[HN Gopher] The Miracle of Worgl
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Miracle of Worgl
        
       Author : simonebrunozzi
       Score  : 125 points
       Date   : 2025-11-18 10:59 UTC (12 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (scf.green)
 (TXT) w3m dump (scf.green)
        
       | shevy-java wrote:
       | It was ended by force in Tirol in 1933 though:
       | 
       | https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%B6rgler_Schwundgeld#Proze...
       | 
       | States are very brutal even when you show them alternatives.
        
         | ur-whale wrote:
         | > States are very brutal even when you show them alternatives.
         | 
         | States are monopolies in most of what they do, and that enjoy
         | the added benefit of defending said monopolies with _actual_
         | guns.
        
           | taneq wrote:
           | Ultimately all monopolies are defended with guns.
        
             | actionfromafar wrote:
             | Thus, we want to put the guns into the hands of responsible
             | people.
        
       | recursivedoubts wrote:
       | Money is a public good, its value is a social construct and its
       | supply should be managed in the interests of society at large.
       | The current private debt-money system is the core political and
       | economic problem facing us.
       | 
       | The social credit movement (completely different than the Chinese
       | concept) is interesting in this regard:
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit
        
       | bsenftner wrote:
       | That was, of course, another time. Doing what Worgl did today
       | would trigger a con artist paradise. Just like everything else in
       | this modern corrupt world.
        
       | slightwinder wrote:
       | This only shows, at the end, money is just a tool to move people.
        
         | shiandow wrote:
         | Careful, that's dangerously close to concluding that money,
         | businesses(, ownership) are just tools we made for our own
         | benefit. Which is of course socialism.
        
           | slightwinder wrote:
           | I'm from Europe, we invented socialism. I'm fine with
           | thinking about it.
        
       | thomassmith65 wrote:
       | That is a fascinating history, and a fun read.
       | 
       | It would be even better if the author addressed drawbacks of
       | 'complementary currencies.' On that subject the author seems to
       | have no curiosity.
        
       | taneq wrote:
       | Turns out made-up money is as good as real money at motivating
       | people to do things, and people who aren't living hand-to-mouth
       | are naturally interested in longer term investments.
       | 
       | ...what's that? All money these days is made up?!
        
         | IAmBroom wrote:
         | That is the definition of fiat currency, yes.
        
       | kamikazechaser wrote:
       | There is a movie by the name Shilling From Heaven around this,
       | you can find a link in our blog post
       | https://grassecon.substack.com/p/worglhtml. Our initial work at
       | Grassroots Economics was inspired by this. We even have a smart
       | contract that implements this idea (demurrage/Gesell tax) in it
       | https://github.com/grassrootseconomics/erc20-demurrage-token.
        
