The People's Currency

The Problem

Worries about inflation currently dominate the financial news. Inflation is just a devaluation of a currency. While consumer price inflation has been rising, we've been seeing inflation in financial assets - including house prices - for a long while. When people buy a home at a fixed interest rate they are, in one way, hedging against future inflation.

Person Holding Blue and Clear Ballpoint Pen

Image Source: Pexels

Sometimes investors invest in order to augment their wealth. Other times they invest only to protect it. This has been the theoretical logic behind Bitcoin, inflation-adjusted Treasuries, much of the runups in stocks and even investment in gold. 

The challenge is that all of these stores of value are also based on hard-to-measure benchmarks. Just consider the Consumer Price Index. Major questions include: what products and methods of purchase (e.g. rent/buy) are included? how are geographies weighted? how do you factor improvements in technology?

Maybe, in these uncertain times, it is time for something new. 


The Solution

Why not make a currency effectively fixed to the value of work (e.g. earnings)? After all, it is people's effort that they are trying to protect.

The benefits of tying the currency to earnings are that they are relatively easy to calculate value. They reflect the value of individual human effort rather than trying to capture the value of outputs. We know this is the case because people regularly use median earnings to capture the real cost of goods. How many times have you read: "Average car/house/TV/phone purchases are X times median earnings." We even use it to show the relative wealth of a country. A recent statistic I heard pointed out that in 1970s Australia it took 1,000 days' earnings to buy a refrigerator.

This is a stable currency that reflects not the value of goods, but the value of work. Your efforts won't be inflated away.


The Approach

The first tool necessary to establish this sort of currency is a target value. This value should be frequently updated (or slow-changing) and accurate. This would exclude the direct measure of earnings as they are too infrequently and unreliably reported. GDP / population, although more indirect, would be a more frequent and reliable value. In the U.S., GDP estimates are updated as often as weekly with population statistics changing more slowly and being updated with the decadal Census updates and annual American Community Survey. GDP per capita would thus form a reasonably accurate and frequently updated target.

For the purposes of providing users with a tangible feel for the value of the currency, the target would be that 100 units = 1 average day's work. Each unit would thus be worth about $1.70 in today's dollars. This is per capita GDP / 36,500.

The second tool necessary to establish this sort of currency is a method of actually targeting the value. This too is relatively simple. Targeting the value requires methods of limiting both increases and decreases in value.

There are two mechanisms used to accomplish this. I call these the "exchange" method and the "market" method.

The "Exchange" method.

Limiting increases (e.g. preventing Bitcoinitis) in the currency is done by the exchange having a standing offer to issue new currency at the current per capita GDP rate with a transaction fee of 1%. So if the currency target value is $1.70, the new currency could be issued at $1.717. Because the exchange would always be willing to issue currency the price could never inflate beyond this benchmark. The currency would never be worth more than 1% more than the average GDP / 36,500.

Decreases would be limited through a similar means. The exchange would hold the cash from sales. No money markets, no investments, no bonds. There would be a standing offer to exchange previously purchased currency for the lesser of the average sales price to date or the current rate (minus another 1% transaction fee). Using the $1.70 baseline: if nominal GDP increases so that the currency targets $1.90, the exchange will still be willing to buy back currency at $1.683 if $1.70 was the average purchase price. If the nominal GDP decreases so that the currency targets $1.50, the exchange will only be willing to buy back currency at $1.485. This prevents the currency from falling significantly below what people paid for it. In reality, this baseline would constantly push the redemption price close to the target value.

The "Market" method

In addition to transactions with the exchange, people would be free to exchange the currency amongst themselves, without the 1% transaction fee. The exchange could offer to facilitate this at a significantly lower rate or other exchanges could be formed. Previous purchasers of the currency could thus sell their currency to others for a value closer to $1.70. This would cap the issuance of new currency by the exchange until there is more market demand for the currency than there is supply within that 1% band. This would further limit increases. But it would also limit decreases. By limiting the new supply, the price of the currency would be buoyed forming an effective floor of value close to $1.70. 

The market method would also allow updates based on predicted GDP shifts (albeit with the maximum and minimums set by the exchange sales).


The Technology

This currency could be a blockchain 'crypto' currency, but it could also be simplified somewhat. All that is really necessary is authentication that the currency is real. Electronic dollars currently manage this without blockchain. This could actually be far easier to implement than many cryptocurrencies today. And no expensive, wasteful, or polluting mining would be necessary.


