BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Time for a new banking system?

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
astrojax69
02:44 / 28.09.08
what about clams? why don't we just go back to clams and beads...

now, i'm not any sort of economist [waits for the gasps of disbelief to subside] but a friend who is made a valiant attempt to outline what short selling is and how it works and i could never quite see who paid for the gains made... if the share price fell, the owner of these had less money and now somewhere someone has to find more money to pay out on the 'bet' of the short sell - where does this money come from? isn't it all a bit fictitious? how would a non-fictitious system work?
 
 
The Idol Rich
08:36 / 28.09.08
now, i'm not any sort of economist [waits for the gasps of disbelief to subside] but a friend who is made a valiant attempt to outline what short selling is and how it works and i could never quite see who paid for the gains made... if the share price fell, the owner of these had less money and now somewhere someone has to find more money to pay out on the 'bet' of the short sell - where does this money come from? isn't it all a bit fictitious? how would a non-fictitious system work?

The money comes from the same place it would on a normal (ie non short) sell. Suppose you've got 1000 shares and the share costs ten pounds, if you sell 500 of them at the market rate you would get £5000 right? Suppose next day the market went down so that the share only cost nine pounds, if you bought back those 500 shares it would only cost you £4500 so you would be in the same position as the day before in as much as you had a thousand shares but you would also have an extra five hundred pounds. Where has that money come from? Well it's come from the person (or persons) who bought the shares at the higher price - the exact same situation would happen if at the start you had no shares, you would borrow the shares, sell them at ten, buy them back at nine, return the shares and pocket the difference.
 
 
grant
14:04 / 06.10.08
On currency, the kind with a built-in expiration date:

"The miracle of Woergl".

In 1932, an Austrian town battered by unemployment issued a stamp scrip that had a weird catch - for the notes to stay valid, they required a monthly stamp worth 1 percent of their value. In other words, the longer you kept them, the more their value dwindled. It led to amazing results.

Because nobody wanted to pay what was effectively a hoarding fee, everyone receiving the notes would spend them as fast as possible. The 40,000 schilling deposit allowed anyone to exchange scrip for 98 per cent of its value in schillings. This offer was rarely taken up though.

Of all the business in town, only the railway station and the post office refused to accept the local money. When people ran out of spending ideas, they would pay their taxes early using scrip, resulting in a huge increase in town revenues. Over the 13-month period the project ran, the council not only carried out all the intended works projects, but also built new houses, a reservoir, a ski jump, and a bridge. The people also used scrip to replant forests, in anticipation of the future cashflow they would receive from the trees.

The key to its success was the fast circulation of scrip within the local economy, 14 times higher than the schilling. This in turn increased trade, creating extra employment. At the time of the project, Wörgl was the only Austrian town to achieve full employment.

Six neighbouring villages copied the system successfully. The French Prime Minister, Eduoard Dalladier, made a special visit to see the 'miracle of Wörgl'. In January 1933, the project was replicated in the neighbouring city of Kirchbuhl, and in June 1933, Unterguggenburger addressed a meeting with representatives from 170 different towns and villages. Two hundred Austrian townships were interested in adopting the idea.

At this point, the central bank panicked, and decided to assert its monopoly rights by banning complimentary currencies. The people unsuccessfully sued the bank, and later lost in the Austrian Supreme Court. It then became a criminal offence to issue 'emergency currency'.

Unterguggenberger was opposed to both communism and fascism, championing instead what he referred to as 'economic freedom'. Therefore, it was deeply ironic that the Wörgl experiment was first branded 'craziness' by the monetary authorities, then a Communist idea, and some years later as a fascist one.

The town went back to 30% unemployment. In 1934, social unrest exploded across Austria. In 1938, when Hitler annexed Austria, he was welcomed by many people as their economic and political saviour.


I'd never heard of that before now.
 
 
Quantum
14:21 / 06.10.08
Two interesting things I'd like to contribute, one is the Roentgen Standard which encourages spending without devaluation, and the other is the polynesian culture that used clamshells or whatever to represent debt rather than wealth- so I dig your garden over and give you an obligation shell, which you can only pass on if you do something for someone else- like anti-money.
(Of course, western anthropologists arrived and happily took all the shells from people for museum exhibits,the locals of course were happy to give them away as it is the equivalent of someone turning up wanting to give you free money, thus collapsing the local economy and forcing the locals to adopt 'normal' money)
 
 
The Idol Rich
15:35 / 06.10.08
"The miracle of Woergl".

Very interesting indeed, thanks for that. I think that this guy is making some good points in the comments though (not sure why he has to capitalise so much of it mind – it feels as though he’s shouting)

“Under negative interest if I hold my money, I pay a fee. If someone else is holding it, they pay the fee. I lose less by lending! OR I MAKE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY I WOULD HAVE PAID IN NEGATIVE INTEREST FEES! The last two statements are equivalent.
Meanwhile, with positive interest, if I earn interest when I lend money, I make money by investing it. I give someone the money and they pay me a fee! If I held the money and didn't invest it (hoarding) I would lose money RELATIVE TO THE MONEY I COULD MAKE BY INVESTING IT!
Please notice that the two situations are identical, EXCEPT THAT IN THE LATTER MARKET FORCES DICTATE THE RATE OF INTEREST. The rate of interest adjusts to the rate necessary to balance supply and demand of money in the capital investment market!”


Though of course in England the interest rate is centrally set (in theory at least - the actual interest rate is not totally obedient to the official one I suppose). It's a good question he's asking though, how much value should the money lose each day and what would happen if the number was different? Come to think of it I don't see why a negative rate couldn't be set by the market just as much as a positive one.

I still don’t really understand why negative interest is or ought to be inherently good though. In a country with hyperinflation the money is decreasing in value and you have negative interest and the situation is horrendous, in the Austrian example a negative interest rate appeared to greatly benefit the town. Similarly some places thrive when there is positive interest and some don’t. It seems that there is more to the question than simply saying that money decreasing in value will always be the best thing for a society, my guess is that various other factors contribute to the overall situation in any given example. Also, is there a fundamental difference between a positive and a negative interest rate? What I mean is, if the interest rate of a country which is set by a central body changes from 3.5% to 3% it’s not considered a huge change but if the bank lowered the rate by the same amount from 0.25% would it just be another similar change on a continuous scale or has some major discrete event occurred (are banks allowed to do that by the way? I guess not but I don’t know why I think that)? And if there isn't a major difference isn't a negative interest rate merely part of the same monetary system that we have already and not so radically different as it first appears?
 
 
The Idol Rich
15:36 / 06.10.08
the polynesian culture that used clamshells or whatever to represent debt rather than wealth- so I dig your garden over and give you an obligation shell, which you can only pass on if you do something for someone else- like anti-money.

But what's to stop me "losing" my obligation shells?
 
 
grant
15:52 / 06.10.08
I'd imagine everyone knew who had a shell - they were just markers for social obligation. When an outside force came into the closed system, though, it altered the nature of the markers.

Just a guess.
 
 
grant
17:01 / 06.10.08
I still don’t really understand why negative interest is or ought to be inherently good though.

Yeah, in this case (Woergl), I think the benefit was that they desperately needed businesses to spend, not save, so this created an incentive. I imagine in the 1990s tech boom if someone issued a similar scrip in Silicon Valley, it would have made things much crazier.
 
 
grant
18:12 / 06.10.08
Now that I think of it, it's probably also important that the expiring money wasn't the only currency - it was backed by (and exchanged alongside) another medium of exchange. So it'd be profitable to save the one while spending the other.
 
 
The Idol Rich
19:56 / 06.10.08
I'd imagine everyone knew who had a shell - they were just markers for social obligation. When an outside force came into the closed system, though, it altered the nature of the markers.
Just a guess.


Maybe they were just more honest.
 
 
Mirror
20:35 / 06.10.08
Maybe they were just more honest.

That's the rub, isn't it? The ideal system would be corruption-proof by design, but I'm not sure that any such thing can exist, even theoretically. It's likely that the best we can hope for is a dynamic equilibrium that minimizes total abuse over long time scales, with the understanding that things are going to get out of whack and require intervention to correct every now and then.

It may be that this is essentially the situation we already have, and that the current displacement from the ideal is both a predictable and necessary occurrence. As a result of this displacement, we'll gradually correct the system until we reach some other extreme, which will result in yet another crash, reorganization and rebound, ad infinitum.

Maybe I've been reading too much Asimov lately. The ghost of Hari Seldon lives!
 
 
mashedcat
20:42 / 08.10.08
read "the ragged trousered philanthropist" i think the author was gerard noonan (not sure if it was his real or pen name)
 
 
dark horse
22:01 / 08.10.08
cool, man, what did you think of the book?
 
 
grant
15:59 / 09.10.08
What does it have to do with banking systems?
 
 
ghadis
16:14 / 09.10.08
'(not sure if it was his real or pen name)'

Neither, i'm afraid.
 
 
mashedcat
21:29 / 16.10.08
i stand corrected ,

the novel had some good ideas around money.

its been almost 30 years since i read it , but it left a `helluva` impression on me.
 
 
mashedcat
21:31 / 16.10.08
at least the Noonan was right , my memory isn`t what it used to be... i`ll try harder in future
 
 
grant
01:22 / 17.10.08
What kind of ideas around money?
 
 
mashedcat
18:12 / 13.11.08
as i said its been along time since i read the book.
i think that he suggested that money should be time limited (have a use-by-date) and should be specific to the individual(as such , be worthless to anyone other than the individual and the bank), if anyone has read it lately ,please correct or clarify the above hazy memories.
 
 
dark horse
18:26 / 13.11.08
hey mashedcat good to see you around again; i really want to get your 2cents about nadar and the "uncle tom" comments... ?
 
 
dark horse
18:28 / 13.11.08
ie are nadar's comments acceptable or not?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:39 / 13.11.08
Come to think of it I don't see why a negative rate couldn't be set by the market just as much as a positive one.

Surely because it would make debt profitable? Inflation means that an interest-free debt becomes smaller in real terms over time. If inflation is higher than interest rates, then people can take debts out in the knowledge that the amount they owe the bank is actually decreasing, because it takes less spending power to pay it off. In deflation, of course, debts become larger in real terms, usually, because the debt is increasing through interest rates while wages are dropping. Bear in mind that most people have greater debts than they have liquid assets, because they are paying off a mortgage - they have exchanged debt for a large illiquid asset.

If you make interest rates -1%, the banks have to pay everyone who has a (tracker) mortgage. Likewise, everyone who has a credit card debt will be paid for having it. People with assets, meanwhile, will lose cash as a result of negative interest. So, why would anyone save or invest? They'd want to get rid of their cash assets for non-cash assets and accumulate debt as quickly as possible.

Which, erm, was what people were doing pre-crunch anyway. But not for sound reasons. The miracle of Worgl I think is about institutionalised inflation rather than negative interest rates, I think: incentivising people to spend money by reducing its buying power.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:56 / 13.11.08
Godstallion: I think this should answer all your questions.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply