3 ms·

So as govt has the power to seize bank accounts anyway, CBDC would not make any difference at all in this case, it's a question of govt accountability. The art

So as govt has the power to seize bank accounts anyway, CBDC would not make any difference at all in this case, it's a question of govt accountability. The article seems to conflate CBDC with a totally cashless society, which yes, we should probably think through a bit more carefully.

hellojesus 5y ago
It does matter. See things like Operation Choke Point and how much easier that becomes with federal centralization.
rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
While it could be seen as a conflation in theory, in practice it almost certainly is. The purpose of a CBDC is complete government control over the monetary system, cash cannot remain in existence if this goal is achieved. Many advanced economies have been practically cashless for years, and the friction from phone payments via PCI networks to phone payments with a CBDC app is very little. The loss of physical cash to the un & underbanked in the US will probably be the reason that a CBDC will not be adopted any time soon, highlighted as a risk in the recent paper. However in all states, CBDC is an inevitability, just as it is inevitable that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are used day-to-day as an alternative to the state CBDC.
bleuchase 5y ago
> So as govt has the power to seize bank accounts anyway, CBDC would not make any difference at all in this case, it's a question of govt accountability. So because it’s possible we should consent to a system that makes it programmatic and infinitely scalable across the whole population? You don’t seem to get the implications of government-controlled programmable money. https://bfsi.economictimes.indiatimes.com/amp/news/policy/digital-currency-yuan-comes-with-an-expiry-date-spend-or-it-will-vanish/82059471 https://bfsi.economictimes.indiatimes.com/amp/news/policy/di...

3 ms·

So as govt has the power to seize bank accounts anyway, CBDC would not make any difference at all in this case, it's a question of govt accountability. The art

by jacknews 5y ago

hellojesus 5y ago
It does matter. See things like Operation Choke Point and how much easier that becomes with federal centralization.
rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
While it could be seen as a conflation in theory, in practice it almost certainly is. The purpose of a CBDC is complete government control over the monetary system, cash cannot remain in existence if this goal is achieved. Many advanced economies have been practically cashless for years, and the friction from phone payments via PCI networks to phone payments with a CBDC app is very little. The loss of physical cash to the un & underbanked in the US will probably be the reason that a CBDC will not be adopted any time soon, highlighted as a risk in the recent paper. However in all states, CBDC is an inevitability, just as it is inevitable that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are used day-to-day as an alternative to the state CBDC.
bleuchase 5y ago
> So as govt has the power to seize bank accounts anyway, CBDC would not make any difference at all in this case, it's a question of govt accountability. So because it’s possible we should consent to a system that makes it programmatic and infinitely scalable across the whole population? You don’t seem to get the implications of government-controlled programmable money. https://bfsi.economictimes.indiatimes.com/amp/news/policy/digital-currency-yuan-comes-with-an-expiry-date-spend-or-it-will-vanish/82059471 https://bfsi.economictimes.indiatimes.com/amp/news/policy/di...