The spectacle of Bitcoin fans celebrating the prospective granting of legal tender status to it by El Salvador's authoritarian President (he only just extended his executive authority over the country's central bank) must have F.A. Hayek rolling in his grave! 1/2
And despite what many may think, a currency's "legal tender status" has little bearing on its use in ordinary exchange. It is in fact neither necessary nor sufficient.* It mainly has to do with enforcement of debt contracts.
*For example, in Scotland there is no such thing as legal tender. Yet both Scottish banknotes and (less frequently) Bank of England notes are routinely accepted in payments there. On the other hand, although U.S. Notes ("greenbacks") were made legal tender during the Civil War,
They were only accepted at a discount on the west coast, where gold remained the preferred medium of account and exchange.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with George Selgin

George Selgin Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GeorgeSelgin

8 Jun
Thread: That the Fed is "fine" with the recent, tremendous ON-RRP uptake is interesting, considering what its own experts had to say about this possibility back when the facility was introduced in 2015.
What follows are some excerpts from that year's FRB working paper, "Overnight RRP Operations as a Monetary Policy Tool: SomeDesign Considerations": federalreserve.gov/econresdata/fe…
"A very large ON RRP facility" would mean "the expansion of the Federal Reserve’s intermediation in short-term funding markets, which—particularly if such a facility were permanently in place—could alter financial markets in unpredictable ways."
Read 18 tweets
7 Jun
Thread: So, after much back-and-forth on this with my Bitcoin friends (and critics), Here are my further thoughts on El Salvador and all that.
I think that casting what Bukele intends to do there in terms of making Bitcoin "legal tender" has been a source of considerable confusion (and I mean mine not just others). Strictly, whether something is "legal tender" or not usually isn't of great importance.
Bukele has promised to give Bitcoin the same tax treatment as any foreign currency. This really is a tax matter, not a matter of "legal tender" status: this should be obvious enough from the fact that foreign currencies except the UDS are not legal tender in El Salvador!
Read 11 tweets
7 Jun
"Bukele ... is working with CEO Jack Mallers to help the country legally adopt bitcoin." I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation of how making Bitcoin legal tender is supposed to "help" Salvadorans adopt Bitcoin. forbes.com/sites/carliepo… 1/
So far, the closest thing I've since is this @CaitlinLong_ thread: 2/
But Caitlin's account is unsatisfactory in several respects. First, she say's it is "likely" to give BTC "status as 'money' so treated on par w/ foreign currency by banks." But legal tender designation is not only insufficient but unnecessary for that end. 3/
Read 9 tweets
6 Jun
I just did a Twitter search for "master accounts" and "fintech" and it seems I'm almost alone in discussing the issue here! Yet the Fed is now seeking comments on how it should treated special-purpose bank (fintech) applications for such accounts.
Many of these fintechs wish to offer cryptocurrency exchange and custodial services, but without direct access to the Fed can only do so by partnering with ordinary banks, which is costly, especially since many banks are reluctant to deal with them.
The Fed will almost certainly get dozens of comment letters from banking-industry groups who want to deny fintechs that lack full-fledged bank charters, deposit insurance, and so on, direct access to the Fed's wholesale facilities.
Read 6 tweets
24 May
And one last, clarifying thread, about what I'm _not_ saying.
I am _not_ saying that today's private digital currencies are just dandy. In fact, many have very serious serious shortcomings.
I'm saying that that isn't a lesson one can even begin to draw from US experience with private banknotes. That's so not only because of what I've said about that experience. Nor is it so just because conditions have dramatically changed.
Read 6 tweets
24 May
Another thread, this time just dealing with Gov. Brainard's claim that competitive banknote issuance "led to the need for a uniform form of money backed by the national government." There are more myths here than you can shake a stick at.
(1) Most antebellum notes weren't discounted because their backing varied from bank to bank. Discounts often reflected transport and other costs of returning notes to their sources for specie. Laws against branching and poor transport were the main cause of such discounts.
(There were of course also plenty of bad banks. But laws were to blame for those, too! Notes of doubtful banks were not generally accepted: brokers would by them, and notes of failed banks, at heavier discounts.)
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(