Articlereference:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/06/will_demise_of_dollar_usher_in.html

Will Demise of Dollar Usher in Free Money?

The imminent demise of the US dollar as the kingpin of economic transactions world wide is
predicted by several commentators. Johnny 'Silver Bear' comments that the Federal Reserve
has kept the printing presses rolling too liberally for too long and he continues:
"TheFedhaslostcontrolofthedollar.Theirmindlesscreationofcredithas
insuredamindbogglingmeltdownoftheentirefinancialsystem.Thisis
notagoodthingforanyone,anywhere.Thedollaristheworld'sreserve
currency.Seventyfivepercentofalldollarsinexistenceareinforeign
hands.Whatevertheirvaluewaswhenthoseforeignersgotthem,that
valueisevaporatingrightbeforetheireyes.It'slikebuyingicebythe
poundandwatchingitmeltawaybeforeyouhavetimetouseit."
Like Silver Bear, others say the dollar is doomed and they advocate a return to the time
before 1971, when Nixon was forced by the French, who insisted on being paid in gold for
dollars, to end the direct convertibility of the dollar at a fixed price. The advocates of
precious metal as currency say that a return to the old gold standard would prevent the Fed
from creating "funny money", the cause of runaway inflation. What they overlook is that their
cure might be worse than the disease.

Liberty Dollar

Linking a currency to gold or silver or any other precious metal would not only be unnecessary
as shown by the many currencies that work quite well without having that link it would make
the economy of the country that attempted such a link depend on the amount of gold
available, rather than on the willingness of people to work and produce.
The mining of all that gold to be used as "money" or rather as the idea behind money is by
no means of benefit to our environment. Those mines are connected with serious problems.
The real problem is not even the Fed's printing of money but the facility the Fed and other
central banks afford private commercial banks to "create money" and loan it out for interest.
This has made control over the amount of money in circulation and thereby control of inflation
very difficult and the cumulative interest to be paid for practically all money in use has been
a substantial drain on modern economies.

There are means of 'taming' money to suit economic activity. One of them would be for
Congress or any legislative assembly or even for the people themselves to take back their
right to issue money. The banks today create money for their private interest and that is the
worst of all conceivable scenarios.
But back to the dollar and its predicted demise. The reason may not be so much the
overprinting, but the fact that other countries are increasingly unwilling to support the
American economy by buying and using dollars for transactions. Almost two years ago, I asked
"Will Oil End the War Economy?" What had propped up the dollar for all the years before
then was the fact that it had become an international exchange currency, necessary for
countries who wanted to buy oil and who doesn't these days.
But the Iraq war changed all that. America is seen as an aggressor. OPEC mooted the
possibility of passing from dollar to euro, and some countries actually did the change, Iraq
first, then Venezuela, and now Iran is considering opening its own oil bourse denominating
black gold in euro instead of dollars. Russia just started to sell its own oil and gas for rubles.
You may have noticed that all these countries are "in bad" with the US.
So what will the future bring?
Some say that the world economy might well collapse. Silvano Borruso is more optimistic. He
says the American economy might adjust in a short time. But he also sees a chance that our
present monetary system could be in for a big change. Mammon, meaning the money powers
behind the throne, the banksters who have sold us into a modern day slavery, is seen as the
dark force. According to Borruso that force might fall, together with its favored creation, the
US dollar...

ADIEU, MAMMON?
The demise of the dollar
The announcement by Venezuelas Chavez and Irans Ahmadinejad that they will accept euros
instead of dollars for their oil is sending shockwaves throughout the world. Frequently asked
questions are:
Howwilltheworldeconomybeaffectedbyaswitchfromthedollarto
theeuroasareservecurrency,giventhattheeconomiesofallcountries
arecloselyinterlinked?
How will America manage its economy, the stability of which depends on the
stability of the dollar?
America has become addicted to the dollars hegemony as a reserve currency.
Wouldnt she consider it as a hostile action, any attempt by another country to
end that privileged status?
Can we expect anything other than chaos, pain and hardship?
Lets us answer the last question first. Chaos, pain and hardship need not hit those who earn
their bread by the sweat of their brow, provided they understand the basics. The situation has
come to a head in the
secularwarbetweenusurersandpeasants,betweentheusurocracyand
whoeverdoesanhonestdaysworkwithhisownbrainorhands.

A nottooshort historical analysis is in order if we want to understand.

This is the second collapse of the dollar, for exactly the same reason as the first, i.e. a glut
of the stuff. The forces behind the double collapse I will refer to with the timehonoured
nickname of Mammon. The only difference is that this time Mammon is at the receiving end
of his own misdemeanours. Lets go back to the 1770s.
The hyperinflation of the Continental dollar was the result of the financial policies of the
Patriot governments.
The above sentence, with a few cosmetic touches, can be read virtually in all standard works
of reference. The truth is that
TheContinentaldollarsupportedtheAmericanwarofindependenceto
withinfourmonthsofvictory
Continental Congress decided to print up to 200 million worth of Continentals,
and they did;
The hyperinflation, which caused the collapse, was due to the printing
presses of British General William Howe (17291814), who from warships
anchored in the New York harbour counterfeited Continentals by the cartload to
the extent of an estimated billion units. Hence the saying, it isnt worth a
Continental.
This was the first historical collapse of the dollar. Before tackling the second, let me remark
that Mammon has prospered for 3000odd years thanks to the superstition (there is no other
word for it) that money must have a magic ingredient known as intrinsic value. Therefore he
has tried, and succeeded, by all means fair and foul to hide the truth, which is exactly the
opposite, i.e. that a medium of exchange functions the better, the less intrinsic value it has.
Of course the other function, money used as a store of value, is what Mammon is after, for by
it he exercises usury. Usury is the tribute that those who use money as means of exchange
must pay to those who hoard it as store of value. The sooner this point is understood, the
clearer all subsequent issues will become.
The first issue is that Mammon has always been deadly afraid of paper money, i.e. paper
unabashedly declaring to be money, and not a promise to pay anything.
The second is that paper money has proved unstoppable, despite, or perhaps because of, its
unattractiveness. Monetized gold is much more likely to be hoarded than spent, thus
strengthening the practice of usury. The history of the struggle can be roughly divided into
four periods.
TheStoreofIntrinsicValueperiod,fromCroesusofLydia(d.546
B.C.)tothefoundationoftheBankofEngland(1694).Theintrinsic
valuesuperstitionheldthewholeofmankindinthrallformorethantwo
millennia.Itstilldoes,foravastmajorityofpeople.
The widespread Store of Extrinsic Value period, 16941931. Paper notes were
promises to pay gold stored in bank vaults. Mammon was by now forced to
acknowledge the usefulness of paper, but continued to bamboozle the public
into believing that the pieces of paper functioning for all intents and purposes
as money were not really money, but tokens backed by a yellow metal
gathering dust in the vaults of his temples (banks) instead of being turned into
gorgeous jewellery, false teeth and (now) electrical contacts in silicon chips.

