers goes negative. This would not be a problem as far as I can think of. Still, if there are no enough qualified borrowers, some of the money to be lent will not be used. The lender then may choose to invest in stocks.

Over-borrowing is in the eye of the beholder if you do not specify it. For me over-borrowing exists only when lenders cannot pay back the loans. I think this is not the case in general, because otherwise the loans would not be given anyway.

There is always a “bad luck” element in it, for example if collateral gets destroyed. So even in natural money systems there is some risk for loans not being returned. Maybe this can be insured, but here the matter gets tricky, because insurance implies a risk premium which should be backed by capital and not by money. And in this case capital is probably money. So I see a problem here. At this moment, capital and money are the samen. I never said the system was perfect in the first place.

Maybe the solution is to never insure loans.

At least there is no moral problem.

But there is a practical problem in my opinion: to make matters simple, you charge the outragious amount of 100% interest a day:
Day 1: Money supply $10, debt $10. So the employer says, in a generous mood, I give you all the money I have for your work, being $10.
Day 2: Money supply $10, debt $20. So the employer says, in a generous mood, I give you all the money I have for your work, being $10.
Day 3: Money supply $10, debt $30. So the employer says, in a generous mood, I give you all the money I have for your work, being $10.

Of course this is an utterly ridiculous example, but my observation is: there is a money world and a world of goods and services. Maybe, if the economy is doing well, prices of goods and services are going down, and the employee can buy more for $10, but still money wise there is a problem. At some point the employer must see that the employee will never pay back his debt. Because the employee is the only customer needing the product, the factory closes down and employee gets fired. The capital is destroyed.

My conclusion: you must manage the money system in such a way that capital is not destroyed. That is far more efficient.

I think I agree with Austrians on many points, or at least the following:

  • capital should earn interest
  • government should leave markets alone
  • fractional reserve banking is not a wise thing

The only difference is: Should money earn interest? And therefore: is money the same as capital?

Systems theory perspective

Try to imagine that the economy is a system, just like the human body. All parts of the system need each other to operate
properly. Try to imagine that money flowing in the economy is like blood flowing in the body. In this case it would not
make sense that a kidney is saying to the liver: This is my blood, you may borrow it with interest. It also does not make
sense for parts of the body to hoard blood because there might be no blood flowing in the future. Strange enough, economists do
think this makes sense.

Systems theory conflicts with economics. Charging interest makes sense to economists, but interest presses the weakest
spots in the economy the hardest. This is because the weakest borrowers have to pay the highest interest rates. If
engineers build planes like that, they would fall from the sky. Therefore according to systems theory, the economy could
be far more efficient when the weakest spots are not pressed, capital would only be build and not be destroyed, recessions
and depressions did not exist and full employment is a constant state of the economy.

Example of natural money system:

http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v105/__show_article/_a000105-000002.htm

Laboratory readings: Wörgl’s Stamp Scrip – The Threat of a Good Example?
Wörgl’s Stamp Scrip – The Threat of a Good Example? 12 comments

26 Jun 2002 @ 01:50, by Martin Oliver

On July 5th 1932, in the middle of the Great Depression, the Austrian town of Wörgl made economic history by introducing a remarkable complimentary currency. Wörgl was in trouble, and was prepared to try anything. Of its population of 4,500, a total of 1,500 people were without a job, and 200 families were penniless.

The mayor, Michael Unterguggenberger, had a long list of projects he wanted to accomplish, but there was hardly any money with which to carry them out. These included repaving the roads, streetlighting, extending water distribution across the whole town, and planting trees along the streets.

Rather than spending the 40,000 Austrian schillings in the town’s coffers to start these projects off, he deposited them in a local savings bank as a guarantee to back the issue of a type of complimentary currency known as ‘stamp scrip’. This requires a monthly stamp to be stuck on all the circulating notes for them to remain valid, and in Wörgl, the stamp amounted 1% of the each note’s value. The money raised was used to run a soup kitchen that fed 220 families.

Because nobody wanted to pay what was effectively a hoarding fee, everyone receiving the notes would spend them as fast as possible. The 40,000 schilling deposit allowed anyone to exchange scrip for 98 per cent of its value in schillings. This offer was rarely taken up though.

Of all the business in town, only the railway station and the post office refused to accept the local money. When people ran out of spending ideas, they would pay their taxes early using scrip, resulting in a huge increase in town revenues. Over the 13-month period the project ran, the council not only carried out all the intended works projects, but also built new houses, a reservoir, a ski jump, and a bridge. The people also used scrip to replant forests, in anticipation of the future cashflow they would receive from the trees.

The key to its success was the fast circulation of scrip within the local economy, 14 times higher than the schilling. This in turn increased trade, creating extra employment. At the time of the project, Wörgl was the only Austrian town to achieve full employment.

Six neighbouring villages copied the system successfully. The French Prime Minister, Eduoard Dalladier, made a special visit to see the ‘miracle of Wörgl’. In January 1933, the project was replicated in the neighbouring city of Kirchbuhl, and in June 1933, Unterguggenburger addressed a meeting with representatives from 170 different towns and villages. Two hundred Austrian townships were interested in adopting the idea.

