(The Epoch Times)—Who doesn’t know them: the blood-sucking vampires, the eerie undead, immortalized in countless films, and inspired primarily by Bram Stoker’s novel “Dracula” (1897). Just think of iconic movies like the silent film “Nosferatu—A Symphony of Horror” (1922), “Dracula” (1958) with Christopher Lee, Roman Polanski’s parody “The Fearless Vampire Killers” (1967), or “Nosferatu—Phantom of the Night” (1979), starring Klaus Kinski as Count Dracula.

Vampires are demons who rise from their graves at night, seeking to drain the blood of innocent victims. Not only do they steal the life force that sustains them, but they also spread their curse. Many victims, bitten by vampires, are “turned,” becoming undead themselves, thus joining the vampire’s dark domain.

The enemies and hunters of vampires face a formidable challenge: vampires can disguise themselves, transforming into creatures like wolves or bats, and often display immense, superhuman strength. They can only be repelled by traditional defenses—garlic cloves, rosaries, holy water, or the Christian cross. But truly destroying a vampire requires decapitation, driving a wooden stake through its heart, or bright sunlight that turns them to dust.

The vampire is an ancient and widespread myth. The image of a blood-sucking undead creature, or similar concepts, has existed across many cultures. This demon embodies superstition—acting as a projection of primal fears, the inexplicable, and evil as the counterpart to good. The notion of a creature that emerges at night, drains its victims’ blood, and draws them from light into darkness is undoubtedly a profoundly threatening one.

When you reflect a little longer on the horror story of the vampire demon, you will inevitably begin to see parallels (or at least points of contact) with the fiat money system that exists worldwide today.

Under Cover of Darkness

It takes place under the cover of darkness: It is fair to say that the vast majority of people are unaware of how today’s fiat money system is structured, how it operates, or what its effects are. Students in schools and universities are, for the most part, left in the dark about it, and the consequences of the fiat money system, therefore, take most people by surprise—unprepared and relentless. Indeed, how many people know that our current fiat money system is a system in which the state’s central bank holds a coercive monopoly on the creation of fiat central bank money, while commercial banks issue their own fiat commercial bank money based on central bank fiat money.

Who knows that fiat money is literally created out of thin air, representing a form of money creation that has no connection whatsoever to “real savings”? And who explains to people that, from an economic perspective, expanding the fiat money supply is inflationary, leading to uneven higher prices for goods and services compared to a situation where the money supply had not been increased? It is also unknown to many that the issuance of fiat money via the credit market causes a misallocation of capital, initially triggering a boom, only to be followed by a bust; that it drives economies into excessive debt; and that it allows the state to grow ever larger at the expense of the freedoms of citizens and entrepreneurs.

In short, for most people, the damage caused by fiat money is unknown; it creeps upon them under the cover of darkness, like a vampire.

Vulnerable Victims and Life Sucked Away

The victims are often helpless and unaware, with the fruits of their labor effectively being siphoned away. Fiat money has something vampire-like about it, enabling one group (those allowed to create fiat money) to live at the expense of others (those forced to use the monopolized money). The first recipients of newly-created fiat money are the beneficiaries. They can use the new money to purchase goods and services whose prices have not yet risen, making them wealthier.

As the money changes hands, it increases demand, and prices of goods rise accordingly. As a result, the late recipients of the new money can only buy goods at higher prices, leaving them at a disadvantage. The first recipients improve their position at the expense of the late recipients. The most severely affected are those who receive nothing from the newly-created money supply—they are, in effect, the ones “sucked dry.”

The vampire-like redistributive effect of fiat money, which operates in the shadows, particularly benefits commercial banks that create fiat commercial bank money, as well as those in a position to take out new bank loans in fiat money.

First and foremost, it is the state and those who benefit from it who are among the biggest winners of the vampire fiat money system. The state finances a significant portion of its expenditure with newly-created fiat money, using it to pay its representatives, employees, and their pensions, as well as the companies from which it purchases goods and services. The state and its beneficiaries are among the early recipients of the newly-created fiat money, making them the primary beneficiaries at the expense of the many who are not closely connected to the state.

One might argue that a redistribution of income and wealth, brought about by the increase in fiat money, would also occur in a commodity or precious metal money system. This is true in principle, but the increase in, say, a gold money system, would be less pronounced than in a fiat money system. The fact is that the latter was deliberately chosen for its vampire-like nature. It benefits the state, banks, and big business at the expense of the general population, keeping them below their economic potential.

Creating Minions

Like a vampire, fiat money infects its victims, turning them into accomplices of the fiat money system. Fiat money quite literally enslaves its users, making them dependent. For instance, fiat money incentivises firms and private households to incur debt and live beyond their means, made possible through artificially low interest rates. People are also encouraged to invest in assets (such as houses and companies) because the chronic inflationary nature of fiat money ensures a continual rise in asset prices. Once people are lured into exposure to fiat money, their economic and financial well-being becomes dependent on the continuation of the inflationary fiat money system and on it being “rescued” by the state and its central bank during times of crisis—even at the expense of those who do not benefit from the system, or benefit much less.

Politicians, bureaucrats, bank employees, and companies that receive government contracts all develop a vested interest in ensuring that the fiat money system is maintained. In this sense, they become fiat money vampire thralls, feeding off the lifeblood of those engaged in productive work by claiming a share of their income.

Moreover, holders of fiat money are the ones who lose out, as fiat money continually loses its purchasing power. In a fiat money system, the central bank ensures that interest rates are kept artificially low—often negative after accounting for inflation—so that savings in time deposits, savings accounts, and bonds are effectively eroded.

Aversion to Light

The vampire and the fiat money system cannot withstand the bright light of day; both will crumble to dust when exposed to sunlight. If people truly understood the negative effects of fiat money and the damage it causes to the world, they would likely reject it—along with the production and employment structures it creates. This is likely why so little is taught about fiat money in schools and universities. Its darker aspects are concealed, with the statist education system as particeps criminis ensuring the bright light of knowledge does not shine on the fiat money system.

Remember that central bank councils are typically referred to as “the guardians of the currency,” and it is said that they “fight” inflation. Nothing could be further from the truth—much like a vampire who welcomes his guests and engages in witty conversation without revealing his true nature. Just as sunlight kills a vampire, sound economic knowledge would destroy the fiat money system, especially when coupled with a simple, well-understood ethic like “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Until that day comes, investors should be aware of the serious economic and ethical flaws of fiat money. The uncomfortable truth is that long-term prosperity and peace cannot be sustained under a fiat money system. Therefore, it is in everyone’s best interest for the bright light of truth to expose and thus end the fiat money system. But how can this be achieved?

By proactively and honestly informing people about the evils of fiat money; by advising them to reduce their dependence on it, both in their lives and their savings; and by promoting a free market for money, while encouraging technological innovations in the monetary sphere that lie beyond the state’s control. Together, these efforts will act like a ray of sunlight striking the vampire-like fiat money system—ultimately causing it to crumble to dust.

Figure 1: Ten-year US Treasury bond yield with constant maturity from January 1981 to October 11, 2023 (percent)

Initially, financial markets expected only a relatively short phase of increased interest rates. At the beginning of March 2022, the US long-term interest rate fell below the short-term yield—so the yield curve became “inverted,” a clear indication that investors expected short-term interest rates to be cut sooner rather than later.

However, since July 2023 at the latest, long-term interest rates have been rising strongly and unabatedly. Something very fundamental has presumably happened—investors are no longer willing to hold US government debt at ultra-low yields as before. Where did the change of heart come from?

Investors may have become increasingly aware of the enormous debt problem in the US, which investors had taken lightly for so long: Uncle Sam is sitting on a mountain of debt worth more than thirty-three trillion US dollars, which is equivalent to around 123 percent of US gross domestic product (GDP). Plus, the debt dynamic is relentless: by the end of the decade, the debt could reach fifty trillion US dollars. Previous large buyers of US debt—such as Japan, China, Brazil, Russia, and Saudi Arabia—are no longer interested. Who will buy the huge flood of new US government bonds intended to finance deficits of around 6 percent of GDP in the coming years?

It appears that the US administration has squandered a lot of investor confidence, not least by freezing Russia’s foreign reserves at the beginning of 2020. It has since become abundantly clear to many investors from non-Western countries that US investments carry a political risk for them. Therefore, anyone who holds US dollars or invests in US debt securities demands a higher interest rate. It’s not just the US feeling the effects of this interest rate shock; the rest of the world isn’t spared either. The increased credit costs will make life difficult or even unaffordable for many debtors—consumers and producers.

The result will be an economic slowdown, more likely even a recession because loan defaults are already increasing again and will likely dry up the credit market. The flow of new credit and money into the system will dwindle, and the demand for goods will decline. This will be particularly problematic for many highly indebted countries. The mountains of debt they have accumulated and continue to increase are the result of a so-called Ponzi scheme—named after its “inventor” Charles Ponzi, probably the greatest fraudster of his time.

The state Ponzi scheme goes like this: States go into debt, and when the debt comes due years later, the states pay it off by taking on new debt—increasing the existing debt load. Investors buy the government bonds because they assume that there will be investors in the future who will buy the newly issued government bonds. In turn, these future investors assume that, in the even more remote future, there will also be investors who will buy the new debt that will be issued then. So on and so forth. Of course, no one here expects actual repayment, and to be true, repayment of the debt is impossible.

Now, interest rates have fallen over the last four decades, and the fraudulent game has worked quite well—for the states and the special interest groups that seek to harness this game for their own purposes. States could easily accumulate more and more debt, and the debt that became due could be refinanced with loans at ever-lower interest rates. Now, however, the situation has changed dramatically.

As I said, interest rates are rising while debt is already very high, and there will probably be a rude awakening soon. Investors have to fear a deterioration in the debt sustainability of many countries—especially since the probability that any country will abandon their debt-accumulating spending is fairly low. So, the expectation that there will be investors willing to subscribe to newly issued bonds at relatively low interest rates will be disappointed in the future.

Then, it won’t be long before investors start to worry and panic—because they understand that the foreseeable increase in debt-related interest payments will crush many states’ finances. The painful truth is that there is no easy way out of a Ponzi scheme—at least none that would not demystify the national debt and all the lies and deception that go with it.

Maybe the bond markets will calm down again before things get explosive? Will US long-term interest rates find a new footing at, say, 5.5 to 6.0 percent? Will interest rates like in the 1980s—bond yields of more than 10 percent—return? The correct answer to these questions is of utmost importance for investment success.

In my opinion, an imminent end to the rise in interest rates on both sides of the Atlantic is rather likely. After all, officially measured inflation is already falling noticeably, and banks are putting the brakes on lending. The money supply in the major economies is already shrinking as a result of central bank interest rate increases, and the consequences of this shrinking will force economic activity to its knees. Then, once the economy contracts and mass unemployment hits like a tidal wave, it is very likely that interest rate increases will be reversed soon.

Moreover, it should also be borne in mind that the powerful “fiat money system”—the collusion of states, banks, major institutional investors, and large companies—will not be so easy to upset. Should the rise in interest rates become too strong from a political point of view, yet another deep dive into the bag of tricks can be expected. Central banks, for example, will start buying government bonds again, thereby fixing long-term and short-term interest rates at “reasonable” levels. Of course, all of these monetary policy tricks basically amount to one thing: paying off the outstanding bills with newly created money—or in other words, inflation policy.

That is the big lesson that can be drawn from the interest rate shock resulting from the Ponzi scheme in the debt markets: the systematic decline in the purchasing power of money, even if short-term relief is granted, is almost certain.

About the Author

Dr. Thorsten Polleit is Chief Economist of Degussa and Honorary Professor at the University of Bayreuth. He also acts as an investment advisor.

For instance, high inflation has reduced the real incomes of people and businesses, lowering their demand for goods and services. The increase in credit costs, which began in early 2022 with the Federal Reserve interest rate hike, should (at least) slow down consumption and investment—and lead to more loan defaults. In addition, the US yield curve is severely inverted, signaling an imminent recession.

Not to be forgotten is the downward pressure on asset prices—real estate, in particular—caused by the rise in yields. This puts pressure on banks and makes them more cautious about taking on additional credit risks. The supply of borrowable funds to consumers and businesses is drying up and becoming more expensive compared to the cheap and plentiful credit supply in the last decade. When bank credit growth slows down, the economy’s money stock growth slows down as well.

