Of course, that is not to say we shouldn't argue for better wages and generous income supports to those who need it. Rather, it's that we need to be clear about what we're arguing for, why, and what the endgoal is.
I'm reminded of that quip that it's easier for some people to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
Leftists proposing big, transformative macroeconomic policies must be able to imagine a world beyond the cash nexus, or we're all fucked.
And huge props to @_lydianicholson, whose piece made this point better than almost anyone i've ever read. If you haven't read it already, go do it now!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@AyannaPressley: “It’s time to establish a legal right to a job for all people in America. For years, we have legislated hate, harm & injustice ... It’s long past time to pursue bold, intentional policies that affirm equity & recognize the dignity & humanity of all people.”
debate we should be having is whether stablecoin issuers should be regulated via a new federal money transmitter charter or via updated bank chartering laws. What he gets wrong about the STABLE Act is that it specifically allows regulators to create new rules for narrow banks,
so that the relevant choice is not between a 'vanilla banking license' and a new money transmitter license, but between a narrow bank license and a money transmitter license.
3. Nic is wrong that with stablecoins, "the representation of value is simply leaving the commercial
Post-Keynesians (rightly) love to lambast orthodox economics for their willful ignorance of intellectual history, but they equally suffer from willful ignorance of the history of *how to actual build successful intellectual movements* which is why they by & large don't have one.
"Ah but MMT has all those Mosler millions, it's not a fair fight!" they shout from their office at the Bob Pollin Center for Definitely Not Paid For By Millionaire Money Heterodox Economics.
I'm thrilled to share the announcement of @RashidaTlaib's new "Stablecoin Tethering & Bank Licensing Enforcement (STABLE) Act", (#STABLEAct) cosponsored by @ChuyForCongress & Chair of the House Financial Services Committee's Fintech Task Force, @RepLynch.
A big thanks also to @RealBankReform, @ConsumerReports, and @LPE_Project for their endorsement and input on the bill. This is a complex and technical area of financial regulation, and it's critical to ensure consumer voices and interests are represented in the lawmaking process.
1. From the outset, it commits original sin of CBDC discourse: naturalizing the CB as the sole monetary institution of relevance to the analysis. Where is Tsy?
The paper is structured around the premise that CBs are the only govt entities responsible for public money. There is only one reference to Tsy's money power in the whole paper, & it is buried in a footnote, where they begrudgingly acknowledge this premise is not, in fact, true.
2. The paper also displays its bias from the outset - asserting, without justification, that digital public currency *must* be designed in compliance with existing AML/CFT laws. If you were hoping for a more balanced analysis of privacy/law enforcement tensions, look elsewhere.
"If the bond has been issued in the last week, we will steer clear of that bond," Dr Lowe said, "We are doing this partly because we want to avoid any possibility that people see us as financing the government."
How stupid do you have to be to find this remotely credible?
--
"Dr Lowe drew a distinction between "providing finance" and "affecting the cost of that finance".
"The RBA is not providing finance to the government, but our actions are lowering the cost of government finance.""
I can think of, oh, I dunno, one pretty big difference in what happens to those payments.
--
"He said the bonds purchased by the RBA will have to be repaid by the government at maturity "in exactly the same way as would occur if the bonds were held by others".