The Pitch

This currency would be completely distinct from typical cryptocurrencies for one reason: it wouldn't be an investment. It is only a currency - a means of storing and exchanging value as measured in per capita earnings - and a pretty simple one at that. Any exchange that underwrote this would have the opportunity to collect transaction fees as demand for the currency grew beyond the existing supply. 

This currency may either lead or trail inflation as earnings are not in lockstep with inflation. Nonetheless, over time, it would both target and protect the value of an individual's earnings.

I know if such a currency existed and was supported by trustworthy institutions I would be very interested in protecting the fruits of my labors by holding it.

What do you think? How could this be improved? Do you have something better than per capita GDP as a target? Does this already effectively exist?

Last but not least, if you like the concept: do you know anybody who could pull it off?

How did you like this article? Let us know so we can better customize your reading experience.

Comments

Leave a comment to automatically be entered into our contest to win a free Echo Show.
Joseph Cox 2 years ago Contributor's comment

@[Sarbelio](user:99439)

An offline counterparty says:

"What's the incentive for politicians to reduce monetary inflation tho. Also, part the argument for monetary inflation is to lessen the impact of economic shocks by flighting what would be deflation in a shrinking economy. If you're in debt, the value of that debt increases with deflation, making it harder to service and often creating a feedback loop or deflationary spiral"

I'm not suggesting replacing the currency, just providing people with an alternative to protect against monetary inflation. This would be a private exchange.

The attempt to lessen economic shocks by issuing more money is a black art in the extreme as revealed by the namby-pambyness of currency trading - which is just trading on expectations of expectations and is totally untethered to any 'real' value. Especially since Bretton Woods.

I, of course, am very anti-debt. But the debt only increases with deflation if your debt is fixed. In parts of Europe, banks are paying mortgage holders for holding mortgages.

If your debt moves with LIBOR, it's replacement, Fed target rates or whatever you actually end up with all sorts of manipulations you can't begin to understand are changing the price of your debt. The most dangerous is popular demand - keep interest rates low so people can borrow ends up being a formula for runaway monetary inflation.

Again, you can choose to price debt using a currency like this, but it isn't a replacement currency. The old options remain. This would be akin to people in developing economies pricing transactions in USD because their own currency is unreliable. Well, really, USD are unreliable too.

We just use USDs as the benchmark because nothing else is more reliable.

Sarbelio Jaime 2 years ago Member's comment

I agree with you, Joseph. Now, El Salvador has a consumer economy. We don´t produce anything like raw material or great grains harvest and our exportations are very limited, but our imports and debts.. you build an empire. 90% of our GDP in debts is our record.

Joseph Cox 2 years ago Contributor's comment

Wow. Probably not the best baseline in that case :) I guess the 'net exports' part of GDP might end up with those earnings being appropriately tiny but also volatile.

Michele Grant 2 years ago Member's comment

I'm not a fan of bitcoin personally. Not just because it's highly volatile, or because nothing is unhackabale, or because governments could outlaw it at any time. But simply because it encourages crime. It is the criminals' currency of choice.

Sarbelio Jaime 2 years ago Member's comment

I see Michele, but do you think bitcoin could be used in a national economy as a base currency?.

Michele Grant 2 years ago Member's comment

I don't have an issue with digital currency. My problem with bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies mostly resolves around the lack of regulation and paper trail, which encourages crimes by enabling criminals. For example, would the Colonial Pipeline hackers have been emboldened to attack the US if they knew they could get caught? Bitcoin ensured that wouldn't happen.

My other main issue is the extreme volatility which I find destabilizing. That may excite risk taking investors but doesn't make for a great currency. I did however fine Mark Zuckerberg's Libra coin to be intriguing as that was supposed to be based on a basket of other stable currencies.

Sarbelio Jaime 2 years ago Member's comment

Certainly, crime and corruption are a disadvantage for bitcoin. You are right, And about volatility, I think there´s must be some stable scenery in the future for cryptocurrencies.

Joseph Cox 2 years ago Contributor's comment

this doesn't have to be crypto to work.

William K. 2 years ago Member's comment

One effective incentive for politico's to reduce monetary inflation could be to avoid public wrath and possible execution, although that is not my recommendation. Impeachment from office and eternal banning from all financial business should be adequate.

For the current situation in the US, an investigation of using position to benefit "friends" to the detriment of all others might be sufficient. Certainly fiduciary duties are being ignored, which is a rather nasty activity.

