Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If what you're suggesting is that coins can only sit in one address for a limited amount of time, then that would not do anything because people would just create new addresses to send the coins to.


The standard Silvio Gesell expiring-money scheme doesn't have anything to do with where the money is at any given time. The way it works is that for the government to accept a note, it must be up-to-date with stamps, one stamp for every month since it was issued. The stamps (traditionally, bought from the government) cost 10% of the value of the note.

Nobody wants to be sitting on a pile of this sort of cash at the end of the month, because they'll lose 10% of the pile of cash. The intended effect is to dramatically increase the velocity of the money, so that a small stock of it can sustain a very large flow.

I don't know enough about this stuff to sensibly evaluate the claims its proponents make for it.


this is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. the amount of wealth that would be destroyed is beyond all measure.


Wealth consists of things like cured diseases, tasty and nourishing meals, being dry when it rains, and seeing the people you love as often as you want; and the resources and skills we use to create those other kinds of wealth, such as antibiotics, bread mold, spices, beans, houses, corrugated steel, iron ore, blast furnaces, airplanes, kerosene, and CAD software.

Gesell's scheme does not destroy any of those things; it only destroys money. Money is not wealth. Money is just a way to facilitate cooperative ventures with people we don't know and trust. With money, I can cooperate with 200 other people to pay for an intercontinental flight, and with the hundreds of thousands of other people who drilled and refined the kerosene, aluminum, and other resources needed to keep us in the air.

But the money game has a lot of drawbacks. So it's sensible to experiment with it and see how we can improve it. Gesell's scheme was one such experiment. It was reported to be very effective at creating wealth by its proponents when it was tried.


I don't understand the rationale for penalizing saving. The car I couldn't afford on this month's paychecks alone is wealth. Food and shelter after I'm too old to work will be wealth.


it was reported to be beneficial by its proponents. what a surprise. call me back when you have a control group.


You can hardly expect anyone but a proponent to advocate for an idea...

Also, asking for a control group in an artsy fartsy field like economics is too much. Where is the control group that guides the decisions of the central banks? There is none! OMG GREAT DEPRESSION!


As the other poster said, money != wealth. Wealth is things that make life better. Money is a medium of exchange.


Yes, I thought that would be one thing. Fine with me.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: