This is programmable money where the government controls how and when you can spend it. It does not take long for most people to figure out how this restricts their freedom. I guess they will make it a bargain in some way such as charging a higher rate for cash as they are doing here. This may be a training ground for other governments to learn how to force or incentivize us to use their CBDC's.
Programmable money is like programmable computation, there are infinite applications on the spectrum of good and evil. If we are going to allow programmable money, we must allow competitors (e.g. citystate crypto, nationstate crypto, non-CB crypto) and incumbent payments like cash.
> The Payment Choice Act is a bill that would require applicable retail businesses to accept cash for transactions of less than $2,000 and prohibit them from charging cash-paying customers a higher price relative to customers not paying with cash. Retail businesses would retain the flexibility to accept payments through any other means. The House Financial Services Committee passed the bill 32-17 on 18 May 2022.
> there are infinite applications on the spectrum of good and evil.
Which means it should be firmly in the hands of the people and never in those of a centralized government, in particular, never one which collects taxes directly from the people.
> If we are going to allow programmable money, we must allow competitors (e.g. citystate crypto, nationstate crypto, non-CB crypto) and incumbent payments like cash.
Well.. precisely. At this point, though.. what incentive to the population is there for a central government "programmable" token of value?
> Which means it should be firmly in the hands of the people and never in those of a centralized government
I don't understand this sentence.
In political discourse, "the hands of the people" usually means the people corporately i.e. the nation through their representatives in parliament. If the people can't control the currency through parliament and government, how do you stop private or foreign interests from taking control?
My best guess is you mean "in the hands of people", which necessarily means in the hands of the strongest and richest.
> "the hands of the people" usually means the people corporately i.e. the nation through their representatives in parliament.
Is a free press in the hands of the people? Is it controlled by a parliament? The right to it may be recognized there, but I think it makes the definition a bit broader than your casting.
> My best guess is you mean "in the hands of people", which necessarily means in the hands of the strongest and richest.
It's only necessarily when the government refuses to take action against monopolies and cartels. This is a rather cynical take, though it may currently ring true in our modern environment.
What an insane takeaway. "The hands of the people" could not possibly be clearer. To equate that with essentially "the government" shows how incredibly effective the state's propaganda mills are on people such as yourself.
Also, why are the "strongest and richest" objectionable to you, but not the government? That statement describes the government perfectly, and the main thing that distinguishes them from individuals who are privately wealthy is holding a monopoly on violence that's used to forcibly extract wealth while producing nothing in return.
* Logistics: if you have poor infrastructure and remote communities, you eventually have to send armoured trucks full of notes and coins to replenish those lost to attrition or external trade. It seems a bit easier and less risky just to let people query the central bank from a satellite-based hotspot.
* Universal access: Modern payment systems tend to be for the (relatively) well-off. Commercial banks aren't going to be interested in handing out debit cards and maintaining accounts for people with an average balance of only a few dollar-equivalents. A state program can afford to operate at a loss (and may actually deliver cost savings if it can be used as a cheap way to disburse subsidy or welfare payments)
Historical incentives have often been closer to stick than carrot. One scenario could be a change in the definition of legal tender, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOuiWIID2vo. If there is sufficient awareness voiced by the general population, elected representatives could have the political capital to push back against those lobbying for new powers in a post-CBDC economy.
> If we are going to allow programmable money, we must allow competitors
The 'must' in the second part is more of something that you'd like governments to do, but not something that they in any way 'have' to do. I see vanishingly small chance of any government ever doing so because it would defeat the entire purpose of the central in CBDC.
China was the leader in the push to pure cashless society. Cash still works, but only in small amounts.
Lots of HNews'ers claim cash is the only way to keep your freedoms, but that simply glosses over the fact that even if you have piles of cash under your bed, you can't do anything meaningful if the government decides to prevent/limit banks from accepting cash deposits - say in a 5 year timeframe.
After a while, businesses will simply stop accepting cash.
>After a while, businesses will simply stop accepting cash.
So when you loose you smartphone/cards you cant buy another one, open your car, pay for a taxi or even sleep in a hotel because there is no chance to go home?
Switzerland had 3 complete blackouts (1-2 month ago) for paying digital. So the sellers had to make list (and hope you come back later to pay it.). If your country just accept digital, you trust fully on digital infrastructure...i think we all know what a good idea that is.
