The author of this text is an exceptional German woman, Margrit Kennedy (November 21, 1939, Chemnitz – December 28, 2013, Steyerberg) she was an architect, professor, environmentalist, author and advocate of complementary currencies and an interest- and inflation-free economy. In 2011, she initiated the movement Occupy Money. Readers who want to see the corresponding tables should view the same text in PDF: https://base.socioeco.org/docs/geldbuchenglisch.pdf, this copy is without graphics.
LIST OF FIGURES:……………………………………………………………………………….. 3
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………. 4
CHAPTER ONE FOUR BASIC MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT MONEY…………. 5
FIRST MISCONCEPTION: THERE IS ONLY ONE TYPE OF GROWTH …………… 5
SECOND MISCONCEPTION: WE PAY INTEREST ONLY IF WE BORROW
MONEY……………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
THIRD MISCONCEPTION: IN THE PRESENT MONETARY SYSTEM WE ARE
ALL EQUALLY AFFECTED BY INTEREST…………………………………………….. 9
FOURTH MISCONCEPTION: INFLATION IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF FREE
MARKET ECONOMIES……………………………………………………………………… 10
CHAPTER TWO CREATING AN INTEREST AND INFLATION FREE MONEY
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
REPLACEMENT OF INTEREST BY A CIRCULATION FEE ……………………. 13
THE FIRST MODEL EXPERIMENTS…………………………………………………… 14
THE NEED FOR LAND REFORM ……………………………………………………….. 16
THE NEED FOR TAX REFORM ………………………………………………………….. 18
CHAPTER THREE WHO WOULD PROFIT FROM A NEW MONETARY
SYSTEM?……………………………………………………………………………………………. 20
THE ADVANTAGES IN GENERAL ……………………………………………………… 21
FLAWS IN THE MONETARY SYSTEM………………………………………………… 21
ADVANTAGES FOR THE REGION OR COUNTRY WHICH INTRODUCES
THESE CHANGES FIRST………………………………………………………………….. 25
THE RICH ………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
THE POOR ………………………………………………………………………………………. 29
THE CHURCHES AND SPIRITUAL GROUPS………………………………………. 32
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY………………………………………………………………. 33
FARMERS ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 35
ECOLOGISTS AND ARTISTS…………………………………………………………….. 35
WOMEN…………………………………………………………………………………………… 37
CHAPTER FOUR SOME LESSONS FROM HISTORY …………………………….. 39
BRAKTEATEN MONEY IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE ………………………………….. 39
THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC AND THE GOLD STANDARD……………………….. 40
CHAPTER FIVE MONETARY REFORM IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL
TRANSFORMATION: AN EXAMPLE OF HOW TO MAKE THE CHANGE …. 42
REPLACING REVOLUTION WITH EVOLUTION…………………………………… 42
A POSSIBLE SOLUTION FOR THE NEAR FUTURE …………………………….. 43
THE PARKING FEE CREATES A NEUTRAL MONEY SYSTEM ……………… 44
CHAPTER SIX WHAT CAN I DO TO HELP IN THE TRANSITION PERIOD? 46
BE INFORMED, INCREASE THE AWARENESS OF OTHERS……………….. 46
SPONSOR MODEL EXPERIMENTS …………………………………………………… 46
START A LOCAL EXCHANGE TRADING SYSTEM ………………………………. 47
SUPPORT ETHICAL INVESTMENT ……………………………………………………. 47
CHAPTER SEVEN PRACTICAL CASES TODAY: EMBRYOS OF A NEW
ECONOMY ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
THE LET SYSTEM ……………………………………………………………………………. 49
THE WIR NETWORK AND SIMILAR ASSOCIATIONS…………………………… 51
THE J.A.K. COOPERATIVE BANKS IN SWEDEN …………………………………. 52
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATIVE MONEY AND
CREDIT SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………… 55
p. 3
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure 1 Basic Types of Growth Patterns ……………………………………….6
Figure 2 Constant Growth Curves ………………………………………………….7
Figure 3 Examples of the Amount of Interest Within Normal Prices &
Fees ………………………………………………………………………………………….8
Figure 4 Comparison of Interest Paid & Gained……………………………….9
Figure 5 Development of Various Economic Indicators……………………11
Figure 6 Because of Inflation, Every DM Is Worth Only Pfennigs ……..12
Figure 7 To Pay for a Building Site in the FRG in the 1980s…………….17
Figure 8 Why Does the Economy Get Caught in the Cogs? …………….22
Figure 9 Growth of the GNP in the FRG Between 1950 and 1989…….23
Figure 10 Have You Ever Seen Money Work? ………………………………24
Figure 11 Distribution of Monetary Wealth in the FRG…………………….28
Figure 12 Interest Rate vs. Unemployment and Bankruptcies ………….30
Figure 13 Development Aid ………………………………………………………..31
Figure 14 We Are Living in World War III Already…………………………..32
Figure 15 Labour Costs Are Higher Than Just Salaries …………………..34
Figure 16 Hurrah! 2.5% Growth Again!…………………………………………36
Figure 17 Unemployment Impoverishes, Poverty Radicalizes ………….40
Figure 18 Circulation Guarantee and Average Annual Cost of Credit ..44
Figure 19 Example1: Comparison Between Loans in the JAK Systems
and a Normal Bank…………………………………………………………………….53
Figure 20 Example 2 …………………………………………………………………54
p. 4
INTRODUCTION
It takes some audacity for a non-economist to write a book about
economics, especially if the book deals with one of the basic yardsticks
of the profession, i.e., money. Money is the measure in which most
economic concepts are expressed. Economists use it as merchants use
kilograms and architects use metres. They seldom question the way it
works and why in contrast to the meters and kilograms it is not a
constant measure but varies, now, almost daily.
This book takes a look at how money works. It exposes the reason
for the constant change in one of our most important measures. It
explains why money not only “makes the world go round” but also
wrecks the world in the process. The huge debt accumulated by Third
World countries, unemployment, environmental degradation, the arms
build-up and proliferation of nuclear power plants, are related to a
mechanism which keeps money in circulation: interest and compound
interest. This, according to economic historian John L. King, is the
“invisible wrecking machine” in all so-called free-market economies.
Transforming this mechanism into a more adequate way of keeping
money in circulation is not as difficult as it may seem. While the solutions
put forward in this book have been known to some people since the
beginning of this century, the way and the time in which it is presented
offer a special opportunity for its implementation.
The purpose of this book is not to prove anybody wrong. It is to put
something right and to open up a choice we have which is hardly known
among experts, not to mention the public at large. However, it is far too
important to be left to experts alone to determine whether it will be dealt
with or not. The significance of this book, therefore, lies in its ability to
explain complex issues as simply as possible, so that everybody who
uses money may understand what is at stake. Another significant
difference from other books which have dealt with this issue in the past
is that it shows how, at this particular point in time, the change to the
proposed new monetary system could create a win-win situation for
everyone. It could help to develop, finally, a sustainable economy.
The question remains whether we will be able to change before the
next large breakdown happens or after it has happened. Either way it will
be useful to be informed about how to create an exchange medium
which works for everybody.
p. 5
CHAPTER ONE
FOUR BASIC MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT MONEY
EVERY DAY almost everyone on this planet uses money. Yet few
people understand how money works and affects their lives directly and
indirectly. Let us, therefore, take a closer look at what money is and
what would happen without it.
First, the good news: Money is one of the most ingenious inventions
of humankind, as it helps the exchange of goods and services and
overcomes the limits of barter, that is, the direct exchange of goods and
services. For example, if you live in a village which relies entirely on
barter, and you produce works of art but there is nobody to exchange
your artwork with except the undertaker, you will soon have to change
your occupation or leave. Thus, money creates the possibility for
specialization, which is the basis of civilization. Then why do we have a
“money problem”?
Here comes the bad news: Money does not only help the exchange
of goods and services but can also hinder the exchange of goods and
services by being kept in the hands of those who have more than they
need. Thus it creates a private toll gate where those who have less than
they need pay a fee to those who have more money than they need.
This is by no means a “fair deal.” In fact, our present monetary systems
could be termed “unconstitutional” in most democratic nations, as I will
show later. Before going into more detail let me say that there are
probably more than just four misconceptions about money. Our beliefs
about money represent a fairly exact mirror of our beliefs about the world
in which we live, and those are as varied as the number of people who
live on this planet. However, the four misconceptions which will be
discussed in the following pages are the most common hindrances to
understanding why we must change the present money system and
what mechanisms we need in order to replace it.
First Misconception: THERE IS ONLY ONE TYPE OF
GROWTH
The first misconception relates to growth. We tend to believe that
there is only one type of growth, that is, the growth pattern of nature
which we have experienced ourselves. Figure 1, however, shows three
generically different patterns:
p. 6
Figure 1 Basic Types of Growth Patterns
– Curve A represents an idealized form of the normal physical
growth pattern in nature which our bodies follow, as well as
those of plants and animals. We grow fairly quickly during the
early stages of our lives, then begin to slow down in our teens,
and usually stop growing physically when we are about twenty-
one. This, however, does not preclude us from growing further –
qualitatively” instead of “quantitatively.”
– Curve B represents a mechanical or linear growth pattern, e.g.,
more machines produce more goods, more coal produces more
energy. It comes to an end when the machines are stopped, or
no more coal is added.
– Curve C represents an exponential growth pattern which may
be described as the exact opposite to curve A in that it grows
very slowly in the beginning, then continually faster, and finally
in an almost vertical fashion. In the physical realm, this growth
pattern usually occurs where there is sickness or death.
Cancer, for instance, follows an exponential growth pattern. It
grows slowly first, although always accelerating, and often by
the time it has been discovered it has entered a growth phase
where it cannot be stopped. Exponential growth in the physical
realm usually ends with the death of the host and the organism
on which it depends.
Based on interest and compound interest, our money doubles at
regular intervals, i.e., it follows an exponential growth pattern. This
explains why we are in trouble with our monetary system today. Interest,
in fact, acts like cancer in our social structure.
p. 7
Figure 2 Constant Growth Curves
Figure 2 shows the time periods needed for our money to double at
compound interest rates:
– at 3%, 24 years;
– at 6%, 12 years;
– at 12%, 6 years.
Even at 1% compound interest, we have an exponential growth
curve, with a doubling time of 72 years.
Through our bodies we have only experienced the physical growth
pattern of nature which stops at an optimal size (Curve A). Therefore, it
is difficult for human beings to understand the full impact of the
exponential growth pattern in the physical realm.
This phenomenon can best be demonstrated by the famous story of
the Persian emperor who was so enchanted with a new chess game that
he wanted to fulfil any wish the inventor of the game had. This clever
mathematician decided to ask for one seed of grain on the first square of
the chess board doubling the amounts on each of the following squares.
The emperor, at first happy about such modesty, was soon to discover
that the total yield of his entire empire would not be sufficient to fulfil the
“modest” wish. The amount needed on the 64th square of the chess
board equals 440 times the yield of grain of the entire planet. (1)
A similar analogy, directly related to our topic, is that one penny
invested at the birth of Jesus Christ at 4% interest would have bought in
1750 one ball of gold equal to the weight of the earth. In 1990, however,
it would buy 8,190 balls of gold. At 5 % interest it would have bought one
ball of gold by the year 1466. By 1990, it would buy 2,200 billion balls of
gold equal to the weight of the earth. (2) The example shows the
enormous difference 1 % makes. It also proves that the continual
payment of interest and compound interest is arithmetically, as well as
practically, impossible. The economic necessity and the mathematical
impossibility create a contradiction which – in order to be resolved – has
led to innumerable feuds, wars and revolutions in the past.
p. 8
Figure 3 Examples of the Amount of Interest Within Normal Prices & Fees
The solution to the problems caused by present exponential growth
is to create a money system which follows the natural growth curve. That
requires the replacement of interest by another mechanism to keep
money in circulation. This will be discussed in detail in Chapter 2.
Second Misconception: WE PAY INTEREST ONLY IF WE
BORROW MONEY
A further reason why it is difficult for us to understand the full impact
of the interest mechanism on our monetary system is that it works in a
concealed way. Thus the second common misconception is that we pay
interest only when we borrow money, and, if we want to avoid paying
interest, all we need to do is avoid borrowing money.
Figure 3 shows that this is not true because interest is included in
every price we pay. The exact amount varies according to the labour
versus capital costs of the goods and services we buy. Some examples
indicate the difference clearly. The capital share in garbage collection
amounts to 12 % because here the share of capital costs is relatively low
and the share of physical labour is particularly high. This changes in the
provision of drinking water, where capital costs amount to 38 %, and
even more so in social housing, where they add up to 77 %. On an
p. 9
average we pay about 50% capital costs in the prices of our goods and
services.
Therefore, if we could abolish interest and replace it with another
mechanism to keep money in circulation, most of us could either be
twice as rich or work half of the time to keep the same standard of living
we have now.
Third Misconception: IN THE PRESENT MONETARY SYSTEM
WE ARE ALL EQUALLY AFFECTED BY INTEREST
A third misconception concerning our monetary system may be
formulated as follows: Since everybody has to pay interest when
borrowing money or buying goods and services, we are all equally well
(or badly) off within our present monetary system.
Not true again. There are indeed huge differences as to who profits
and who pays in this system. Figure 4 shows a comparison of the
interest payments and income from interest in ten numerically equal
sections of the German population. It indicates that the first eight
sections of the population pay more than they receive, the ninth section
receives slightly more than it pays, and the tenth receives about twice as
much interest as it pays, i.e., the tenth receives the interest which the
first eight sections have lost. This explains graphically, in a very simple
and straight-forward way, why “the rich get richer and the poor get
poorer.”
Figure 4 Comparison of Interest Paid & Gained
p. 10
If we take a more precise look at the last 10% of the population in
terms of income from interest, another exponential growth pattern
emerges. For the last 1 % of the population the income column would
have to be enlarged about 15 times. For the last 0.01 % it would have to
be enlarged more than 2,000 times.
In other words, within our monetary system we allow the operation
of a hidden redistribution mechanism which constantly shuffles money
from those who have less money than they need to those who have
more money than they need. This is a different and far more subtle and
effective form of exploitation than the one Marx tried to overcome. There
is no question, that he was right in pointing to the source of the “added
value” in the production sphere. The distribution of the “added value,”
however, happens to a large extent in the circulation sphere. This can be
seen more clearly today than in his time. Ever larger amounts of money
are concentrated in the hands of ever fewer individuals and
corporations. For instance, the cash flow surplus, which refers to money
floating around the world to wherever gains may be expected from
changes in national currency or stock exchange rates, has more than
doubled since 1980. The daily exchange of currencies in New York
alone grew from $18 billion to $50 billion between 1980 and 1986. (3)
The World Bank has estimated that money transactions on a world wide
scale are from 15 to 20 times greater than necessary for financing world
trade. (4)
The interest and compound interest mechanism not only creates an
impetus for pathological economic growth but, as Dieter Suhr has
pointed out, it works against the constitutional rights of the individual in
most countries. (5) If a constitution guarantees equal access by every
individual to government services – and the money system may be
defined as such – then it is illegal to have a system in which 10% of the
people continually receive more than they pay for that service at the
expense of 80% of the people who receive less than they pay.
It may seem as if a change in our monetary system would serve
“only” 80% of the population, i.e., those who at present pay more than
their fair share. However, I will show in Chapter 3 that everybody profits
from a cure, even those who profit from the cancerous system we have
now.
Fourth Misconception: INFLATION IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF
FREE MARKET ECONOMIES
A fourth misconception relates to the role of inflation in our
economic system. Most people see inflation as an integral part of any
money system, almost “natural,” since there is no capitalist country in
the world with a free market economy without inflation. Figure 5,
Development of Various Economic Indicators, shows some of the factors
that may cause inflation. While the governmental income, the Gross
National Product, and the salaries and wages of the average income
earner “only” rose by about 400% between 1968 and 1989, the interest
payments of the government rose by 1,360%.
p. 11
Figure 5 Development of Various Economic Indicators
The tendency is clear – government debts will sooner or later out-
grow government income, even in the industrialized nations. If a child
grew three times its size, say, between the ages of one and nine, but its
feet grew to eleven times their size, we would call it sick. The problem
here is that very few people care to see the signs of sickness in the
monetary system, even fewer people know a remedy, and nobody has
been able to set up a “healthy” working model which has lasted.
Few realize that inflation is just another form of taxation through
which governments can somewhat overcome the worst problems of
increasing debt. Obviously, the larger the gap between income and debt,
the higher the inflation needed. Allowing the central banks to print
money enables governments to reduce debts. Figure 6 shows the
reduction of the value of the DM between 1950 and 1989. This
devaluation hit that 80% of the people hardest who pay more most of
time. They usually cannot withdraw their assets into “inflation-resistant”
stocks, real estate or other investments like those who are in the highest
10% income bracket.
p. 12
Figure 6 Because of Inflation, Every DM Is Worth Only Pfennigs
Economic historian, John L. King, links inflation to the interest paid
for the “credit balloon.” In a private letter to me, dated January 8, 1988,
he states:
I have written extensively about interest being the major cause of
rising prices now since it is buried in the price of all that we buy,
but this idea, though true, is not well accepted. $9 trillion in
domestic U.S. debt, at 10% interest, is $900 billion paid in rising
prices and this equates to the current 4% rise in prices experts
perceive to be inflation. I have always believed the compounding
of interest to be an invisible wrecking machine, and it is hard at
work right now. So we must get rid of this mindless financial
obsession.
A 1,000% expansion of private and public debt occurred in the
U.S.A. during the last 33 years, the largest share coming from the
private sector. But every resource of the Federal Government was
utilized to spur this growth: loan guarantees, subsidized mortgage rates,
low down-payments, easy terms, tax credits, secondary markets, deposit
insurances, etc. The reason for this policy is that the only way to make
the consequences of the interest system bearable for the large majority
of the population is to create an economic growth which follows the
exponential growth rate of money – a vicious circle with an accelerating,
spiralling effect.
Whether we look at inflation, social equity, or environmental
consequences, it would seem sensible from many points of view to
replace the “mindless financial obsession” with a more adequate
mechanism to keep money in circulation.
p. 13
CHAPTER TWO
CREATING AN INTEREST AND INFLATION FREE
MONEY
TOWARDS THE END of the 19th century Silvio Gesell, a
successful merchant in Germany and Argentina, observed that
sometimes his goods would sell quickly and yield a high price, and at
other times slowly and attracted lower payments. He began to wonder
why this was so. Soon he understood that these ups and downs had
little to do with the needs of people for his goods, nor their quality, but
almost exclusively with the “price” of money on the money market.
So he began to observe these movements and discovered that
when interest rates were low, people would buy, but if they were high,
they would not. The reason why there was sometimes more, sometimes
less money, had to do with the willingness of the money owners to lend
their money to others. If the return on their money was under 2.5%, they
tended to hold on to their money – thus causing a halt in investment, with
subsequent bankruptcies and decreasing numbers of jobs. Then after a
while, when people were ready to pay more interest for their money, it
would be available again – thus creating a new economic cycle. There
would be high interest rates and high prices for goods at first, then
gradually a larger supply of money would create lower interest rates, and
finally there would be a “strike” of capital again.
Silvio Gesell’s explanation for this phenomenon was that money,
unlike all other goods and services, can be kept without costs. If one
person has a bag of apples and another person has the money to buy
those apples, the person with the apples is obliged to sell them within a
relatively short time period to avoid the loss of his assets. Money
owners, however, can wait until the price is right for them; their money
does not necessarily create “holding costs.”
Gesell concluded that if we could create a monetary system which
put money on an equal footing with all other goods and services,
(charging, on average, a 5% annual maintenance cost, which is exactly
what has been paid in the form of interest for money throughout history)
then we could have an economy free of the ups and downs of monetary
speculation. He suggested that money should be made to “rust,” that is,
to be subject to a “use fee”.
REPLACEMENT OF INTEREST BY A CIRCULATION FEE
In 1890, Silvio Gesell formulated a theory of money and a “natural
economic order” (6) which relates to capitalism or communism as the
world of Copernicus does to the world of Ptolemy. The sun indeed does
not turn around the earth; the earth turns around the sun – although our
senses still defy this scientific truth. Gesell suggested securing the
money flow by making money a government service subject to a use
fee. And this is the central message of this book. Instead of paying
interest to those who have more money than they need and in order to
keep money in circulation, people should pay a small fee if they keep the
money out of circulation.
In order to understand this idea better, it is helpful to compare
money to a railroad freight car which also helps to facilitate the
exchange of goods and services. In contrast to governments which issue
p. 14
money, however, the railroad company does not pay the user a premium
to unload the freight car and thereby bring it back into “circulation” –
instead the user pays a small per diem fee if he or she does not unload
it. This is all we would have to do with money. The community or nation
which issues “new” money in order to help the exchange of goods and
services charges a small “parking” fee to the user who holds on to new
money longer than he or she needs for exchange purposes. This
change, simple as it may seem, resolves the many societal problems
caused by interest and compound interest throughout history.
While interest nowadays is a private gain, the fee on the use of
money would be a public gain. This fee would have to return into
circulation in order to maintain the balance between the volume of
money and the volume of economic activities. The fee would serve as an
income to the government, and thereby reduce the amount of taxes
needed to carry out public tasks.
The technical side of this monetary reform will be explained in the
next two sections.
THE FIRST MODEL EXPERIMENTS
During the 1930s, the Freiwirtschaft (free economy) followers of
Gesell’s theory found opportunities to initiate interest-free money
projects, in order to overcome unemployment and to demonstrate the
validity of their ideas. There were endeavours to introduce free-money in
Austria, France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.
One of the most successful was in the town of Wörgl in Austria. (7)
Between 1932 and 1933, the small Austrian town of Wörgl started
an experiment which has been an inspiration to all who have been
concerned with the issue of monetary reform up to this day. The town’s
mayor convinced the business people and administrators that they had a
lot to gain and nothing to lose if they conducted a monetary experiment
in the way suggested in Silvio Gesell’s book “The Natural Economic
Order”.
People agreed and so the town council issued 32,000 “Work
Certificates” or “Free Schillings” (i.e., interest-free Schillings), covered by
the same amount of ordinary Austrian Schillings in the bank. They built
bridges, improved roads and public services, and paid salaries and
materials with this money, which was accepted by the butcher, the
shoemaker, the baker.
The fee on the use of the money was 1% per month or 12% per
year. This fee had to be paid by the person who had the banknote at the
end of the month, in the form of a stamp worth 1 % of the note and glued
to its back. Otherwise, the note was invalid.
This small fee caused everyone who got paid in Free Schillings to
spend them before they used their ordinary money. People even paid
their taxes in advance in order to avoid paying the small fee. Within one
year, the 32,000 Free Schillings circulated 463 times, thus creating
goods and services worth over 14,816,000 Schillings. The ordinary
Schilling by contrast circulated only 21 times. (8)
At a time when most countries in Europe had severe problems with
decreasing numbers of jobs, Wörgl reduced its unemployment rate by 25
% within this one year. The fees collected by the town government which
caused the money to change hands so quickly amounted to a total of
p. 15
12% of 32,000 Free Schillings = 3,840 Schillings. This was used for
public purposes.
When over 300 communities in Austria began to be interested in
adopting this model, the Austrian National Bank saw its own monopoly
endangered. It intervened against the town council and prohibited the
printing of its local money. In spite of a long-lasting battle which went
right up to the Austrian Supreme Court, neither Wörgl nor any other
community in Europe has been able to repeat the experiment up to the
present day.
In his book “Capitalism at its Best”, (9) Dieter Suhr presents a report
on the U.S. “stamp scrip movement” by Hans R. L. Cohrssen who,
together with economist, Irving Fisher, tried to introduce Gesell’s concept
of cost-bearing money into the U.S.A. – also in 1933. At that time, more
than 100 communities, including several large cities, had planned to
implement stamp scrip money. The issue went right up to the Secretary
of Labor, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Treasury
in Washington, D.C., none of whom were opposed – but none of whom
had the power to grant the necessary permissions. Finally, Dean
Acheson (who later became Secretary of State) asked for an opinion
from the government’s economic advisor, Harvard Professor Russell
Sprague, before he could make a decision. Cohrssen remembers the
meeting as a very cordial one: Professor Sprague told me … that in
principle there was nothing to be said against the issue of stamp scrip
for the purpose of creating jobs. However, our scheme went much
further: It was an attempt to restructure the American monetary system
and he had no authority to approve such a proposal. That put an end not
only to our stamp scrip movement but to a model project that might
indeed have led to monetary reform. (10)
On March 4, 1933, President Roosevelt directed the banks to be
temporarily closed, and he forbade any further issue of emergency
currency. Cohrssen concludes:
“In summary we can say that the technical difficulties of attaining
currency stability seem minor in comparison to the general lack of
understanding of the problem itself. As long as the “Money Illusion”
is not overcome it will be virtually impossible to muster the political
will power necessary for this stability.”