       | imtringued wrote:
       | Here is the basic theory:
       | 
       | Classical and neoclassical economics tells us that people always
       | spend their entire paycheck on consumer goods (consumption) or
       | claims to future consumer goods (savings). There is no money left
       | over at the end of the month. Producers are notified in advance
       | what to produce. If a worker happens to have $5 left at the end
       | of the month and he wants to buy a car, he will use those $5
       | towards a non-refundable deposit, even if the car costs tens of
       | thousands of dollars, and contractually obligate himself to spend
       | the remaining money. No money is ever carried over from one
       | period to another, since money is neutral and just a veil.
       | 
       | Meanwhile the observation in the real world is that people often
       | hold onto enough money to make the full purchase. From a
       | theoretical perspective it means they have found a third option:
       | delay making decisions, which is neither saving nor consumption.
       | This means producers are not notified of what to produce until
       | the very moment of the purchase, which means producers have to
       | engage in speculative production ahead of time with no guarantee
       | of a sale. They have to hold inventories and possibly throw away
       | unsold inventories (because no seller wants them). This holding
       | of inventories can manifest itself in the form of idle capital
       | and unemployment as well.
       | 
       | What Silvio Gesell discovered on his farming venture that this
       | delayed decision making is incredibly wasteful, because most
       | products (especially produce) are perishable/non-durable at long
       | time scales, this means that waiting produces waste per unit of
       | time on part of the speculative producers and give the seller of
       | perishables a weaker negotiation position compared to the buyer,
       | who is an implicit seller of money, a non-perishable good. This
       | means buyers or generally people with money are structurally
       | advantaged compared to those who don't. This leads to the
       | conclusion that either money should perish as well, or a more
       | modern interpretation: negative interest is a reflection of
       | rising entropy.
       | 
       | I've seen neoclassicals reject this theory with pretty flismy
       | reasoning, mostly based around the idea that people don't hold
       | cash or positive balances on their account.
       | 
       | Now this theory isn't perfect by any means, but it is pretty
       | interesting and the more you dig, the more it feels like it is
       | pointing towards the correct direction. Meanwhile Keynes proposed
       | a different theory, which is based on the liquidity of assets
       | rather than its durability. Money is more liquid, because
       | everyone wants money. This means you can take money and walk to
       | any seller and buy their goods. Meanwhile as a seller, you must
       | have the particular good that the buyer wants. This is a more
       | general theory since it isn't biased exclusively towards money,
       | because there is sort of a hierarchy of liquidity. Bank account
       | deposits are as liquid or perhaps even more liquid than cash.
       | This means bank account balances can be used for payment instead
       | of cash. Bonds are essentially money with a duration that binds
       | their use, which makes their market value and their nominal value
       | diverge. Stocks are on the extreme end of liquid assets, with
       | wild fluctuations. Meanwhile things like apples are on the lower
       | end of illiquid assets. There is a limit to how many apples a
       | person accepts as "payment" for parting with money.
        
         | krapht wrote:
         | Why can't delayed spending be categorized as a claim to future
         | goods (savings)?
        
         | mapt wrote:
         | I have an alternate theory:
         | 
         | If you end up owing a foreign entity vast war debts, war debts
         | that destroy your economy by demanding that every economic
         | transaction in the sovereign currency be heavily taxed and ship
         | its value abroad? You can limit the damage by just not doing
         | that. Don't call it a transaction, don't use the sovereign
         | currency. Call it a barter, and make up barter tokens, and
         | you're in the free and clear. For a certain value of %taxrate,
         | you're producing such an unambiguously beneficial increase in
         | production and reduction in deadweight losses, escaping the
         | austerity trap, that tax collection actually goes up in the
         | long run as you shift off of the barter tokens and back to the
         | pool of sovereign currency backing them.
        
       | ballenf wrote:
       | We have all kinds of currencies today -- gift cards, credit
       | scores, loyalty points, forum reputation, follower counts,
       | Pokemon/Magic cards, etc.
       | 
       | Some are easier to spend, but all can be traded for other goods
       | even if they can't directly be used to pay your taxes.
        
         | basch wrote:
         | To the point where I'm approaching a need for a "mint for
         | loyalty points" because of how in the dark they accumulate and
         | expire. Where is my dashboard to track all points everywhere,
         | (and trade, sell, exchange them, which I do know has been
         | attempted before.)
        
         | IAmBroom wrote:
         | You are inventing a meaninglessly broad definition of currency.
         | 
         | Gift cards are a credit system (a proxy) for existing currency.
         | 
         | No one trades credit scores for goods.
         | 
         | The next three function are bribing a socially powerful person,
         | because they don't work in reverse - Kim Kardashian is never
         | going to do me a favor in exchange for mentioning her on my IG.
         | 
         | Trading cards are scarcity trading, not fungible proxies for
         | wealth. I've gotten a reduction in price for an antique via a
         | cold Coke, during a hot outdoor antique show, but that doesn't
         | make cold pop cans currency - I wouldn't have gotten twice the
         | discount for two of them.
        
