Cash can be spent without being monitored or blocked.
A recent example of how this might be relevant is with the protests in Canada that lead to the freezing of the protesters’ bank accounts by the government. While I don’t agree with the protesters, the idea of the government freezing their accounts is alarming. After seeing such control exercised, it’s hard to be excited about a cashless society.
This feels like a boat that sailed long ago. I don't know anyone using cash for anything more than small incidental purchases, I'd say it's generally impossible to structure you life around using Cash at a large scale.
For one, unlike cash, the issuing entity can program CBDC to expire on a specific date unless utilized. Another horror use case is that they could track and limit how many hamburgers or pizzas you eat daily, weekly, monthly or yearly!
He merely suggested a small fee though. 5.1% per year and only on cash, not some CDBC with privacy concerns. If you keep your money on savings accounts you wouldn't pay anything. If the economy is growing you would get paid interest. If the economy is declining you might pay negative interest.
This is different from a coupon that expires instantly. That is a terrible idea. Don't do this.
Also, the idea of demurrage currencies is to replace the devaluation via inflation with a nominal fee so it is possible that in countries with high inflation rates, the new currency would end up losing less value over time simply because it maintains price stability easily.
Edit: btw. His theory is dated in the sense that Keynes and Dieter Suhr have an updated interpretation. With a hint of Fisher Black you are going to get one of the most interesting economic theories that can explain most of the suffering in the world based on very few assumptions. The money and land reform policy proposals still remain relevant today.
Why would the government program money to expire? Would the money not become effectively worthless the closer to the expiration date? Why would a business accept transactions from people with money that’s about to expire would that then mean they would be giving away goods and services for free potentially?
In theory you spending it would reset the expiration date.
If you know your money will expire you will spend it, thus stimulating the economy. We also can’t have the dirty proles save their way to a higher social class.
The government could issue money that can be tied to a specific purpose (allowed to be spent with specific merchants or establishments) and have a time limit. Think of the COVID-19 assistance that was given to people. If — instead of just transferring normal money into people’s accounts that allowed people to do whatever they wanted with it whenever they wanted and wherever they wanted - the government could force recipients to spend it across certain things and not others, and gave a deadline to move the money around, would that be something that’s in the best interests of the receiver? By expiring money or by applying negative interest rates, the government can offload its burden on to the people who hold and have to use this money.
When the government does something unpopular against its own people, they can easily quell protestors at scale and force the usage of CBDC adoption by closing ATM withdrawals [0] add savings limits [1] and can incentivise spending with an expiring date. [2]
Whilst many HNers were celebrating UPI as the payment rails from India, it is almost the same thing as FedNow and is planning to put their own CBDC on UPI called E-RUPI [3] taking all the same valid concerns that I have mentioned.
It's bad enough that banks have virtually unlimited insight into my spending habits that we need to give the Feds the same access. I should have the right to buy a big mac without some government server getting pinged.
Another concern I have heard voiced is that CBCD could be programmed - eg. you can't buy X, or you can only buy Y at certain times, or for certain prices, etc. and has the potential for reduced liberty vs. cash.
I doesn't give the Feds access to anything. Suppose I bank at Wells Fargo and my favorite coffee shop banks at Capitol One. If I pay the shop $4 for a latte, the fed will have NO IDEA who sent that money to whom or for what. All the Fed sees is $4 moving from the Wells to the Cap One Federal Reserve master accounts -- amid a blizzard of millions of other transactions. The difference from ACH is just that these payments are settled in big batches rather than one by one. The Fed will get new and better data on payment volume, but that's all, really.
How will they protect us though unless they know the nature of every transaction we participate in? Are you really responsible enough to take care of yourself? A CBDC would combine the best aspects of company scrips with those of wartime ration tickets!
I don't think the government is trying to protect drug dealers or tax evaders from themselves. You intentionally chose a weak argument to fight against.
Cash can be spent without being monitored or blocked.
A recent example of how this might be relevant is with the protests in Canada that lead to the freezing of the protesters’ bank accounts by the government. While I don’t agree with the protesters, the idea of the government freezing their accounts is alarming. After seeing such control exercised, it’s hard to be excited about a cashless society.
This feels like a boat that sailed long ago. I don't know anyone using cash for anything more than small incidental purchases, I'd say it's generally impossible to structure you life around using Cash at a large scale.