According to Otani’s proposal, (12) the technical side of the reform,
based on the payment modes of today, would make a “use-fee” on the
new money a much simpler issue. Ninety percent of what we call
“money” are numbers in a computer. Thus, everyone would have two
accounts: one checking account (in Europe this is called a current
account, in Australia an access account) and one savings account. The
money in the checking account, which is at the disposal of the owner
continually, would be treated like cash and might lose as little as 1/2 %
per month or 6% per year. Anyone with more new money in her or his
checking account than needed for the payment of all expenses in a
particular month, would be prompted by the small fee to transfer that
amount to a savings account. From there, the bank would be able to
lend this money without interest to those who needed it, for a certain
amount of time, and, therefore, the savings account would not be
debited with a fee (see Chapter 6).
By the same token, the new money owner would not receive any
interest on his or her savings account – but the new money would retain
p. 16
its value. As soon as interest is abolished, inflation becomes
unnecessary (see Chapter 1). The person receiving a credit would not
pay interest, but risk premium and bank charges quite comparable to
those which are included in every bank loan. This amounts in Germany
today to about 2.5% of the normal credit costs.
Thus very little would change in practice. Banks would operate as
usual, except that they would be more interested in giving loans because
they too would be subject to the same use fee that everybody else would
have to pay. In order to balance the amount of credit and savings
available temporarily, banks might have to pay or receive a small
amount of interest depending on whether or not they had more new
money in saving accounts than they needed or whether they had
liquidity problems. In this case the interest would only serve as a
regulatory mechanism and not as a wealth redistribution mechanism as
it does today.
The basis of this reform would be a fairly accurate adaptation of the
amount of money in circulation to the amount of money needed to
handle all transactions. When enough new money has been created to
serve all transactions, no more would have to be produced. That means
new money would now follow a “natural” physical growth pattern (curve
A, Figure 1) and no longer an exponential growth pattern.
Another technical aspect of the implementation of such a monetary
reform includes the prevention of hoarding cash. A more elegant solution
than gluing a stamp on the back of a banknote would be the printing of
different coloured banknotes so that various series could be recalled
once or twice a year, without prior announcement. This would be no
more expensive for the government of a country than the replacement of
old worn-out banknotes by new ones as happens today.
As the Austrian and American experiences show, the political side
is more crucial than the technical. It will be dealt with in Chapter 3.
If the above-described monetary reform were to be implemented on
a large scale, an accompanying land tax reform would be required.
Without land reform there would be a tendency for surplus money to be
attracted to land speculation. Without tax reform, the economic boom
following the introduction of interest free money might have some
serious environmental consequences.
THE NEED FOR LAND REFORM
Money and land are two things everybody needs in order to live.
Whether we eat, sleep or work, life is impossible without land. Land, like
air and water, therefore, should belong to everybody. The North
American Indians say “The Earth is our Mother. How could we divide her
up and sell her?” Land should belong to the community and then be
rented out by the community to those who use it. This was the concept
and the custom in many European countries until the introduction of
Roman law in the Middle Ages with its emphasis on private property.
Today, the world is split into two systems:
– private ownership and private use of land in the capitalist
countries;
– communal ownership and communal use of land in the
communist countries.
p. 17
In capitalist countries, the majority of the people pay for the huge
profits from speculation in private land (Figure 7), and more land is
concentrated in the hands of ever fewer people. In communist countries,
the uneconomic use of communal land is the major problem. In former
West Germany about 70% of the land belonged to 20% of the people. In
Brazil and other Third World countries, the land-owning minority is often
as small as 2-3% of the population. The problem in capitalist countries,
therefore, has to do with private ownership of land.
Figure 7 To Pay for a Building Site in the FRG in the 1980s
In communist countries, in the former Soviet Union, for example,
where land was communally owned and used, about 60% of the food
was being produced on that 4% of the land which was owned privately.
This meant that the problem here was communal ownership and use. A
combination of private use and communal ownership would be the most
advantageous solution for achieving social justice and allowing individual
growth. This is what was suggested by Henry George in 1879, (13)
Silvio Gesell in 1904, (14) and Yoshito Otani in 1981. (15)
In practical terms today, it would mean that a community would buy
up all its land and lease it out to its inhabitants. Countries with a
progressive constitution would have no trouble implementing this change
from an ideal point of view. Thus the constitution of the former Federal
Republic of Germany described land as an asset which carries a “social”
responsibility. Up to this date, however, this social responsibility has not
been met. Figure 7 shows that, on the average, people had to work
three times as long in 1982 as they did in 1950 in order to pay for a
piece of property.
p. 18
After the catastrophic results of expropriation in countries with a
communist constitution, no western nation today would be able to
discuss the dispossession of land by the state without compensation.
Although Roman law, which introduced private ownership of land into
western civilization (roughly 500 years ago), was forced on the people
by their conquerors, those who profited – at first – belong to history, and
today’s owners have either bought or inherited quite legally the soil they
occupy. Therefore, some compensation must be paid if a society wants
to create a more equitable situation.
One long-term possibility is to levy a small fee of about 3% per year
on the value of each plot of land. This fee would be paid to the
community and would be used to buy land which came on the market.
Thus the community would acquire the ownership of its land in a little
over 33 years.
An alternative would be that land owners would be notified that they
had the option not to pay the fee but to sell their land to the community.
For instance, the 3 % fee would be set off against the normal price over
33 years. No money would be exchanged. Meanwhile the owners still
would have the right to use the land – but after the 33 years they would
have to pay a 3 % lease on the value of the land annually to the
community.
The immediate effect of this regulation would be to stop land
speculation. Most land which people hold today without using it would be
offered on the market in order to avoid a continual loss. As more land
became available, the price of land would fall and more people would
have a chance to use the available land in a productive manner. Mainly
in developing countries, this could have a considerable effect on food
production, as the diminishing ratio of food in comparison to the amount
of people to be fed is not a question of agricultural technique, but a
question of the availability of land for small scale farms.
Whether in developing or industrialized countries, the tenants would
have all the advantages of today’s hereditary leasehold regulations in
this new system. They could use their property within the confines of
local planning restrictions. They could build on it. They could sell their
houses. They could bequeath their houses to their descendants. They
could let them out to third parties without involving the community as
long as the next tenants would pay the lease. By determining the exact
amount of the rent through public bids, auctions or similar processes, the
inefficiency of the planned economy or bureaucratic procedures could be
avoided. This change would, at long last, take an enormous load off the
shoulders of the working population who, in the end, always pay for
every profit based on speculation. The latter, indeed, is what land has
always been used for. A realistic change towards a social solution,
therefore, must eliminate speculation with land and money. Again, the
proposed solution does not aim at punishing those who profit from the
present system, but it is designed to put an end, slowly but surely, to the
preconditions which allow enormous advantages to a few people while
requiring the large majority to pay for them.
THE NEED FOR TAX REFORM
In Germany today it has been estimated that between one-half to
two-thirds of the Gross National Product may be termed “questionable”
in respect to maintaining an ecologically sustainable future. (16)
p. 19
Therefore, removing the barriers to initiate more production and
employment through the proposed money and land reforms may require
two changes in the way taxes are levied, or else environmental
devastation would likely increase:
(1) a change from an income tax to a product tax;
(2) an assessment of the costs to the environment included in this
product tax.
Hermann Laistner, (17) who explains this idea in detail in his book
“Die Ökologische Wirtschaft” (The Ecological Economy), points out that
income taxes eventually make labour more expensive and, therefore,
makes more mechanization necessary. This encourages the
consumption of finite resources through increasingly cheap consumer
products. If a tax on products would be introduced, instead, which also
would include the costs of the product to the environment, products
would tend to become relatively more expensive. Combined with lower
labour costs, this would reduce the pressure for more automation and
more people could find employment.
Right now, society pays twice if a labourer is replaced by a
machine. It loses the income tax – as incomes of machines are not taxed
– and subsequently pays unemployment benefits to the laid-off labourer.
In addition, a sizable portion of work is carried out illegally at present, in
order to avoid income taxes. If income tax were abolished, this shadow
economy would finally become legal.
While not causing any lowering of the standard of living to start with,
because the increase in prices for products would be balanced by a tax-
free income, this change would create very different and more
ecologically-sound consumer behaviour in the long run. People would
think twice before they got a new bicycle or car if it were a lot more
expensive than to repair the old one.
The change in taxation could be introduced gradually and would
make sense even without the monetary and land reforms. It would
support effectively a large number of demands and proposals from
ecologists during the last decades. Combined with the two other
reforms, this change would render redundant many environmental
issues and “protection measures” while contributing to solving
unemployment problems.
p. 20
CHAPTER THREE
WHO WOULD PROFIT FROM A NEW MONETARY
SYSTEM?
INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL CHANGE seems to happen for three
basically different reasons:
(1) because a breakdown due to a particular pattern of behaviour
has occurred, i.e., in order to avoid another occurrence;
(2) because a breakdown due to a particular pattern of behaviour
may occur, i.e., in order to avoid the break-down;
(3) because another pattern of behaviour seems more adequate in
order to achieve the desired result. The change in the monetary
system proposed in the last chapter may happen for any one,
any combination, or all of the above reasons:
(1) In the past, the cancerous accumulation of wealth has
been dissolved regularly by social revolutions, wars and
economic collapse. The unprecedented economic
interdependency of all nations today and the multi-fold
potential for global destruction renders this kind of conflict
resolution mechanism unacceptable. We are forced to
search for new solutions to avoid another war, social
revolution or economic collapse.
(2) According to many specialists in the field of economics and
banking the 1987 stock market crash in which $1.5 trillion
vanished within a few days was only a small ripple com-
pared to the imminent danger of a worldwide second Great
Depression, which is likely to happen if we don’t introduce
fundamental change within the next few years. (18)
Changing the monetary system now offers one possibility
for avoiding the enormous human and material costs of
such a disaster.
(3) Whether or not we can see that every exponential growth
curve eventually leads to its own destruction, the
advantages of the change to a new monetary system are so
evident in terms of social and environmental equity that this
path should be chosen simply because it is a better one
than what we have at present.
However, the main problem in any transformation process is not so
much that we want to stay where we are or that we don’t see the
advantages of where we want to be. It is more: How do we get from here
to there, from this trapeze to the one over there, without endangering our
lives?
In order to make it easier to see how this transformation could
assist in reaching the goals of many very different social groups, let us
take a closer look first at the flaws in the monetary system and then at
the advantages of a new monetary system for the rich and the poor,
governments and individuals, minorities and the majority, industrialists
and environmentalists, materially oriented people and spiritually oriented
people. The interesting fact which emerges is that, at this particular point
in time, in this crisis situation which we have created for ourselves,
everybody would be better off with a new monetary system. We all are in
a win-win situation if we implement the necessary change. But we need
to do it soon.
p. 21
THE ADVANTAGES IN GENERAL
Up to this point of the analysis we have dealt with facts and figures
which anyone can verify. From now on we are dealing with “educated
guesses,” based on experiences in the past. The accuracy of these
predictive guesses will have to be validated by real-life examples. The
question, therefore, arises: why would any region or country opt for
trying out, and serving as a testing ground, for a new monetary system?
If the analysis has been correct so far, then the proposed solution
offers among other things the following main benefits:
(1) the elimination of inflation;
(2) the increase of social equity;
(3) decreasing unemployment;
(4) the lowering of prices by 30-50%;
(5) an initial economic boom;
(6) and thereafter a stable economy.
