EDIT: Walking back to first principals, why can't the USD fail? Because you can print whatever adults in the room decide need to be printed to hold the economy up. You cannot do this with a deflationary digital asset, nor one tied to smart contracts.
The practical implication of solving large scale bank failures with mass currency printing is hyperinflation. You would only get your money back in nominal terms, but its purchasing power would be greatly reduced. See also: Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe.
Frankly, if banks start failing to the extent that FDIC is not only necessary on a large scale but even possibly unsustainable, I kind of doubt that a bit of inflation is going to be the worst of our worries.
Other national governments didn't stuff Z$ into their armored-up national mattresses to bolster against the collapse of their local currency, and there wasn't an IMF holding debts denoted in Reichsmarks to create a demand for them internationally.
At the very least you'd need to quantify exactly how much money over what period of time might be a shock, and what kind other factors play a role. And then, yes, sure - let's not do things quantifiably similar to Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany. But I suspect there's a huge amount of room for most central banks to maneuver between status quo and hyperinflation; merely "some" printing of money isn't going to be a problem.
Indeed there are regularly stories of smaller countries without the kind of reserve status the dollar enjoys that make problematic central bank policies - and even if that has consequences (e.g. Turkey now), that's still a far cry from Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe under Mugabe.
These stablecoins appear to be much more fragile.
Why do neo-goldbugs always try and present this as some sort of gotcha? As an American taxpayer I'm happy to buy into the social contract that it implies.
Sounds like a feature to me. Printing money is effectively a socialized loss for everyone who's holding the currency.
> Sounds like a feature to me. Printing money is effectively a socialized loss for everyone who's holding the currency.
The economy functioning is of greater benefit to the whole than the value to currency hoarders (remember, it's a currency, it's meant for exchange not for value storage and it is optimized for that role) maintaining its value. If you want to preserve wealth, own property/assets you expect people to trade their time or capital for into the future. People don't buy stonks or bonds for the ticker in their account, they buy the appreciation of the underlying or its cashflow. Most people buy real estate to live in (utility), for the appreciation of the property, or for the rental income cash flow (caveat is folks like the Chinese buying up international property to store their wealth outside of the reach of the CCP).
Retirees on a fixed income; immigrants, the poor, and people with no access to credit would like to have a word with you
If you're expecting the value of a currency to never change, you are asking a fish to climb a tree.
Isnt that also... Insolvent?
>>>> prudently investing a lifetime of retirement savings
Would you deem people that invested on bonds of the US govt, GM, that they invested prudently?
>>>>If you're expecting the value of a currency to never change, you are asking a fish to climb a tree.
Change implies movement in both directions. Yet what we are seeing is a clear, pronounced, increasing onedirectional slope
That issue could occur in any system with expanding money supply, and you want a system in which the money supply expands in some sync with the economy, because otherwise it's attractive to just hoard paper (or crypto, or whatever) wealth and not invest.
In any case, isn't this primarily a political problem (or where the issue is private: a problem of a poorly phrased or one-sided contract)?
They may be fraud for all i know.
My issue was with the casual dismissal of inflation as some kind of necessity for a functioning economy.
My point is that is a priviled worldview of a typical elite that has never experienced poverty or real inflation in the flesh. Dismissing it as some kind of magic drug with annoying side effects shows lack of empathy for real consequences at the bottom 5th.
Are stablecoins better than central banks? Again, I dont know enough about stablecoins. But surely whatever answer that is out there does not include inflation or central banks as they exist today.
Additionally, note that the money supply is ever growing - faster than inflation because the economy is growing. Now, there are apparently extra factors to consider here, including concepts like the velocity of money, which mean that money supply isn't trivially linked 1-to-1 to the economy's expansion and inflation. I'm no expert on the matter, to be clear, but that's my impression trying to search even for refutations of that stance - if your impression of commonly held expert opinion is different, it'd be interesting to compare links to check whether our media bubbles differ somewhere.
We cannot rule out that stablecoins might serve us well. But just because we have imperfect information does not mean all possibilities are equally risking; the risks from conventional monetary policy (including variations such as modern monetary theory) are simply much better understood because we have examples and history to learn from. The original article makes the case that stablecoins aren't really all that novel as a financial instrument (even though their technical underpinnings might be), and the argument appears sound to me (a non expert) and the source reliable (with a reputation at risk were their analysis clearly wrong).
As such, why should we ignore risks we understand, and take on additional risks we don't understand? At issue here isn't really the fact that it's a cryptocoin, but rather how it functions in the financial market. The article explicitly calls out that the technical implementation may have benefits, and a knee-jerk ban could be overzealous.
The issue is essentially financial, not crypto related, and I don't see any clearly open questions that might argue for allowing unregulated stablecoins, let alone a refutation of the premise that stablecoins have risks.
Posing questions makes it sound like we should wait and see; but we should not wait to answer those questions given what we do know. Policy could _always_ be better informed in the future; that does not mean delay is _always_ the best choice.
Currency is an asset with a particular use-case. Its consumers do not enter into some elaborate agreement (compact) in order to use it. They use it because it's useful.
Currency predates the government:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210506174103.h...
It arose as an emergent property of market interaction, i.e. distributed processes, not centralized authorities.
EDIT, responding to below:
No, the distributed processes of the market are a collective intelligence that vastly outperforms any single entity at the task of effectively managing the money supply.
See Selgin's articles on free banking:
https://www.alt-m.org/2015/07/29/there-was-no-place-like-can...
The centralized authorities protect the economy against some failure-modes that a distributed process is vulnerable to (currency scarcities, tampering, panics, large-scale theft). They introduce other problems. Whether one thinks they introduce more problems than they fix is pretty much the defining factor on where one stands regarding the utility of fiat currencies.
Having a bunch of private actors potentially run a huge experiment in which the economic fallout will not be born by them if it goes sideways is entirely unreasonable. I mean, that's kind of the whole problem with banks and their dodgy behavior, and this is no better; if anything it's even more risky since it's even less well understood and there's even less oversight, and fewer ways even a democratically elected government could intervene should the need and popular mandate arise.
I'm all for running that experiment, but then with proper oversight, accountability, transparency, disaster planning, etc - and as much as possible without the conflict of interest caused by having those running the system own large stakes of it too; that's just asking for shady business.
The experiment is entirely opt in, with no one being affected that does not choose to be.
The risk posed by any financial asset is not distributed uniformly across the economy. Its impact on any party is proportional to their direct and indirect exposure to that asset, which is something that they control and have to take responsibility for.
I suggest reading David Graeber's book Debt, the first 5000 years. He is the world authority on the topic.
A short summary:
Contrary to the imagined assumptions of Adam Smith, prehistoric humans operated via gift economies. This makes sense because they lived/survived in smallish tribal bands that required cooperation. This was even true of humans before our species split from our hominid ancestors. This is one reason why instincts around fairness and reciprocal empathetic behavior are so strong within us. For hunter gatherer bands they were essential to survival.
The first thing that can be called money appeared in temple complexes in the Levant, during the neolithic revolution, thousands of years before your article's discussion of trade behaviors in Europe. These were entirely about a social contract and central authority. Those that lived in the surrounding vicinity of the temple were required to bring contributions, eg a goat herder would bring goats. The temple would record their contribution, typically denominated in units of weighed grain. This recorded the temple's debt to the herder, who could later claim the grain as needed. In turn, the herder's contribution would be used to support the specialized people building and operating the temple, growing the grain, etc. In essence this was the first government and tax redistribution system.
It's a fascinating book if a bit slow due to the level of detail in places. It will disabuse you of many assumptions people have about the history of economics that are directly contradicted by archeological evidence or later, written history.
As to your second point, we have ample historical evidence of how that goes wrong.
"The study challenges this notion by introducing the concept that money was a bottom-up convention rather than a top-down regulation. Bronze Age money in Western Eurasia emerges in a socio-political context in which public institutions either did not exist (as was the case in Europe) or were uninterested in enforcing any kind of monetary policy (as in Mesopotamia). In fact, money was widespread and used on a daily basis at all levels of the population."
So it clearly argues that money originated as a bottom-up phenomena without centralized authorities. You may dispute that theory, but it's not a misreading of the link's argument.
>>Those that lived in the surrounding vicinity of the temple were required to bring contributions, eg a goat herder would bring goats. The temple would record their contribution, typically denominated in units of weighed grain.
To call that money is quite tenuous. This kind of system would have been useless with any kind of long-term trade, e.g. the trade in lazuli, tin or flint, which has been occurring since even before agriculture.
If we want to use a definition of money so expansive as to include some temple credit system, then we could look to the theories of Nick Szabo, who originated the concept of smart contracts and the blockchain.
Szabo notes that proto-money has originated independently in numerous regions, like the kula trading ring in pre-colonial Melanesia, where two independent forms of proto-money enabled long-term trade: necklaces circulated clockwise, from one island to another in the kula ring of islands, while armshells circulated counter-clockwise.
In pre-colonial America, wampun, which are shells of the clam venus mercanaria, were used as proto-money, and in fact adopted by the colonists to great enough extent that the term "shelling out", denoting spending money, originates from it.
Szabo hypothesizes that the standardized collectibles seen in various early sites of homo sapien settlement dating from the paleolithic, like the ostrich-eggshell beads from the Kenya Rift Valley dated at 40,000 B.P and the mammoth ivory bead necklace from Sungir, Russai dated to 28,000 B.P, were in fact the earliest forms of money, and that the trade-based trustless coordination that this proto-money enabled raised the carrying capacity of the environment, and enabled humans to out-compete neanderthals.
https://fermatslibrary.com/s/shelling-out-the-origins-of-mon...
There are some decentralized stablecoins (stablecoins backed by crypto assets + market rules that ensure they keep the peg) that have explicit insurance pools + rewards for being part of that insurance pool. For example, Liquity [0] allows users to deposit the stablecoin and earn rewards + favorable liquidation positions (a 10% discount) in return for being the first layer that purchases liquidations.
Not exactly sure what the equivalent would be in the traditional finance world, but I could imagine some sort of higher interest savings account that isn't FDIC insured, and takes losses first.
Most people clamoring for regs around stablecoins haven't gotten a chance to wrap their minds around this yet… nor have most of them considered the $ demom "cash and cash equivalents" that are on banks balance sheets not domiciled in the US, who have even smaller cash flows than some centralized stablecoin issuers folks love to pick on…
Add the saying goes, "bad money drives out good." In this case it probably means that crypto coins will mostly be held as an asset while national currencies are used for most transactions. Looking around, that certainly appears to be what is happening.