"I really do see a faster payments system simply as a public good, & the lack of action here creates a real void in the lives of consumers everywhere, & these voids are increasingly being exploited by companies looking to operate as financial institutions without the guardrails"
"Facebook's Libra is being trotted as a solution to the unbanked. However I struggle to see how [outsourcing] the function of the central bank solves an issue of resources. Instead we should be using preexisting infrastructure to ensure that all people have the ability, safely &
securely, and with no cost, to move their money 24/7, 365 days a year. So again, let's not lose sight of the plot, Mr. Chairman, and the plot is the American people. I hope to see your organization become more reflective of the lived experiences and everyday needs of Americans."
- Fantastic line of questioning of Chairman Powell from @AyannaPressley.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm not a fan of Krugman nor do I have much intrinsic respect for the economics "Nobel Prize", but it was notable in these interactions
just how willing Stewart, who often hid(hides) his politics behind the shield of "i'm just a comedian", was to straight-up dismiss Krugman's arguments, not because he had any substantive response to them, but simply because they stretched credulity beyond what he could grasp.
The Fed's report on CBDCs is out, & predictably, on the most important issue of all - protecting/maintaining cash-like privacy - there is no analysis, just assertion, that anonymity is non-viable b/c greater scale/velocity of digital. Very disappointing.
I've made this point before, but it's important to emphasize: the Fed is not statutorily responsible for issuing cash, nor does its mandate or expertise extend to issues of preserving civil liberties or balancing security/privacy concerns. Its opinions/preferences are not gospel.
Presently and for thousands of years, individuals are/have been able to transact with cash anonymously, and do not need/have not needed to sign-up or provide their identity in order to make transactions with public money. Eliminating that capacity in the digital age is extreme.
@conorsen Plenty of MMTers, including myself, have proposed a) voluntary/mandatory savings programs, b) auto-fiscal stabilizers, c) direct credit regulation (as an alternative form of monetary policy to interest rate hikes). Why are those not sufficient? Believing inflationary risk is real
@conorsen does not require believing traditional approaches to managing inflation risk are good/appropriate.
@conorsen Here's us articulating back in 2019 a range of tools that could/should have been included this past year but weren't, not because MMT had nothing to say but because the Biden admin is not following MMT prescriptions.
1. Prates claims Fed only purchases Tsy securities. But that’s incorrect. The Fed buys both notes & coins from Tsy today, and then sells them onto commercial banks and others, who sell excess coins back to the Fed.
2. The Fed is also legally the Tsy’s fiscal agent, and is required to accept monies deposited by the Tsy. There’s no indication that excludes coins and the law is quite clear if Tsy and Fed disagree on scope of that authority, the law sides with Tsy Sec.
3. Prates argues the Tsy cannot deposit the coin in its regular account because "Fed accounts only receive reserves". But this is a category error, reserves are a *liability* of the Fed. The coin would be an asset, like tsys and other acquired assets.
Easy to dismiss this as a one off, a bad apple, even a sign of the need to tighten up around the edges. But it's deeper, there's a more fundamental legitimacy crisis at play around the technocratic presumptions of central bank dominance and this feeds right into it.
Because reality is that before you can even begin to contemplate the kind of ethics violation that Clarida did, you have to be in a certain economic class where that kind of temptation exists. I dont know many elementary school teachers with investment portfolios like Clarida.
"Even the advocates of a strict literal construction of the phrase, 'to coin money & regulate the value thereof,' while insisting that it defines the material to be coined as metal, are compelled to concede to Congress large discretion in all other particulars.
The Constitution does not ordain what metals may be coined, or prescribe that the legal value of the metals, when coined, shall correspond at all with their intrinsic value in the market.
... More than once in our history has the regulation been changed without any denial of
the power of Congress to change it, and it seems to have been left to Congress to determine alike what metal shall be coined, its purity, and how far its statutory value, as money, shall correspond, from time to time, with the market value of the same metal as bullion."