Part IV — What Comes Next · Lesson 61 · What Comes Next

Other kinds of money

Demurrage, complementary currencies, and what they actually threaten

If money is a social technology rather than a law of nature, why does almost every country use a near-identical version of it? Demurrage scrip, complementary currencies, mutual-credit networks, sovereign-money proposals, and decentralized cryptocurrencies have each tried to point the incentives somewhere other than where the dominant system points them. Some worked at the local level. Some were crushed precisely because they worked. The honest survey of the design space — which experiments thrived, which were extinguished, and by what mechanism — is the precondition to any reform worth having, and the strongest case for each alternative deserves to be heard before any verdict is offered.

Live simulator \u00b7 The design space of money

Each design has a different rule on the money. The behavior \u2014 velocity, hoarding, inequality \u2014 is emergent. Pick a design, press play, watch 60 months.

Interest-bearing fiat. The status quo. Money earns yield when held in assets; supply expands on demand through bank lending.

Rule on the stock: Wealth compounds at ~+0.4%/mo for top quartile (asset returns).

Velocity: Falls over time as wealth accumulates at the top.

Risk: r > g — automatic compounding of inequality (Piketty).

MONTH 00 / 60
THE ECONOMY \u00b7 50 AGENTS \u00b7 DOT SIZE = WEALTH
Gini coefficient
0.06
0 = equal \u00b7 1 = one holder
Top 10% share
12%
of total money
Velocity (6-mo avg)
0.00
turnover per month
Supply change
+0.2%
vs. month 0
GINI (RUST) AND VELOCITY (INDIGO) OVER TIME0.000.250.500.751.00

What to watch for. Under interest-bearing fiat, Gini climbs and velocity falls \u2014 the modern pattern. Under demurrage, velocity stays high and Gini barely moves: the W\u00f6rgl outcome. Under the gold standard, supply is fixed and hoarding is rational \u2014 velocity decays; depressions can run for years. Under CBDC, watch the frozen wallets (dashed): the same lever that delivers stimulus can withhold it. Under fixed-supply crypto, watch the volatility: monetary sovereignty has a price. No design is free of cost. The question is which set of trade-offs a society prefers to bear.

The Wörgl case, in honest detail

The single most cited experiment in alternative-currency literature is the small Austrian town of Wörgl in 1932–1933. Mayor Michael Unterguggenberger, reading Silvio Gesell’s Natural Economic Order (1916), issued “labor certificates” — local scrip backed 1:1 by schillings deposited in the town treasury, bearing a 1%-per-month stamp tax (12% annual demurrage). The mayor paid municipal employees in them and accepted them for taxes. Within thirteen months, Wörgl’s unemployment fell from ~35% to ~12%; tax arrears were paid (paradoxically, since people preferred to discharge depreciating scrip via the tax channel); the velocity of labor certificates was reportedly fourteen times that of the schilling. ~200 Austrian municipalities asked to copy the model.

On September 1, 1933, the Austrian National Bank obtained a court order shutting Wörgl down. There were no macroeconomic grounds — no inflation, no fiscal stress, no convertibility failure. The grounds were jurisdictional: the central bank held the constitutional monopoly on currency issuance, and Wörgl had violated it. Keynes wrote in the General Theory (Ch. 23, 1936) that “the future will learn more from the spirit of Gesell than from that of Marx.” Irving Fisher published Stamp Scrip the same year, endorsing demurrage as a depression-fighting tool. Neither analysis was wrong about the mechanism; both lost to the political reality that incumbent monetary authorities will treat even small parallel currencies as existential threats.

What demurrage actually does — and doesn’t

Demurrage attacks one specific privilege: the right to hoard the unit of account without cost. It does not, by itself, dismantle fractional-reserve banking, the Eurodollar system, the petrodollar arrangement, or the BIS–Fed apex. It is best understood as one axis of monopoly attack — narrow, real, and persistently threatening to incumbents precisely because it works for the problem it is designed to solve. Calling it a “massive” threat overstates a focused signal.

The fuller landscape of alternatives — public banking, sovereign money, parallel-banking vehicles inside the existing legal moat, monetary pluralism through legislation — is what the next five lessons map. Lesson 62 catalogs the legal moat that locks the incumbent system in place. Lesson 63 lays out the twelve lawful paths through which citizens have already built parallel financial capacity. Lesson 64 covers the public-banking and sovereign-money packages. Lesson 65 walks the historical record. Lesson 66 drafts the omnibus bill that would unlock all of it at once.