The latest data for the US shows that bank lending growth has declined considerably—declining 0.5 percent year over year in August, down from 10.1 percent year over year in August 2022. This, in turn, impacts the money stock M2, which fell by 3.7 percent year over year in July. (It should be noted that, in addition to lower bank lending, other factors were also at work—such as interest rate–induced shifts from bank deposits included in M2 to those not included in M2, which contributed to the reduction in the US commercial bank money stock.)

While all this is undoubtedly the case, the “time factor” must also be considered in this context.

Put simply, it takes time for higher credit and capital costs to impact the broader economy. In fact, the economic and financial effect of increased borrowing costs will materialize gradually over time, in small increments, so to speak. Borrowers typically have a debt maturity profile. This means that not all of their total debt will be due at the same time, with maturities spread out over the years. So, only a part of a firm’s loan portfolio will have to be refinanced at higher interest rates in 2023.

Over time, however, credit costs rise as a growing portion of the outstanding debt must be refinanced at higher interest rates. In the course of this development, the trouble begins—and things start to get messy. Higher credit costs reduce firms’ profits, while increased interest rates curb the demand for their goods and services. These are the typical conditions under which the economy slows down or even contracts.

Of course, in such a scenario, the government may increase its deficit and try to fend off recession by boosting overall demand. This is, however, a risky undertaking when government debt is already very high and borrowing costs are elevated. Investors could all too easily question the effectiveness of an increased deficit spending program and become concerned about the government’s creditworthiness—with potentially disastrous consequences.

Even though it appears to have been premature for the doomsayers to predict a recession and a stock market crash, it may have become clear that “all is not going well.” Perhaps most important in this context is the issue of valuation levels. Clearly, the rise in interest rates in the last eighteen months or so has already significantly impacted many asset markets—just think of the real estate sector. However, the asset price revaluation phase may not have reached its final stage.

For example, US stock prices show a rather pronounced disconnect from the bond market. This suggests that stock prices are either headed for a downward correction—granted that bond prices remain at current levels or continue to fall—or that bond prices will correct upward to support higher stock prices, or a combination of both will happen with slightly lower stock prices accompanied by slightly higher bond prices.

Undoubtedly, the key questions are: Will interest rates remain at elevated levels, or will they continue to rise? On the other hand, will interest rates return to the downward trend they had been on since the early 1980s until around 2022? Answering these questions amounts to making a truly “big call.” Undoubtedly, quite a few considerations must be made that allow both higher and lower interest rates to be predicted going forward.

Either way, the answer to these questions will most likely be compatible with making a case for holding physical gold and silver. This is because higher interest rates are likely to result in a rather large-scale “credit event,” while further declining yields would signal the (expected) return to inflationary monetary policy—an attempt to boost asset prices, devalue the currency, and overcome the recession, whatever it takes.

One thing is certain, though. The storm that hasn’t reared its ugly head yet will come in the form of recession, high unemployment, and—if central banks lower interest rates again and keep increasing the money supply—chronic high goods price inflation.

About the Author

Dr. Thorsten Polleit is Chief Economist of Degussa and Honorary Professor at the University of Bayreuth. He also acts as an investment advisor.

The Austrian(TA): What is the global currency plot, and who benefits most from the success of this effort?

Thorsten Polleit (TP): The global currency plot denotes a rather inconvenient truth: the existence of states (as we know them today) sets into motion a dynamic process toward creating a single world fiat money controlled by a world central bank, and most likely a central world government. The beneficiaries will be the very few—the “elite”—in charge of running the state and those few privileged by the state, such as big business, big banking, Big Pharma, and Big Tech. However, the great majority of the people will suffer a very great disadvantage. In fact, a single world fiat currency would most likely entail tyranny.

TA: The first half of the book is largely focused on economic theory and method. Why is economics so important to understanding the global fiat currency threat?

TP: I would argue that thinking about the method of economic science is actually the most important part of all of this. You know, economics is not an empirical science but must be conceptualized as a science of the logic of human action—or “praxeology,” as Ludwig von Mises called it. The logic of human action allows us to understand that there are regularities in human reality to which we must adapt our actions to succeed. It also makes us understand what will happen if— under certain conditions—actions that are contrary to the logic of human action are taken. For instance, we can know in advance (without having to resort to any kind of testing) that a state—defined as a coercive territorial monopoly—will (other things being equal) continue to expand no matter what; that it will seek control of money, replacing commodity money with its own fiat currency; and that states will form a cartel and strive to eventually establish a world government with its own world fiat currency. The logic of human action reveals these dynamics that many people are most likely unaware of.

TA: What role do central banks such as the Federal Reserve play?

TP: It may be hard to swallow, but central banks were not created for the greater good but to support the state and special interest groups. After World War II, the US became the dominant economic and military power in the world, and the Federal Reserve (the Fed), founded in 1913, became the world’s most powerful central bank, issuing the US dollar, the world’s leading reserve currency. It is fair to say that the Fed does indeed call the shots in the international financial and economic system. The Fed acts as the unofficial world central bank. Central banks play a crucial role in making a fiat currency system possible, and if they form a cartel, they can basically create a single world fiat currency.

TA: The dollar has played a central role in the global economy for decades. Does the dollar’s global hegemony help or hinder efforts to create a single global currency?

TP: The dominance of the US dollar is certainly helping to push the world toward a single fiat currency. Just imagine a major crisis that will eventually hit us. When the worldwide fiat currency regime starts to unravel, the US dollar will likely be the last man standing. In such a situation, it is also very likely that many countries will try to peg their currency to the US dollar (i.e., effectively adopt the US dollar as base money). It may not sound realistic right now, but imagine a scenario in which the United States and China join forces and endorse exchange rate fixing through the International Monetary Fund’s special drawing rights, later declaring the exchange rates irrevocably fixed. The world would be closer to a single world fiat currency than ever.

TA: What would it look like if the dollar were replaced by some sort of new international currency?

TP: Most recently, the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have openly challenged the hegemony of the US dollar and considered introducing their own currency. What could it look like? It could be a basket consisting of various national fiat currencies or a new gold-backed unit of account. I believe the only challenge to the dominance of the US dollar might come from a gold-backed BRICS money. But even then, the US could also link the US dollar to the Federal Reserve’s theoretical gold holdings (which are actually owned by the Treasury). As you can see, dethroning the US dollar will not be easy under the current conditions. Whatever comes from states pursuing their own monetary interests, we should not get our hopes up that the states will provide sound money to the people. If states monopolize money production, they will use it predominantly to serve their own needs.