Mammon succeeded in keeping under wraps two successful attempts at

monetizing paper, thus preventing paper money properly socalled from
spreading beyond the reach of his clutches. This period lasted 237 years,
roughly one tenth the previous one.
The restricted Store of Extrinsic Value period, 19311971. Paper dollars
printed in excess of the requirements of the U.S. economy were supposedly
backed by tons of gold ingots stored at Fort Knox and available to
governments on demand. This period merely continued the previous one,
except that Fort Knox was the sole location of the gold and governments the
sole entities authorized to demand it. Note the duration: 40 years.
The goldless pure Paper Store of Value period, 19712006, the demise of
which is imminent. It has lasted 35 years.
The stepbystep history of the struggle is outlined below. Mammons hostility against paper
money is a most interesting mix of counterfeiting, mystification, exercise of raw military power,
political assassination, etc. His strategy was first, to remove monarchs and guilds, which used
to act as checks and balances against the power of usury; second, to govern by the proxy of
puppet governments that impoverish their citizenry to his exclusive advantage.

A brief history of paper money

1227: The first ever paper money is issued by Kublai Khan in Mongolia, but comes to an end
with the Ming dynasty.
1685, French Canada during Louis XIVs reign: 30 000 livres of Kings money for military wages
were on the way. Soldiers could not buy anything and merchants could not sell. The
commanding officer cut up decks of playing cards into four and distributed the pieces as
money. The economy revived, because the economic operators accepted the quarter cards as
payment for their wares. Had the coins failed to arrive, the arrangement could have continued
and acceptance spread.
1690: Massachusetts, followed by the other twelve colonies, issues the first colonial currency,
causing a debtfree economy to take off independent of British control.
1694: Mammon founds the Bank of England, designed to issue paper money as credit to the
State, and therefore for his own private gain. B.O.E. notes bear the inscription The B.O.E.
promises to pay to this day. The Bank of Scotland follows the same policy.
1720s: Mammon sinks John Laws paper money experiment in France. The economy was doing
fine, but the intrinsic value superstition led the Prince of Conti to send to the Banque a
sizable bunch of notes with three wagons to be filled with gold. There was no gold, and the
superstition carried the day. Whether the Prince was consciously acting as Mammons agent is
a moot point.
1750: Mammon prohibits the American colonies to issue their own currency. Rebellion takes
off. The 342 cases of tea thrown into Boston harbour still decorate school textbooks as a
diversionary caper from the real issue.
1770s: Mammon sinks the Continental dollars as seen above.
177488: Mammons lackeys: the Assemblies, the high clergy and Freemasonry block all
attempts by Turgot, DOrmesson and Calonne to issue paper currency and thus save Frances

finances. Mammons chief operator Necker indebts King Louis to a point of no return, thus
encompassing the ruin of the French monarchy and of the Ancien Rgime.
1790s: Mammon sinks the French Assignat by repeating General Howes feat. France printed
45.5 billion units (livres and francs) worth of Assignats. Divided by 26 million citizens it would
have meant 1750 units per head. But the purchasing power sank to less than 1%, indicating
prodigious counterfeiting. 17 printing presses, located in London, were responsible for
hyperinflation. The Assignat died in 1796.
17931815: Mammon finances the Napoleonic wars with promises to pay issued by the Bank of
England. The British are still paying off the interest on that loan.
1815: The Channel Islands manage to escape Mammons clutches by issuing debtfree State
currency. Ten years later Mammon counterattacks by flooding the islands with promises to
pay. The States of Jersey protest. Mammon compromises by forcing on them a yearly limit of
40 000 of States paper money. The arrangement will last until 1914.
183040: The spectacular development of the American Mid West east of the Mississippi is
fuelled by a myriad (literally: 10 000+) small banks issuing paper money in unorthodox
denominations ($10.25, $3, $13 etc.), with discount rates of up to 68%. Mammon is anxious to
suppress these and found a Central Bank, but runs into the determined opposition of
Presidents Jackson (who survives an assassination attempt) and Van Buren. But Van Buren, a
gold buff, causes a severe depression.
1848: The 5th plank of Marxs Communist Manifesto proposes Centralisation of wealth in the
hands of the State by means of a national bank with an exclusive monopoly. Mammon spreads
the institution of the central bank from England to the rest of Europe.
186165: Amidst severe opposition by the banking interests, Lincoln finances the war effort
with a State issue of 450 million debtfree Greenbacks. Greenbacks were not promises to
pay. They were money. Lincoln is assassinated. The Confederacys money, in promises to
pay, manages to contract debts for $826 million by 1864. It failed.
186579: Mammon reestablishes the gold standard (Resumption Act 1879) after a 14year long
tugofwar against the supporters of Lincolns Greenbacks. Booms and busts reappear. Financial
panics destroy hundreds of small banks.
186090: Mammon diverts attention from paper to silver, his main aim being to wrest the
control of the issue of paper money from Congress, empowered by the Constitution to issue
currency.
1893: General Coxey marches on Washington with a 4 000strong army of unemployed,
demanding $500 million of debtfree Greenbacks so as to employ four million men in road
construction. Mammon has him arrested for trespassing on the gardens of the Capitol. Coxeys
policy: print money and spend it into productive public works, is one that Mammon continues
to oppose to this day, as it exposes the fallacy on which his rule stands. Only China is defying
him on this issue.
1906: Gesell publishes the first edition of Natural Economic Order, unmasking the gold
standard and lucidly explaining how paper money can be not only debtfree but also interest
free, by separating the monetary unit from the object representing it. While one country after
another adopts paper money pretending it to be backed by gold, Mammons high priests
(read: economists) continue to talk about the merits of the intrinsic value of gold. 100 years
later Gesell is still taboo in all faculties of Economics.