           | EGreg wrote:
           | Wrote about it here: https://community.intercoin.app/t/local-
           | community-currencies...
           | 
           | The key is to take all the gift cards and loyalty points and
           | make them interoperable with each other. That's part of our
           | Intercoin project
        
       | Archelaos wrote:
       | "the town and the community quickly went from an unemployment
       | rate of over 30% to near zero"
       | 
       | According to Wikipedia the unemployment rate sank from 21% to
       | 15%. --
       | https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%B6rgler_Schwundgeld#Auswi...
       | (in German)
        
         | IAmBroom wrote:
         | Also, it cured baldness.
        
         | actionfromafar wrote:
         | Still pretty good.
        
           | s1mplicissimus wrote:
           | less of a "miracle", as the title claims, though
        
             | EGreg wrote:
             | Countries will need local currencies during recessions and
             | depressions. Here are just a few examples we track on our
             | site: https://community.intercoin.app/t/currency-crises-
             | around-the...
             | 
             | Here is a history of banking snd new forms of money in the
             | USA: https://community.intercoin.app/t/history-of-us-
             | banking-and-...
             | 
             | The fact is, from Berkshares to Disney Dollars, local
             | currencies are not only possible, but they nudge everyone
             | to buy local and hire local, strengthening the economy. The
             | miracles have very good explanations :)
        
         | robot-wrangler wrote:
         | I chased down the wiki citation
         | https://heimat.woergl.at/verschiedenes/freigeld-woergl which
         | appears to be an official museum? Translated source says:
         | 
         | > While unemployment in Austria increased by 19% in the period
         | of the free money campaign, it fell by 16% in Worgl
         | 
         | The details of words like from/to/by matter a lot, but assuming
         | translation is correct, maybe the confusion here is about
         | absolute vs relative changes.
         | 
         | Guessing the "over 30%" claim comes from the idea that if Worgl
         | was performing normally unemployment would have also increased
         | 19%, instead it fell 16%, i.e. performed 35% better than
         | baseline, assuming it started in a place around average and
         | could have been expected to be average. A different stat than
         | 0% unemployment, but interesting
        
       | Vasbarlog wrote:
       | That sounds like what Varoufakis planned to implement in Greece
       | in case of a default in 2015.
       | 
       | " What we planned to do was this. There's the tax office website,
       | as in Britain and everywhere else, where citizens (taxpayers
       | accessing the website) use their tax identification number and
       | transfer money from their bank account to their tax
       | identification number via online banking to pay VAT, income tax,
       | and so on. We were planning to surreptitiously create reserve
       | accounts linked to each tax identification number without
       | notifying anyone, simply so that this system would operate in
       | secret. With the push of a button, we could assign PIN numbers to
       | the holders of the tax identification numbers (taxpayers). For
       | example, in a case where the state owed a pharmaceutical company
       | one million euros for medicines purchased on behalf of the
       | National Health Service, we could immediately make a transfer to
       | the reserve account corresponding to the pharmaceutical company's
       | tax identification number and provide them with a PIN number.
       | They could use it as a kind of parallel payment mechanism to
       | transfer any portion of those digital funds they wanted to any
       | tax identification number they owed money to. Or even to use it
       | to make tax payments."
       | 
       | https://cemi.ehess.fr/docannexe/file/2911/sapir.6.nov.pdf
        
       | jgeada wrote:
       | This type of idea is _never_ popular with the people that have
       | large stores of the prior government backed currency. The rich
       | never want to have their wealth in any way threatened, and they
       | have the reach and influence to make the government protect their
       | assets, even if it comes at the cost of causing misery to pretty
       | much everyone else.
       | 
       | There ought to be a better balance, and the US found it in the
       | period between the end of WWII and the 1970s. High marginal taxes
       | on extreme wealth, high inheritance taxes and zealous antitrust
       | and anti-monopoly enforcement all kept people's wealth and power
       | disparity somewhat in check.
        
         | littlestymaar wrote:
         | > the US found it in the period between the end of WWII and the
         | 1970s. High marginal taxes on extreme wealth, high inheritance
         | taxes and zealous antitrust and anti-monopoly enforcement all
         | kept people's wealth and power disparity somewhat in check.
         | 
         | This.
         | 
         | People like to say Capitalism won the cold war, but in reality
         | it was the welfare state with its massive redistribution and
         | limits on concentration of power that won.
         | 
         | The current economic and social model isn't even desirable
         | enough to prevent people from fantasizing Putin's Russia, it
         | would have stood no chance against the USSR in the 50s.
        
           | sershe wrote:
           | Social welfare spending only goes up as percentage of GDP.
           | https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-
           | long.... What data do you use to distinguish the "current
           | economic system"? Notably of course, assuming the variations
           | of the US system even mattered, the USSR collapsed after the
           | 80ies (deregulation and liberalization having started even
           | earlier under Carter, not after post war US economy stagnated
           | in the 60ies-70ies.
        
         | d3ckard wrote:
         | Common misconception IMO.
         | 
         | High marginal taxes and high inheritance taxes do not affect
         | the rich - they eliminate competition for them.
         | 
         | I do agree on antitrust and antimonopoly though.
        
           | bbminner wrote:
           | How come they eliminate competition? What if inheritance
           | taxes are progressive?
        
           | cassepipe wrote:
           | I'd be curious to know more, this is quite unintuitive
        
             | d3ckard wrote:
             | Generally, there are no systems that are 100% bulletproof.
             | This applies to everything. So, the more power you have,
             | the more likely you are to exploit the existing loops.
             | 
             | Who is actually affected? Those less powerful. Progressive
             | tax system hits the middle class (actual middle class, _la
             | petite bourgeoisie_ , not the modern bullshit redefinition
             | of the term) hardest, making it harder for them to make it
             | rich and compete with actual rich people.
             | 
             | As the effect, rich protect inheritance by trusts and avoid
             | taxes by not having income (plenty of tricks available with
             | borrowing), while people like doctors, lawyers, small
             | business owners fund the state and hit hard limits on what
             | can they make.
             | 
             | Don't believe me? Check how much of the tax income comes
             | from top brackets. You may be surprised. Pro tip: system is
             | _very_ skewed to the top.
        
               | webnrrd2k wrote:
               | If the problem is that the system is very skewed to the
               | top, then isn't the solution to be found in addressing
               | that skew? In closing those particular loopholes?
               | 
               | Shouldn't everyone pay their fair share of taxes? Warren
               | Buffett and others seem to think that they should.
        
           | solidsnack9000 wrote:
           | Yeah, it seems like most people assume there is a reach and
           | scope of taxation that isn't really possible. Wealth can be
           | expatriated, it can be in non-fungible objects (paintings,
           | &c), it can be in goods held in common such that no transfers
           | occur (for example, a house that people live in together and
           | jointly own).
           | 
           | There isn't anywhere an index or lookup table of all legal
           | rights a particular person has to wealth (or, in truth, to
           | "things", since anything can be worth something and
           | contribute to wealth). There are things they may have a right
           | to that they don't even know about.
        
             | thuridas wrote:
             | They can hide wealth (at their own risk) but it prevent
             | them from extracting money from the country:
             | 
             | The cannot own houses, factories, monopolistic contracts o
             | media. It makes harder to influence politics ( in a legal
             | way).
             | 
             | The housing issue is specially important because city space
             | is limited and the demand is very inelastic
        
             | bccdee wrote:
             | Money is important as a vector for power. It doesn't matter
             | that much whether a person has a bunch of paintings in a
             | Swiss vault when they're an institutional investor
             | directing a substantial sector of the economy. And that
             | industrial power is relatively easy to divest them of, as
             | compared to vault paintings.
        
             | BrenBarn wrote:
             | That's true, but most of those can be cracked down on
             | simply by saying that any undeclared wealth is forfeit.
             | Also, the great proportion of most rich people's actual
             | wealth is in forms that are easier to trace (e.g., shares
             | of corporations, real estate).
        
           | Bjartr wrote:
           | If they don't affect the rich, why have the rock didn't so
           | much time, effort, and money eroding such taxes over decades?
        
             | d3ckard wrote:
             | Eroding them is beneficial to other groups of society, not
             | the rich.
             | 
             | It's like with corporations. Corporations love complex
             | legal systems, as they are the only ones with money to deal
             | with them. Simplification actually benefits smaller
             | enterprises.
        
               | webnrrd2k wrote:
               | How is high marginal taxes and high inheritance taxes not
               | simple?
               | 
               | If complexity is the problem then close the loopholes
               | that let people get out of this.
               | 
               | America was not supposed to be a country of monarchs and
               | wealthy dynasties, and high inheritance taxes helped
               | towards that goal.
        
         | cynicalkane wrote:
         | The rich do not, in general, possess Scrooge McDuck vaults full
         | of "prior government backed currency". The assets of the
         | wealthy are generally real assets and business investments.
         | 
         | Cash is such a poor investment that the word "investment"
         | typically means trying to find something more productive than
         | holding cash. Neither do alternatives to cash have a reliable
         | history of benefitting the poor. In the US there's been lots of
         | attempts at local currencies; they tend to fail naturally
         | without government interference. Recently, cryptographic
         | alternatives to cash have mostly served to benefit crypto
         | barons and scammers.
        
       | lloydatkinson wrote:
       | > At this point, the central bank panicked, and decided to assert
       | its monopoly rights by banning complimentary currencies.
       | 
       | Who was running that central bank?
        
       | ryanjshaw wrote:
       | > Fortunately, complementary currencies are now legal in just
       | about every country, as evidenced by the popularity of
       | cryptocurrencies, one form of a complementary currency.
       | 
       | In many countries, cryptocurrency is considered a commodity - not
       | money - and therefore disposals (where a cryptocurrency is given
       | up in exchange for something else) are taxable events.
       | 
       | This is quite inconvenient and complex compared to money, and
       | only less so if you are fortunate enough to be using a
       | cryptocurrency that is pegged to your local currency (eg USDC or
       | mUSD in place of USD).
       | 
       | Furthermore, if I understand it correctly, the purpose of
       | complementary currencies is to act as a form of capital outflow
       | restriction: you have a limited amount of capital in your town,
       | and you want it to remain in your town alone. A complementary
       | currency, which can only be spent locally, restricts the outflows
       | of capital and allows it to remain local and do useful work
       | multiple times within your town rather than potentially enriching
       | other towns.
       | 
       | Cryptocurrency doesn't intrinsically do that at all, although
       | there are certainly some tokens designs that can replicate it eg
       | LP emissions on decentralized exchanges.
        
         | hgomersall wrote:
         | It's not money because there's no associated liability.
        
           | ryanjshaw wrote:
           | Right, not intrinsically. Sometime tokens _are_ IOUs e.g.
           | redeemable stablecoins, where the issuer promises to swap the
           | token for bank money. But for tax purposes most jurisdictions
           | still treat them as commodities AFAIK, to my point earlier.
           | 
           | And fiat isn't that different either: central bank currency
           | are technically liabilities, but there's nothing concrete you
           | can redeem them for beyond more of the same money...
        
             | EGreg wrote:
             | This is what a lot of people get wrong. Money doesn't have
             | to have liabilities, only fiat currencies do. Commodity
             | money eg gold or silver are valuable in and of themselves,
             | for instance. The government sues signiorage there.
             | 
             | However, individual liabilities are a great way to
             | introduce currencies into circulation. Start with eg
             | loyalty points at a restaurant or credits redeemable aboard
             | a ship etc. We are working on that:
             | https://community.intercoin.app/t/local-community-
             | currencies...
             | 
             | A city can skip all that and just issue a UBI to all its
             | citizens in its own currency, and start accepting taxes and
             | fees in that currency. Read this:
             | https://community.intercoin.app/t/rolling-out-voluntary-
             | basi...
        
               | hgomersall wrote:
               | All money ever has had an associated liability. Commodity
               | money absolutely relied on the face value as the basis of
               | the commodity value. Any metal/face value disparity could
               | lead to cross border arbitrage (making use of
               | counterfeiting), but intrinsic to the process is the
               | associated liability of the issuer. Otherwise you're just
               | trading assets.
        
