Interesting Economics
Posted by Stuart Staniford on July 1, 2006 - 6:12pm
Topic: Economics/Finance
Tags: demurrage, net present value, peak oil [list all tags]
Mike Hearn writes:
Previously on The Oil Drum, Stuart Staniford demonstrated how the system of interest on savings discourages long term thinking. But is this some intrinsic property of human nature? Or is it something we can change?The alternative economics community has been studying questions like this for a long time, and much research has gone into what a sustainable economic system might look like. Far from being fundamental to who we are, the monetary systems we use today have evolved haphazardly over the years with no real over-arching design or guiding principles. It should come as no surprise that it has some undesirable properties. But just like our bodies, the more we learn about how they work the easier it becomes to see ways of changing them for the better.
This post will look deeper at the effects of charging interest, and present an alternative that has been widely deployed in practice - an alternative that promotes the long term over the short term.
If he has exacted usury Or taken increase -- Shall he then live? He shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, He shall surely die; His blood shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:13)
Usury, better known as the payment of interest, doesn't only cause discounting of the future. It encourages competition and stresses social bonds - something it seems those who wrote ancient religious texts understood all too well. To see how it happens consider the following story, taken from Bernard Lietaer's book, The Future of Money.
The Eleventh RoundOnce upon a time, there was a small village where people knew nothing about money or interest. Each market day, people would bring their chickens, eggs, hams and breads to the marketplace and enter into the time-honored ritual of negotiations and exchange for what they needed with one another. At harvests, or whenever someone's barn needed repairs after a storm, the villagers simply exercised another age-old tradition of helping one another, knowing that if they themselves had a problem one day, others would surely come to their aid in turn.
One market day, a stranger with shiny black shoes and an elegant white hat came by and observed the whole process with a sardonic smile. When he saw one farmer running around to corral six chickens wanted in exchange for a big ham, the stranger could not refrain from laughing. "Poor people," he said, "so primitive."
Overhearing this, the farmer's wife challenged him. "Do you think you can do a better job handling chickens?"
The stranger responded: "Chickens, no. But there is a much better way to eliminate all the hassles. Bring me one large cowhide and gather the families. I'll explain the better way."
As requested, the families gathered, and the stranger took the cowhide, cut perfect leather rounds in it and put an elaborate and graceful little stamp on each round. He then gave ten rounds to each family, stating that each round represented the value of one chicken. "Now you can trade and bargain with the rounds instead of those unwieldy chickens." It seemed to make sense and everybody was quite impressed with the stranger.
"One more thing," the stranger added. "In one year's time I will return and I want each of you to bring me back an extra round, an eleventh round. That eleventh round is a token of appreciation for the technological improvement I just made possible in your lives.""But where will that round come from?" asked the wife.
"You'll see" said the stranger, with a knowing look.
So where does the Eleventh Round come from? The poor villagers face three options:
They can make more rounds (print more money). But this is inflationary and doesn't change the worth of an invididual round; the stranger in the hat can tell it's happened simply by asking what the price of a chicken is.
They can make more rounds and also expand the economy; for instance by increasing their chicken production (and also therefore their food production to feed the chickens etc). In this scenario the worth of a single round doesn't change, even though there are more of them, because the increased amount of currency "covers" the expanded economy.
But what if they can't make more rounds, and they can't grow their economy? In this case, there is only one outcome: one family must lose all their rounds. Next time there is a storm and a house is demolished, instead of freely contributing their time and resources to help the family rebuild, the villagers will charge one another for their valuable time - knowing that if they don't, they cannot fulfil their obligations to the man who gave them the money in the first place.
Obviously, this story is a highly simplified version of things that isolates only the effects of interest repayments. A real economy is much more complex and a full explanation of how this story relates to our world requires an understanding of the fractional reserve system - perhaps a topic for a future post. However, it nicely demonstrates the way in which the need to repay interest on our debts requires the economy to constantly expand in order to be stable, and how it encourages competition - even when socially harmful.
Demurrage
When you deposit money in an interest paying account at the bank, you are effectively lending it to others and charging interest whilst doing so. If charging a positive rate of interest encourages short term thinking - liquidating the forest in Stuarts example - then would charging a negative rate of interest encourage long term thinking?