1907: Banks refuse to honour deposits. Financial panic ensues: J.P.Morgan withdraws $300
million from circulation, and saves the situation by lending them back to the U.S.
government.
1913: By a glorious sleight of hand Mammon gets Congress into ceding its Constitutiongranted
right to issue money to a newly created private outfit called Federal Reserve System. From
now on every dollar issued in the U.S. is loaded with debt, thus duplicating Bank of England
methods in the U.S. The FRS is neither Federal, nor has reserves of any kind, nor is a system
judging by its effects.
1914: The war puts an end to the 50 yearold Latin Currency Union between France, Italy,
Switzerland, Belgium and Greece. The union functioned with a single denomination 5franc
silver coin freely circulating as legal tender side by side with the national currencies of the
five countries. It was also used for foreign transactions. Whenever a country experienced
either a glut or a dearth of fivefranc pieces it adjusted its internal prices accordingly to
restore equilibrium. The union would have worked even with a 5franc paper note. This feat
can be duplicated today, between any number of agreeing countries.
191418: As had happened with the Napoleonic wars, the wholesale slaughter called World War
was financed with promises to pay. The Channel Islands make use of the chaos to wrest
financial independence from Mammon. Their spectacular development since can be verified by
paying them a visit on the Net.
1922: Italy issues debtfree, but not interestfree, lire, thus taking up the policy suggested by
General Coxey and practiced by the Channel Islands. Unemployment rapidly disappears and
prosperity increases visibly.
1923: Mammon attacks the savings of the German people with the Weimar inflation.
1925: Mammon demands a return to the gold standard, and hence to the salary levels of 1913.
The British workers reply with the General Strike of 1926.
1927: Mammon convenes an ecumenical council of central bankers allegedly to an informal
luncheon in Washington D.C. Agenda: to coordinate the imminent Great Depression.
192729: President Coolidge encourages American citizens to purchase overpriced securities.
The Great Crash wipes out $180 billion of ordinary peoples savings. Central bankconcerted
deflationary policy causes the worldwide hardship known as the Great Depression.
1930: First experiment with Gesells Free Money: Herr Hebecker of Schwanenkirchen,
Germany, keeps his coalmine open during the Great Depression by issuing Wra, a private
currency redeemable in coal. Mammons agent Chancellor Brning quashes the experiment.
1931: To Mammons great irritation, British Prime Minister MacDonald announces that Britain is
off the gold standard. All countries follow suit except the United States.
193233: Second experiment with Gesells Free Money: Mayor Unterguggenberger of Wrgl in
the Tyrol issues debtfree and interestfree municipal certificates for work done. 5 300 units
of Wrgl certificates circulating some 450 times move goods and services for about 2.5 million
Schillings. Wrgl built a bridge over the River Inn, tarmacked four roads, renewed the sewers
and took electricity to new areas. It even built a ski jump. Economists flocked to the shrine,
but were not converted. Irving Fisher tried to repeat the experiment in America, but with a
demurrage rate of 2% per week (250% per year) which nipped the idea in the bud. Mammons
High Temple (Austrian National Bank) orders the experiment scotched after 14 months. Hunger
and unemployment return.

193338: Germany follows in the footsteps of Italy, the Channel Islands and Coxey: debtfree
(but not interestfree) paper money pays for an unprecedented economic development: 6
000km of Autobahns, 1.5 million housing units for workers, the Volkswagen, scholarships for
university students, and even three cruise ships for workers families holidays. Foreign trade is
organised on the basis of straight barter. In 1938 unemployment is no more than a memory.
193945: Like the first, the Second World War is also financed by promises to pay. The debt
free Reichsmark loses no more than 12.5% purchasing power in six years of war.
194047: The Dominican Republic becomes solvent under Trujillo, following intense
negotiations with the U.S.
1944: Bretton Woods. The U.S. dollar, as the only currency backed by gold, is imposed on
the rest of the world as reserve currency. The meaning is that it cannot be used for
anything other than matching the issue of domestic currency to the quantity of dollars in
reserve. Economists accept with enthusiasm Keynes plan of deficit spending to make up
for hoards. Deflation is avoided but inflation takes its place. The stagflation of the 1970s
proves that the economy of production and that of money are two independent realms.
1961: Trujillo is assassinated.
1963, June: President Kennedy (Executive Order 11110) authorizes an issue of four billion debt
free (but not interestfree) dollars directly from the Treasury, effectively duplicating Lincolns
Greenbacks and bypassing the Federal Reserve System. In November he is assassinated.
1971: De Gaulle plays the same role in regard of President Nixon as Prince de Conti had played
in regard of John Law 250 years earlier: he demands gold for the heap of Eurodollars in
Frances possession. There is no gold. President Nixon throws the sponge. The U.S. is off the
gold standard.
1971: The rest of the world is on a paper dollar standard, working to exactly the same rules as
the gold standard: an inflow of dollars permits the printing of domestic currency; an outflow of
dollars forces its withdrawal. Inflation and deflation occur regardless of what happens to the
economy of production and exchange.
1973: The oil crisis begets the petrodollar. The London and New York oil bourses force all
countries to use dollars to buy and sell oil world wide. The gate is wide open for the U.S.
economy to rely on printing dollars with which to buy things produced by other countries.
Coupled with the concomitant destruction of the American economy of production, the
situation is clearly unsustainable. It is coming to a head now (2006).
1978: China fuels a spectacular development with debtfree but not interestfree Yuan
according to the Channel IslandsCoxeyItalyGermany model of 18151930s.
1979: Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Fed, inaugurates an era of speculative, but not
productive, growth. A financial bubble of immense size grows unrelated to production and
exchange.
1982: First experiment with a social (peopleissued) currency in British Columbia, Canada.
Community currencies take off in a variety of countries, each community being more or less
independent of official control.
1987: Mammons goldmining companies found the World Gold Council, with the view of
stimulating demand for the yellow metal. WGC ads extol the virtues of goldbacked currency,

allegedly strong, whereas purely paper currencies are deemed weak. Mining companies go
on extracting gold from the ground to rebury it, smelted and refined into ingots, in bank
vaults.
2000: Mammon gambles. With the euro he takes away the sovereignty of the European states,
but the euro begins to challenge the supremacy of the dollar as reserve currency. Saddam
Hussein is the first to accept euros for oil. There is no way to continue imposing the dollar
other than war.
2001: The Red de trueque (barter network) cushions Argentinas financial collapse with
peopleissued paper currency. When the municipalities took to it, the IMF vigorously
intervened to rescue the country.
2005: Some 30 000 communities round the world issue their own paper currencies, some on
Gesellian principles.
2006: Iran threatens to follow Saddam by opening a petroeuro oil bourse. Fear is in the air
that the collapse of the dollar is imminent. Gold shoots to $700 per ounce.

