(1) (https://twitter.com/wbmosler/status/1153390475740667904)
eta
erabiltzaileei erantzuten
(link: http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/Exchange-Rate-Policy-and-Full-Employment.htm)
(2) (https://twitter.com/wbmosler/status/1153707204480032768
Stephanie Kelton@StephanieKelton
Terrific piece by @rohangrey. Just out!
The Nation@thenationΒ· uzt. 22
Instead of embracing Facebook’s Libra, we should be rallying for a public option for digital currency. (link: http://bit.ly/32M3WKs)
How ’bout that?@How_bout_that_
Β·uzt. 22
I don’t get it….all my dollars are already digital….so what is the hype about? My digital dollars work everywhere, so what problem do these phony currencies solve?
You have bank deposits not digital currency.
How ’bout that?@How_bout_that_
Ok, but my “bank deposits” are digitally received and digitally sent in the exchange of goods and services I purchase, over a cryptographically secured system. It really feels like digital currency though.
So, what does digital currency do that my digital “bank deposits” don’t?
eta
erabiltzaileei erantzuten
Just faster/cheaper seems?
eta
erabiltzaileei erantzuten
If you read the piece, it’s clear that there is more to a digital currency platform than speed/cost. It’s also about who owns the balance, who can censor transactions, the anonymity features, and how it is integrated with broader credit ecosystem.
Congress can mandate that Fed member banks offer free debit card accounts, etc.
Rohan Grey@rohangrey
Again, as I noted in the piece, bank accounts are distinct from e-cash wallets, legally and operationally. A public digital currency system should offer both. If people believe commercial banks should retain dominant position in payments system burden is on them to justify why π
I can already wire transfer by 4pm to any other βwalletβ without the approval of a 3rd party online, as long as my balance is positive. International treaties would help in the current system; I can transfer to a Euro account but need bank assistance for transferring to Rupees.
(3) (https://twitter.com/wbmosler/status/1153806182252892166)
eta
erabiltzaileei erantzuten
Efficiency. The infrastructure is already there, they are already entirely agents of the same Congress, fully regulated and supervised. Congress can direct that existing infrastructure to any public purpose it desires.
eta 2 beste erabiltzaileei erantzuten
Agree. Congress could guarantee all bank deposits, whatever the amount, and it would be no different than a debit account at the Fed?
(4) (https://twitter.com/wbmosler/status/1153808708175978496)
eta 2 beste erabiltzaileei erantzuten
Banks can be allowed to offer “numbered accounts” to ensure cash like privacy. States have tended to not allow them over concerns about tax dodging, but it can all be revisited as desired… π
eta 2 beste erabiltzaileei erantzuten
It’s not efficient to run multiple redundant payments rails, as well as all of the complicated regulatory apparatus that comes with the public private partnerships approach. Not to mention deposit insurance caps inhibit capacity of system to offer full suite of checking services
Moreover numbered accounts are not the same as cash, both legally and operationally. They are contractual claims on banks and require approval of bank intermediaries to process payments. eCash is property of owner and can be exchanged without intermediary approval.
Which maybe is why ‘those’ who oppose numbered accounts also are the say types who oppose cash? π
Rohan Grey@rohangrey
Yes, they don’t like anything that prioritizes individual privacy over law enforcement and social control. But numbered accounts are still distinct from ecash.
(5) (https://twitter.com/wbmosler/status/1154022096978137089)
eta 2 beste erabiltzaileei erantzuten
My point is for me efficiency most often serves public purpose, so I’m mindful of setting up new govt. infrastructure when an existing one can just as easily be adjusted to serve that intended public purpose. π
eta 2 beste erabiltzaileei erantzuten
1. Sunk costs fallacy. It’s not more efficient long term to maintain parallel payments systems, especially ones built on old legacy code. I’ve seen no analysis showing it is. 2. Current infrastructure cannot be made to “just as easily” achieve same functions as a public system
Rohan Grey@rohangrey
In any event, these kinds of systems *are* being developed around the world including in India and China already. It’s happening. So dismissing it just means putting yourself outside of the conversations that are actively taking place about how it will be designed and work.
(6) (https://twitter.com/wbmosler/status/1154064374358634497)
Congress can mandate that Fed member banks offer free debit card accounts, etc.
Reserve accounts are already e-cash accounts with their own infrastructure, so this simply means giving everyone a reserve account So can I now lend my reserves to a bank? Wait.., so now that causes an excess of reserves and rates would tend to zero…
No, reserve accounts are reserve accounts. An eCash wallet network works differently to an account based system whether it’s bank accounts or central bank accounts.
Crossing my fingers you will expound on the differences π
Rohan Grey@rohangrey
(link: https://twitter.com/rohangrey/status/1153714511368658944) twitter.com/rohangrey/stat⦠Are you really unsure of how the cash in your pocket is different to the deposits in your bank account?
Rohan Grey@rohangreyΒ· uzt. 23
@wbmosler @How_bout_that_ eta @StephanieKelton erabiltzaileei erantzuten
If you read the piece, it’s clear that there is more to a digital currency platform than speed/cost. It’s also about who owns the balance, who can censor transactions, the anonymity features, and how it is integrated with broader credit ecosystem.
eta 3 beste erabiltzaileei erantzuten
Just saying that if the problem is people being disadvantaged by not having access to banking services, mandating existing banks to provide free basic services, etc. should be considered.
Rohan Grey@rohangrey
Except I don’t define the problem with the statu quo that narrowly. So that is answer to a different question than the one i’m asking π
(…)
Moreover numbered accounts are not the same as cash, both legally and operationally. They are contractual claims on banks and require approval of bank intermediaries to process payments. eCash is property of owner and can be exchanged without intermediary approval.
Which maybe is why ‘those’ who oppose numbered accounts also are the say types who oppose cash? π