In fact, yes it would. The practice of charging "negative interest" - really a tax on money - is known as demurrage. This term was coined by Silvio Gesell who studied alternative currencies in the early 20th century, better known nowadays as complementary currencies. He theorised that if money deposited in a bank lost its value over time instead of increasing via compound interest it would discourage hoarding of currency and encourage long term investment. The concept is subtly different from that of inflation, even though its effects may appear to be similar at first.
To see how this works, let's revisit Stuarts forest. When interest rates are high it makes sense to clear cut the forest and convert it into currency, which will then obtain compound interest and quickly become more valuable than the forest would have been had it managed sustainably. But if that money actually diminished over time rather than growing then liquidating the forest would be the worst possible decision because a constant rate of return would be given every year. I don't have Stuarts skill with graphs, but the differing rates of return would look something like this:

Obviously it's the basic shape of the lines that matter - in no way is this meant to represent a realistic economic scenario. Basic things like the ongoing cost of running the forest in the sustainability scenario are not taken into account.
The top line represents clear cutting the forest for a return of $1000, which at a compound interest rate of 5% will be worth a little over $3000 in 25 years. The yellow line represents sustainable management giving a return of $100 every 2 years, with a 5% interest rate. Clearly, whilst that's still profitable it cannot match total liquidation.
The other two lines are where it gets interesting. The purple line represents a clear cut with a 5% money tax, the other sustainable management in the same situation. Clearly whilst clear cutting will be the most profitable thing to do at first, within only 13 to 14 years sustainable management has matched it and within 25 it's doubled your return over liquidation.
This matches our intuitive notion that if money loses its value over time, long term investments will make sense.
The Cathedral Builders
In the early middle ages, money was issued to villagers and townsfolk by the local Lords, who through their knights ruled supreme. Of course, power corrupts and few lords could resist the temptation to periodically collect and re-issue their currencies with a proportion skimmed off the top. In this way, an informal tax was levied upon the currency in circulation making money a poor long term store of value. What, the peasants reasoned, was the point of saving money when the hated lord would simply take it from you at the next re-issuing?
It was during this time that the great age of cathedral building began. Cathedrals sprang up all over England - astonishing works of architecture that you wouldn't have thought the poor and primitive societies that built them could have produced. But build them they did. Why?
Building a cathedral was the ultimate in long term investment. A project that could take over a century and would be completed long after the founders had died, they took enormous effort to complete. Yet the rewards were equally large - not only a beacon of your dedication to God but a huge creator of employment in the local community and, when completed, a cathedral would ensure a steady supply of pilgrims from far away lands who brought a significant source of income to the local town. This correlation doesn't imply causation but it strongly hints that this sort of phenomenon deserves a closer look.
This is far from the only example - for instance in ancient Egypt grain, an important source of wealth, had a natural loss due to spoilage by rats in storage. This sort of thing was widespread and imposed a kind of natural wealth tax that encouraged large scale spending.
The idea of people funding projects that give a return only after a century is laughable in this day and age, yet it was common not that long ago. Modern money, it turns out, is not some expression of human nature but a tool that can be used to give people incentives to act in certain ways. Existing currencies encourage competition and growth, but as we reach the limits of our planets carrying capacity alternative economic designs will become more and more relevant.


Some readers may find Margrit Kennedy's website on Complementary currencies useful. Michael Hudson's website also has useful articles
I would add this one:
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2006/0205.html
which explores some of the principles of money in a slightly humorous yet informative way.
First, cathedrals were not built in order to earn a financial return. The rate of interest was probably not very relevant. In fact, estimates of medieval interest rates place them generally higher than modern interest rates. For a reference that is available on the web, see
http://www.ecn.bris.ac.uk/www/ecesc/Articles/mn.pdf
Second, low/negative interest rates can also stimulate consumption, by making saving less attractive.
Third, even if money has a negative interest rate, other investments will not (and if they do, we don't really want people making them), and it will still be desirable to allocate your capital to those investments that pay off more and sooner.