A postdollar world
Perusing the foregoing rather long list of events, it is possible to spot an interesting trend:
Debtfree(butnotinterestfree)papermoneyincreasinglydisrupted
Mammonsattemptsatforcingtheworldintoclingingtogoldand
Debt and interestfree paper money made a brief, successful appearance at
the beginning of the Fort Knox Store of Value period. Only general lack of
awareness prevents the world from taking the last, irreversible step towards
delivering the death blow to usury, and the world from the clutches of
Mammon.
The opportunity is in the offing. It will depend on how people and nonpuppet governments
will react at the collapse of the dollar. From now on the scenario becomes speculative, but
not (I hope) unreal.
Let us answer the first three questions posed at the beginning.
Question One: How will the world economy be affected by a switch from the dollar to the
euro as a reserve currency, given that the economies of all countries are closely interlinked?
Now that Putin has begun to demand roubles for his oil, it is not at all clear that the euro will
act as reserve currency. But let us suppose it does. The financial bubble denominated in
dollars will disappear. Dollardenominated cheques, bonds, bills of exchange, credit cards,
futures, etc., in a word all dollarcredit instruments, will become worthless. The $100 bills
now cluttering the treasuries of most countries could however be made to circulate together
with the national currency, much like the silver coins in the erstwhile Latin Currency Union.
Dollar bills of lesser denomination could continue to circulate as before, especially in the U.S.,
which would have to restore its economy of production. Given American adaptivity and spirit of
enterprise, this turnaround could happen in less than a year.
Countries that have euros would purchase oil with them. Those who do not would have to
start trading with Europe for euros and with Russia for roubles. In other words, a real economy
of production and exchange would quite rapidly replace the economy of speculation, fraud,
bullying, and war that has plagued the world for the whole of the 20th century.

Another welcome disappearance would be that of exportled economies. Perhaps the most
grotesque example of such is the export of some 100 000 hectolitres of milk from England to
Holland, compensated by a somewhat equal quantity (of milk, yes) from Holland to England.
Only parasites can possibly profit from such an arrangement. Others are no less nonsensical.
Countries would develop their economies (or return them) towards their natural end, which is
to look after the domestic market first and export any surplus if available. Thus the
interlinking of the economies would attain a reasonable level, free from artificial distortion.
Question two: How will America manage its economy, the stability of which depends on the
stability of the dollar?
An economy does not depend on the stability of its currency. A currency will have a stable
purchasing power if and only if
a)pricesarekeptstablebysoundeconomicpolicy,and
b)thecurrencyisnotacommoditytobeboughtandsoldlikeany
ordinarygood.

Thefirsthasnothappenedeversincethechecksandbalancesprovidedbytheguildsof
tradersandworkmenwiththeirjustpricepolicyandthesocialsecurityprovidedfor
theirworkerswereabolishedtogetherwiththerightofassociation(bythe1791
ChapelierLawinFrance).Forthepast200oddyearsspeculationhasdominatedthe
field,andspeculationisnotinterestedineitherstablepricesorastablevalueofthe
currency.ThesecondhasbeenafeatureofmoneyeversinceCroesusofLydia.
The American economy can recover its production first by returning to Congress its
constitutional currencyissuing power, abolishing the Fed and using dollar bills up to $50 as
domestic currency and $100 bills as currency for foreign trade. How long this will take is
anybodys guess, but given the American spirit of enterprise I would guess one year or so.
Question three: America has become addicted to the dollars hegemony as a reserve
currency. Wouldnt she consider it as a hostile action, any attempt by another country to end
that privileged status?
Of course she would. Thats why she restored the dollar as the purchasing currency of Iraqs
oil immediately after the invasion of 2003, and why she intends to move war on Iran now. But
Venezuela has already declared its switch from petrodollars to petroeuros, and Russia from
petrodollars to petroroubles. Let another country dump its reserve dollars and Americas
addiction will come to an end.
Countries with huge dollar reserves will be well advised to get rid of every worthless scrap of
paper except 100dollar bills, for the reason spelled out above.
Communities that are already using local currencies need worry the least. Not only will they
continue producing and exchanging as they have done up to now, but businesses would see
the sense of accepting these currencies (which they have not so far) thus reviving the local
economies.

Has the time for Free Money arrived?

The three questions above have been answered with the present form of money in mind. But
what is needed now is to take the fifth and final, irreversible step, leaving behind the pure
Paper Store of Value period to enter the liberating domain of Free Money for good.

By Free Money here is meant money stripped of its function as store of value, and therefore
free not only from debt but also from USURY, as Gesell recommended 100 years ago. Free
Money made its appearance twice in the 1930s, both times successfully, and both times
squashed by Mammons raw power. This happened in a lowtech world. It is not possible for
Mammon to crush it now. The collapse of the dollar will upset Mammons power to the point of
no return, unless the world is foolish enough to let him regroup and save the day with his
incantations about intrinsic value and the like.
Who, or what, is in a position to deliver the first blow to USURY? Ideally it should be a State
brave enough to take the brunt of Mammons retaliation top such an act of aggression. But it is
not necessary. If Herr Hebecker could issue Wra redeemable in coal back in 1930,
Aconsortiumofschoolscouldissueitsowncurrencydenominatedin
schoolteachingperiodsandredeemableinthesame
Ditto a utility company with a currency denominated and redeemable in
kilowatthour;
Ditto a transport company or consortium of companies, with a currency
denominated and redeemable in passenger/km or ton/km.
Were a State to do it, it could begin by overprinting its existing currency with a date of issue
and another of expiry twelve months apart, plus twelve boxes to be
punched/stamped/embossed at the rate of one per month. The bill would circulate fast for a
whole year, become worthless at the end of it and ready to be exchanged for a new one with
the first box stamped/punched/embossed.
Before considering how dramatic and instantaneous the results of such an action would be,
please reread the historical review of events in the preceding pages, and try to imagine what
would have happened had Free Money been in existence at the time. Not ONE of the events
listed would have taken place as it did. What happened did happen that way because of the
power of USURY. To spell this out case by case would take an entire volume.
The advent of Free Money would entail a fundamental paradigm shift, from the rule of money
to that of work. Production would be organized for the sake of human needs, not for the sake
of paying interest on debt. Money would thus be dethroned from its secular pedestal to
become the servant of the economy. The scandal of poverty in the midst of abundance, of
artificial, chronic scarcity, of the wanton destruction of food to keep prices artificially high, of
economic crises and of the ills that have been plaguing mankind from time immemorial, would
come to an end, first in that happy country and then in the rest of the world. Current
economic terms like dear cheap money laundering credit line costbenefit analysis
financial budget and so on and so forth, would become obsolete. A not exhaustive, but
telling, list of benefits follows.
Moneywouldnolongerbealimitingfactortodevelopment.Funds,
deadlines,capitaletc.wouldnolongerbenecessaryforbeginning
anything.Hoursofworkwouldreplacemoneyasastandardofworkdone.
Anyenterprise,privateorpublic,couldbelaunchedwithaslittleas1/100
ofthesumneededforcompletion,simplywaitingforittocirculate100
times.Thetimeneededforcompletionwouldbecomethetruelimiting
factor.
Unemployment would disappear for good. Fastcirculating Free Money would
absorb the entire workforce of any country in next to no time, shortage of

labour becoming now the main economic problem.

