Kudra 
So, I just came across the real, working model of a functional #degrowth economy, using negative interest rates as a key driver.
This is really happening in Spain!
And could be replicated anywhere.
Super interesting.
MatthewToadAgain@kudra I do not understand this proposal that negative interest rates are compatible with degrowth. Certainly it is interesting though!
I thought the history showed that money that automatically loses value tends to lead to a spending boom?
The poor have always spent all the money that comes in, while the rich tend to save it, often in unproductive asset bubbles and tax havens. Sure, agreed so far.
But the middle class response to a "use it or lose it" currency would surely be more consumer spending? Sometimes this is desirable (especially if it's largely confined to the local economy), but if it gets spent on throwaway consumer junk then that's counterproductive?
Also, doesn't a non-progressive tax on money make it difficult for low income people to save a deposit? Although the discussion on low interest loans may compensate for that?
While the rich will of course convert it into other forms which return more interest. Which could still be asset bubbles if we do not tackle monopoly power.
So how is this different to a well-implemented wealth tax? That would cover other forms of wealth too, and would not unduly impact low income people saving for necessary capital investments?
I'm also not entirely clear on the discussion on property. I guess the need to lease property from the state rather than buy it outright is necessary mainly to avoid having to create money for mortgages? Or is it to avoid accumulation of wealth through property price rises? Property prices can easily be stabilised by reintroducing rent controls alongside the state building enough housing, and selling and renting it out affordably, something which government bodies have been progressively forbidden to do in recent decades in the UK (e.g. "Right to Buy").
How does a Universal Basic Income fit into this? On the whole I'd say it fits pretty well there at least: adding money (which will be immediately spent) for the poorest is balanced by removing it from the richest.
@MatthewToadAgain excellent points! I am not an economist, but I think they have focused this experiment on local spending, keeping the economic benefits circulating locally.
I've always been interested in alternative local currencies (LETS schemes) that aim to do this, with the intent of keeping economic value circulating locally. How I'd seen it described previously is that money supply is like a river, and if you dam it up (which happens when wealth accumulates in the hands of the few) you starve the river and those who depend on it.
In real terms, what we are seeing currently, in Australia at least, is a circumstance where the vast majority of wealth is now in house/land value and average people, even and perhaps especially the middle class, are struggling with massive mortgages and the lower class equally struggling with massive rents. To the point where discretionary spending is drying up, non-essential spending is slowing, and small local businesses in hospo and services are struggling more and more.
I'm a Georgist, so I favour a single land tax (perhaps with an IP element, as much economic activity has moved online, but people are flesh and more basically need food and shelter which fundamentally is not online), definitely favour a wealth tax though land tax could I think, alone be enough of a wealth tax, and of course ubi is fantastic to stimulate local economic spending.
How negative interest fits into this I hadn't really thought about much before, which is why I was so interested to see a significant size trial and the principles being discussed. I think the central point is that positive interest leads inevitably to inflation and more debt, and we see eyewatering amounts of government debt now. If there is any way to bring property costs back to a reasonable percentage of the average persons income, negative interest looks to possibly be one, but I also don't know how that works when you have a commodity that is in very high demand, however I take the long view that degrowth is inevitable once physical resource limits are reached, and having tools to manage that reality would be better than chaos and collapse.
I am definitely under qualified to answer many of your points though, and look forward to hearing more about this possible approach to degrowth.
cwicseolfor (has moved!)@kudra It's audacious; I'd like to believe, but high volume doesn't illustrate yet how it's succeeding; this economy existing in parallel to standard economies produces arbitrage temptation. If you can move value into and out of the system at will, the "economic" thing for users to do is move funds in right before spending for discounts. If funds are "trapped" in the system, those accepting funds both rely on trust there's no embezzlement & that the community projects promised will materialize.
@kudra Admittedly I come from the Land of Scams and Grift (US) so my skepticism is amplified by default, but I see a great deal of risk even when everyone acts in perfect good faith here and I'm glad it's being piloted to allow troubleshooting. Most my "ideal scenario" risks are similar to the above comment; accelerated spending on durable goods (to take on the value-store of money - especially when those goods are investments into the "means of production" this could still concentrate wealth.)
@kudra (Short char limit, sorry.) Without an equalized income landscape, I can see risk of incentivized property destruction to maintain scarcity to allow for the promise of future incomes, alongside amplified consumption due to a fear of missing out. And then there's simple fear that prices may change (e.g. due to hoarding of necessary goods as a value store?) to where incomes cannot meet needs, so many other changes must be wrought to ensure social supports. It seems "hackable" by bad actors.
@kudra There's also a sort of irony in the header image being made by the Infinitely Accelerating Planetary Destruction Art Theft Machine which I confess didn't get me off to a credulous start, but most my concern arises from info I couldn't find.
I strongly favor a UBI with universal housing and care, but in part because it's an easier scheme to compare to, with more predictable threats to control. I want to see a plurality of ideas and hope more of them will receive actual pilots in practice.