Joseph Cox 2 years ago Contributor's comment

The benchmark is important because it actually sets what the currency does. In this case it means the currency always represents a fixed slice of economic production - almost like shares in a company. No matter what the economy's actual currency does, this remains stable against the economy. If the economy actually grows - however you define it - this is more valuable. If it shrinks, this is less valuable. Either way it is tied to that economic productivity. There could easily be other benchmarks to use - measurement and frequency are the challenge.

Joseph Cox 2 years ago Contributor's comment

In reaction to an offline question about automation impacting the price of labor...

I'm not concerned about inflation per se. I'm concerned about a particular kind of inflation: monetary inflation.

You pump up the money supply and erase people's savings.

In order to counteract this, people invest in things meant to give a return or they try to benchmark against a cost of goods measure which is hopeless in a world in which the definition of a good is constantly changing.

By tying to GDP you are looking at the production side of the equation.

Automation doesn't matter. Total per capita income would remain the same or even rise with more efficiency - you'd just end up with dumb jobs priced out.

They key is the currency is tied to the size of the economy and doesn't become worth more or less without the economy growing or shrinking.

Stock Profit 2 years ago Member's comment

Very thought provoking.

Joseph Cox 2 years ago Contributor's comment

One thing that really appeals to me is the relationship to average income. IF your coffee was 2 units, you'd know that was 2% of average daily earnings (although not yours). If your car were 20,000 units, you'd know that was 200 days earnings. It would actually make things more tangible in terms of normal work effort, the kind of debt taken on for purchases etc....

Sarbelio Jaime 2 years ago Member's comment

Well, I would like an anti-inflation currency with a high degree of exchange and easy convertibility. Digital, of course, and accepted in all the world.

Joseph Cox 2 years ago Contributor's comment

If you wanted these characteristics adjusted for your local market there could be versions of the currency for that market. All it needs is reliable and regular GDP (or another metric) reporting. El Salvador is dollarized, but a local version of this need not be. It could be paired to El Salvador economic data and provide the benefits of a local currency without the instability such a currency would normally have.

Sarbelio Jaime 2 years ago Member's comment

Good point Joseph. The thing is reliable and regular GDP reporting, as you know, we have an authoritarian government and do not like to give economic information.

Alexis Renault 2 years ago Member's comment

Sorry to hear that. What kind of information do they share? Maybe come to the US!

Sarbelio Jaime 2 years ago Member's comment

The information that they like. I think the correct word is propaganda, about their inexistent success in combat against corruption and violence.

Joseph Cox 2 years ago Contributor's comment

I forgot about El Salvador's government.. whoops. China's GDP isn't exactly transparent either. This would limit markets where you could pull this off. The US is a good one then - this is like the USD but more fiscally stable.

Joseph Cox 2 years ago Contributor's comment

Anti-inflation: check. High degree of exchange: check. Easy to convert: check. Digital: check. Accepted in all the world? This depends on two factors. First, the exchange can only operate in one currency (due to buyback), but others can buy and sell this with whatever currency, good etc... they want. So it could be globally exchangeable so long as it is popular enough for financial intermediaries to provide the service. As far as being able to spend it, I could imagine a debit card that holds this currency and exchanges it for whatever local one you're spending on the spot.

William K. 2 years ago Member's comment

It is an interesting concept, except that it seems to reward mediocrity. Between my extensive skill set and my serious work ethic I routinely deliver far more value per unit of time than most other folks. Those folks who are members of extortion gangs (AKA Unions) might get more cash for delivering less value, that is how extortion works.

But in this description I saw no means of adjusting income to match the value of service delivered. If that is actually the case the the whole idea is complete foolishness. And I do not understand how the scheme would "protect the value of my earnings." It looks a bit like those in power would rapidly become far wealthierthan those not in power, and that is intrinsicly wrong.

Joseph Cox 2 years ago Contributor's comment

This isn't about earnings, just a unit of currency. If you earn more, you could buy more of it. If you earn less, less. The goal is just to have a currency that counteracts inflation by auto-adjusting to something tangible - in this case GDP per capita. If GDP rises in USD terms (which could be due to economic growth or inflation), then this currency is worth more USD. If GDP falls in USD terms, then this currency is worth fewer USD. It doesn't adjust income at all - it just protects income from Fed manipulation or the vicissitudes of stocks, bonds etc...

Joseph Cox 2 years ago Contributor's comment

Another thing this would mitigate is the dark arts of Fed monetary policy, allowing people who want it something much more transparent.