Physical development would know no limits. Double or triple deck roads,
railways, airports, underground parking lots, amenities, etc. would mushroom
everywhere.
Credit would no longer be required, as would hire purchase and all other
gimmicks devised along the centuries to face the chronic dearth of means of
exchange.
Salaries would not be paid at the end of the month or of the week or of any
other period necessary to finish a given job. Any work done would be paid cash
on the nail. Money would be what it has always been meant to be had it not
been prevented by usury: a certificate for work done.
Having money would no longer be synonymous with being rich. Having
more money than one needed would be a recipe for disaster, not one for well
being. Savings would exceed presentday amounts, but not in ones pockets or
strongbox. Savings would be lent out to banks or to individuals with projects in
hand, and returned on agreed upon terms.
Counterproductive immigration laws would be revised towards attracting
human capital, not punishing it by imprisoning it within national borders or
the barbed wire of refugee camps.
Free trade would be truly free, i.e. taking place between free people, not as
now between free transnational corporations enslaving local populations and
exploiting the environment to destruction. There would be no need to
criminalise peoples innate trading instinct with hordes of officials at the
borders extorting tariffs, duties, excise etc.
Tax avoidance/evasion would be not only unnecessary, but downright harmful
for the evaders. Taxes would be paid in advance, in a continuous stream and not
in fits and starts as now, without the need for an army of semimilitary revenue
collecting officials. Public revenue would be invested as soon as received,
without need for the farce called Budget Day. The State would receive its
revenue from the municipalities, which in turn would receive theirs from the
citizens.
The movements to the cities would be reversed. Slums would first shrink and
then disappear. Cities would have to vie with the countryside to attract well
paid workers.
Embezzlement, graft, corruption private and public, counterfeiting,
speculation, money manipulation, stock exchanges, confidence tricksters and all
the practices that now enrich a few at the expense of many would become
either too difficult or counterproductive or both. It would become more
expensive to craft a criminal scheme than to earn ones keep by honest work.
People unable to work would be very easily distinguished from those unwilling
to do so. The first could be helped without difficulty; the second would be
arrested and sent to development projects as forced labour, unless they
somehow got the ravens to feed them.
The civil service would slim to a wellpaid, indispensable force necessary for

services, not a parasitic plethora of idlers sitting behind desks to disguise

unemployment.
So would the army and the forces of law and order. The State would have to
pay very high wages to entice people away from paid work into outfits meant to
destroy wealth.
And the destruction of human capital by such antieconomic practices as
abortion would be stigmatised as it deserves, not promoted as a social
conquest. Women raising children, who today are the worst exploited members
of society, would be paid and allowed to enjoy not only the fruits of their labour
but also the positive contribution they do to society with a physically,
intellectually and morally healthy offspring.
All of the above is possible. Will enough people be willing to start driving in the right
direction? Only time will tell.
Silvano Borruso
silbor@strathmore.ac.ke
30th May 2006

See also some earlier articles of mine giving more background on Gesell and the dangers of
the interest mechanism:

What is wrong with our Economy?

INTEREST SUFFOCATING THE WORLD

and a recent press article:
Our "Strong Economy": A Powder Keg Waiting To Blow
Posted by Sepp on June 7, 2006 10:05 PM | Permalink

Comments
June 8, 2006 12:23 PM | Posted by: steve
Great article Sepp.
Like the free energy field the history of money is littered with assasinations and dirty tricks.
I am a little confused by the difference between debtfree money, interestfree money and
debt & interest free money. Could you point me somewhere which clears this up?
For anybody reading who is interested in alternative currencies may I reccommend taking a
look at ripplepay.com.

June 8, 2006 4:19 PM | Posted by: noneinstein

Great artcile. I like the "money that expires on some date"scheme. Banks wouldn't like it
though... they would actually have to work for their money. Got a long way to go for a free
society.
I'm still amazed by the ease with which the few rule upon the many. And how dumb the
"many" are.
Usury banking is the corner stone for the few getting entitlement to the many's work, abolish
that and the rest crumble.

June 8, 2006 5:30 PM | Posted by: Sepp

Steve,
debtfree money is money issued in a way that either the state or the people become the
owners of it without having to "buy" it from the banks and thus incur a debt. It would be any
new money issue that is either given to the state to spend or hypothetically to the people
to spend, by being distributed.
interestfree money is money that has some mechanism built into it which forces it to
circulate. Gesell made such a proposal in his "Natural Economic Order" he said money should
be temporary, losing somewhere between 4 and 6 % of its value per year. This arrangement
would replace interest as the "necessary reward" for people to take [some of] their savings
and loan them out so the rest of the economy can benefit from its use. People would prefer to
lend out money without interest, rather than incur the constant drain of the loss of value,
thus interestfree money.
debtfree and interestfree money would be a currency that has both these features, i.e.
issue as a credit (not as a debt as the bankers' money) and constant drain on value as proposed
by Gesell to eliminate interest.

June 13, 2006 5:50 AM | Posted by: Chris Cooper

It was my understanding that the US Constitution prohibits the government from 'emitting bills'
ie issuing paper money.
How would this square with your idea?

June 13, 2006 11:57 AM | Posted by: Sepp

Chris,
as far as I understand, the US constitution is not very clear on the issue of money.
Section 8 gives Congress the power ... To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
and ... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of
Weights and Measures;
Section 10 says ... No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold
and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;

It does not seem that these provisions are actually being observed in the present day and age.
The Liberty Dollar site mentions a 2003 bill in Nevada where the situation is acknowledged and
adduced as a justification for proposing issue of a Nevada silver dollar of 20 dollars face value.
Congress has given the moneyissuingauthority to a consortium of private banks called the
"Federal Reserve" and practically all money in circulation in the US is creditbased, i.e. has
been brought into existence by either the Fed or by its owners, the commercial banks, and
then loaned to either the US government or to corporations and individuals.
So the current situation would seem to be far removed from what little prescriptions the
constitution makes. The issue of money either by the government or by a cooperative effort of
individuals would certainly be preferable to the current situation, where practically all money
is issued by banks and thus at issue is already a debt by definition, its use subject to payment
of interest for the entire period of its existence.

June 13, 2006 1:09 PM | Posted by: steve

Thanks for clearing up the interestfree/debtfree thing Sepp.
Do you envisage a currency with demurrage being implemented by governments or
privately/mutually by people? I fear that any plan that relies on govts (and the vested
interests behind them) is unlikely to succeed.
Have you read Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus books? His hempscript idea is a currency with
demurrage which does not rely on the coercion of the state.

June 14, 2006 5:54 PM | Posted by: Sepp

Steve,
I certainly see demurrage as an option for a future currency system, especially if the currency
is to be issued by government or some institution under government control. Yes, the
likelihood of such a thing happening appears to be slim at the moment.
For a currency without government involvement, I think that ripplepay.com is one of the close
contenders.
No, I have not read RA Wilson's Illuminatus trilogy, neither have I read about his hempscript
idea.

June 14, 2006 11:48 PM | Posted by: abc

Ripplepay seems unavailable, if you don't know it yet, have a look at Hans site.
http://www.sunshinecable.com/~eisehan/
The recomended pdf file with links and articles from Hans written in german is here:
http://esnips.com/web/helfer

June 15, 2006 2:41 PM | Posted by: Sepp

The Ripplepay site seems to be up and well. Latest update was on 5 May 2006.
ripplepay.com/
The system itself is in beta testing mode, meaning you can play with it, even with a circle of
friends, but it is not (yet) open for business. Right now the goal is ironing out bugs and getting
some experience with how the program holds up. To start using it, you have to sign up (there
is a link for that).
Thank you for the link to Hans Eisenkolb's site.

June 15, 2006 10:39 PM | Posted by: abc

Hmm, then it may be something with my browser that makes it not display ripplepay.com
Thanks, I'll have to try from an other location then.
I've read in the Hans pdf file today. As you already know the topic and theory, the file really
tops his webpage.
http://esnips.com/web/helfer has very good articles about the practical way to start the
change without the need of government involvement.

June 16, 2006 11:00 AM | Posted by: Sepp

I have downloaded the file. It seems more like a book from the size of it. Pity it's in German,
while most of the readers of this site are if I'm not mistaken English speaking.

June 18, 2006 5:51 AM | Posted by: Chris

Going back to the Constitution, Sepp, my research shows that the Constitution clearly does not
give Congress the power to 'emit bills'. It cannot therefore delegate this power to the Federal
Reserve System. Having said that, we face an uphill battle to change the status quo. Your
reference to the Nevada Bill was interesting. Here is another more recent development:
goldmoneybill.org an attempt in New Hampshire to introduce a parallel gold/silver monetary
system.

June 18, 2006 11:41 AM | Posted by: Sepp

Well since the US Constitution seems to be quite vague on the subject of money, perhaps it
is not the only instrument that can determine how to best arrange a monetary system so that
it promotes economic activity and individual economic security.
The assumption seems to be that only gold and silver could be valid incorporations of what we
call money. That is not necessarily the case. There can be other systems, for instance the one
discussed in this article, proposed by Silvio Gesell, which are equally valid and in some
respects definitely superior to the "heavy money" paradigm.

August 15, 2006 3:12 PM | Posted by: Risi

When the rest of the world decides they have had enough, the race to get out of US Dollars
will make the things so plentiful as to be worthless, and America may undergo a Cuban style
shock to its economy, with resulting disruption to services/oil supply etc.
Ripple is a step in the right direction, but it's a transfer mechanism, not a unit of currency, so
is not much protection against dollar collapse. Better would be an independent standard of
value such as selfissued currency of Altruistic Economics.

August 16, 2006 9:10 PM | Posted by: Sepp

Actually, Risi, as far as I understand Ripple is not only a transfer mechanism but a credit
creation mechanism as well. You give credit to who you trust, and that constitutes the
"currency" that ripple is eventually exchanging among its participants.

August 20, 2006 5:40 PM | Posted by: brodix

Sepp,
Your article is quite interesting. I have two points I'd like to offer for comment;
A corollary that might help to get people to change their assumptions about money is to
compare it to a public highway system as a form of public commons, for the purpose of
economic transfer. This way, it would make sense to regulate it as such, for the greater good
of the greatest number, not as something to be monopolized. The problem with treating the
economy as a game of Monopoly is that when one person controls everything, the game is over
and you have to start over again. In real life, this is usually called revolution. Viewing it as
public property in this individual obsessed world might get people to invest in every aspect of
their personal community and environment, rather then storing these lowest common
denominators of wealth.
The other point has to do with the idea that Volcker cured inflation by raising interest rates.
How do you solve an oversupply by raising prices? Obviously it was government debt, as well as
spending in ways to increase the private sector, that brought the money supply in line with
demand. The Fed increases the money supply by buying government debt, so logically selling
debt would decrease the supply.
The irony here is that the rich are destroying the money, the conservatives are destroying the
government , the neocons are destroying the military and the monotheists are destroying
institutional religion. Linear thinking in a relative reality can only go so far before the
consequences become unmanagable.

August 20, 2006 8:50 PM | Posted by: Sepp

Good idea Brodix, not a bad analogy to liken money to the system of highways that connects
different cities in a country. Both are public utilities that are necessary for economic activity
and interchange.

About Volcker raising interest rates, the idea behind that is that with higher interest rates
less people are likely to take out loans. Since 95 % of the money supply is created by economic
players taking out loans, higher interest dampens the enthusiasm for creating more money, as
well as leading to foreclosures of existing loans. Any time a loan gets extinguished, money is
"uncreated" and the money supply diminishes a bit. This is true for both government and
private debt. It's extinguishing a debt that decreases the money supply.
Let's hope we get some lateral thinkers to examine these problems and find solutions.

