described previously (see Chapter 2) - it would be possible even for two monetary systems to exist side by side. We could keep the one we have at present and introduce the new money, even in a smaller region or town. According to Gresham's Law, "bad" money displaces "good" money. What we are newly creating here is - in his sense - "bad" money - money which is subject to a use fee unlike the present money. Wherever people can pay with the "bad" money, they will pass it on - and they will hold on to the "good" money. Thus the new money will be used wherever possible, which is exactly what we want. The old money will be kept and used to the extent necessary. Therefore, introduced as an experiment in a specific region in the beginning, the proposed money system could also co-exist with our present system until it had proven its usefulness. Who else would benefit from a new monetary system?
THE RICH One of the critical questions which is always asked by people who begin to understand the effectiveness of the hidden redistribution mechanism in our present money system is: Will those 10% of the population who profit from this mechanism at present allow any change which might eliminate their chances to extract a work-free income from the large majority of people? The historic answer is: Of course not, unless they are forced by those who pay. The new answer is: Of course they will, if they become aware of the fact that "the branch on which they are sitting grows on a sick tree" and that there is a "healthy alternative tree" which is not going to collapse sooner or later. The second means social evolution, the soft path. The first means social revolution, the hard path. The soft path offers rich people the chance of keeping the money they have gained through interest. The hard path will invariably lead to sizable losses. The soft path means no accusation because of profits from interest, until we introduce the new money system, since their behaviour has been totally within their legal rights. The hard path of social revolution may well be more painful. The soft path means no more interest earning money but a stable currency, lower prices and, possibly, lower taxes. The hard path means growing insecurity, instability, higher inflation, higher prices, and higher taxes. So far my experience with people in the "richest 10% category" has been that they are neither fully aware of how the interest system really operates, nor that there are any practical alternatives. With few exceptions, they would tend to opt for security rather than more money, since they mostly have enough for themselves and sometimes for many generations to come. The second question is: What happens if the rich transfer their money to other countries where they get interest, instead of putting it into their savings account where it retains its value but it does not accumulate interest? The answer is that within a very short period after the introduction of the reform, they may do just the opposite. Because the margin of profit between what people gain in other countries from interest after they deduct inflation would most likely be about the same as the increase in value of the new money in their own country which is not subject to 26