For one, unlike cash, the issuing entity can program CBDC to expire on a specific date unless utilized. Another horror use case is that they could track and limit how many hamburgers or pizzas you eat daily, weekly, monthly or yearly!
> For one, unlike cash, the issuing entity can program CBDC to expire on a specific date unless utilized.
The idea isn't new.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Gesell
He merely suggested a small fee though. 5.1% per year and only on cash, not some CDBC with privacy concerns. If you keep your money on savings accounts you wouldn't pay anything. If the economy is growing you would get paid interest. If the economy is declining you might pay negative interest.
This is different from a coupon that expires instantly. That is a terrible idea. Don't do this.
Also, the idea of demurrage currencies is to replace the devaluation via inflation with a nominal fee so it is possible that in countries with high inflation rates, the new currency would end up losing less value over time simply because it maintains price stability easily.
Edit: btw. His theory is dated in the sense that Keynes and Dieter Suhr have an updated interpretation. With a hint of Fisher Black you are going to get one of the most interesting economic theories that can explain most of the suffering in the world based on very few assumptions. The money and land reform policy proposals still remain relevant today.
Many ideas aren't new, but that doesn't mean they're government policy.
Why would the government program money to expire? Would the money not become effectively worthless the closer to the expiration date? Why would a business accept transactions from people with money that’s about to expire would that then mean they would be giving away goods and services for free potentially?
In theory you spending it would reset the expiration date.
If you know your money will expire you will spend it, thus stimulating the economy. We also can’t have the dirty proles save their way to a higher social class.
8 replies →
The government could issue money that can be tied to a specific purpose (allowed to be spent with specific merchants or establishments) and have a time limit. Think of the COVID-19 assistance that was given to people. If — instead of just transferring normal money into people’s accounts that allowed people to do whatever they wanted with it whenever they wanted and wherever they wanted - the government could force recipients to spend it across certain things and not others, and gave a deadline to move the money around, would that be something that’s in the best interests of the receiver? By expiring money or by applying negative interest rates, the government can offload its burden on to the people who hold and have to use this money.
That's a question you should ask China. If it's possible, you can bet it's going to happen sooner or later. https://coinpri.com/news/cryptocurrency/the-chinese-cbdc-wil...
I think Japan did try this, as they really wanted people to spe d, vs save.
I assume that the TTL of the money would reset once it has changed hands
6 replies →
When the government does something unpopular against its own people, they can easily quell protestors at scale and force the usage of CBDC adoption by closing ATM withdrawals [0] add savings limits [1] and can incentivise spending with an expiring date. [2]
Whilst many HNers were celebrating UPI as the payment rails from India, it is almost the same thing as FedNow and is planning to put their own CBDC on UPI called E-RUPI [3] taking all the same valid concerns that I have mentioned.
Do you really want this?
[0] https://www.pymnts.com/cbdc/2022/nigeria-cuts-atm-cash-withd...
[1] https://reclaimthenet.org/digital-euro-spending-saving-limit...
[2] https://bfsi.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/policy/digita...
[3] https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/what-is-e-rupi-d...
It's bad enough that banks have virtually unlimited insight into my spending habits that we need to give the Feds the same access. I should have the right to buy a big mac without some government server getting pinged.
Another concern I have heard voiced is that CBCD could be programmed - eg. you can't buy X, or you can only buy Y at certain times, or for certain prices, etc. and has the potential for reduced liberty vs. cash.
It can also be programmed with an expiration date to encourage you to spend it to stimulate the economy instead of saving it.
4 replies →
It is called EBT and it already exists and the thing is people demand this for welfare payments all the time.
I doesn't give the Feds access to anything. Suppose I bank at Wells Fargo and my favorite coffee shop banks at Capitol One. If I pay the shop $4 for a latte, the fed will have NO IDEA who sent that money to whom or for what. All the Fed sees is $4 moving from the Wells to the Cap One Federal Reserve master accounts -- amid a blizzard of millions of other transactions. The difference from ACH is just that these payments are settled in big batches rather than one by one. The Fed will get new and better data on payment volume, but that's all, really.
How will they protect us though unless they know the nature of every transaction we participate in? Are you really responsible enough to take care of yourself? A CBDC would combine the best aspects of company scrips with those of wartime ration tickets!
I think you should reconsider your stance.
I don't think the government is trying to protect drug dealers or tax evaders from themselves. You intentionally chose a weak argument to fight against.
3 replies →
That’s what cash is for. You never had any privacy for electronic transactions, might as well nip the idea in the bud.