Numerous places regularly have rolling blackouts now when power consumption is too high. And then there are the extended, involuntary blackouts that happen several times a year around the country due to hurricanes/blizzards ect. 100% Digital currency is never going to work in practice, now matter how badly authoritarian governments want to implement it.
I don't hear people saying cash protects freedom, but is does protect privacy. Can it be taken away, yes of course, if people don't care about privacy (and most don't) and don't use it then it can, and that seems to be a project in progress.
Since the lockdowns and people being barred from shopping etc there have definitely been people saying cash protects freedom. Privacy is a type of freedom anyway.
This is exactly correct, and also exactly why blockchain-based cryptocurrency has utterly failed to deliver on its promises to bring freedom from the tyrannies of fiat currency. In fact, the technology has been pivotal in ushering in this CBDC madness. Returning to the gold standard was always the best solution available, and we just ignored it to our own peril. It preserves both privacy and universal acceptability, which provides the user far more freedom than any other available alternative.
The inconvenience of "my piles of money will no longer be legal tender in five years" and "all of my money is locked in accounts I cannot access starting immediately" are in entirely different categories.
I experienced this directly, when the electronic payment system recently collapsed in my part of Canada for ~2 days. I fortunately had a small amount of cash on me. Without it, I would have been unable to buy lunch, top-up my nearly expired phone plan, and then buy a train ticket and go about my normal day. It was also fortunate for my friend, who I lent $20. Can't take cash out at the ATM either obviously. I would have been stuck at home all day. I wouldn't have been able to give a small amount of money to my friend. Being able to lock people out of their bank accounts is far more specific, and disabling, than regulations on cash could be.
Some businesses are already going cashless (here in Finland, have understood it is also happening on Sweden).
As most people anyways pay card/phone/app, it’s not worth of trouble to deal with cash. Handling cash gives you security problems (robberies) and adds costs (need to regularly take money to bank).
I am pushing 50 and the idea of America becoming cashless in my lifetime is not going to happen.
There is no way our law makers are going to want to lose access to cash. No one wants to get a bribe or conduct a shady deal in a highly traceable digital currency in the US.
Not to mention, we can't even get rid of 100% utterly useless pennies. They are basically a form of government printed litter that I am not sure is even worth a homeless person's time to be bothered with.
I was surprised at charging a higher rate for cash, until reading the article where it didn't mention that.
What was mentioned was a service fee for withdrawing cash above the limits from bank branches. Which also seemed surprising - to reduce the demand for cash-cash, restrict the supply. That that article mentions 85% of cash in circulation is held outside banks does not also seem alarming, it'd be interesting to read more about money velocity and other non-cash-cash outside the CBDC like non-CB Digital Wallets.
Sweden's banks had a joint ATM system[1] since ~2010, I admittedly have no idea about the situation on the countryside, but at least in Stockholm, they're in ample supply seeing that it is extremely rare that someone pays with cash. I once had to get about 15000SEK (~1500€) in cash, and that wasn't a problem at all.
It's an interesting 'problem'. Handling cash has a cost. I don't know how batopin handles it, but it's, for example, around 1/5 the cost, largely logistical, to fill a machine with 50s instead of 10s. Where ATM network withdrawals carry no fee, there's no brand loyalty for where to get your cash, so where's the incentive to carry lower denomination notes? CBs have employed various methods to keep lower value notes in circulation such as X number of 10s per X number of 50s - perhaps a central 'cashless' push will be in these lower denominations, but that's purely speculation on my part.
Interesting to see And it is what we all fall back on when the technology fails us. In other words, cash has far from lost its age-old reason for being! in the waffle. That's also my understanding - that cash becomes extremely valuable in times of acute crisis (like a zombie apocalypse) because it has all the characteristics (divisible, recognised, sufficiently rare, durable and easy to carry, easier to 'barter' than a can of beans, etc) of... money.
“Customers should be encouraged to use alternative channels (Internet banking, mobile banking apps, USSD, cards/POS, eNaira, etc.) to conduct their banking transactions.”
Yes, i’m serious. I don’t see anything directed to use strictly CBDC here. They seem like to tackle tax evasion for business and individuals (read it like: traceable) In many countries there are limits on what you can do with cash already.
I think what many societies have discovered in the past few years is, if a proposed authoritarian policy only (or just disproportionately) hurts "the other side", then half the country will abandon any principles they used to have so they can claim that it's actually a good policy to implement.