TA: You note that the world needs free market money, and you say it could be anything the market accepts—from gold to cryptocurrencies. Why is market-based money better?

TP: There are only two ways human beings can interact: voluntarily or coerced/violently. Voluntary cooperation is economically and ethically acceptable; coercion and violence are not. The free market is voluntary. In a free market in money, people are free to choose the type of money that best suits their needs and people are free to offer a good people may want to use as money. The outcome will be sound money—simply because no one (in their right mind) will demand bad money. For instance, people could decide to use gold as a base money and implement digital gold payment systems. If people want prosperity and freedom, nationally and internationally, they must abandon fiat monies, end the government’s control of money, and embrace a free market in money. The alternative is tyrannical government money, with the unpleasant prospect of eventually ending up with a tyrannical fiat world currency. I hope my book will inform and stimulate discussion on these extremely important issues.

Interview transcript cross-posted from Mises.

[This article is a selection from the March-April issue of The Austrian.]

What if the world’s states were to come together and create a single world currency? From a purely economic point of view, there would be significant advantages if every nation didn’t operate with its own money but with the same currency. Not only for an individual economy, but for the world economy as a whole, the optimal number of currencies is one. Let’s take a look.

The decisive factor is how this single world currency comes about, and who issues it. In a free market for money—in a natural process—a single world currency would emerge from the voluntary agreements of the market participants: the money demanders would decide which commodity they want to use as money. It is impossible to predict with certainty what the outcome of the free choice of currency would be; after all, it resembles a discovery procedure whose outcome is not known in advance. However, it can be assumed that a commodity currency would be created, that gold or possibly a cryptounit would be chosen as the money base.

However, if states monopolize money production, a single world currency cannot develop through voluntary decision-making. In 2023, several national fiat currencies coexist. But this is not a stable equilibrium. Rather, here too, there is a tendency to create a single world currency—because it is optimal for everyone in the world to trade and calculate with the same currency. This is what democratic socialism takes advantage of.

Creating a single world currency is a means to an end for democratic socialism. Its adherents recognize that a single world state cannot be established directly. The national resistance that would have to be overcome is too great. The detour, the indirect way, by which democratic socialism can achieve its goal is by creating a single world currency under state control. The eurozone can serve as a “model” for this process. We’ve seen nations voluntarily give up their monetary sovereignty and accept a single fiat currency that is issued by a supranational central bank. Within the eurozone, money is no longer controlled by individual national parliaments.

The shared euro currency creates major problems in and between the participating countries. But the forced euro marriage has not yet been through the “divorce courts” because of the high costs of a euro exit and also because the democratic socialists fight any attempts to withdraw from the euro with all political means available to them. The problems created by the single currency are increasingly forcing participating countries into communization. As part of the eurozone, some nations must pay for the national debts of others, and the cost of saving ailing banks from collapse is borne by all taxpayers and money users.

All of the problems of imposing one fiat money across many nation-states only became apparent after the euro community was locked into place—the potential problems received little or no attention beforehand. From the outset, it was not economic rationality that inspired the euro, but political endeavors that can be traced back, unsurprisingly, to politics, namely the ideology of democratic socialism. The end of national monetary sovereignty and the adoption of the euro were promoted in public by emphasizing the peace and prosperity effects of a single currency.

In light of the experience gained with the “euro experiment,” the question arises: What are the consequences of creating a single fiat world currency? A state-controlled world currency would bring with it all the negative characteristics and problems of national fiat currencies, and it would cause economic, political, and cultural damage that would eclipse that from national fiat currencies.

What every single state that has fallen victim to democratic socialism wants is also what a community of states wants: to control the production of money and to expand the money supply at will in order to secure and expand its rule. It is a logical step for the states to merge their own fiat currencies into a fiat world currency—especially for small and medium-sized states, whose financial leeway is considerably increased as a result.

The fact that a fiat currency and not a commodity money has been chosen is virtually self-explanatory: the national currencies are already fiat money, and fiat money is the type of money that states prefer because it can be multiplied at any time and in any quantity at the lowest cost.

If the national states agree to accept a single fiat currency issued by a world central bank, then the money users will no longer have any choice or escape options. They will be at the mercy of a fiat world money. The world central bank will not have to fear that dissatisfied users of its money will “migrate” to other currencies because there will be no other currencies anymore. And because the single fiat world currency will have no competition, it will also become a plaything of political interests. Above all, the states will encourage the world central bank to pursue a monetary policy through which they can finance themselves as cheaply as possible with credit.

After all, debt financing is particularly attractive to every state: the possibility of easy borrowing is a very important motive for states to adopt a fiat world currency. Unlike with taxation, savers usually give their money voluntarily to the state, because they expect it to be repaid to them plus interest. A world central bank has a free hand to set the market interest rate as it sees fit. It does not have to fear that capital will migrate away from an extremely low market interest rate—after all, the interest rate that it determines will prevail all over the world.

A world central bank, which has a monopoly on the fiat world money, facilitates the worldwide debt economy to an extent probably still unknown. The relatively bad state debtors—i.e., those who have so far only been able to finance themselves at relatively high interest rates—particularly benefit from a single fiat world currency. If there is only one currency left in the world, there will be a single large, transparent, and liquid capital market in which there will be no exchange rate fluctuations, which helps to reduce credit costs. The improved debt opportunities in such a market favor the expansion of state influence and thus promote the nationalization of the economy and society.

A single currency will put governments in a favorable position to buy votes. The states will lure voters with money, and more and more citizens and entrepreneurs will become transfer recipients and beneficiaries of the state. They will benefit from state-financed jobs, social benefits, and contracts. States’ involvement in economic and social life will increase. The culture of collectivism will be promoted, and individualism will be repressed. What is left of the free market economy will inevitably give way to a command economy in which states play a decisive role in determining who produces what, when, and where. Although this transformation is already progressing under national fiat currencies, it will be uninhibited under a global fiat currency.

