That proves nothing. The central bank currency was simply even worse...
The Chiemgauer experiment the fees seems to used to promote the currency, this is not at all the same thing. If the fee is necessary to maintain the currency it should be there to reflect cost of doing business but have a fee for the sake of having a fee have no benefit and if there are no costs like this involved with the money taking a fee would just destroy it and distort the economy.
That proves that people can accept freemoney without coercion. The Worgl experiment also proves that a freemoney can beat even a deflationary currency: merchants preferred the national currency, but very few people paid them with that.
Chiemgauer's demurrage goes to administration cost but also (because the administration cost are not that high) to charities.
The market is likely to opt for a very durable and cheap money because this is an essential part of good money. They should be cheap to hoard.
Not sure what you mean by "cheap money". Are you talking about interest or how many goods you can get with a unit of a currency?
Many people think that durability is a needed property of money because precious metals are durable and they happen to be the best forms of commodity currencies.
I think that the gold resistance against water, fire, acid, etc, was more important than the resistance against time for it to become the de facto world currency of ancient times. Well, not that ancient, just before the dollar took its place.
Yes qualitative easing stimulate liquidity which is a very bad thing when people don't know what to buy or where to invest...
I don't think liquidity is a bad thing. If there's no liquidity there's no trade.
I think printing leads to malinvestments because of what I said earlier: miscalculations caused by distortions in general prices and unnoticed transfers of wealth.
No they can not hoard other things because they may be the wrong things and can not be converted to something else as easy as the money. Also apart from interchangeability people are going to want to hoard in the most durable and cheapest to store commodity around, which will be the money.
If they hoard the things they will consume, they're not the wrong things. People should think about what is going to be needed in the future, hoard it and take the profits for this arbitrage.
When people accept money in exchange of goods and services, they have a proof that they have served society in one way or another, but Why should the whole society wait indefinitely for that individual to decide what he wants from society in exchange?
In freicoin, the demurrage fee goes to miners.
That may or may not be better then transaction fees. The market will choose.
True. I bet people would prefer bitcoin to save and freicoin to trade.
But I still don't see the point with this system. A commodity money has built in costs and a fiat currency is always inflationary.
Well...First we should define what fiat money is. The most common definitions are:
1) Issued by a government and non backed.
2) Non backed.
Bitcoin, LETS and Ripple (among many others) are non backed moneys that aren't issued by any government.
So really there hasn't been a currency ever that behaves like this Gesell fellow says current money behave and he want to avoid. All money are subject to security costs and either storage/transaction fees or inflation. The problem he is trying to solve has never existed.
The problem he's trying to solve is interest, and is as old as money. By the way, LETS (and therefore Ripple) also solve this problem but in a different way: by removing scarcity from money instead of time resistance.
The velocity of money is irrelevant.
No,
it isn't.