               | EGreg wrote:
               | Seigniorage doesnt create liability
               | 
               | But commodity money doesn't require seigniorage
        
         | vvpan wrote:
         | All of that said the most interesting experiments in
         | currency/tokenization/etc are happening on the blockchain. Are
         | they successful? It's mixed but I think blockchain allows
         | people to easily try new things and it's been fascinating to
         | see. For example (and I'll do my best to explain in a sentence
         | or two):
         | 
         | - Bread Cooperative (https://breadchain.xyz/) - Active project.
         | Creates a "vault" for your stablecoins where accumulated
         | lending yield is distributed to non-profits based on a weighted
         | vote.
         | 
         | - Circles UBI (https://circles.garden/) - Active project.
         | Creates a network of wallets where a wallet's humanity is
         | proven through economic means. Each network participant starts
         | receiving a token of the Circle's native "currency" effectively
         | creating a network of humans in which money creation is evenly
         | democratized.
         | 
         | - Reflexer RAI (https://reflexer.finance/) - More inactive.
         | Created a "un-pegged" stablecoin. Meaning something that is not
         | a dollar but is stable. It's been described as "capital
         | inefficient" meaning you gotta put a lot of collateral in to
         | get mint RAI, which appears to be a fatal flaw. But I love all
         | experiments in unpegged stable coins.
         | 
         | And in general the ecosystem is full of all sorts of
         | communities with their little currencies that have all sorts of
         | properties like stability, minting mechanisms, distribution,
         | voting power, you name it. It is not all good but I think it's
         | fascinating.
         | 
         | Addendum: Yannis Varoufakis (economist, author and briefly
         | Greece's Minister of Finance) has a book in which he outlines
         | an example of a utopian economic system. (Great book). While
         | being generally anti-crypto he bases the central bank around a
         | transparent blockchain "smart contract". Any money printing by
         | this contract is easily trackable and obvious to others and the
         | yield generated from central-bank lending is distributed to all
         | citizens. He has recently pursued this as an actual goal,
         | albeit in a different form (I have yet to get into the
         | details): https://monetarycommons.com/
        
       | robot-wrangler wrote:
       | IANAE, but besides things like the threatened oligarchs and taxes
       | and government-monopoly on the legal use of force.. raw materials
       | and imports/exports would seem to be an even more basic problem
       | for an optimist that thinks the first big 3 issues can be worked
       | around. That's why I think the dutch circular economy[1] is so
       | interesting. Hopefully someone much more informed could opine?
       | 
       | It's definitely got a "degrowth" aspect involved and the captains
       | of industry will not appreciate it. On the other hand, it's much
       | less threatening to entrenched interests compared to a large
       | group of people who are explicitly trying to just opt out of a
       | system you're deeply invested in.
       | 
       | [1] https://www.government.nl/topics/circular-
       | economy/circular-d...
        
       | netfortius wrote:
       | MMT
        
       | sharpshadow wrote:
       | With the amount of money which is created and transferred today
       | it would be a task for one day to lift a whole country out of
       | poverty. 1 million into an savings account with 4% return would
       | be roughly 3k per month.
        
       | amai wrote:
       | This is relevant to understand this experiment:
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_currency#Other_diffe...
        
       | juancn wrote:
       | This has been done many times in many places.
       | 
       | Argentina did it last in 2001 or so (several parallel currencies
       | were issued by different provinces:
       | https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuasimonedas -Spanish only-).
       | 
       | When the central government fails, in many cases local
       | governments attempt anything to keep functioning.
       | 
       | It does work, but the cleanup is messy.
        
         | gus_massa wrote:
         | They work quite well for a short time, perhaps a few years.
         | Jujuy (north west) and other provinces started with the bonds a
         | few years earlier. The first 1 or 2 year the exchange rate was
         | "1 bono (bond) = 1 peso", and everyone accepted them at face
         | value.
         | 
         | Then you couldn't buy fuel or meat with bonds, only with real
         | pesos. And if you have to send money to a family member (like a
         | son/daughter studding in other province) you have to exchange
         | them with a cut.
         | 
         | During the final year, the shops accepted them with a 30% cut,
         | so it was like "1 bono = 0.70 pesos", and still were not able
         | to use them to buy fuel, meat and other things.
         | 
         | ---
         | 
         | I think the last bond was the Patacon
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patac%C3%B3n_(bond) by the
         | province of Buenos Aires, that is big enough and it was too
         | close to the general collapse that it never lost the 1 to 1
         | parity with pesos.
        