With a single fiat world currency, it will be possible for a world central bank to set an artificial boom in motion worldwide and to protect itself from a bust for a long time. Thanks to the global currency, the boom will affect all the world’s economies: the prices in all labor and factor markets will be distorted—after all, there will no longer be any exchange rate movements between the economies that could shield a region from the monetary policies in other regions; all economies will thus be “monetarily aligned.”

Companies and investors will continue to favor some regions of the world over others, just as investors in the eurozone see the “northern countries” as less risky than the “southern countries” and the “northern countries” continue to be the most attractive region for investors within the eurozone. If, however, the economic developments of the participating nation-states vary too much, the world central bank can be expected to take political countermeasures: it will support weaker countries. For example, it will buy up weak countries’ government and bank bonds; the eurozone’s many “rescue policies” are an example of this eventuality.

In this way, the world central bank will weaken or eliminate the market’s remaining corrective forces, which could put an end to the boom. The boom set in motion by the world bank will therefore be able to last a long time. However, the longer the boom lasts, the greater the damage (overconsumption and bad investments) will be. And the longer the boom progresses, the greater the costs of the corrective crisis will be, which will intensify the political incentives to keep the boom going by any means—after all, states shy away from recession and unemployment and the associated social and political consequences.

In order to avert the corrective crisis, the states will continue to intervene in the market with bans and prohibitions, laws, price controls, subsidies, and labor and expenditure programs. Above all, however, they will make use of the world central bank. If it is politically desired, the world bank will keep any stumbling debtor afloat with newly created money and delay the arrival of the crash. This leads to the question: Will a single fiat world currency be more inflationary than national fiat currencies? The answer is yes.

States’ primary goal with a single fiat world currency is to be able to pursue a controlled inflationary policy with as little punishment as possible. Controlled inflation benefits states and politically connected groups.

However, even under a uniform fiat world currency, there are limits to inflationary policy. The world central bank does not have to reckon with the fact that money users will switch from its fiat money to other currencies when inflation is high, as there will be no other currencies left. But if the inflation of the fiat world currency is too high, its users will lose confidence in it. In an extreme case (hyperinflation) people will start to escape from the fiat world money by taking desperate measures. They will no longer want to use the money at all, and this could seal the fate of the fiat world money.

Of crucial importance for the inflation of the fiat world currency is which forces gain the upper hand in the decision-making body of the world central bank. There are two possible scenarios. In the first case, the governments of the states have a direct influence on the world central bank. In democracies, rulers are known to have short-term goals: their power is only temporary. Therefore, they are anxious to maximize their income during their term of office. Those in power do not participate in the long-term prosperity of the community and consequently have no great interest in making decisions that maintain or increase its net present value beyond their term. In other words, the cow is not milked but slaughtered. Inflation will be comparatively high in this case.

In the second case, the decision-makers on the council of the world central bank are closely connected to those in the financial sector and big business. Such a world central bank council’s interest is that its “product,” its currency, remains permanently marketable. It will not frivolously jeopardize the world currency by implementing an exaggerated inflation policy. The world central bank council would therefore not want to slaughter the cow but milk it for as long as possible. In this case, an oligarchic democracy will prevail in the world central bank council.

In this scenario there is a high probability that the world central bank will above all serve the special interests to which the council oligarchs are closely linked (these are, of course, big banks and big businesses). The interests of the general public take a back seat and are only taken into account if they do not jeopardize the continuation of the world central bank’s special-interest monetary policy. The world central bank will therefore endeavor to keep inflation from becoming too high so that the population does not become dissatisfied and rebel.

Under a self-referential oligarchic democracy, in which councilmen recruit their own successors, the fiat world money is even granted a particularly long stay. The oligarchs will make every effort to ensure that the fiat world money system can continue to exist for as long as possible, that crises, when they occur, are tackled in such a way that the fiat world currency does not suffer and a “flight from money” is avoided.

In view of the overindebtedness problem that fiat money necessarily creates, we cannot exclude the possibility of negative interest rates. Under a policy of negative interest rates, the central bank might set the interest rate at, say, −4 percent per year. This means that a bank balance of €100.00 is reduced to €96.00 one year later and after ten years is only €66.48. What harms the saver benefits the debtor, who makes a profit by taking out a loan! Savers and investors will not tolerate this. Wishing to avoid the losses, they will go to the bank and demand that their assets be paid out in cash and coins. Therefore, as long as there is cash, the effectiveness of a negative interest rate policy is limited.

However, a world central bank can easily enforce the abolition of cash by shutting down cash production. Without cash, the money is “trapped” in bank accounts and can no longer be withdrawn from the banking sector. The negative interest rate policy can then be implemented unchecked. Money holders no longer have the opportunity to evade the devaluation of money and savings. Individual states welcome the abolition of cash for another reason: they will be able to track the financial dispositions of citizens and companies, who will only be able to make payments electronically: banks will be required to provide full information on the payments and financial assets of bank customers at all times. As a result, the taxation possibilities of states will be increased immensely.

As long as there is still cash, there are limits to taxation: if market participants feel that the tax burden is too high, they can carry out their transactions anonymously with cash. This in turn encourages states not to tax citizens and businesses too heavily. But when the taxpayers no longer have this alternative because there is no more cash, the political reluctance which still stands in the way of increased taxation in a world with cash decreases. And if the financial privacy of citizens and businesses is lost, states can easily subject citizens and businesses to full monitoring.

A global central bank will undertake the supervision of the banking and financial sector. It will want to prescribe how commercial banks operate; for example, what liquidity and capital requirements they must meet and how they must assess their credit risks. The world central bank will also want to decide whether and under what circumstances failing banks will be aided or allowed to close. The right of national governments to have their say will increasingly dwindle in favor of the supranational world central bank and supranational supervisory authorities and bodies. The consequences will be far reaching.

The pressure for a body of regulation to which all banking and financial enterprises are subject will increase—and will come from the large and powerful interest groups. National or regional peculiarities will not be taken into account if the large and powerful interest groups have asserted themselves in the political negotiation of the regulatory provisions. For many small countries, this will force far-reaching adjustments—not only in their banking and financial economies but also in their production structures. There will be winners and losers in this process: adjustment costs will be higher for some regions and lower for others. This will create conflicts of interest between the nation-states.