It is also important to remember that the future is uncertain, and the far future is very uncertain, and investments tend to have finite lives (and/or high maintenance costs).
I think it is hard to say what investments people with then-current knowledge and a very long term view should have been making in the early 20th century that we would be glad they had made now. For instance, this is the 50th anniversary of the very large investments made in the US Interstate highway system. Certainly that was a far-sighted investment, but in light of the liquid fuels crisis which is now in view, perhaps not far-sighted enough?
I'll stick to conventional discount rates, I think.
Truth is nobody is entirely sure what prompted such a large burst of cathedral building in this time, but given that the cathedral age started and ended around the same sort of times everywhere it seems reasonable that economics had something to do with it.
Of course, this is only natural and good. The trick is that it discourages investments like clear-cutting that pay off more and sooner but then stop paying off because they weren't sustainable.
I doubt we'll abandon the road system when gasoline runs out. More likely we'll develop an alternative, or maybe even convert the roads into railways.
If you want to support a case for central planning please let me know where you believe such a system has worked to the benefit of the people.
A few additional points: (1) Money in the middle ages was mostly hard money, not "currency". Dishonest lords still play money games. The lords are now Federal Government and the the Financial Sector both of which have grown out of proportion in the last several decades. Both groups are IMO too large for the continued well being of the country. What will reverse the trend, I do not know. (2) Projects with very long paybacks are made much less certain when inflation must be priced into the picture [a moving target made up of not just anticipated revenue stream, but fluctuating real values for those revenue streams.] They become much harder to finance [at least in theory] as who knows what if any value the principle would have upon maturity of a 100 bond. A hundred years ago there was no expectation of a general and persistant inflationary trend. We got that with the birth of the Fed in 1913. (3) If you want to encourage immediate consumption and discourage savings, a "demurrage" sounds like just the ticket. Party hardy. Eat the seed corn. (4) Until our fractional reserve banking reserve requirements got so out of wack, savings were important as the base for the money supply. Now debt is its own merit bringing forth new debt. (5) If booms and busts [which are largely monetary phenomena] were not so prevalent, the desire to clear cut would be a less rational response. During the boom times, the theory is to get what you can as soon as you can, becasue the bust if coming. Most participants in the oil industry see the current price cycle as the prelude to another bust or at least a significant softening as supply overwhelms demand.
Where is Sailorman when you need him? He seemed to just disappear a month or two back. I hope he is well.
Your quote: "If you want to support a case for central planning please let me know where you believe such a system has worked to the benefit of the people."
I claim no economic expertise, but perhaps the Japanese Edo Period (1603-1867) fits this central planning requirement and was largely a peaceful, sustainable society too:
http://energybulletin.net/5140.html
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
The issue of discouraging savings is slightly misleading; you can still prepare for the future by investing in enterprises that are likely to give continuous returns - like the example of a sustainable forest. Just because the "savings" aren't sitting in a bank account doesn't mean they are non existant. This model is already used anyway by pension funds, so it's hardly a radical suggestion.
Central planning is another misleading tag. It makes people think of communism. The central banks already try to centrally plan the money supply, but they do so via the indirect mechanism of base rates or the even more indirect mechanism the Fed uses. So this "central planning", if you can call it that, already exists but it's not as effective as it could be.
Investments and savings aren't the same thing. Each serves a purpose. Investments sometimes work out ... but often don't. The function of savings is / should be to provide a store of value and to allow for accumulation of assets that can be invested.
Try buying or building a small business beyond the level of the micro loan approaches [used in some third world countries -- often successfully] without some personal savings. Then complicate that situation with a world where loans are not available either because there is no allocation process or because no one is willing to loan with no incentive, but with the certainty of at least some defaults.
I personally have a business that I financed through savings. It hasn't made me rich, but it might. What I can attest to is that without savings I would have lost the business by now as almost nothing in business goes perfectly. Think $10 oil when you were planning on $20 oil. Think lightning strikes, casing collapses, sudden water break throughs, rivers changing courses. Try to survive a few bad years with nothing in reserve, and where partial liquidation of the investment would result in pennies on the dollar.
