Actually no. Expiration of money and inflation can exist simultaneously.
Expiration of money is an end of life cycle event of individual bills - it affects certain lump sum of money that will become void in corpore. The nominal value of the money will remain the same.
Inflation is continuous devaluation of nominal value of all the money regardless of individual bills.
If we discuss expiration of money then we should consider what constitutes as money creation - when will the countdown start.
Is the money created when it is issued by a (central) bank or is created when an exchange (for value) takes place?
With the first idea a single transaction can contain money with multiple expiration dates and as such the money with longer expiration date will immediately become more valuable and the nominal value of the money is not universal anymore.
The second approach avoids this problem - the nominal value of the transaction is always the same. This has an other interesting side effect as it would incentive to make transactions legal.
But what Gesell describes is mandatory deflation of value of money by insisting a tax on money - a monetary money holder tax, kind of. Whoever holds the money is obliged to pay the tax - if you put your money into bank then it would be the bank. So his idea is considerably different.
These seem easy to game, and would just generate a (pure dead-weight) industry of money persistence optimization. Alternatively, people would ditch their <expiring currency> and buy <some other country's more stable currency> instead.
Expiration of money is an end of life cycle event of individual bills - it affects certain lump sum of money that will become void in corpore. The nominal value of the money will remain the same.
Inflation is continuous devaluation of nominal value of all the money regardless of individual bills.
If we discuss expiration of money then we should consider what constitutes as money creation - when will the countdown start.
Is the money created when it is issued by a (central) bank or is created when an exchange (for value) takes place?
With the first idea a single transaction can contain money with multiple expiration dates and as such the money with longer expiration date will immediately become more valuable and the nominal value of the money is not universal anymore.
The second approach avoids this problem - the nominal value of the transaction is always the same. This has an other interesting side effect as it would incentive to make transactions legal.
But what Gesell describes is mandatory deflation of value of money by insisting a tax on money - a monetary money holder tax, kind of. Whoever holds the money is obliged to pay the tax - if you put your money into bank then it would be the bank. So his idea is considerably different.