A controversial experiment in 'free money'

Michael Unterguggenbergeristhe architect of a little-known monetary experiment in 1932 that may soon make a comeback on a global scale.

Michael Unterguggenberger was mayor of the Austrian town of Wrgl in 1932, during the depths of the Great Depression.In July that year he began one of the most intriguing and controversial monetary experiments in history.

Like much of the world at that time, Wrgl had high and growing unemployment.The mayor wished to kick-start a recovery with a programme of publicly-funded works repairing streets, planting trees, building a bridge. That sort of thing.Trouble was, he didn't have the money to pay for it.

Subscribe to MoneyWeek

Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE

Get 6 issues free

Sign up to Money Morning

Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter

Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter

Sign up

So he took what money the town did have, deposited it with a local bank, and used it as a guarantee to issue IOUs which would circulate as currency (at the time this had not yet been outlawed by Austria's authorities).

Wrgl's new currency' came with strings attached: once a month it lost 1% of its face value.This created an incentive for people to spend their money as soon as possible after they received it. And that's exactly what happened.

They paid debts. They bought things, helping to keep local businesses going and provide work for others. They paid their taxes early and then paid future taxes in advance.

In economic terms, the Wrgl experiment aimed to increase the velocity of money, ie how many times each unit of currency is spent.

Did it work?Some hail the experiment a success. Here's how its results are described on one website:

"Wrgl was the first town in Austria which effectively managed to redress the extreme levels of unemployment. They not only re-paved the streets and rebuilt the water system and all of the other projects on Mayor Unterguggenberger's long list, they even built new houses, a ski jump and a bridge with a plaque proudly reminding us that This bridge was built with our own free money'."

However, there are critics.The Mises Instituteappears torn in its assessment. On the one hand there's a desire to applaud the free market spirit behind creating one's own currency.On the other, the Keynesian ideas it was used to fund stimulus spending, the multiplier effect leave them cold.The Mises critique boils down to an argument that Wrgl's policy was unsustainable.

Being able to pay your taxes with the IOUs was a big reason why people accepted them as money.But once you've paid, say, two years' of taxes in advance, will you still be happy to work for a currency you can only spend locally?One that loses its value each month?

There's also the matter of Wrgl defaulting on some of its debt to free up cash, as well as a grant the town received from the Tyrol government. Both these things helped towards delivering positive outcomes.

Beyond all that is the question of how sustainable a boom is when it's built on increased velocity of money. After all, there's a limit to how many times and how quickly the same banknote can pass from hand to hand to hand.

Unterguggenberger returns

Four years ago I had an email exchange with an economist friend about Wrgl. To our minds it was just a historical quirk.Since then, however, some central banks have started applying negative deposit rates.

And last Friday, Bank of England chief economist Andy Haldanegave a speechon the subject which has ruffled a few feathers.It included the idea of negative interest rates on paper currency, as well as negative rates more generally.

Whatever the merits of the argument, the Wrgl story shows that the idea of penalising cash will receive a sympathetic hearing in some quarters.Why?Because the benefits of the scheme were visible and immediate.Policymakers love that.