         | kerblang wrote:
         | Since the author brought up Nazi Germany... they did it too,
         | same Great Depression. It's how they restarted factories and
         | secretly rearmed.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefo_bills
        
       | miroljub wrote:
       | It's an example of what a responsible local government working in
       | the interest of the local community could achieve.
       | 
       | No wonder that the federal government did all they could to shut
       | down this experiment. It was too dangerous to have an example of
       | actually functional governance.
        
       | bbminner wrote:
       | Seriously though, i doubt that "the rich across the globe"
       | conspired to ban emergency currencies. I'd be curious to see a
       | more in depth analysis of what are factors driving such local
       | economies vs centralized currencies.
       | 
       | Is it precisely that the currency could not be exported outside
       | the local region - that made it a barter tool vs an investment
       | tool - that made it less affected by such external events as
       | great depression?
       | 
       | What was the central government fearing? I'm sure there's a
       | reason why it might be a less than ideal situation. Maybe because
       | it is effectively a financial pyramid (more so than the primary
       | currency) - a bunch of local govt making their local currencies
       | with unclear unregulated printing schedule could result in many
       | people not assessing their real purchasing power adequately?
        
       | ranprieur wrote:
       | This article fails to mention why the currency circulated so
       | fast. It was depreciating: it was defined as gradually losing
       | value, so hoarding didn't work, and the people with money had a
       | strong incentive to spend it. The article makes it sound like
       | these currencies worked because they were local. They worked
       | because they depreciated, and it's possible to do this on a
       | national level.
       | 
       | Other writings about this: A book chapter, The Currency of
       | Cooperation: https://ascentofhumanity.com/text/chapter-7-02/
       | 
       | And a short piece about Brakteaten money:
       | https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Brakteaten_Money
        
         | em-bee wrote:
         | _it was defined as gradually losing value_
         | 
         | isn't that the same as a high inflation rate?
        
           | Ygg2 wrote:
           | Free geld is a deflatory value, if you don't produce 1% of
           | all value monthly there is less currency available, which
           | means less currency has to cover same assets.
           | 
           | But each month you are being taxed, on your liquid assets.
        
           | mihaic wrote:
           | Modern inflation punishes wage earners much more than capital
           | earners, as the second category is closer to the money
           | printing machine, and benefit better from it.
           | 
           | A deflationary policy would hit capitalists a lot more than
           | wage earners, since it's basically a wealth tax.
        
         | gus_massa wrote:
         | > _They worked because they depreciated, and it 's possible to
         | do this on a national level._
         | 
         | It's quite easy. Hi from Argentina!
         | 
         | Now the inflation is only 3% mom, but 2 years ago it used to be
         | 10% mom.
        
       | solidsnack9000 wrote:
       | The article mentions cathedral projects that issued their own
       | local currencies. I guess they must have backed it with gold or
       | silver, or some collection of valuable things donated to fund the
       | cathedral?
       | 
       | The article really is light on technical details that would help
       | one to understand how these local currencies worked.
        
       | luc4 wrote:
       | It seems like the article is missing the central point -- namely
       | that the currency was depreciating monthly, providing an
       | incentive to spend it as quickly as possible.
        
       | James_K wrote:
       | For those interested, this is a generally and expression of
       | Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).
       | 
       | The essential conclusion is that most places with hyperinflation
       | (Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe, etc.) where really suffering supply
       | shocks (reparations, farming collapse) and so you actually can
       | just print money, as long as you're using it to get people
       | working and those working people produce greater value through
       | their work than they are paid in printed money.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-11-18 23:01 UTC)