Whoa. Is this as awesome as it sounds? Is this akin to government-backed Venmo, or something?
Yes, exactly. But you have to keep in mind that this is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it's going to be convenient and probably secure. On the other hand, it's going to let the government see every transaction you make, which for some people will be a very high price to pay.
Can you go into more detail here on what you think will change from the status quo? Existing bank transfers are obviously not secret from the government on request. While the government doesn't have direct access to run search heuristics on the whole dataset they just delegate that to the banks' internal compliance team.
Further, if a government determines you are not an "acceptable" participant, they have the ability to stop transactions to/from you.
*Ability doesn't necessarily translate to authority - you can probably fight it - but the government's legal fees are paid by us so they're effectively unlimited.
If the federal government wants to tax things they indeed can. But I was asking about a chance from the status quo.
If you owe the US government money right now they can take it out of your bank account.
> Unlike with the banking system where different banks have different prices for wires - or even free under certain conditions - you can't "shop around" for a new government.
You can shop around for a different bank but it will still follow US law and also go above and beyond to help out the feds.
> Further, if a government determines you are not an "acceptable" participant, they have the ability to stop transactions to/from you.
Yes, but this already exists. https://ofac.treasury.gov/specially-designated-nationals-and...
> *Ability doesn't necessarily translate to authority - you can probably fight it - but the government's legal fees are paid by us so they're effectively unlimited.
Yes but your legal remedies might actually be better under FedWire. US fourth amendment law has a massive loophole whereby if a private business "voluntarily" assists the government it doesn't count as a search. So if the government searches your government bank account you'll have potentially better remedies than if they ask your private bank to pretty please send a printout. (and there's very little chance your current bank tells the feds to shove off and come back with a warrant in that kind of situation)
> If you owe the US government money right now they can take it out of your bank account.
Yes, but they can't see your transactions unless they go ask your bank. Now, they could do that, but they're not set up to do this for all transactions. FedNow changes that for all transactions within FedNow. The government wouldn't start taxing transactions until FedNow is the only game in town or all other payment systems also give them that kind of visibility.
As well, with FedNow they get real-time transaction visibility, which is very different from getting non-real-time batched transaction data from banks.
> Yes but your legal remedies might actually be better under FedWire. US fourth amendment law has a massive loophole whereby if a private business "voluntarily" assists the government it doesn't count as a search. So if the government searches your government bank account you'll have potentially better remedies than if they ask your private bank to pretty please send a printout. (and there's very little chance your current bank tells the feds to shove off and come back with a warrant in that kind of situation)
This is a very good point.
....Or they can just demand banks immediately start taxing transactions per merchant codes _right now_ without FedNow. And the banks would comply. They don't need real time visibility. The bank could take money off the top and/or send the tax form required to you at the end of year and IRS just like anything else. It would just be similar to Form 8949.
The Federal Reserve isn't the government. Yes, if they want to charge a fee for this service, they could. The same is true of every existing money-moving mechanism.
> Unlike with the banking system where different banks have different prices for wires - or even free under certain conditions - you can't "shop around" for a new government
FedNow is essentially free[0]. If FedNow imposes a higher fee in the future, you can always choose to use other services (ACH, wire payments, etc.). It's a competitive market.
> Further, if a government determines you are not an "acceptable" participant, they have the ability to stop transactions to/from you.
This power already exists. FedNow doesn't change it one way or the other.
[0] https://www.frbservices.org/news/press-releases/012722-fedno...
They have no authority to do this unless you're subject to a tax witholding order. The government cannot collect taxes on arbitrary transactions as they occur - it can levy taxes, and then attempt to collect them (it hopes via voluntary payment by taxpayers).
You, like so many other commenters here, seem to fail to grasp that FedNow is a replacement for ACH, the existing inter-bank exchange system that already involves the Federal Reserve to precisely the same extent that ACH already does.
the implied alternative being they don't take it automatically and now it's your responsibility to figure it out and pay it? Or is the alternative that you would not pay it if it were not automatic, aka tax fraud?
I would be interested in if anyone can give a example where the friction increases in such a way as a person would experience an actual difference, or how this would actually make cash easier.
Otherwise this sounds to me like the endless silly arguments against a national id card by people. (State ID cards that then go into a federal database are no more private but come with annoying downsides like ID.me)
Currently, it would be more difficult to build this database as it's hodgepodged together from suspicious activity reports and subpoenas. There's of course the unknowable possibility that law enforcement and security agencies have secret ways of building a comprehensive realtime dataset - but, if they do exist, their secret nature reduces the scope of situations in which they can be used.
That's on top of reporting requirements banks already have for your transactions.
Question is, why does this fact get brought up everytime as if it’s novel?
https://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/venmo-reportedly-blocking-...
https://angelinatravels.boardingarea.com/2017/05/04/careful-...
I tested one of these and had to send Venmo customer support an email explaining I was not a terrorist.
The government would still need to go out of their way to know about that transaction. And the liability would only come after you or the organization got in trouble for something else.
> Yes, exactly. But you have to keep in mind that this is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it's going to be convenient and probably secure. On the other hand, it's going to let the government see every transaction you make, which for some people will be a very high price to pay.
No, exactly wrong. It's a gov Blockchain
* Any IBAN from a SEPA country, at least.
My mid-sized Italian bank has a promotion right now to make instant payments with only 1 € in fees (instead of the usual 7 they charge, or 0 for "normal" bank transfers settled overnight).
> Whoa. Is this as awesome as it sounds? Is this akin to government-backed Venmo, or something?
No, under the hood it's a government Blockchain
No. A possible CBDC rails in the US is nothing to get excited about. Unless you want savings limits and expiry dates on your money.
> Is this akin to government-backed Venmo, or something?
Yes, but even worse.
I don't believe in saving limits or expiry dates in the sense of losing 100% of your money. But think about what impact limiting savings has on debt. In aggregate, there can only be as much debt as there are savings. This means if you want to limit debt in the economy, you are going to have to limit savings as well.
This is particularly relevant with debt brakes. A country with a debt brake but without a savings brake is going to run into a pretty fundamental limitation.
Savers can delay their spending decisions and this ultimately delays the ability to repay debts but since debtor's are at the mercy of lenders, we blame the debtor for the lenders tardiness.
Do you mind clarifying? I agree banks create new money, but they do that by lending out existing deposits. A bank can’t lend out money that don’t have on their books…
This Bank of England paper is by far the simplest and best explanation of the whole process, well worth a look even if just for the summary on the first page :)
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-...
I get what you’re saying in theory, but show me a bank with 0 capital…
Once you stop thinking of money in terms of tokens and bank deposits as those tokens getting stored in individual buckets - or there being any buckets at all - you can think of it in terms of assets and liabilities it makes sense. Also that commercial bank money (deposits) and central bank money (cash) are different because they are liabilities to different entities - commercial banks and the FED respectively.
Or more fundamentally, modern money is just I-O-Us being moved around.
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/banks-do-not-create-money-out...
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/money-reserves-a...
I’m still missing how this negates the money multiplier though. If banks are subject to reserve requirements, doesn’t the money multiplier still give a reasonable upper bound for the amount of money that can be created?
Why is this something that's not already possible under the current settlement regime and is uniquely possible and likely to happen with a CBDC?