August 21, 2006 3:49 AM | Posted by: brodix

Sepp,
I'm wouldn't completely argue that raising interest rates doesn't reduce money supply, but
given it reduces demand as well, wouldn't that counteract the effect? Also, government debt
was being created on a massive scale, not extinguished, at this point in history.
The problem was that excess money was in the hands of those with excess money, not those
seeking to borrow it. By raising interest rates and breaking inflationary expectations by
breaking the unions and slowing the economy, inflation was effectively blamed on those
wanting more money, not those who already had it. Meanwhile this real surplus was borrowed
up by the government and spent in ways to support private investment. (?) Meanwhile the
parimutual wagering system of the derivatives market can theoretically hold infinite amounts
of money, as opposed to the practical limits of conventional investment.
(Also, could something similar have happened with the depression, in that Roosevelt borrowed
up unemployed money to put unemployed people back to work?)
Here is my own effort at lateral thinking

August 21, 2006 6:57 PM | Posted by: Sepp

Yes, reducing demand while trying to reduce the money supply is one of the big problems
with today's economic setup.
If money was issued as a credit or gift instead of as a bank debt as is the case now, it would be
comparatively much easier to reduce the supply.
Gesell made such a proposal in his "Natural Economic Order".
Excess money always seems to be in the hands of those with excess money. The mechanism
that causes that is interest, which tends to take from those who have little and accumulate
money with those that already possess more than they can use.
I have put down my view on these issues in some articles in the economy section of my
'historical' site.
Employment and in general economic activity suffers when there is not enough money to
facilitate the exchange. So probably what happened with Roosevelt is that he put more money
in circulation making economic activity once more possible.
I like your effort at lateral thinking. You express many thoughts similar to my own.

August 21, 2006 9:43 PM | Posted by: brodix

I've been of the opinion that the advantage of the current administration is that it's bringing
the current world order to a close well before it would have otherwise expired and
discrediting all those who put their eggs in its basket. Remember that had Gore or Kerry won,
they would still have had to deal with a rabidly partisian, Republican controlled legislature.
One which they would have only succeeded on taking the rougher edges off of and thus
prolonging its control. As it is, IF the forces of better judgement can reassert themselves,
there is much work to be done, but you might say that the table has been somewhat cleared.
That is if this impending clash of civilizations, or rather religious absolutists, can be averted
My personal effort is that piece I linked to. While it might be a little too complex for general
consumption, it's still not incomprehensable. The point of intention being that the spiritual
absolute is bottom up and not top down. Obviously the odds of any number of people taking
this seriously is very small, but it's worth my time to make the effort. Besides which, when the
dust finally settles and the various monotheisms have pounded each other to dust, some
alternative needs to be available.
I originally got your name and address off the Natural Philosophy Alliance site, as I usually
prefer discussing the physics aspects of time as a property of motion, rather then basis for it,
so I'll mention reading a short article about a paper recently published in Science magazine in
which an astronomer is arguing that based on very precise measurements of one star, that the
universe is 16, rather then 13.7 billion years old. What this suggested to me is that when they
start precisely measuring a lot of stars, they are going to come up with a broad range of ages
for the universe and it's going to further complicate the current adherence to Big Bang
Theory.
Of course, given the cosmological community's belief in BBT, I have to ask myself why I think
the various monotheistic traditions are going to doubt the importance of their particular
narrative fables, just by pointing out that a bottom up spirit makes more sense then a top
down one. Of course, that's where the two directions of time comes in. If the people who
actually think can be shocked that something so obvious could have been overlooked, maybe
the one who don't, might have their slumber disturbed.
Sorry if I'm rambling here, but it organizes my brain and I hope I'm entertaining yours.
regards,
jbmjr.

September 12, 2006 10:28 AM | Posted by: Sepp

Thanks jbmjr,
well, you're going in the right direction, certainly with your view of time.
Why make a counterposition though of the top down versus the bottomup spirit. Might not
both be able to exist simultaneously, with no one of them being "superior" or being the only
one?
I could very well imagine that spirit may be topdown in the sense of the monotheists, as well
as bottomup as in lots of individuals. Both manifestations of the same "substance"...

September 19, 2006 7:08 PM | Posted by: brodix

Sepp,
In a very real sense, they are two sides of the same coin, but it is a complicated relationship.
The bottom up process is an ecosystem and the top down structures are the organisms which
are created and define this process. These organisms and their social structures function
internally as cooperative units and they compete against other such units in a Darwinian
process that creates ever more efficient and resourceful individuals and cooperative
structures.
The situation has become that humanity has far surpassed its competition and now dominates
the ecosystem. Having spent eons evolving within this social and civic organism, we have a
very limited ability to see outside it and understand the reactive consequences our actions
have on the larger ecosystem. Not only in terms of what we might be doing to the earth, but
how different groups of humanity interact. We get into this elemental binary thought process
of us vs. them and frequently end up at war with one another. Up until recently, this really
didn't matter at the level of the earth as a whole, or even for humanity, as a whole. Now it is
beginning to seriously matter because we do have the potential to do massive damage.
The concept of theism originally developed as a symbol for the larger group and it was
eventually expanded to encompass virtually everything, with the concept of monotheism. The
problem here is that it gives the authority of the absolute to the group structure, since those
at the top of the civil order can claim to represent a higher power. Divine right of kings and all
that.
The reality is that there is no absolute frame. The absolute is basis, as in zero, not a particular
unit, as in mono. So while this basis is featureless and so needs structure to give it form, no
one structure can claim more then its due. The base is source and the top is focus. 0/1. The
monotheistic assumption of the top as the source AND the focus has become a very powerful
weapon in the hands of very mortal individuals.
We do ultimately have one unit and that is the earth itself. Like older parents, we need to
start taking care of it, as it has taken care of us.
Humanity has two bubbles that are due to burst. One of paper and one of theological ego.
regards,
brodix

September 20, 2006 12:33 PM | Posted by: Sepp

Words of wisdom, Brodix.
with the arrows of time and the critical thoughts on monotheism, you have your finger on two
important determinants for the trouble of our times.
Yes, we do need to start taking care of the planet the only one we as humanity have
available to us, and we must do so with humility in our approach.
I will write an article to send some people to your attempt at lateral thinking.

