4 ms·

> TL;DR - money is already digital, what central banks really want is centralized accounts that they can helicopter money into That is not a matter of centrali

by yokaze 6y ago

> TL;DR - money is already digital, what central banks really want is centralized accounts that they can helicopter money into That is not a matter of centralised accounts, but policy. Central banks could just as well have mailed a check, but they are simply not allowed to. > The reason being that Central Banks have unleashed interventions that 20 years ago were unfathomable. And yet, deflation is everywhere and money velocity barely has a pulse Because they are tasked with monetary stability, and they used the only interventions they were allowed to. And that was challenged at court. It would have been the governments job to drive the economy up, because quite evidently, it was not a lack of credit-lines which staled it. But up until recently there was no political will to do so.

anm89 6y ago
I think it's a mix of the two. I think the reason that they want the cbdc as opposed to mailing checks is that it creates a permant channel that is likely to require less congressional approval on a per use basis.
- yokaze 6y ago
  > that is likely to require less congressional approval on a per use basis. Sorry, I don't see how that could be the case: Either you need congressional approval, or you don't. And how is the technical implementation of money transfer going to have an impact on that?
  - anm89 6y ago
    If every person has an "digital currency wallet" held at their normal bank as a pass through to the fed already, and let's say congress passes a bill pre-approving them to do a certain amount of stimulative distributions, they basically have a blank check. There would be no further approval needed for those distributions. It's even possible they would ask for this to be uncapped, essentially opening a new facility. I think this structurally has less resistance than writing physical checks. What's the point of designing and implementing that system if they aren't going to be allowed to use it.
    - yokaze 6y ago
      > If every person has an "digital currency wallet"... Nothing that follows in this paragraph depends on the pre-condition of having a digital currency wallet. > I think this structurally has less resistance than writing physical checks. That may be, but I find it hard to judge. I am skeptical if the decision to shell out a couple of billions depends on physical checks or not. You could also argue the reverse, a check works better for advertisement for the governing party. People get something physical that is worth something. > What's the point of designing and implementing that system if they aren't going to be allowed to use it. There are other use-cases. Direct depositing stimulative is one possibility, but from my point-of-view hardly a game-changer. Direct withdrawal/devaluation on the other hand... The main motivation I see though is more to compete with PayPal/Visa/MasterCard/Apple Pay/Google Pay..., and all the classic banks. The motivation is not to lose relevance, and if designed correctly, I can opt out of monetising my buyers history & private information.

by yokaze 6y ago

anm89 6y ago

I think it's a mix of the two. I think the reason that they want the cbdc as opposed to mailing checks is that it creates a permant channel that is likely to require less congressional approval on a per use basis.

yokaze 6y ago
> that is likely to require less congressional approval on a per use basis. Sorry, I don't see how that could be the case: Either you need congressional approval, or you don't. And how is the technical implementation of money transfer going to have an impact on that?
- anm89 6y ago
  If every person has an "digital currency wallet" held at their normal bank as a pass through to the fed already, and let's say congress passes a bill pre-approving them to do a certain amount of stimulative distributions, they basically have a blank check. There would be no further approval needed for those distributions. It's even possible they would ask for this to be uncapped, essentially opening a new facility. I think this structurally has less resistance than writing physical checks. What's the point of designing and implementing that system if they aren't going to be allowed to use it.
  - yokaze 6y ago
    > If every person has an "digital currency wallet"... Nothing that follows in this paragraph depends on the pre-condition of having a digital currency wallet. > I think this structurally has less resistance than writing physical checks. That may be, but I find it hard to judge. I am skeptical if the decision to shell out a couple of billions depends on physical checks or not. You could also argue the reverse, a check works better for advertisement for the governing party. People get something physical that is worth something. > What's the point of designing and implementing that system if they aren't going to be allowed to use it. There are other use-cases. Direct depositing stimulative is one possibility, but from my point-of-view hardly a game-changer. Direct withdrawal/devaluation on the other hand... The main motivation I see though is more to compete with PayPal/Visa/MasterCard/Apple Pay/Google Pay..., and all the classic banks. The motivation is not to lose relevance, and if designed correctly, I can opt out of monetising my buyers history & private information.