4 ms·

This comment is the literal definition of FUD. The idea that a government or bank would expire your money is pretty hilarious.

tastyfreeze 5y ago
It doesnt take much searching to find that is an actual proposed use case. https://www.google.com/search?q=cbdc+expire https://www.google.com/search?q=cbdc+expire It doesnt take much knowledge of history to know that giving government full control over individual's money is a very bad idea.
- threeseed 5y ago
  No it's an idea and never concretely proposed. And governments already have full control over an individual's money.
- roywiggins 5y ago
  Governments already have control over money by simply being able to choose what is and isn't legal to use. FDR outlawed private gold ownership. India banned cash: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37974423 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37974423
  - matthewdgreen 5y ago
    Governments have imperfect control over money. Outlawing private gold ownership and banning cash are two examples that are noteworthy because they were so extreme. Each created a huge amount of controversy and havoc, and also required leaders to obtain buy-in from legislators and other political figures. The point of many CBDC electronic currencies is to reduce the barriers to this control, so restrictions on currency (such as expiring currency) can be implemented with a few keystrokes on a computer rather than, say, requiring everyone to turn in their cash and jewelry.
faichai 5y ago
I think this has already happened in China. They provided digital RMB as a stimulus that expired if you didn’t use it. We’re all Mario now.
- lottin 5y ago
  I think this is fake news.
  - livueta 5y ago
    I think your comment is fake news: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/08/07/does-perishable-e-money-represent-the-future-of-fiscal-stimulus https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/08/07/d... Please don't post shallow dismissals without actually researching the topic.
    - lottin 5y ago
      It's you who should research the topic before accusing others of posting shallow dismissals. The linked article says nothing about expiring money. Did you even read it?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - livueta 5y ago
        Of course, as it literally describes the event the parent originally asserted occurred: > On August 1st Hong Kongers received the first instalment of the government’s consumption voucher, an effort to revive the city’s hard-hit retail industry. The amounts are generous (HK$5,000 or $640 > Unlike ordinary cash handouts, these e-vouchers must be spent within a few months. Otherwise they will “expire”. vs. > I think this has already happened in China. They provided digital RMB as a stimulus that expired if you didn’t use it. A voucher you can spend anywhere is cash, by definition. It is stimulus, as the parent mentioned. I don't get it: are you really trying to nitpick RMB vs. HKD? Anyway, sibling posts have provided yet more refs, so I have to believe you're being intentionally obtuse to save face. Your "fake news!" "nuh-uh" approach isn't adding to the conversation. I've made my case, so I'll leave it here as we're drifting into flamewar.
narism 5y ago
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3116521/chinas-digital-currency-trial-returns-shenzhen-round-2-twice https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3116521/c... > winners have until January 17 to spend their e-yuan before it expires The caveat there is that expiration in this case is probably to encourage winners to spend the money/provide an end date to the experiment. Most likely regular e-money would not have that condition but special payments (ex: stimulus) could.
- livueta 5y ago
  That is a fair caveat, though I'd argue that it is clearly a test case for broader expansion in an instance where the condition is unlikely to produce a backlash, attached as it is to stimulus money. c.f. speed of yuan CBDC rollout; https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2021/11/08/central-banks-are-getting-closer-to-issuing-their-own-digital-money https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2021/11/08/central... c.f. central banks salivating at the prospect of having extra levers to pull: https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/02/16/what-is-the-fuss-over-central-bank-digital-currencies https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/02/16/... > An impediment to negative interest rates at the moment is that savers can switch to cash, which has a de facto interest rate of zero. In a cashless world central banks could in theory programme digital currency to have negative rates. > Once ascendant, govcoins could become panopticons for the state to control citizens: think of instant e-fines for bad behaviour.

tastyfreeze 5y ago

It doesnt take much searching to find that is an actual proposed use case. https://www.google.com/search?q=cbdc+expire https://www.google.com/search?q=cbdc+expire It doesnt take much knowledge of history to know that giving government full control over individual's money is a very bad idea.

threeseed 5y ago
No it's an idea and never concretely proposed. And governments already have full control over an individual's money.
roywiggins 5y ago
Governments already have control over money by simply being able to choose what is and isn't legal to use. FDR outlawed private gold ownership. India banned cash: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37974423 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37974423
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  Governments have imperfect control over money. Outlawing private gold ownership and banning cash are two examples that are noteworthy because they were so extreme. Each created a huge amount of controversy and havoc, and also required leaders to obtain buy-in from legislators and other political figures. The point of many CBDC electronic currencies is to reduce the barriers to this control, so restrictions on currency (such as expiring currency) can be implemented with a few keystrokes on a computer rather than, say, requiring everyone to turn in their cash and jewelry.

faichai 5y ago

I think this has already happened in China. They provided digital RMB as a stimulus that expired if you didn’t use it. We’re all Mario now.

lottin 5y ago
I think this is fake news.
- livueta 5y ago
  I think your comment is fake news: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/08/07/does-perishable-e-money-represent-the-future-of-fiscal-stimulus https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/08/07/d... Please don't post shallow dismissals without actually researching the topic.
  - lottin 5y ago
    It's you who should research the topic before accusing others of posting shallow dismissals. The linked article says nothing about expiring money. Did you even read it?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - livueta 5y ago
      Of course, as it literally describes the event the parent originally asserted occurred: > On August 1st Hong Kongers received the first instalment of the government’s consumption voucher, an effort to revive the city’s hard-hit retail industry. The amounts are generous (HK$5,000 or $640 > Unlike ordinary cash handouts, these e-vouchers must be spent within a few months. Otherwise they will “expire”. vs. > I think this has already happened in China. They provided digital RMB as a stimulus that expired if you didn’t use it. A voucher you can spend anywhere is cash, by definition. It is stimulus, as the parent mentioned. I don't get it: are you really trying to nitpick RMB vs. HKD? Anyway, sibling posts have provided yet more refs, so I have to believe you're being intentionally obtuse to save face. Your "fake news!" "nuh-uh" approach isn't adding to the conversation. I've made my case, so I'll leave it here as we're drifting into flamewar.

narism 5y ago

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3116521/chinas-digital-currency-trial-returns-shenzhen-round-2-twice https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3116521/c... > winners have until January 17 to spend their e-yuan before it expires The caveat there is that expiration in this case is probably to encourage winners to spend the money/provide an end date to the experiment. Most likely regular e-money would not have that condition but special payments (ex: stimulus) could.

livueta 5y ago
That is a fair caveat, though I'd argue that it is clearly a test case for broader expansion in an instance where the condition is unlikely to produce a backlash, attached as it is to stimulus money. c.f. speed of yuan CBDC rollout; https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2021/11/08/central-banks-are-getting-closer-to-issuing-their-own-digital-money https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2021/11/08/central... c.f. central banks salivating at the prospect of having extra levers to pull: https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/02/16/what-is-the-fuss-over-central-bank-digital-currencies https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/02/16/... > An impediment to negative interest rates at the moment is that savers can switch to cash, which has a de facto interest rate of zero. In a cashless world central banks could in theory programme digital currency to have negative rates. > Once ascendant, govcoins could become panopticons for the state to control citizens: think of instant e-fines for bad behaviour.