A fiat currency used by people in many countries will fuel further conflicts. It is well known that the expansion of the money supply means that a few are made better off at the expense of many others: the first recipients are the beneficiaries, the late recipients, the disadvantaged. This is already resulting in disputes in nation-states that are relatively homogeneous in terms of culture, language, and tradition. The conflicts over redistribution will become even more acute when the effects of redistribution are felt across borders, when people in one country realize that they are being bled in favor of people in another country.

A world central bank has a free hand to set the world interest rate at will. Not only can it keep it artificially low to set a boom in motion and keep it going for a long time, but it can also bring about a negative world interest rate, a political “solution” to the overindebtedness problem caused by a fiat world money. Another motive for forcing world interest rates into negative territory is the democratic socialists’ desire to better steer and control the economy and society, or to shatter what is left of the free market economy.

The fact that this is possible with a negative interest rate policy becomes apparent when one considers the consequences of a negative interest rate for the credit market. Commercial banks receive credit from the world central bank at, say, −2 percent, on the condition that they lend the money to consumers and companies. If they borrow €100 at −2 percent and lend the money at −1 percent, their profit is €1. Under these circumstances the demand for credit grows enormously: after all, everyone wants to profit from the negative interest rate loans.

The world central bank must ration the loans so that the creation of credit and money does not get out of hand. It is no longer the market interest rate that balances supply and demand, but the world central bank, which gives a certain amount of credit and allocates it. But what criteria should be used to allocate the loans? Should all those who ask for loans get them too? Or should labor-intensive economic sectors be preferred? Or should the loans go only to sunrise industries? Or should weakening branches of industry be supported with additional loans? Or should the south get more than the north?

The world central bank has a decisive influence on who can finance and produce what, when, and where. Like a central planning authority, it—or the interest groups who control it— determines the fate of the economies in all the regions of the world: which industries are promoted or pushed back; which economies grow stronger and which weaker; which banks are allowed to survive in which countries and which are not. Welcome to the centrally planned economy! However, a negative interest rate policy would not be possible in the long term; it would lead to the end of the division of labor in the economy.

First, lowering the interest rate inflates the prices of existing assets: stocks, houses, and land— everything becomes more expensive. The lower the interest rate, the higher the present value of future payments and thus also the market prices of the assets. The speculative bubble, which is inflated, initially provides investors with high returns. At the same time, the outlook for future returns deteriorates. The reason? Zero and negative interest rates cause the prices of stocks, houses, etc., to rise until the expected yield that these asset classes promise has approached the low or negative interest rate set by the central bank. In extreme cases, the expected market returns will fall to or even below the zero line.

But once the world central bank has pushed all returns to or below the zero line, the free market economy (or what is left of it) is on the verge of collapse. Without a positive market interest rate, without the prospect of a positive return, saving and investing cease: after all, every consumer and entrepreneur has a positive originary interest rate. And when there is no more return to earn, there is no more saving and investment, only consumption. The economy based on the division of labor comes to a standstill. Replacement and expansion investments fail to materialize, capital consumption begins, and the modern economy falls back into a primitive subsistence economy. An extreme example. Or is it?

The very process by which the world central bank lowers the world market interest rate to or below zero (something it can do as a monopolist of money production) is extremely problematic. It artificially pushes people’s time preferences up. As Friedrich Nietzsche put it, there is a “revaluation of all values,” a devaluation of the future. The here and now is made even more important than tomorrow. The consequences are far reaching. Life on credit is promoted. The virtue of thrift goes out of fashion. “Permanent debt” becomes morally acceptable. Achieving short-term goals becomes more important to people than achieving longer-term goals. The willingness to achieve decreases, because, compared to the disutility of labor, leisure time rises even higher in value. Divorce also becomes more attractive as a “solution” to marital problems; efforts to overcome relationship difficulties are increasingly shunned. The quality of education suffers: if the here and now is so important, then we will also spend less time cultivating and maturing for the future. Morals decay: consideration and manners are costly activities in interpersonal relationships and often only pay off in the long term. Aesthetics degenerate: it is easy for passing fads to find buyers; breaking away from “proven classics” is made easier. A world central bank that issues fiat money has decivilizing consequences worldwide.

The idea that states could remain sovereign and independent once they participate in the fiat world money system is illusory. If the same money is used in different countries, this will help to make the best possible use of the efficiency potential offered by the international division of labor. The commodity and factor financial markets of the national economies will increasingly dovetail. And the closer the ties between those markets, the stronger will be the incentive of the nation-states to surrender sovereignty to supranational authorities. This applies both to economically good times—then the willingness to share, to make compromises, is relatively high—and to economically bad times— then a way out of the economic problems is seen in moving closer together, in jointly pursued “emergency policies.”

A fiat world currency promotes political centralization. The “urge” to establish a unified government, a world state, is strengthened, especially under the ideological leadership of democratic socialism. If economic and financial ties become ever tighter, why not create a single world state that can more effectively implement the desired policies—such as policies for prevention of economic and financial crises as well as tax fraud, environmental protection, counterterrorism, etc.? The world central bank, which issues the fiat world currency, becomes a particularly sought-after political power and control center in this concentration process.

Drawing on Robert Michel’s iron law of oligarchy, it is to be expected that a relatively small, assertive group of people which originates from the party and government structures of the participating states will try to put the world central bank under its control and make it serviceable for its own purposes. Against this background, it would be unrealistic for something to emerge that could be described as a “democratic world central bank.”

The representatives of the participating states may initially endeavor to “chain” the world central bank—i.e., to design the rules and regulations to which the world central bank is subject in such a way as to prevent abuse of power. However, what happens in the hierarchy of parties also happens in the hierarchy of a community of states: the most determined, tireless, ruthless, and relentless advocates of democratic socialism prevail. The aim of the oligarchy will be to make the world central bank serviceable and, above all, to enable the creation of a world government, a world state, which democratic socialism must necessarily strive for.

A world state, equipped with its own global fiat money monopoly, would open a dark chapter in the history of humankind and lead to a civilizational catastrophe. The world state would have no competitors to fear. No one could escape from it. Emigration would be impossible; the world state would be everywhere. The hope that the expansion of the power of the world state could be effectively curbed by democratic electoral acts would prove to be illusory as soon as oligarchization set in—and this is to be expected, of course, as already impressively illustrated by the expansionist drive of the nation-states in recent decades.

It is downright absurd to think that a world state with its own fiat world currency would not sooner or later mutate into a totalitarian tyrant.