September 20, 2006 6:40 PM | Posted by: brodix

Sepp,
Thanks for the encouragement. I tend to have lots of thoughts running through my head and
not a lot of time to really sit down and string many of them together in an effective unit, so it
mostly comes out piecemeal. That is why I put together the idea of time with its
consequences for monotheism. As two mutually reenforcing points, both with many unspoken
corollaries, it creates a model of lateral thinking. It's also about as long as anyone will read on
the internet. I've used it to start various conversations. Here is the one I've been in for the
last week, or so;
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=177274
regards,
brodix

December 10, 2007 7:20 AM | Posted by: Ross

Folks,
pardon a late entry into this discussion, but I have some naive
questions.
If money is "free" i.e. cannot
store any value why would I ever
want to exchange it for something of
value (e.g. my labor, my mangoes, etc.)
If you suggest somehow "gold is bad"
because it's a commodity, then why
is the cited "kilowatt per hour"
any better? Things are ALL based on
commodities, whether provide by
Earth, Man, or Man's work on Earth.
They all have problems such as
mining, shortages, etc.
I agree with you that Fedlike
destruction of money via DEBT is
a massive problem. And that charging
interest on money based on the
fractional reserve banking system
is a ripoff (sorry, fancy economic
language escapes me momentarily), but
a debtfree and interestfree
money has to be *something* of value
in order to be traded for real
goods (a cup of coffee, a fruit
orchard, a gallon of gas, etc.) and

if it's not of value, I personally

would just rather barter in hard
assets of some kind, than "trust
based documents" of "no value".
This theory seems fascinating, but
irrevocably wrong. What am I missing
here?
thanks,

Ross

December 10, 2007 7:02 PM | Posted by: Sepp

Ross,
when speaking about money storing value, what is meant is saving it for future use, like
putting some f it away and not touching it for years until the time you find you need it.
As a function of money, that is different from the use of money for buying your groceries every
day, paying for a repair of the car or going out for a drink or good meal or to the movies. In this
second case, money needs to be quickly available and you need to be ready to part with it.
Such money is said to circulate with ease.
Saving money for the future interferes in a way with that more immediate use of using money
for everyday exchange.
Gold in that sense is fine for stashing it away for the future, but it's comparatively hard to part
with your nice shiny coins so the exchange is not facilitated by having gold as money. This is
because gold, as a precious metal, has value quite apart from it being used for money or not.
To base money on kilowatt per hour (not my proposal) would be to link its value to something
else than gold, but still something reasonably stable, in trying to get a step away from the
precious metal itself.
You say: a debtfree and interestfree money has to be *something* of value in order to be
traded for real goods (a cup of coffee, a fruit orchard, a gallon of gas, etc.)
Well no, money is really just a convention, an idea based on trust. We use it to overcome the
burdens of raw barter. All that is needed to use money in this way is that we all agree that
whatever we use as money be it printed papers or sea shells or sticks of iron or coins of
metal or even electrons is universally accepted by people who want to buy and sell. The
important action is to buy and sell, the economic interaction, not the value of the money.
Money is merely a temporary place holder for the value of what we just gave away. We trust
that when we go with that money to the store, they will accept it as payment for our mangoes
and the ice cream. End of story.
That's why it is important in this kind of discussion to separate the two uses of money that are
kind of opposing each other: Saving and spending. Store of value and medium of exchange.
If we use something of actual value (like gold?) for our saving, we can use anything we like for
our daily exchanges and as long as we don't rely on the banks to loan that money into

existence, we should be doing quite well.

January 2, 2008 10:06 PM | Posted by: Ross

Sepp,
I understand what you say about facilitating and simplifying barter by using 'free money' as a
lubricating medium of exchange. That works.
And I emphatically and wholeheartedly agree with not relying on banks to "loan money into
existence" as a positive value to a market.
I understand, too, about this free money (whether it be paper, mangoes, or kilowarbles per
flapdoodle) being based on trust. So, let me ask about trust.
If this free money is counterfeitable let's face that we do not live in a perfect world of
perfect people, else this conversation would be unnecessary then this exchange money
would eventually be counterfeited out of need or greed, and it would lose value.
If, on the other hand, this free money is NOT counterfeitable, then it would be easier to trust
despite the darker impulses of certain members of an imperfect society to counterfeit.
( Gold serves this purpose, of course, but let's set that aside for a moment. )
Consider now "control". If someone a banker, a government, a town council controls the
money supply, they control the market. This is the same regardless of the intrinsic value of
the thing used as money. If I can print more dollars, I can move the market.
How would you create a medium for money that was not practically counterfeitable, and not
controllable by fiat or group? What, specifically, would that medium be? (paper is ruled out:
it's counterfeitable and supply is fiatcontrollable, e.g.)
I see gold or some other hard asset as being a solution here, because it is assuredly not
counterfeitable, and it's not controllable by fiat as is paper.
Thank you for this discussion, and your thoughts on this.
Best Regards,
Ross

January 3, 2008 12:42 AM | Posted by: Sepp

Ross,
you bring up a very important and interesting question here.
How would you create a medium for money that was not practically counterfeitable, and not
controllable by fiat or group? What, specifically, would that medium be? (paper is ruled out:
it's counterfeitable and supply is fiatcontrollable, e.g.)
I see gold or some other hard asset as being a solution here, because it is assuredly not
counterfeitable, and it's not controllable by fiat as is paper.
So far, counterfeitability has not been an important consideration in alternative money

schemes, as they were too small to make it pay to counterfeit. With a universal money system,
that would of course change.
I believe the best route would be to go with the times. My idea would be to make the money
system an exclusively webbased one, running on open source software where bugs aren't
hidden and are quickly found and remedied. So the "coins" would be electrons. Counterfeiters
would have to hack the system extremely difficult and easily detected.
As to the control of the system, I am sure a body could be set up similar to those that have
control over the internet. The remit of such a body would include regulating the amount of
electrons (or whatevers) in circulation, and assuring the smooth function of the system.
Parameters would have to be set collaboratively and given to the controlling body for
execution.
Electrons could be issued to all those participating in equal amounts, probably in monthly
intervals.
There would have to be a mechanism to be able to retire electrons (in case the economic
situation requires that kind of intervention). Such a mechanism could be an automatic debit to
each account also in monthly intervals of a small percentage of the electrons on that
particular account. That mechanism would allow not only to decrease the money supply but
also to constantly redistribute a monthly "allowance", of equal amount for each participant.
The mechanism would counteract the accumulation of large hoards of electrons.
The great drawback I see in using gold is that it's a finite resource, a thing that has to actually
be bought on the open market. The fact that gold has to be taken out of the ground and is
relatively scarce would counteract an uncontrollable increase in money mass, but it would not
be flexible enough to allow increases that, for instance, would be larger than the available
amount of gold.
So I would vastly prefer the webbased electron solution to our money problems.
Kind regards
Sepp