![]() | Herman Daly on the Credit Crisis, Financial Assets, and Real Wealth | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: October 14, 2008 | ![]() |
163 comments on Revisiting an April 2007 Forecast Regarding The Connection Between Peak Oil and the Collapse of the Monetary System
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
163 comments on Revisiting an April 2007 Forecast Regarding The Connection Between Peak Oil and the Collapse of the Monetary System
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it.”
—Upton Sinclair
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
I'd be interested in your thoughts about demurrage/carry-tax economic systems?
From a recent comment of mine:
I think there are a great many benefits to such a system. Most notably that it is an inherently stable system (in a mathematical systems analysis sort of way), contrary to our current debt-based, positive compound interest, fractional reserve system. I think the tax-alternative and budget aspects are pretty promising too.
The implementation would be fairly simple and straight-forward; basically banks become tax collectors and pay the government a percentage of all their deposits. (Do you think that might inspire lending?)
To prevent a flight to cash, bill issues would have expiration dates (organized in overlapping issues), and the treasury would sell them at a premium to face value to account for the devaluation incurred up to the expiration date.
To prevent systemic shock, a gradual, well defined transition should take place, consisting of the following actions:
1. The demurrage rate should be gradually increased to its final value.
2. To allow fixed-rate interest bearing instruments to be unwound and re-negotiated gracefully, the money supply will be gradually increased to it's final per capita value. This would be necessarily inflationary (but at least predictably so). Specific actions to this effect:
2a. The treasury will cease to issue debt instruments. The national debt will cease to grow from day 1. All government spending will constitute new money, without any debt encumbrance.
2b. To further increase money supply, the treasury will begin buying back its debts at a measured pace.
2c. The government will meet its social security and medicare commitments (possibly renegotiated), infrastructure modernization, and hey, how about some energy programs?
3. To compensate for excessive money generation from the policies of #2 (esp 2c!), the bank reserve ratio will be increased, which will exert deflationary pressure.
4. At the end of the transition period, a mandatory balanced budget clause will become in effect. Government budgets must be payed by carry-fees during the same fiscal period. The financial system should now be national debt free, zero inflation, and stable even in zero or negative growth periods. Yay.
The biggest problem I see with this systems, is one of perception. People are used to seeing money as an asset, rather than a tool to facilitate commerce. The two views are contradictory as was the first point of my earlier comment. That and the big banks might not like it much... :-/
Eliminating the personal and corporate income tax might be a sufficient enticement though.
Let's see if we can get the same result using a precious metals-based monetary system with 100% reserve banking:
1. The money supply grows at the same rate than above-ground bullion stocks. Since after Hubbert's Peak the extraction rate of all minerals will decline, the rate of growth of the money supply will be very low, tending to zero.
2. For reasons amply discussed in TOD, population growth will also stop.
Thus, in the Steady-State scenario feasible after PO, a pm-based monetary system with 100% reserve banking would provide for a constant money supply per capita.
See also that deposits in 100% reserve banks not only do not yield interest (as those banks do not lend) but also experience a small demurrage from the fee the banks cover for their service, though that fee might not be proportional to the account balance (e.g. they might charge per transaction).
Now, why do I prefer this system to yours? As I said in other comment, for simplicy and resilience. Frankly, your system (particularly "Newly created money is distributed evenly to every person") is very good indeed, but with human nature as it is, I don't think it stands a chance, particularly for big countries. And sure enough, while your target system could be zero inflation even in negative growth periods, a gold-based system would cause some inflation during those periods (same coins, less goods). A bit of inflation, however, is not seen as bad by Gail and others.
You are also right in that the transition is important, and your steps might be useful also for the transition to a pm-based system.
Is your choice of gold because of its history in that role?
I have a huge problem with gold as currency. Not as an asset, but as currency. Gold is far too good to be a currency. Value dense, doesn't degrade, etc. When times got rough, I'd hold on to my gold, since at least it wouldn't disappear. If everyone did that there would be not any commerce, since no money would circulate.
Any currency already has an advantage over real goods and services due to its universality. Add on top, that currency is a good store of value, and ordinary goods should be seen at a big disadvantage in trade, since money in hand is surely more useful and safer than most anything for which you would trade it.
The first and foremost job of a currency is to circulate. I think the properties of a currency should encourage its circulation. A demurrage charge is designed for that very purpose. The longer you hold it, the greater your losses. The currency has now been knocked down a notch; to be more on par with real goods, not superior to them.
Now if you wish to buy gold with your currency, good, it will make a fine asset. But the currency will keep circulating, since the original owner of the gold will now have to find something to do with the currency.
Essentially, the paradigm shift is to stop perceiving money as an asset, and start seeing it as a shared resource. That's my take on it anyway.
I haven't really thought this through, but it seems to me that the total amount of money will have to go down from what is implied by all the debt and promises out there now. We are not going to be able to give everyone full social security and Medicare benefits, and keep the system solvent. Perhaps your renegotiation covers this. I am not sure how you would handle all of the derivatives. It seems like somehow the US government will have to pay off all its debt, and not issue new debt. This will be an interesting experience.
The other thing that comes to mind is that we are dealing with an international marketplace. Whatever system is used necessarily has to be simple, and probably pretty similar everywhere. I'm afraid this system would be too complicated to be used in villages in Africa. It would also be next to impossible to get everyone to agree on its details.
Because of these issues, I am not sure it would work in practice, but it does offer some interesting ideas.
Hi Gail, thanks for the reply. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the money supply would have to decrease due to current debts.
I don't have any doubt that we could provide full retirement benefits, but I rather seriously doubt that we will want to. It is certainly a theoretical possibility that every working person in the United States could devote one half or more of their productive time to the care of our retired citizens. I don't think there are many non-retired persons that would like that idea.
Our current system is certainly more complex than the one I propose. I think the problem is that the concept is strange at first glance. But really, the concept is exceedingly simple: a tax on money. Is income tax more simple? Collecting sales tax at every point of sale? Which taxes incentivize strong commerce? Penalize making money, penalize participating in commerce, or penalize the interruption of commerce by withholding the medium of exchange?
I don't see why it would be any more complex for villagers in Africa to trade pieces of paper (or any other token) that have expiration dates as opposed to pieces of paper without expiration dates.