But are there perhaps good forces that could challenge the money monopoly and thereby effectively prevent the ideas of world money and a world state from being put into practice? One possible good force is technological disruption, which could revolutionize the global monetary system or show people that better money than that offered by states is both necessary and possible. There is no doubt that cryptocurrencies hold such potential for disruption.

Technological Disruption: Cryptocurrencies

The cryptounit bitcoin holds out the prospect of something revolutionary: money created in the free market, money the production and use of which the state has no access to. The transactions carried out with it are anonymous; outsiders do not know who paid or who received the payment. It is money that cannot be multiplied at will, whose quantity is finite, that knows no national borders, and that can be used unhindered worldwide. This is possible because bitcoin is based on a special form of electronic data processing and storage: blockchain technology (distributed ledger technology), which can also be described as a decentralized account book.

Think through the consequences if such a “denationalized” form of money should actually prevail in practice. The state could no longer tax its citizens as before. It would lack information on the labor and capital incomes of citizens and enterprises and their total wealth. The only option left to the state would be to tax the assets in the “real world”—such as houses, land, works of art, etc. It could try to levy a “poll tax”: a tax in which everyone pays the same absolute tax amount— regardless of the personal circumstances of the taxpayers, such as income, wealth, ability to achieve, and so on. But would that be practicable? Could it be enforced? This is doubtful.

The state could also no longer simply borrow money. In a cryptocurrency world, who would give credit to the state? The state would have to justify the expectation that it would use the borrowed money productively to service its debt. But as we know, the state is not in a position to do this and is in a much worse position than private companies. So even if the state could obtain credit, it would have to pay a comparatively high interest rate, severely restricting its scope for credit financing.

In view of cryptocurrency’s financial disempowerment of the state, the question arises: Could the state as we know it today still exist at all, could it still mobilize enough supporters and gather them behind it? After all, the fantasies of redistribution and enrichment that today drive many voters into the arms of political parties and ideologies would disappear into thin air. The state would no longer function as a redistribution machine; it basically would have little or no money to finance political promises. Cryptocurrencies, therefore, have the potential to herald the end of the state as we know it today.

The transition from the national fiat currencies to a cryptocurrency created in the free market would have consequences for the existing fiat monetary system and the production and employment structure it has created.

However, bitcoin has not yet developed to the point where it could be a perfect substitute for fiat currencies. For example, the performance of the bitcoin network is not yet high enough. Another problem with bitcoin transactions is finality. In modern fiat cash payment systems, there is a clearly identifiable point in time at which a payment is legally and de facto completed, and from that point on, the money transferred can be used immediately. However, distributed ledger technology consensus techniques (such as proof of work) only allow relative finality, and this is undoubtedly detrimental to the money user (because blocks added to the blockchain can subsequently become invalid by resolving forks).

The transaction costs are also of great importance regarding whether bitcoin can assert itself as a universally used means of payment. In the recent past, there have been major fluctuations in this area. In addition, the time taken to process a transaction has also fluctuated considerably at times, which may be disadvantageous in view of the emergence of instant payment options for fiat money.

Another important aspect is the question of the “intermediary.” Bitcoin is designed to enable intermediary-free transactions between participants. But do the market participants really want intermediary-free money? What if there are problems? If someone made a mistake and transferred one hundred bitcoins instead of one, he cannot reverse the transaction. And nobody can help him! The fact that many hold their bitcoins in trading venues and not in their private digital wallets suggests that even in a world of cryptocurrencies there is a demand for intermediaries offering services such as storage and security of private keys.

As soon as intermediaries come into play, the transaction chain is no longer limited to the digital world, but reaches the real world. At the interface between the digital and the real world, a trustworthy entity is required. Just think of credit transactions. They cannot be performed unseen and anonymously. Payment defaults can happen here, and therefore the lender wants to know who the borrower is, what credit quality he has, and what collateral he provides. But if the bridge is built from the digital to the real world, the cryptomoney inevitably finds itself in the crosshairs of the state. However, this bridge will ultimately be necessary, because in modern economies with a division of labor, money must have the capacity for intermediation.

It is safe to assume that technology will continue to make progress, and that it will remove many remaining obstacles. However, it can also be expected that the state will make every effort to discourage a free market for money by reducing the competitiveness of alternative money media such as precious metals and cryptounits vis-à-vis fiat money through tax measures (such as turnover and capital gains taxes). As long as this is the case, it will be difficult even for money that is better in all other respects to assert itself.

Therefore, technical superiority alone will not be sufficient to help free market money—whether in the form of gold, silver, or cryptounits—achieve a breakthrough. In addition, and above all, it will be necessary for people to demand their right to self-determination in the choice of money or to recognize the need to make use of it. Ludwig von Mises has cited the “sound-money principle” in this context: “The sound-money principle has two aspects. It is affirmative in approving the market’s choice of a commonly used medium of exchange. It is negative in obstructing the government’s propensity to meddle with the currency system.” And he continues: “It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of rights.”

These words make it clear that in order for a free market for money to become possible, quite a substantial change must take place in people’s minds. We must turn away from democratic socialism, from all socialist-collectivist false doctrines, from their state glorifying delusion, and no longer listen to socialist appeals to envy and resentment. This can only be achieved through better insight, acceptance of better ideas, and logical thinking. Admittedly, this is a difficult undertaking, but it is not hopeless. Especially since there is a logical alternative to democratic socialism: the private law society with a free market for money.

A Free Market for Money

A free market for money means two things. On the one hand, those demanding money can freely choose what they want to use as money—for transaction and saving purposes. On the other hand, every market participant has the freedom to try to offer his fellow human beings a good to demand voluntarily as money. But wouldn’t that lead straight to “money chaos”? Wouldn’t hundreds, maybe even thousands of types of money circulate and thus make financial calculation impossible in the economy? And wouldn’t that undermine the efficiency of the economy? This concern is unfounded.

The money demander plays the decisive role. In a free market for money, anyone who asks for money will, out of self-interest, ask for a good that has the greatest possible marketability, a good that is recognized by its trading partners as the generally accepted medium of exchange. What do you offer the baker? It is best to offer something that the baker can use to buy shoes from a cobbler or shirts from a tailor. In a free market for money, people will demand as money a good that finds the widest acceptance, which is regarded by the largest number of people as a medium of exchange. The choice of the good that serves as money is based on the wishes of the trading partners.

But what if Mrs. A offers colorfully printed paper slips and says that these are “good money”? The answer is that no one would accept her paper slips as money. Why not? Quite simple: you wouldn’t know what these colorful notes are worth, or what you could get for them in exchange. That’s why no one would demand them as money. This is exactly what Mises has shown with his regression theorem: money must arise from a good that already has a nonmonetary market value before it is used as money. This is not the case for colorful and arbitrarily printed paper slips. They would not be able to compete against other goods such as gold and silver.

In a free market for money, people will demand a good that possesses the physical qualities that “good money” must have: be scarce, storable, transportable, divisible, malleable, and transferable and be regarded as valuable. If we take into account currency history, it seems quite probable that money would still be chosen in the form of precious metals—notably gold and silver—today. But cryptounits could also possibly assert themselves as money in the future. The choice people will ultimately make in a free market for money cannot be predicted with certainty.

Precious metals as money is an improvement compared to unbacked fiat money. No one has to carry jangling coins around in their pockets. The use of gold and silver can be digitalized. All kinds of payments that are common today could be carried out easily and problem-free with gold and silver. If cash is desired, precious metal coins can circulate or banknotes can be used that can be exchanged 100 percent for physical gold at the storage facility that issued the banknotes. Cashless payment transactions are also possible in the usual way when using gold money: bank transfer, direct debit, crossed check, payments by credit and debit card, mobile payment, bills of exchange, etc.

In a free market for money, in which a good that cannot be multiplied at will (by granting credit) is chosen as money, the credit market can exercise its intended function undisturbed: the supply of and demand for savings create a market interest rate that ensures that sufficient savings are available to make investments. This puts an end to the chronic economic disruptions of boom and bust caused by the issuance of fiat money. Because the banking business is not inflationary, the nonmarket (antisocial) redistributive effects of fiat money cease.

In a free market for money, there is no central bank and no state supervisory or regulatory authorities. All that is necessary for the functioning of a free market for money is a functioning legal order, which ensures that the contracting parties fulfill their obligations and that infringements of contractual agreements are effectively sanctioned: for example, that the stored commodity money is not embezzled, that banknotes can be exchanged for the money base at face value at any time. In order to guarantee that contractual obligations are fulfilled, there is no need for state monopolies of law. Jurisprudence and law enforcement can also be organized in the free market.

A free market money system—with free choice of money and bank freedom—is not a national but an international concept. If trade takes place internationally, across national borders, the market participants select the good to use as money with the same calculation as is used at the national level. Every user of money has an economic incentive to demand as money that good which he thinks is the most attractive means of exchange from his trading partner’s point of view. The idea of a free market for money is thus global in the truest sense of the word: just as free trade knows no national borders, a free market for money extends globally.

A free market for money is incompatible with the state as we know it today; namely, as a territorial compulsory monopolist with ultimate power of decision over all conflicts in its territory. There is no question that a free market for money requires far-reaching changes in people’s thinking. This insight was formulated by Mises in 1923:

The belief that a sound monetary system can once again be attained without making substantial changes in economic policy is a serious error. What is needed first and foremost is to renounce all inflationist fallacies. This renunciation cannot last, however, if it is not firmly grounded on a full and complete divorce of ideology from all imperialist, militarist, protectionist, statist, and socialist ideas.

The Private Law Society

The alternative to the state, in its present form, is the private law society. It is characterized by the fact that the same rules apply to all people always and everywhere: that everyone has self-ownership and that everyone has ownership of external goods acquired lawfully—i.e., nonaggressively. And since the same law applies to everyone, there is no public law apart from private law. A private law society is by no means synonymous with anarchy. Far from it! Rather, the private law society is characterized by a very clear distinction between mine and yours, and violations of property are punishable and sanctioned.

In a private legal system, security is offered in the free market. On the supply side, there are insurance companies that offer security services (insurance against theft, personal protection, etc.) in competition with other companies. In insurance contracts, the security service is specified precisely and the mutual rights and obligations are contractually laid down (such as the exclusion of negligence by the insured from compensation in the event of damage). The insurance contracts specify independent conciliation bodies—which also compete with each other for customers who pay voluntarily—to be called upon in the event of a dispute between the policyholder and the insurer.

Under competitive conditions, it is to be expected that prices for insurance coverage and dispute resolution will fall (while they will rise chronically in today’s state-monopolized security and legal apparatus). And it is not only that the insurance services in the free market for security are more geared to the customer’s wishes (in terms of scope and pricing); peaceableness and conflict avoidance are also promoted. Those who demonstrably behave well and are friendly toward their fellow human beings represent a smaller risk and are rewarded with comparatively low insurance premiums.

Since an insurance company is contractually obliged to indemnify the policyholder in the event of a loss (e.g., burglary), it will make a great deal of effort to prevent the occurrence of a loss. And if the damage has nevertheless occurred, the insurance company will do everything in its power to track down the perpetrator and make him liable; otherwise, it will have to pay the compensation, which in turn will reduce its profit. The free market for security discourages crime because potential perpetrators face highly efficient private insurance providers and police agencies. Such insurance and legal contracts can be established not only nationally, but of course also internationally, for private households as well as companies.

In a private law society, a free market for money is a natural phenomenon in the truest sense of the word: a free market for money is people’s right to self-determination when choosing money. The voluntary agreement of the people involved in the global division of labor would result in a single world currency. A freely chosen world currency differs categorically from a single fiat world currency, which is the passion of democratic socialists. A world currency chosen in a free market for money would literally be economically and ethically good money, which best serves humankind and best promotes the peaceful and cooperative coexistence of people in this world.

The Challenge

Understanding and practicing economics is the key to destroying the foundations of the driving force of democratic socialism, which for decades has been working toward establishing a world state with a world currency and has already made considerable progress along this path. Bad experiences, undesirable developments, and crises will not be able to deprive democratic socialism of its power and overcome it. This can only be achieved by insight into better ideas, and by the struggle of arguments of reason. The Global Currency Plot is meant as a contribution to help the better ideas prevail.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

About the Author

Dr. Thorsten Polleit is Chief Economist of Degussa and Honorary Professor at the University of Bayreuth. He also acts as an investment advisor.