FLAWS IN THE MONETARY SYSTEM
In most countries, the monopoly to print money rests in the hands of
the central government. Any trial run of the new money system,
therefore – even on a smaller regional scale – would have to be
supported by the government. Obviously the introduction of an interest-
free money would be a highly political issue. It takes courage for any
government to admit that a system of such inequity has been tolerated
so far. On the other hand, it is clearly very difficult for most people to see
why a “fee” on money is a better solution than interest. At present
government leaders, politicians, bankers and economists try to respond
to the problems which are caused by the basic flaws in the monetary
system by treating symptoms and offering band-aid solutions. In election
campaigns there are regular promises to combat inflation, to improve
social services and to support environmental concerns and conservation
issues.
The truth of the matter is that they are fighting with their backs to
the wall, and that the situation is not improving but rather deteriorating,
as we come closer to the acceleration phase of the exponential growth
curve of the monetary system. Instead of improvements in the social and
environmental sectors, budget cuts force a deterioration. Whether
politicians belong to the conservative or progressive wing, the room for
real change in the present system is small indeed.
p. 22
Figure 8 Why Does the Economy Get Caught in the Cogs?
Figure 8 explains why this happens. In any highly diversified
economy one sector is intimately connected with another. If we take
away more than its share from one sector, we are bound to cause
trouble – not only there – but also in others. If government debts and
interest rise, more money flows to the owners of monetary wealth. At the
same time, those who work have less money to consume. This, in turn,
causes market fluctuations with influences on employment opportunities.
Governments which increase debts in order to close gaps in their
income invariably increase the “problem chain.” The new money system
would help to reduce the disproportionate rise in debts as well as the
concentration of money-wealth and would secure the steady exchange
of goods and services on a free market.
If we think that the situation seems difficult in industrialized
countries, we must look at Third world countries which carry the worst
consequences of the present-day system. While large American and
German banks are increasing their reserves to be prepared for the fiscal
breakdowns of their debtors in industrially developing countries,
industrialized countries continue to import capital from developing
countries. By exporting new loans to help pay off old ones, they prolong
and magnify the international debt crisis. That this trend must change
has been shown clearly in the report of the UN World Commission on
Environment and Development entitled “Our Common Future.” It also
proves that the seemingly separate crises of the world’s economy and
the planet’s ecology are, in fact, one.
Ecology and economy are becoming ever more interwoven – locally,
regionally, nationally, and globally – into a seamless net of causes and
effects. Debts that they cannot pay force African nations relying on
p. 23
commodity sales to over-use their fragile soils, thus turning land to
desert .
The production base of other developing world areas suffers
similarly both from local failures and from the workings of international
economic systems. As a consequence of the ‘debt crisis’ of Latin
America, that region’s natural resources are now being used not for
development but to meet financial obligations to creditors abroad.
This approach to the debt problem is short-sighted from several
standpoints: namely, economic, political, and environmental. It requires
relatively poor countries simultaneously to accept growing poverty while
exporting growing amounts of scarce resources.
Inequality is the planet’s main ‘environmental’ problem; it is also its
main ‘development’ “problem.” (20) By now according to Mr. Herrhaus,
manager of the largest German bank (Deutsche Bank): “the structure
and dimension of the problem defies traditional problem-solving
techniques.” (21)
Figure 9 Growth of the GNP in the FRG Between 1950 and 1989
Those who operate the present money system know that it cannot
last, but either do not know or do not want to know about a practical
alternative. Figure 9 gives at least one explanation. Compared to the
Gross National Product and the increase in debt, the banks have earned
a disproportionate share of the national wealth. This is in part connected
with lower interest rates which offer better profits for banks, but also to
the increased speculation with money, leading to an increase in
brokerage fees. The bankers with whom I have discussed this issue did
not know of the alternative. After I explained it, they often felt that they
could not pass the knowledge on without endangering their jobs. Banks
p. 24
are not interested in an open discussion of how the interest system
works, unless they take a long- term view. At present, they behave
rather to the contrary.
Figure 10 Have You Ever Seen Money Work?
Figure 10 demonstrates some misleading headlines which can be
found in advertisements of banks in magazines and newspapers all over
the world. Money- banks say- should “grow,” “increase,” “multiply.” Most
often, they try to impress people with the idea that money should “work”
for them. However, nobody has ever seen money working. Work has
always been done by people with or without machines.
These advertisements conceal the fact that every DM or dollar
which goes to the investor of money is the accomplishment of another
person from whom this amount is being taken away, no matter in which
way that might happen. In other words, people who work for their money
are getting poorer at the same rate at which the investment of those who
own money doubles. That is the whole mystery of how money “works,”
which banks do not like to have uncovered.
In my experience, those who should be aware of the problem and
the solution through their education, i.e., economists are afraid of being
branded as “radicals.” Indeed, by supporting interest-free money, they
would be trying to get at the root (in Latin = radix) of one of the world’s
most pressing economic problems. Two of the great personalities of this
century, Albert Einstein and John Maynard Keynes clearly saw the
importance of Gesell’s monetary reform ideas. Keynes actually stated in
1936 that “the future would learn more from the spirit of Gesell than from
Marx.” (22). This future, however, has not started as yet; although
bankers and economists do not need to be terribly farsighted to
recognize that a new money system would enable them to resolve the
central dilemma which they have been wrestling with for decades.
p. 25
Instead, as economic historian John L. King states in his book On the
Brink of the Great Depression II:
Their number-crunching and computerized formulas have proven to
be wildly irrelevant and thus their predictions have become famously
wrong. It’s as though we have educated these people beyond their
capacities to think. (23)
My observation is, that in contrast to most engineers, economists do
not really understand the danger inherent in exponential growth. They
may recognize its danger in the proliferation of AIDS or in the
“population explosion.” In their own field, however, they seem almost
blind, and naively confident that symptomatic treatment, here and there,
will prove sufficient to slow down the danger.
Governments introducing monetary reform soon would go a long
way towards securing social equity, ecological survival and curing the
money diseases which have plagued the so-called “free market
economies” for decades.
ADVANTAGES FOR THE REGION OR COUNTRY WHICH
INTRODUCES THESE CHANGES FIRST
The possibility to invest and produce without having to pay interest
would not only lower the prices for these goods and services in the
regions or countries which introduce the new money system, but also
create an enormous advantage for industries and products competing on
the national or world market. Whatever the going interest rate, products
and services could be sold that much cheaper. This would result in a fast
economic boom in the regions introducing interest-free money first.
A disadvantage could be seen in this change as being a threat to
the environment. However, apart from the possibility of creating a better
system of taxation (as described above), we might look at the following
possibility.
Many products and services which at present cannot compete with
the money-making power of money on the money market would
suddenly become economically feasible. Among these would be many
ecological products, social projects and artistic endeavours which often
would be carried out if they could just “break even.” This would result in
a more diversified and stable economic base, which is anything but
threatening to the environment.
Unemployment rates would drop when economic activities blossom,
decreasing the need for social security payments, ever larger
bureaucracies and higher taxes.
If introduced in a particular region, there would have to be an
automatic low cost exchange rate to facilitate trade between this region
and other regions in the country. Until the whole country would adopt the
new money system, certain regulations might have to be established to
prevent speculative exchange deals. If introduced in a whole country,
trading with foreign countries would continue as it does today. There
would still be an ordinary exchange rate. Comparatively speaking,
however, the “stable money” would attract higher exchange rates over
the years in comparison with other currencies, because it would not be
subject to devaluation through inflation. Therefore, investments in this
money could be quite advantageous in comparison with fluctuating
currencies such as the dollar at present. As in the case of Wörgl
p. 26
described previously (see Chapter 2) – it would be possible even for two
monetary systems to exist side by side. We could keep the one we have
at present and introduce the new money, even in a smaller region or
town. According to Gresham’s Law, “bad” money displaces “good”
money. What we are newly creating here is – in his sense – “bad” money
– money which is subject to a use fee unlike the present money.
Wherever people can pay with the “bad” money, they will pass it on
– and they will hold on to the “good” money. Thus the new money will be
used wherever possible, which is exactly what we want. The old money
will be kept and used to the extent necessary. Therefore, introduced as
an experiment in a specific region in the beginning, the proposed money
system could also co-exist with our present system until it had proven its
usefulness. Who else would benefit from a new monetary system?
THE RICH
One of the critical questions which is always asked by people who
begin to understand the effectiveness of the hidden redistribution
mechanism in our present money system is: Will those 10% of the
population who profit from this mechanism at present allow any change
which might eliminate their chances to extract a work-free income from
the large majority of people?
The historic answer is: Of course not, unless they are forced by
those who pay. The new answer is: Of course they will, if they become
aware of the fact that “the branch on which they are sitting grows on a
sick tree” and that there is a “healthy alternative tree” which is not going
to collapse sooner or later. The second means social evolution, the soft
path. The first means social revolution, the hard path.
The soft path offers rich people the chance of keeping the money
they have gained through interest. The hard path will invariably lead to
sizable losses. The soft path means no accusation because of profits
from interest, until we introduce the new money system, since their
behaviour has been totally within their legal rights. The hard path of
social revolution may well be more painful.
The soft path means no more interest earning money but a stable
currency, lower prices and, possibly, lower taxes. The hard path means
growing insecurity, instability, higher inflation, higher prices, and higher
taxes.
So far my experience with people in the “richest 10% category” has
been that they are neither fully aware of how the interest system really
operates, nor that there are any practical alternatives. With few
exceptions, they would tend to opt for security rather than more money,
since they mostly have enough for themselves and sometimes for many
generations to come.
The second question is: What happens if the rich transfer their
money to other countries where they get interest, instead of putting it
into their savings account where it retains its value but it does not
accumulate interest?
The answer is that within a very short period after the introduction of
the reform, they may do just the opposite. Because the margin of profit
between what people gain in other countries from interest after they
deduct inflation would most likely be about the same as the increase in
value of the new money in their own country which is not subject to
p. 27
inflation. In fact, the danger may be precisely the other way around.
What we may create is a “Super-Switzerland” with a stable currency and
a booming economy. For several years in Switzerland, investors even
had to pay interest in order to leave their money in a bank account. In
contrast, the U.S.A. offered the highest interest rates in the early
Reagan era and attracted surplus money from all over the world and
soon had to devalue the dollar drastically in order to meet its obligations
to creditors abroad. At 15 % interest, the U.S.A. would have had to
repay about twice the amount invested by foreign lenders after 5 years.
There was no way in which this could have been achieved had the dollar
been kept at its original value. One further consequence of this policy
was that the U.S.A. changed from being the largest creditor to being the
largest debtor nation in the world within a time span of only eight years.
The huge amount of speculative money which is estimated to be as
high as $50 billion – circulating the world from one banking centre to the
next in search of profitable investment – shows that there is a shortage of
sensible investment opportunities rather than a shortage of money. This
would change, in any region or country, which by introducing interest-
free money created a booming, and finally stable and diversified
economy. Chances are that surplus money from outside would be
invested here rather than that surplus money from inside would leave
the region.
In many ways, it would be more profitable for rich people to help
monetary reform to happen and to support a stable system rather than to
support growing instability and risk the inevitable crash. A third question
concerning the richest 10% of the population relates to those who live on
their capital and are too old to work. What happens to them if interest is
abolished?
An example taken from Germany (in terms of average interest and
inflation rates) shows that those who can live off their interest now can
live off their capital at least for one, if not for two or more, generations. If
we assume capital assets of 1,000,000 DMarks, an average interest rate
of 7 % and an average rate of inflation of 3 %, the gross income
amounts to 40,000 DMarks per year, without depleting the capital.
In the new money system we abolish interest and inflation, thereby
reducing the prices of all goods and services as well as taxes by about
40%. This means that this person needs a gross income of 24,000
DMarks per year in order to keep the same standard of living as in the
present system. If we divide 1,000,000 by 24,000, we see that this
person could live for 40 years off her or his capital.
The point of this example is that almost anybody who can at present
live off their own capital will also be able to live off their capital if we
change the monetary system.
Among the richest 10% of the population in terms of wealth are
those with assets over one million DMarks. But there are some who gain
more than one million D-Marks from their interest every day. According
to official sources, (24) the daily income of the Queen of England, the
richest woman in the world, was 700,000 pounds (roughly two million
DMarks) in 1982. Although neither the Queen nor firms like Siemens,
Daimler-Benz and General Motors have much official power, their
ownership of money is, in fact, unofficial power. Scandals concerning the
pay-offs by leading industries financing political parties in Germany, the
U.S.A. and other western countries have demonstrated that all
p. 28
democracies are endangered where the monetary re-distribution
mechanism is allowed to proliferate. As time goes on, those who think
that they live in democracies will live at best, in oligarchies or at worst,
under fascist regimes. In medieval times, people thought they were
badly off when they paid tithes: a tenth of their income or produce to the
feudal landlord. In this respect, they were better off than we are
nowadays. Today, more than one third of each DM or dollar goes to
service capital. Those who gain most are the super rich, multinationals,
big insurance companies and banks. The question is whether we are
finally willing to comprehend the social injustice that is caused by our
present money system and change it or whether we wait until a major
world-wide economic or ecological breakdown, war or social revolution
occurs. As there is no way in which single individuals or small groups
alone can change the monetary system, we must try to bring together
those who understand how it can be changed with those who have the
power to change it. It should be clear that:
– there can be no accusation of those who, at present, profit from
the interest system as this is totally within their legal rights;
– what can be stopped, however, is the continual ongoing
extraction out of a without work;
– there should be no given economy of money regulation as to
where or how money may be invested in the future by those
who have more than they need. If they are intelligent, they will
keep it in the country anyway, which would create a new
economic boom by abolishing the interest system.
Figure 11 Distribution of Monetary Wealth in the FRG
p. 29
THE POOR
Would the poor also benefit from a new money system? If
resources were averaged, every German household in 1986 would have
a private fortune of 90,000 DMarks. This would have been a splendid
proof of our prosperity if it were evenly distributed. The ugly reality is that
one half of the population owned 4% of that wealth and the other half,
96% (Figure 11). More exactly, the wealth of 10% of the population
grows continually at the cost of all others.
This explains why, for instance, lower middle-class families in
Germany increasingly seek financial support from social welfare
agencies. Unemployment and poverty are growing in spite of a sizable
welfare system set up to overcome both. The largest factor in the
redistribution of wealth is interest which transfers daily millions of
DMarks from those who work to those who own capital. Although most
governments try to rectify the resulting imbalance through taxation, the
result is nowhere near a balance. In addition, the costs of growing
bureaucracies are affecting everybody through increased taxes. The
human costs in terms of time and energy, plus the humiliation involved in
getting through the “red tape,” are seldom if ever taken into account.
The absurdity of a monetary system which robs people first of their
fair share in the “free market economy” and then – through some of the
most inefficient procedures imaginable – returns some of this money in
the form of welfare payments to the same people, has rarely been
exposed by the “experts” nor been discussed in public. As long as those
80% of the people who pay don’t understand how they pay, could it be
otherwise?
p. 30
Figure 12 Interest Rate vs. Unemployment and Bankruptcies
A practical comparison of rising interest rates and increasing
bankruptcies in business and industry, as well as unemployment rates
following with a time-lag of about two years (Figure 12) provides another
compelling argument for the introduction of an interest-free monetary
system. Also, social costs like alcoholism, families breaking up and
increases in criminal behaviour are additional costs which are not taken
into account in the above statistics but could be effectively reduced by
the monetary reform.
p. 31
Figure 13 Development Aid
If we look at the dilemma of Third World countries (Figure 13), we
see our own situation through a magnifying glass. It is like a caricature of
what happens in industrially developed countries, due to the same
structural fault in the monetary system. However, the difference is that
industrially developed countries as a whole, profit while the developing
countries pay. Every day we receive $300 million in interest payments
from Third World countries: that is, twice the amount of the
“development aid” which we give them.
p. 32
Figure 14 We Are Living in World War III Already
Of the Third World countries’ total debt of one trillion dollars in 1986,
about one third was lent in order to repay interest on previous loans.
There is no hope that these countries will ever be able to pull out of the
situation without a major crisis or fundamental policy change. If war
means hunger, starvation and death, social and human misery, we are
right in the middle of the “Third World War” (Figure 14). It is an
undeclared war. It is a war fought with usurious interest rates, manipu-
lated prices and unfair trade conditions. It is a war which forces people
into unemployment, sickness and criminal behaviour. Do we have to
tolerate this indefinitely?
There is no doubt that those who are at present worse off in the
monetary system we have created account for more than half of the
world’s population. The situation in the Third World would change
momentarily if their debts were to be written off partially or totally by
lender nations and banks. This is often advocated by progressive
economists and, in fact, is already happening. However, unless the
basic flaw in the money system is abolished, the next crisis is pre-
programmed. Therefore, one of the important steps for a more stable
economic system on a world-wide scale is to make known among those
who would undoubtedly gain most – the poor and the developing
countries – that an alternative system could be chosen.
THE CHURCHES AND SPIRITUAL GROUPS
Many of the great political and religious leaders such as Moses,
Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Luther, Zwingli and Gandhi have tried to
reduce social injustice by prohibiting interest payments. They
understood the cause of the problem. However, they did not come up
with a practical solution, and thus, the basic flaw in the system remained
p. 33
unchanged. The prohibition of interest payments in the Christian world
by the Popes during the Middle Ages in Europe, for instance, just shifted
the problem to the Jews, who became, at that time, the leading bankers
of Europe. While the Jews were not allowed to take interest from each
other, they could do so from the Gentiles. In Islam, people do not pay
interest for a loan, but the lending banks or individuals become
shareholders in their business and take part of the ensuing profits. In
some cases this may be better – in others worse – than paying interest.
Nowadays the Christian churches and charitable organizations
exhaust their followers with calls for donations to alleviate the worst
social problems in industrially developed and developing countries. This
remains symptomatic treatment as long as the systemic fault in our
monetary system continues. What is needed instead is the
dissemination of information and an open discussion about the effects of
the present monetary system and the solution in terms of monetary
reform.
In Latin America, for instance, the Catholic Church is split between
the conservative top hierarchy tending towards the western model of
capitalism and the progressive base which is oriented towards the
communistic model. The historic opportunity now is to present an
interest-free economy as a third type of solution which is to be found
neither in communism nor in capitalism but transcends both. It would go
farther in providing social justice than any aid program. It would create a
stable economy and offer the churches significant assistance in their
efforts to bring peace to this earth.
In spiritual terms everything we find in the outside world is a
reflection of our own inner selves, our belief systems, our wishes and
our thoughts. A transformation of the outer world, therefore, requires a
transformation of the inner world. One without the other is not possible.
The proliferation of esoteric knowledge and skills in many parts of the
world indicates a profound shift in consciousness of an increasingly
larger number of people. Their work on inner change provides the basis
for outer change. Without this work a peaceful transformation of the
monetary system may be impossible. Therefore, a great responsibility
rests with those who serve humanitarian goals and are aware of the
practical possibilities of monetary reform as one aspect of global
transformation.
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
In an interest and inflation free economy the prices of goods and
services would be regulated, as in today’s capitalist societies, by supply
and demand. What would change, however, is the distortion of the “free
market” by the interest mechanism.
p. 34
Figure 15
Labour Costs Are Higher Than Just Salaries
On average, every workplace in the German industry carries a debt
load of DM 70-80,000 (> $35-40,000). Interest alone makes up as much
as 23 % of the average labour costs (25) (see Figure 15). To the share
of interest on borrowed capital must be added the interest share on the
firm’s own capital. The latter orients itself along the same interest rate as
the former. This is why debts increase about two to three times faster
than the economic productivity of the country (see Figure 5). The
proportion is constantly getting worse for those who work and for those
who want to start a business.
We are witnessing increasing concentration in the industrial sector.
Small businesses and industrial firms are being bought up by larger
ones and larger ones are being bought up by even larger ones, until one
day almost everybody in the so-called “free market economies” may
work for a multi-national corporation. This development receives its
impetus from the so-called “economies of scale” and from automation of
larger industrial firms, but also from the surplus money gained by these
businesses on the money market. Siemens and Daimler-Benz in
Germany, for instance, earn more money through investments in the
capital market than in the production sector. In fact, they have been
characterized in the German press as large banks with a production
front.
In contrast, smaller and medium-sized firms in order to expand
usually have to borrow money and, therefore, are trapped in the interest
and compound interest system. They cannot capitalize on the
economies of scale, and they cannot capitalize on capital.
p. 35
Up to now our economy depends on capital. The German industrial
representative, Mr. Schleyer, once said fittingly: “Capital must be
served!” But in the new monetary system capital would be designed to
serve the needs of the economy. It would have to offer itself to avoid
penalty, i.e., it must serve us!
FARMERS
Because of the devastating effects of interest on our agricultural
system, farming provides a particularly good case for a new money
system. Agriculture is an industry based on ecology. In general,
ecological processes follow a natural growth curve (Curve A in Figure 1)
Industrial processes must follow the exponential growth curve of interest
and compound interest, at present (Curve C in Figure 1). Since nature
cannot be made to increase like capital, the industrialization of
agriculture has created threatening problems for our survival. In the first
phase of industrialization, farmers bought bigger and better machinery.
Then bigger farmers bought up smaller farms to become even larger,
with the help of government subsidies and tax incentives. Then the signs
of sickness began to appear and multiply: the depletion and pollution of
water supplies; fertile soils becoming like dried-out and compacted
deserts; the loss of more than 50% of all species; the overproduction of
special items which could only be sold with more government subsidies;
hybrid produce which is tasteless and poisonous; total reliance on oil for
transportation, artificial fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides; vanishing rain-
forest to supply packaging materials for long hauls between the places
of production, storage, processing, selling and consuming.
While interest is only one factor contributing to this development,
introduction of an interest-free money system would be of particular
importance for this societal sector which secures our survival. Interest-
free loans, combined with land and tax reforms (see Chapter 2), might
allow a larger number of people than presently expected to return to the
land. Together with new methods of sustainable agriculture, we may
witness the evolution of a different lifestyle, combining work and leisure,
hand and “brain” work, high and low technology, to serve a more holistic
approach to individual, agricultural and social development.
ECOLOGISTS AND ARTISTS
When we talk about economic growth, measured in the percentage
increase of the GNP and compared to previous years, we usually forget
that this increase is related to a larger amount every year. Thus, 2.5 %
growth today is, in fact, four times as much as 2.5% growth during the
1950s
Figure 16
p. 36
Figure 16 Hurrah! 2.5% Growth Again!
Why politicians, industrialists and union leaders still call for
measures to boost economic growth is easily explained: During phases
of decreasing growth rates, the discrepancy between income from
capital and labour or the redistribution of wealth from labour to capital
becomes more severe. This means increasing social and ecological
problems and economic and political tensions.
Continual economic growth, however, results in the depletion of
natural resources. That means, in the present monetary system, we
have a choice between ecological or economic collapse. In addition, the
concentration of money in the hands of fewer people and large multi-
national corporations creates a constant pressure for large scale
investments, e.g., atomic power plants, huge dams for hydroelectric
power, and arms. From a purely economic angle, the U.S.A. and Europe
are displaying politically contradictory behaviour. Installing bigger and
better weapons against Russia on the one hand, and sending butter,
wheat and technological know-how to Russia on the other, made perfect
economic sense: Military production is the only area where the
“saturation” point can be postponed indefinitely as long as “the enemy”
is equally able to develop faster and better weapons. Profits in the
military sector are far greater than any profits made in the civilian sectors
of our economy.
As long as every investment has to compete with the money-
making power of money on the money market, most ecological
investments, aimed at creating sustainable systems (i.e., stopping
quantitative growth at an optimal level), will be difficult to implement on a
larger scale. Today, people who have to borrow money for ecological
investments usually lose – economically. If interest could be abolished
they might at least break even, although the difference from other
p. 37
investments (e.g., in the arms business) would still remain the same. Let
us take an investment in solar collectors as an example. If we can
expect only a 2 % return on our money, it would be economically unwise
to invest in this otherwise sensible, ecological technology for producing
hot water, since our money in a bank might pay a 7 % return. A change
in the monetary system would provide people with a chance at least to
break even if they invest in the maintenance and improvement of the
biological basis of life. This would create a very different impetus for
individuals and groups to engage themselves in conservation measures
and ecologically sound technologies.
Even the volume of economic activities would be more easily
adjusted to real needs. Since high capital returns in order to pay off
interest would not be needed any more, the pressure on overproduction
and over-consumption would be considerably reduced. Prices could be
reduced by 30 to 50% which pays for highly capital intensive technology.
In theory, people would need to work only half of the time in order to
keep the same standard of living.
Within the new monetary system, quantitative growth would most
likely be changed into qualitative growth. People would have a choice of
leaving their new money in a savings account where it would keep its
value, or investing it in glass, china, furniture, art work or a solidly built
house, which would keep their respective values. They might well opt for
those investments which would enrich their daily lives. However, the
higher the quality demanded, the more it would be produced. Thus we
could expect a total revolution of values, which would almost certainly
effect cultural and environmental issues. Many investments in art and
ecological technologies would be able to compete given a “stable”
money and sustainable way of life, and pay without making large profits.
Thus art and ecology would soon become “economically feasible.”
WOMEN
Why do so few women operate in the money sphere? Whether on
the stock market or within the banking world, this is still a man’s realm
and exceptions only seem to prove the rule. I have ascertained from a
fairly long-standing experience with women’s issues and women’s
projects that most women intuitively feel that there is something wrong
with this money system, although, like men, they do not clearly know
what is wrong.
Women’s fierce fight for equality, which is also largely an economic
issue, has made them resentful about processes that produce inequity,
like the money game. Most women understand experientially that
whatever somebody gains without work, i.e., through interest and
compound interest, somebody else has to work for it. The latter (in many
cases) will be female. Of that half of the population which owns only 4%
of the total wealth (Figure 11), the majority are women.
Women overwhelmingly carry the load of the economic chaos and
social misery caused by the present money system everywhere in the
world. The introduction of a new money system which serves as a
“technically improved barter system” may well change their lot
dramatically. For this reason, I expect a high percentage of women to be
among the main movers for a more equitable exchange medium. They
understand what it means to be exploited. Following the conversion,
they may well get involved in banking and investing to a much larger
p. 38
extent. This would happen because they would understand that it would
be a life-enhancing rather than destructive system in which they would
operate. Last but not least, this money system fits their concept of power
much better. Men are used to the hierarchical model of power with an
almighty top and a powerless base. Whoever gets a chunk of the cake
leaves less for the others. It’s a win/lose situation.
Women more often experience power as an infinitely expandable
concept. Whenever someone adds power to a group, the whole group
becomes more powerful. It’s a win-win situation.
A monetary system which expands with growing needs but stops
when these needs have been met almost automatically creates a win-
win situation for everybody in the long run. Even in the short run, in a
crisis situation, which is what we are in right now. What women will want
most for themselves and their children is that, instead of another of the
hard revolutionary transitions which have caused such an endless
amount of human misery in the past, the change – if it could happen
before the crash – would provide a soft evolutionary transition.
p. 39
CHAPTER FOUR
SOME LESSONS FROM HISTORY
THE MONETARY SYSTEM we have inherited is more than 2,000
years old. The German word for money, which is “Geld,” links it rather
precisely to its origin which was gold. Gold, a fairly useless metal except
for jewellery and ornaments, became the preferred exchange medium
around 700 B.C. in the Roman Empire. Money always meant coinage.
This was the concept which was incorporated in the U.S. Constitution.
Gold and silver coins (or their depository receipts) were the only fully
legal tender in the U.S.A. until 1934. To this day, many people – mainly
those who see the disadvantages of the practically unlimited possibilities
for creating paper money- favour a return to the gold standard for
money.
When Silvio Gesell published his book “Die Natürliche Wirtschafts-
ordnung” (The Natural Economic Order) in 1904, about three-quarters of
the book dealt with this issue. (26) Against all the established
economists of his time he tried to prove theoretically and with practical
examples that the gold standard was not only unnecessary but
detrimental to a well-functioning monetary system based on interest free
money.
Today, we know that the gold standard is not a necessary
precondition. There is no money system in the world now which is based
on the gold standard. John Maynard Keynes, who was well acquainted
with Silvio Gesell’s work, helped to eliminate this barrier to a well-
functioning economy in the 1930s. What he forgot to advocate, however,
was the other essential ingredient: the replacement of interest by a
circulation fee. This is largely why we are in trouble now and will be at
regular intervals until we have learned the lesson.
In order to show how difficult a deep understanding of monetary
issues really is, I would like to sketch out a few historic examples to
illuminate this point.
BRAKTEATEN MONEY IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE
Between the 12th and the 15th century in Europe a money system
was used called “Brakteaten.” Issued by the respective towns, bishops
and sovereigns, it not only helped the exchange of goods and services
but also provided the means of collecting taxes. Every year the thin
coins made from gold and silver were “recalled,” one to three times re-
minted and devalued on an average about 25 % in the process.
Since nobody wanted to keep this money, people instead invested
in furniture, solidly built houses, artwork and anything else that promised
to keep or increase its value. During that time, some of the most
beautiful sacred and profane works of art and architecture came into
existence. “For while moneyed wealth could not accumulate, real wealth
was created.” (27)
We still think of this time as one of the cultural culmination points in
European history. Craftsmen worked a five-day week, the “blue” Monday
was introduced and the standard of living was high. In addition, there
were hardly any feuds and wars between the various realms of power.
However, people obviously disliked the money which lost so much
at regular intervals. Finally, towards the end of the 15th century, the
p. 40
“eternal” penny was introduced and with it came interest and
accumulation of wealth in the hands of increasingly fewer people, as well
as the accompanying social and economic problems. The lesson here is
that taxes should be levied separately and not connected with the
circulation fee on money.
THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC AND THE GOLD STANDARD
During the Weimar Republic (1924-33), the central bank’s
president, Hjalmar Schacht, had the desire to create an “honest”
currency in Germany which – in his understanding meant a return to the
gold standard. Since he could not buy enough gold on the world market
adequate to the amount of money in circulation, he began to reduce the
latter. The shorter supply of money resulted in rising interest rates,
thereby reducing the incentives and possibilities for investment, forcing
firms into bankruptcy, and increasing unemployment, which led to the
growth of radicalism and finally helped Hitler to gain more and more
power. Figure 17 shows the links between growing poverty and
radicalism in the Weimar Republic.
Figure 17 Unemployment Impoverishes, Poverty Radicalizes
This development had been foreseen by Silvio Gesell – although for
different reasons. Already in 1918, shortly after World War I, when
everybody talked about peace and many international organizations
were created to secure that peace, Gesell published the following
warning in a letter to the editor of the newspaper “Zeitung am Mittag” in
Berlin: In spite of the holy promise of all people to banish war, once and
for all, in spite of the cry of millions ‘Never a war again,’ in spite of
p. 41
all the hopes for a better future, I have this to say: If the present
monetary system, based on interest and compound interest,
remains in operation, I dare to predict today, that it will take less
than 25 years for us to have a new and even worse war. I can
foresee the coming development clearly. The present degree of
technological advancement will quickly result in a record
performance of industry. The build-up of capital will be rapid in
spite of the enormous losses during the war, and through its over-
supply will lower the interest rate. Money will then be hoarded.
Economic activities will diminish and increasing numbers of
unemployed persons will roam the streets; within the discontented
masses wild, revolutionary ideas will arise and also the poisonous
plant called “Super-Nationalism” will proliferate. No country will
understand the other, and the end can only be war again. (28)
Seen historically after the facts, money was made to be in short
supply by the central bank and hoarded by private people. The effects
were disastrous. Yet up to this day, central bankers seem to be ignorant
of the fundamental cure for problems they face every day.
p. 42
CHAPTER FIVE
MONETARY REFORM IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL
TRANSFORMATION: AN EXAMPLE OF HOW TO
MAKE THE CHANGE
THE FACT THAT this book concentrates on the issue of monetary
reform as one important aspect of the total global transformation which
we are about to witness does not mean that it is more important than
other aspects. From organizational to individual transformation, from
technological to spiritual transformation, we need change.
Money, how it works and what it does to society, has been notori-
ously overlooked although it seems to be a fairly central piece of the
puzzle. Neither experts nor those who occupy themselves with
alternatives to the present economic system seem to worry much about
this issue. It may not be more important but it certainly is not less
important than others. It simply affects everybody.
REPLACING REVOLUTION WITH EVOLUTION
While the three reforms – in money, land and tax systems –
proposed in this book constitute only a small part of the overall changes
that are necessary for survival on this planet, they may fit readily into
many attempts to create a new relationship between human beings and
nature – and human beings and their fellow human beings. Social justice,
ecological survival and freedom are threatened where we allow the
proliferation of societal structures which in themselves tend to work
against these goals.
The proposed reforms clearly combine the advantages of both
capitalism and communism. They avoid their respective shortcomings
and provide a “third type of solution.” They would allow individual
freedom and growth together with a free market system, and with a far
greater degree of social equity. At the same time, they would stop the
exploitation of the large majority by a small minority – without introducing
the heavy regulations of a planned economy and an almighty
bureaucracy.
The communist attempt to create freedom from exploitation failed
because, in order to secure a minimum existence for everybody,
communism eliminated personal freedom. The capitalist tendency, on
the other hand, by letting land and capital be exploited in an unrestricted
practice of personal freedom has endangered the minimum existence of
the majority of people. Both systems have gone too far in their
respective directions. One has set the priority of freedom from hunger
above freedom to choose one’s own life style. The other has set the top
priority on personal freedom which, in the present monetary system, can
only be achieved by very few people. Both are partially right, but both
have failed to create the preconditions for a genuinely human existence
including genuine freedom.
The reforms proposed here could reduce governmental intervention
and create an ecological economy in which goods and services could be
produced at an optimum size and level of complexity because that is
where they would be the cheapest, i.e., most competitive in a free
system.
p. 43
While the full extent to which wealth is redistributed through the
monetary and land systems is less obvious in highly industrialized
countries, because of the exploitation of developing countries, the
working people in the latter really pay the price for the monetary systems
of the industrialized world. Although they suffer most, there is little hope
that these ideas will be used first in the Third World where small elite
groups dominate in terms of money, land and political power.
However, there may be a possibility for change in the smaller
democratic nations of Europe. Scandinavia, for instance, with a majority
of wealthy and well educated people, might prove comparatively well
open to social change. And this is what monetary reform is all about.
At the U.N. World Commissions Public Hearing in Moscow on
December 11, 1986, A. S. Timoschenko of the Institute of State and
Law, U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, proposed that:
“Today we cannot secure security for one state at the expense of
the other. Security can only be universal, but security cannot only
be political or military, it must be as well ecological, economical
and social. It must ensure the fulfilment of the aspirations of
humanity as a whole.” (32)
The struggle of humankind for social and economic justice has been
long and fierce. It has created sharp divisions in political orientations and
religious beliefs. It has cost many lives. It is indeed urgent that we come
to the understanding that nobody can obtain security for oneself at the
expense of another, or at the expense of the environment on which we
depend. In order to make this feasible we need some deep and practical
changes in the structures of our social framework. Hopefully the
changes proposed in this book will contribute to the creation of security
and justice for people and our global environment, and finally begin to
replace revolution with evolution.
A POSSIBLE SOLUTION FOR THE NEAR FUTURE
Before the money system could be reformed, a large section of the
population must realize that we have to limit money to its functions as an
exchange medium, as a scale for prices and as a constant standard of
value. If this recognition is transformed into political action, then the
central bank, as directed by the government, would employ a parking fee
rather than interest to keep money in circulation.
p. 44
Figure 18 Circulation Guarantee and Average Annual Cost of Credit
THE PARKING FEE CREATES A NEUTRAL MONEY SYSTEM
As a method to secure circulation, the parking fee would make
possible all necessary transactions. If there is enough money available
to accomplish all necessary transactions, then it is not necessary to put
more into circulation. Hereby, the growth of the amount of money
available follows the growth of the economy and this follows, once again,
the natural growth curve (curve in Figure 1).
If somebody has more cash than they need, at any time, they pay it
into their bank. Depending on the length of time the money is deposited,
the parking fee will be either diminished or waived. Figure 18 shows how
today’s interest scale would be replaced by a parking fee scale. In the
case of long term deposits there would be no fee; cash would have the
highest fee.
The hoarding of cash in the new system could be avoided much
more easily than by gluing a stamp on the back of a banknote as was
done in Wörgl. Several suggestions have been made: One is a lottery
system. It would ensure the circulation of cash by the withdrawal of one
specific note denomination, in the same way as a lottery draw.