At this point, the central bank panicked, and decided to assert its monopoly rights by banning complimentary currencies. The people unsuccessfully sued the bank, and later lost in the Austrian Supreme Court. It then became a criminal offence to issue ‘emergency currency’.

Unterguggenberger was opposed to both communism and fascism, championing instead what he referred to as ‘economic freedom’. Therefore, it was deeply ironic that the Wörgl experiment was first branded ‘craziness’ by the monetary authorities, then a Communist idea, and some years later as a fascist one.

The town went back to 30% unemployment. In 1934, social unrest exploded across Austria. In 1938, when Hitler annexed Austria, he was welcomed by many people as their economic and political saviour.

The 1920’s had already seen a scrip currency called the ‘wara’ in the German town of Schwanenkirchen. This saved the town’s economy and kept a coal mine operating. It started circulating more widely, and became part of a movement called ‘Freiwirtschaft’ (Free Economy), based on the ideas of the economist Silvio Gesell.

Central to Gesell’s ideas was the use of a hoarding fee of the kind used in Wörgl (technically known as ‘demurrage’). The soundness of such an idea was affirmed by John Maynard Keynes in his 1936 work ‘General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money’.

Perhaps the most groundbreaking feature of demurrage is that it is intrinsically anti-inflationary. Whereas conventional currencies are progressively devalued by interest, anti-inflationary money steadily increases in value. As each monthly stamp is added, the value of the note effectively increases by the stamp amount. This is technically equivalent to a negative interest rate.

The present short-term focus of investments, and the consequent lack of long-term vision are exacerbated by interest-driven currency devaluation that, from a profit perspective, reduces the appeal of longer-timescale projects. The use of a demurrage currency gives an edge to those working for sustainability, because a rate of return is achieved SIMPLY BY LENDING OUT MONEY. When money is repaid (remember these are non-interest currencies), it will have increased in value owing to the money saved by having avoided paying the monthly demurrage fees. This has the potential to enable investment in highly benefical but economically marginal activities such as earth repair.

A recommended book that covers scrip currencies and more fully explains this ‘negative interest’ principle is Bernard Lietaer’s ‘The Future of Money’ (see Resources). The following three sites also cover demurrage:

In case the ending of the Wörgl story was disempowering, I’d like to add that the number of complimentary currencies around the world is undergoing an exponential growth. As of 2000, there were more than 2,500 in operation, and I expect that the number is still fast-growing. Local stamp scrip currencies can only work in a country firmly committed to decentralising power.

What kind of imbecile would mistake Wörgl Stamp Scrips (WSSs) for sound money. You cannot redeem any of the 40,000 Austrian Schillings backing the currency. You have no way to be sure that the managers of this currency are not inflating the supply of WSSs. In fact the whole idea of stamping each note every month smells like deliberate inflation, only they had absolute control each month so that it didn’t suddenly soar. I take it, if you find a WSS in the trash bin in the month of March, with a stamp from January, but not from February, the WSG is worthless? So you could print more WSSs than your backing the moment you realize how many of the old WSSs the weren’t restamped.

Reading the story from Wörgl I can readily imagine why Mr. Keynes loved the idea: No one hoarding money! It does all the things he loved so much, i.e. destroy savings, destroy the real value of each WSS (the once invalid at least), and transfer wealth from savers to the town’s treasury wherefrom the mayor and the town counsel could use all the extracted buying power to run soup kitchens and build brigdes and pyramids. It does all of this without inflation. How wonderful! Also, the story enfolds from 1932 to 1934 right? Hardly enough to notice the long term effects of total government malinvestment or a bubble. People maintain a cash-balance for a deliberate reason, read Mises; who are anyone to take this choice away from them?

You don’t know what money is, you don’t know what real wealth is.

Could your straw man get any bigger?

It is not blood qua blood that matters and you know this perfectly well. It is the function of blood that matters, i.e. to transport blood cells (red blood cells) transporting oxygen to all the body’s muscles (e.g. organs) and (white blood cells) to compat infections. And so we gather blood is a medium of exchange whose value (function) can be inflated/deflated due to different natural or unnatural stimuli.

I know this perfectly well. It is not important what blood actually is, or what money actually is, but what it actually does.

Of course I was not expecting anyone to agree with me, so that is fine with me.

I only hope you can see the reasoning behind the theory. After all, knowledge is power.

I will not say it is sound money like gold. There are of course options to insure the managers of this currency are not inflating the supply of WSSs. I also stated that when you make loans, you should make provisions to ensure the value of the loan. Apart from you not liking the idea, we do agree.

I will not say it is sound money like gold. There are of course options to insure the managers of this currency are not inflating the supply of WSSs. I also stated that when you make loans, you should make provisions to ensure the value of the loan. Apart from you not liking the idea, we do agree that this is not a store of value.

(something went wrong)