You are correct about traditional defined benefit pension plans being investors not savers. The trusts are investors. The sponsors have mostly investor attributes. The plan participants see pensions as savings ... but they aren't. The plan participants, the plan sponsor, and the PBGC are at all at risk for the results of the trust returns.
The move toward defined contribution plans makes the new plan participants solely at risk. Sometimes they win. Sometimes they lose. By and large, the political left is more likely to be outraged by turning pension plan participants into non professional, part time, minority investors. I have no real opinion one way or the other about the societal good of this ongoing change, but do not believe that the corporations are doing this to benefit the plan participants.
You are correct about central planning. There is a lot of central planning in the U.S.A. Most of it IMO doesn't work too well. Central planning tends to work best on an ad hoc basis where there is a monumental goal and because of the disasterous consequences of failur, the other consequences [collateral damage from the ad hoc activities] can largely be ignored for what the powers that be regard as the greater good. Central planning can range from these sorts of efforts [e.g. winning World War II or maybe at some point mitigating peak oil]; to the the more mundane and contiunous picking of winners and losers through tax policy and grants; setting of interest rates through the actions of the "independent" Federal Reserve; to the true command economies like the old Soviet model.
Let's just give the process a new name. It is no longer "Central Planning". It is hereforth named "Intelligent Economic Design". --the label is the logic
Central planning has given us, the Five Year Plans of Mao and Stalin, as well as the continuing shining examples of North Korea and Cuba. As I have noted elsewhere in this thread, there may be a place for central planning in the really big areas where an ad hoc effort may alleviate the purely reactive aspects of a pure market based solution by implementing the appropriate approach in advance of the immentent, but belated price signals. I have labelled myself a reactionary, but I believe that I am in reality someone who believes that failed experiments should be considered failed experiments not as something that merely needed more time, more money, more civic spirit, more ____ ???? [fill in the blank.]
Intelligent design? The concept of irreducible complexity has some apparent merit, but the number or opportunities for the monkeys with keyboards to produce the biological equivalent of Hamlet by random chance is indeed beyond comprehension. The jury is out, but if a believer needs a scientific basis to believe, this is as good a basis as I can see. [My personal opinion is that matters of faith are inherently matters of faith.]
Money does not have to work the way our system does. One good suggestion came from the young Milton Friedman, who advocated 100% reserve banking rather than fractional reserve banking.
Another controversial idea was proposed by Nobel Prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek--privatize money so that governments cannot finance themselves by creating too much of it and inflating away their debts.
Personally, I don't have much money--i.e., coins, currency and checking accounts. On the other hand, I do have an income and some wealth in various forms. Many times I have been a borrower and also a lender. You cannot buy health or happiness with money. On the other hand, with money around it makes it much easier for people such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to give large sums away. Indeed, IMO the only reasonable motivation for great wealth is to give it away to worthy causes, including some for needy family and friends. Aristotle agreed with this idea and regarded maganimity and generosity as important parts of virtue.
BTW, see my earlier post. I was beginning to wonder if you had decided that this forumn wasn't to you or if you had been run over or run aground. :-)
Also, many of Heinlein's heroes were rich, e.g. D.D. Harriman in "Man Who Sold the Moon."
Beyond this Horizon included a description of a monetary system that I believe you might endorse -- basically non debt based / non commodity based system but with the supply on auto pilot. Citizens received a periodic "dividend" [I believe that was RAH's terminology]basically for being alive to match the money supply with the growth in the economy. The Man from the Past who had at one time sold South American bonds for a living had a very hard time with this because "money has to be based on something." Back to my point ... I am not really against fiat currency as long as the quanity is not being gamed to reward, punish, and shift wealth and facilitate Government theft and other bad behaviors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income
RAH was decades ahead of his time. Look at the issues dealt with in "Beyond this Horizon," e.g. in regard to the genetic modifications of humans. Who else in 1943 was seriously worried about this?
My ambition (possibly delusional) is to write young-adult science fiction novels that will be almost as good as Heinlein's. So far I have two volumes of my future history done and have plotted out the third volume.
The first Heinlein I read was "Rocket Ship Galileo" back in '49. Some of his stuff has been published posthumously.