Based on today’s eight denominations (in the case of the German
Mark DM 5/10/50/100/200/500/1000), e.g., the eight coloured balls
representing different bank note denominations would be mixed with
white balls representing no conversion in such a way that on statistical
p. 45
average – a conversion of one denomination would occur once or twice
per year.
Draws could take place, for example, on the first Saturday of each
month. Once a denomination is drawn, the conversion period could go
on until the end of the month. The drawn notes would remain legal
tender and could be used for payment in all shops. However, the
respective fee would have to be deducted these bank notes.
Another option is to exchange the invalid notes against payment of
the exchange fee at a bank or post office. Because no one likes to pay
fees, everyone would limit their use of cash to the necessary amount,
and surplus money would be paid into bank accounts.
The exchange would be facilitated by giving the new note
denominations a new colour and size. New DM 100 yellow notes replace
the old blue notes which go out of circulation. The concealment of
overdue notes can be avoided by making the new notes slightly longer
or wider so that every false note would jut out of a bundle, no matter how
thick.
Unlike stickers, or stamp money, the drawing of denominations has
the advantage that there is no need to print new money. We could keep
the same money we have today and the actual cost of the system would
be no higher than the replacement of worn out notes today.
In this new neutral money system, banks are under the same
obligation as everybody else to pass the money on to those who need it.
If they have interest free deposits on their books, and don’t lend the
money out or transfer it to the central or regional bank, they would also
have to pay the parking fee. People receiving a credit would pay no
interest but banking charges and risk premiums, comparable to those
included in every bank loan. The two amount to about 2.5% (1991 in
Germany) of the average credit costs (see Figure 18). In Switzerland,
they only amounted to about 1.5% of the average credit costs. In
industrially developing countries, they were even two to three times as
high.
p. 46
CHAPTER SIX
WHAT CAN I DO TO HELP IN THE TRANSITION
PERIOD?
THE GREATEST OBSTACLE to the transformation of the monetary
system is that few people understand the problem and even fewer know
that there is a solution. However, since October 1987, when $1.5 trillion
vanished on Wall Street, people are more interested in listening. To be
informed exactly about the way in which interest and compound interest
works is the first step towards change. To be able to discuss the solution
and its varied implications is the next step.
BE INFORMED, INCREASE THE AWARENESS OF OTHERS
Start among friends and family members to experience how far you
can explain the issue. Then move on to people you know less well and
finally don’t hesitate to talk to your banker, insurance broker, local
politician, journalists and media people. Many discussions with
professionals, bankers and economists have convinced me that there
are no “real” difficulties, except the mental blocks created by education
and limiting belief systems about what money is and how it should
function.
Be aware that money is one of the central issues in many people’s
lives. Therefore, it is linked strongly with people’s perception of
themselves and the world. Generosity or greed, openness or isolation,
warmth or coldness – how people behave in other areas will be reflected
in their attitude towards money. Usually it is difficult to treat money as a
separate issue. However, you have to explain the way in which interest
accumulates wealth before you deal with the symptoms which appear,
e.g., in the social and political arena. Otherwise, the whole discussion
may become more difficult.
Be aware that monetary reform, although it is linked to many other
problems, is not going to cure all of them automatically. It will not by
itself provide for the poor, the old, the sick or for other social needs.
Monetary reform will make it easier to help these groups. But that does
not mean that we can do without special programs or mechanisms to
solve other social problems. The same applies to ecology, conservation
and other tasks.
Just following what happens in the world through the media any day
will increase your understanding of the urgency and feasibility of this
change and the responsibility which everybody who knows of a solution
carries in respect to making it more widely known.
SPONSOR MODEL EXPERIMENTS
The most important precondition for an interest-free monetary
system is to set up some “real life examples” which will give us an idea
about the effects this change may have on a larger scale.
Preferably, the regions or countries interested in a trial run should
coordinate their action in order to achieve a greater validity in observing
the results under different social, cultural and economic conditions. The
areas selected should be large enough to provide relevant results for the
whole country. A high level of autonomy would be desirable. That means
p. 47
that many of the goods and services needed should be available in the
area where the experiment happens.
The other possibility is to choose a region which is depressed –
usually because of lack of diversification – and create an impetus for a
more differentiated and stable economy through the introduction of a
new monetary system. The latter case may be the more tempting
because where a situation is bad enough people tend to be more open
to change, mainly when they see – as in the case of Wörgl (Chapter 2) –
that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose in the process. On
the other hand, a relatively active, diversified and economically healthy
area may also see advantages in the introduction of a new monetary
system very clearly and here the success of the change may be evident
faster.
It would create more validity not to limit experiments to one or the
other situation exclusively, in order to find out what interest-free money
means in different social contexts.
START A LOCAL EXCHANGE TRADING SYSTEM
Of all the attempts to exchange goods and services outside the
present money systems, the one Michael Linton has started on
Vancouver Island, Canada, is the most easily adaptable to any locality
and, therefore, the best known world-wide.
The LET (Local Exchange Trading) System operates quite simply
as a system of accounts of “green” dollars, without a fee on the money,
but a small fee on each transaction. People arrange among themselves
how many “green” and how many “normal” dollars each item they sell or
buy will cost. They pass on their credits and debits to a computerized
accounting centre. Their limits to go into debt can be determined, at the
outset, and changed when necessary later, in order to minimize the risk
for all participants. Obviously, the more people participate, the more
rewarding the system will be.
In this way, a small community near Vancouver helped a dentist
who was young and had no money to build up a practice. The
community built a house and surgery, largely from green dollars. The
dentist then treated people for a certain percentage of green dollars. The
LET Systems work well in the beginning but in some instances there
have been problems or collapse (29) where large surpluses or deficits
occurred. In part this is because with no circulation fee there is no
incentive to recycle money.
However, it still makes sense to support experiments with different
types of circulation systems than the one we have at present, in order to
enable people to understand the functions and purposes of money
better. Practical examples provide a better learning experience than any
book or lecture.
SUPPORT ETHICAL INVESTMENT
One immediate step everybody can take toward transition is to see
to it that their own surplus money gets invested in an ethical way. As
more and more people begin to realize its social and moral implications,
ethical investment in the U.S.A. has mushroomed into a multi-million
dollar movement. In the words of Hazel Henderson, “a growing army of
common folk have stood on their doorsteps, smelt the rot and can no
p. 48
longer let what they do with their money counteract with what they do
with their lives.” (30)
Ethical investors look at their potential investments in economic and
social terms. People like Robert Schwartz, an early pioneer in socially
responsible investment, started by eliminating from their list of possible
investments the companies that were major defence suppliers or had
unfair labour policies, polluters, including nuclear utilities, that were
destructive to the environment and those firms who made their assets
available to repressive government regimes like South Africa. (31)
Environmental awareness is not only a vital moral standpoint but in
many cases also makes good money sense, mainly when the situation is
bad enough through the previously ruthless exploitation of resources.
The nuclear power industry, for instance, with its accidents and clean-up
costs has proven to be a bad lemon for investors in the U.S.A., whilst
alternative energy has done well lately.
The greatest advantage of an ethical investment policy is that it can
be put into practice right now. Whether we change the monetary system
sooner or later, ethical investment is a splendid idea in any money
system.
p. 49
CHAPTER SEVEN
PRACTICAL CASES TODAY: EMBRYOS OF A NEW
ECONOMY
THERE ARE TWO major obstacles preventing the practical
conversion of our interest-based money into a means of exchange which
would serve everyone. First: Few people seem to understand the
problem, and secondly, successful experiments are thinly spread all over
the world in comparison to “normal” money trade.
Taken as a group though, these experiments are not only
encouraging evidence that everyone can do something immediately, but
they also provide us with a picture of what a transformation from the
“bottom up” would look like. If enough people understood what issues
are at stake, it would be possible to change our money system without
state support. The models we are about to discuss differ in function –
savings and loans on the one side, and exchange of goods and services
on the other as well as in their scope from local to nation-wide.
– At a local level, the Canadian LET System offers an interest
free means of exchange for groups, communities, villages or
suburbs with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 5,000
members.
– The Swiss WIR-Wirtschaftsring (Economic Cooperative) shows
how a practically interest-free accounting system for the
exchange of goods and services can bring significant
advantages to small and middle sized firms.
– The Danish and Swedish JAK systems provide countrywide
interest-free savings and loans schemes under conditions
significantly better than those available from commercial banks.
Taken together these models prove that an interest free money
system which fulfils exactly the same functions as an interest based
money system is practically possible. It proves that those who use it can
benefit from such systems otherwise they would not continue to exist.
THE LET SYSTEM
In every village, every city and every region there are people with
abilities and resources which are not used in the established economic
system, yet there is a demand for such abilities and resources. An
exchange network which advertises through billboards, newspapers,
data banks, radio, or other means, gives people the chance to share
these skills with one another, and enrich the life of the community in the
real sense of the word, without using the established money system.
Of all exchange models LETS is the most widely used. There are
hundreds of LET Systems in the U.S.A., Australia, Europe, New Zealand
and many other countries. The first was established by Michael Linton in
January, 1983, in Comox Valley, Vancouver Island, British Columbia,
Canada. In 1990 the organization had around 600 members with a
yearly turnover of $325,000 “green” dollars. These green dollars are the
unit of payment for LETS, and are equal in value to the normal Canadian
dollar.
Whatever a person may be prepared to pay for a task or piece of
work is credited to the account of the one who performs the task and
debited to the account of the person who buys the service. Interest is not
p. 50
paid for either credits or debits. Since the value of the normal clearing
unit – the green dollar is equal to the Canadian dollar, inflation works as
a circulation control since unused credits devalue at the rate of inflation.
Because everyone is responsible for the cooperative debts, namely for
unpaid debts, it is important that people know each other and learn to
trust each other.
Limiting a LET System to a locality makes sense at the start of a
program until more people learn to come to terms with the responsibility
the system demands. Unfortunately it has not been possible to pay taxes
in green dollars. If such payments were made possible then the local
municipality or county would become partner of the LET System and
would be able to finance investments in green dollars.
The advantages are obvious: Local people grow richer and the state
or municipality gets access to an incredibly inexpensive work creation
program.
Legally LETS does not impinge upon the established legal system
in most countries, neither does it go against the monopoly of the state to
print money, because it is no more than a local barter club or
bookkeeping system.
LETS fills a gap in the market left by an economic system which is
always in search of the cheapest production location, destroying in the
process the local autonomous economic structure. It is true that the free
world market offers benefits and that it has contributed to the prosperity
we enjoy today in many parts of the world. However, it is also true that
this prosperity has been created at the expense of workers in the so-
called “low-wage countries,” at the expense of non-renewable energy
sources and the stability of regional economic structures.
It is important, therefore, to renew the local and regional economy.
The economic ups and downs of the world market can be counteracted
only if the internal economy of a region or a locality acts as a stable
complementary system in balance with the global exchange of goods.
The stronger the entire economic system, the stronger its individual
elements can be.
In this respect, LETS is a locally based answer to the power of large
corporations and state monopoly systems who have become highly
problematic for small political and economic structures. The LET System
is immune from local or international recessions, interest on debts, thefts
and money shortages. The world money system can collapse; the dollar
or DM can lose their value; unemployment may rise, but the green dollar
still functions because it is guaranteed one hundred percent by work and
by goods, and only functions if people cooperate in a direct exchange.
Its main strength is that it cannot be used for the purpose of speculation,
or one-sided enrichment.
The advantage of LETS is that it is limited only by the time and
energy a person is prepared to invest. These features can be decisive
criteria for the introduction and extensive application of LETS, when
interests are high and money is in short supply. Experience has shown
that the people who are excluded from the normal economic system turn
out to bring unusual talents when they join the LET System. Part-time
occupations and hourly-rate jobs ranging from baby sitting, nursery and
garden work, window cleaning, fruit preserving, to spring cleaning are
some examples of LETS exchanges.
p. 51
At first, LETS met with significant opposition. Leftists thought it was
a plot of the right, and to the right it sounded like a communist takeover.
Some business people thought it was a trick to take money from them.
Men appeared more suspicious of the proposal, but women were
significantly more pragmatic. “We should see if it works for us, and if it
does, then why not use it?” Most members were fascinated because the
system is easy to use, and because it has a self regulatory growth
potential which is dependent on the number of transactions the system
can absorb.
LETS can be combined with the existing money system quite easily.
The origin of green dollars is totally decentralized and is related from its
root level to the creativity of those who earn it. Because green dollars
cannot leave the local area to buy Japanese cars or dresses from Hong
Kong, every commercial transaction encourages the development of
local resources. An unemployed mother in Courtney expressed her
satisfaction this way: “… it gives me the feeling I am doing something for
the community, because every time I buy something with green dollars, I
know I am helping someone improve their financial situation.”
THE WIR NETWORK AND SIMILAR ASSOCIATIONS
Switzerland has had a country-wide exchange network since 1934
whose goal is to provide enterprises with reasonable credits and to help
its members to get higher turnovers and profits. The WIR (pronounced
vir – short for “Wirtschaft” = economy in German) was founded by
sympathizers of the Free Money System, the so-called “Freiwirte” (Free
Economists). As an exchange ring the WIR works on the same basis as
the LET System and similar to barter clubs: a cashless accounting
system is run by a central office, cash withdrawals of deposits are not
allowed and, therefore credits can be interest free.
In 1990 WIR had about 53,730 members, 16,788 official accounts
and a half yearly turnover of about 0.8 billion WIR, as the unit is called.
The WIR, as a unit of payment, has the same value as the Swiss Franc.
Because WIR money needs information to function in order to connect
up supply and demand, the administrative group publishes a monthly
magazine as well as three catalogues per year, showing products and
services offered within the system.
The WIR defines itself quite openly as a support system for middle-
sized business in competition with stronger and larger enterprises,
helping those companies to fight an ever larger and intervening
government. The organization is structured like a bank, and has its main
office in Basel, seven regional offices throughout Switzerland with a total
staff of one hundred and ten employees. Payments are made with forms
not unlike normal bank cheques, with credit cards and bank forms. All
transactions are either credited or debited by the central office. Savings
do not accrue interest, and loans are charged only a minimal fee. Money
is “created” in that a transaction takes place, exactly as described for the
LET System. The difference here is that it is a nation-wide system and
that it is limited to business. In 1990 the costs of the WIR organization
were covered by a quarterly membership fee of eight Swiss Franks or 32
SFr per year, plus costs of 0.6 – 0.8 % for every transaction.
In spite of an almost 60-year success in Switzerland the cooperative
barter system has not been repeated in any other country in Europe.
There are several reasons for this. In Germany in 1934, after countless
p. 52
“clearing houses,” “clearing societies” and “exchange banks,” organized
basically on WIR Ring principles, had attracted many ordinary people, a
commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. Schacht (then
president of the German Central Bank) dictated legislation against the
“misuse” of cashless payment systems in 1934. Paragraph 3 of this
legislation spells out that cash withdrawals must be possible from any
accounting system. This hit the core of the exchange rings. After this
legal defeat and in spite of so many difficulties, no one expected that a
commercial barter club would establish itself in Frankfurt/Main, the main
banking centre of the German Federal Republic. The “Barter Clearing
and Information” (BCI) group, although far more expensive in its services
than the WIR Ring, has been successful. Instead of a 32 SFr (approx.
US $18) annual fee, the BCI charges DM 480 (approx. US $300) the first
year. Unlike the 0.6 to 0.8% per transactions that the WIR Ring
calculates, the BCI charge 1 to 2% per transaction.
The BCI is not considered a bank by the German Federal Super-
visory Board because it only deals with goods and the exchange of
services, and uses money only to calculate the value of the transactions.
Its turnover in 1990 was DM 102,000,000 of which 30 million were barter
fees. In contrast to WIR, the BCI has a consulting department to advise
customers, and makes sure that companies do not carry negative
balances for too long. After twelve months, accounts which show a
minus have to be balanced. This allows those who have accumulated a
positive balance and want to leave the system, the possibility of a
compensation in German Marks after a period of six months and only if
they leave the system. This feature overcomes the cash convertibility
problem of the German credit laws, the problems of non-convertibility of
the Swiss WIR currency into Swiss Francs, and the problems with
members who do not want to be part of the system any more but cannot
get out because they have high deposits, having provided services and
goods for others in the system.
THE J.A.K. COOPERATIVE BANKS IN SWEDEN
The initials J.A.K. stand in Danish for land (jord), work (arbete) and
capital (kapital), a movement which started in Denmark during the
1930s. At that time, most Danish farmers were heavily in debt and
although their farms were productive, they could not hold on to their
properties. Together with traders and producers, the farmers developed
their own interest-free currency and banking system. Soon, it was clear
to them that the new system could make their farms profitable again.
Fearful that this example would become widespread, the Danish
government prohibited the new currency from 1934 to 1938.
Today, the Danish and Swedish schemes (which started anew in
the 1960s and 1970s) are basically similar and offer the same lending
advantages, but they have different organizational methods. In
Denmark, there are small JAK banks which offer standard services. In
Sweden, the scheme operates through the postal banking service.
The long term socio-political aim of the Swedish JAK cooperative is
to make interest unnecessary so that an economy can exist in balance
with nature, without inflation or unemployment. Members are distributed
all over the country. Early in 1991, the Swedish JAK group had 3,900
members and a total turnover of 34 million Swedish Crowns (about US $
15 million). Already in 1993, the membership had risen to 38,000 and
the turnover to 600 million Swedish Crowns (SEK). Since everyone
p. 53
saves, at least as much as they borrow, it is obvious that the total
system maintains a constant balance.
Figure 19 Example1: Comparison Between Loans in the JAK
Systems and a Normal Bank
p. 54
Figure 20 Example 2
Figures 19 and 20 show two examples of loans with different
amounts, comparing bank loans with JAK loans over the same period of
time. (33) Obviously everyone is better off when reciprocal saving and
lending actually works without interest. Participation in the J.A.K.
system, up to the total amount of a loan, makes unquestionable sense.
Some people save above that commitment voluntarily, giving those who
need a loan the opportunity to borrow before they save. People who only
want to save, however, lose(through inflation) and, therefore, seldom
participate.
The two examples depicted on pages 125 (figure 19) and 126 (fig.
20) show small short-term loan and a larger, long-term loan. All mounts
are in Swedish Crowns (SEK).
– EXAMPLE 1: A SEK 17,000 loan over three years, at .4 %
effective cost, is still significantly cheaper than an identical bank
loan at 16.1 %.
– EXAMPLE 2: A larger credit, however, SEK 399,640 would cost
1.7 % over 20 years, compared to an average bank loan costs
of 13.1 %.
In both cases, borrowers have not only the better conditions but
additionally, a respectable savings of about 60 % f the loan at the end of
the established loan maturity.
In January 1990, the Ministry for Islamic affairs in Kuwait confirmed
that the principle of the JAK system was compatible with Islamic
p. 55
economic principles. Since then, a substantial proportion of the JAK
membership comes from the Arab world.
From a legal point of view, the JAK system is possible in Sweden
because a registered association is allowed to keep and administer
deposits and transactions.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATIVE
MONEY AND CREDIT SYSTEMS
Exchange rings, barter clubs, and savings and loan associations
are embryos of a new economy because they offer advantages to their
members, otherwise no one would use them. Goods and services worth
US $2 billion are bartered yearly in the U.S.A. Taking into account the
growing number of transactions, based on barter, between Eastern and
Western Europe, as well as industrialized and developing countries, it is
estimated that between 10 to 30% of the world trade is barter trade.
Everywhere barter trade allows an additional volume of trade which
would not be possible within the normal monetary system. The basic
features of all exchange or barter systems are very similar:
– Members hold an account in a central office.
– Accounts are held in fictive clearing units (green dollars, WIR,
etc.) and their value is identical to the national currency.
– An overdraft up to a particular limit is allowed, and members
with positive balance become de facto lenders.
– Positive credit balances receive no interest, loans are interest-
free, or (compared to market interest) carry very low interest.
– Cash deposits are sometimes allowed, and cash withdrawals
are basically not allowed, or are limited.
– Members inform the central office about all transactions by
telephone, in writing, or through electronic mail.
– The central office administers all settlements.
– The central office is paid by either yearly contributions and/or a
fee per transaction by buyer and/ or seller.
– The participants determine the price of the clearing unit
themselves.
– The central office can demand a reserve to cover a loan
against losses, and for cases of misuse.
– The central office is responsible for coordinating and informing
members of credit and lending needs.
Needless to say, barter and exchange systems, specializing at a
local, national or international level, have benefited greatly from the new
information technology. The notion of a free exchange of goods and
services as envisaged by Gesell and Proudhon, is now much easier to
implement where information travels fast to any place in the world.
It is important to understand that barter clubs reverse today’s
banking principles. They reward those who exchange goods and
services with interest free money and punish those who sit on their
surplus money. It does not pay to keep green dollars or WIR sitting on
an account, since there is no interest to be gained. If the group who uses
the barter system is closely representative of the total market, then this
economic microcosm will function well. An economy which would consist
p. 56
of a hundred decentralized barter clubs would have to pay only the costs
for clearing and information, instead of the heavy load of interest.
Experience shows that excessive lending, i.e., longstanding
negative accounts, can be just as dangerous as a high saving rate, i.e.,
long-standing positive accounts. To prevent the first from occurring, a
deadline can be used to urge people to balance the extreme negative
accounts, stipulating, for example, that negative balances have to be
paid in the normal currency after one year, to be paid into a trust
account, until a positive balance has been achieved.
To prevent the second from occurring, a parking fee would be
introduced to encourage people to part with their savings. Many
exchange ring systems tend towards stagnation because too many
members save too much. The LET System in Comox Valley and other
localities grew to a point and then stagnated suddenly when the
possibility for meaningful investment disappeared. However, economic
activities would liven up the moment credit becomes available to
members.
Therefore, the exchange should be linked to a banking service. To
simplify bank procedures for those with a large credit surplus, and to
make negotiations for credit seekers easier, it would be possible to
establish credits in green dollars (or the respective unit of barter). Large
risks would have to be correspondingly assessed and covered by risk
premiums and brought into balance with a positive credit balance.
The reward for the individual who saves would be no extra money
or interest – but rather the possibility to keep his or her money without
loss on a savings account. In that respect, a parking fee as circulation
incentive provides the system with an impetus similar to interest. What
disappears are the multiple credit back payments and, with them, both
the unhealthy growth of the economic system and the interest-based
one-sided advantages for money lenders as we know them today.
Two important problems need to be mentioned:
(1) The first is tax evasion. This was a prevalent problem among
the commercial barter clubs in the U.S.A. some years ago. As a
result legislation has been passed in Washington, D.C. allowing
tax officials to look into the accounts of all members of a barter
club.
(2) This leads to the second problem, namely that of the right to
privacy. A perfect central accounting system would not only be
an ideal instrument for economic transactions without the heavy
load of interest, but also an ideal supervisory system for a
totalitarian government. Such a perfect quantitative and
qualitative information service has been the dream of societal
planners in both East and West. Already in 1897, Solvay
suggested a cashless economy, based on centralized
accounts, which would register every movement in people’s
lives, and actually draw a diagram of their activities, and of
everyone’s actual relationships. In the 19th century, it was
technically impossible to deal with the amounts of information
necessary for such a scheme, but (as everyone knows) the
situation has changed drastically in the last few decades.
A cashless money system carries the implicit possibility of checking
up on the pattern of everybody’s activities through the records of all
transactions from their bank accounts. We should be conscious that a
p. 57
state monopoly, combined with a totally cashless monetary system,
could become very dangerous, indeed, for our personal freedom.
In summary, I would like to restate my proposal:
The combination of an exchange ring, like the LET System or WIR
exchange ring – with a savings and loans association, like the JAK
System – but based on a parking fee or circulation incentive to help
all necessary transactions does not exist today, although it would be
quite easy to bring into existence by linking together the
longstanding practical experience with these two systems. Thus an
interest-free money system would be created which would provide
all the possibilities covered by the normal money system:
1) Exchange
2) Lending
3) Saving
Different attempts with alternative money systems are politically
meaningful, because they help us to understand how money works and
the purpose money serves in our life. Practical experiences are
important, because they encourage people to make changes on a wider
basis. However, so far none of these attempts have changed the major
problems caused by today’s money system in the world economy.
Therefore, the aim to introduce fundamental monetary change at a
national and international level should be among our highest political
priorities for a just world.
No Comment! Be the first one.