One of the best young-adult Heinlein's was "The Rolling Stones," and "Farmer in the Sky" was also excellent. Come to think of it, I have not reread "Rocket Ship Galileo" for decades--bunch of teenage boys along with their mentor build an atomic powered rocket and go to the moon. The film "Destination Moon" was very loosely based on "Rocket Ship Galileo."
"Have Space Suit, Will Travel" is also a lot of fun to read.
Frequently I reread books that were my favorites as a child and a teenage--invariably they are as good or better than I had remembered. Why read crappy new books when some of the old ones are so very much better?
I think I have read just about all of RAH's novels and compliations except for Farmer in the Sky. Something to look forward to.
Ah yes, much better to reread Heinlein than look at the low quality of books on best seller lists.
My motto: Whenever a new book comes out, read an old one.
Same for films. Of the great films, 90% were made before, say 1975.
The Chinatown Death Cloud Peril
It was actually pretty good. Would you believe a book whose characters are all "pulp" authors (shadow, doc savage, etc.) heading for a mystery. A lot of history of the pulps here ... and would you believe L. Ron Hubbard as a the protagonist?
Funny, with some (apparently true) history, mixed into the story.
Also, I really identify with Hazel Stone, an oldster after my own heart, though I question the wisdom of loading my handgun with gum drops.
Do I hoard copper tubing?
You bet. Heckuva good investment no matter what.
So the right wing has managed to get tax breaks for the rich and designed a regressive tax scheme off a sleight-of-hand. Everyone is concentrating on the tax breaks and estate taxes, while they slyly stick it to all of us with the money printing machine.
This may be all well and good in the right-wing's minds, but the people that really suffer from this scheme are the foreign investors, who see their fortunes slowly evaporate in front of their eyes. With real income taxes, the foreign investor gets shielded, but no longer. This will spell disaster when China and company finally figure this out, as if they haven't already.
We did have an era of 'private money' through bills-of-exchange, bank notes, and so on when government currency was tight due to the scarcity of gold/silver, and likely hurt as many people as it helped. Probably more. Independent central banks has been a partial solution to the inflation problem, but that just creates biases towards the financial sector.
The central problem with contemporary economics is that it is at best a science in its infancy, at worst a pseudo-science. Economists are like 15th century doctors who consistently order patients to be bled for lack of any substantive knowledge on what exactly they should do. Their measurements are crude. Their theories even cruder.
lets say you have money issued from bank A, this though is not the only bank in the country lets call the rest B-Z.
you decide to go on a trip across the colony's so you take a modest amount of your money out of bank A. but each town you go to that money is worth less and less because more and more people are not familiar with the money bank A. the only and costly solution to this is to stop at each bank on your trip and convert all the money you have to that bank's version of the money of course for a fee.
Privatization of money I'm not sure about at all. That was effectively the scenario before the banking system was regulated and massive volatility in the sector was common. Bank runs and collapses were almost expected back then. I'm not sure it makes sense to return to that age, if that's what's being proposed.
Major wars cause inflations.
Revolutions cause inflations.
The superior political clout of the debtors cause inflations.
Single-factor explanations of phenomena such as inflation are silly.
And where is Robert Heinlein now that we need him?
In my future history (set in the near post-apocalyptic future) money is going to be warehouse receipts backed by ethanol. The basic unit will be "The Everclear," which is one liter of [barely] potable ethanol, i.e. lab alcohol or the 190 proof beverage you can buy at your local liquor store.
You left out one of the classic instances of monetary inflation -- the California & Klondike gold rushes [and similar mineral bonanzas] where metal was abundant and labor & supplies from the outside were highly constrained by logistics. It is very easy to conect the dots and establish the relationship between the money supply, supply of goods and services; and the general price level.
Major wars and revolutions most often resulted in inflation from the same old over supply of money theory [sometimes against a shrinking supply of goods and services], although at times a loss of faith in the money tied to a loss of faith in the issuer can indeed reduce fiat money to its intrinsic value [ink stained paper.] :-)
Your cogent comments illustrate the folly of basing money on precious metals.
http://www.myntkabinettet.se/jpg/10daler.jpg