Cornerstone of corporate feudalism managed via social credit. We're already in it (in case anyone hasn't noticed), so I'm guessing that's why the language is so mealy and the intention is to go ahead without any democratic conversation. What seems odd to me (and this is historically consistent) is how easy it is to get enough folks on board with clearly destructive ideas and behaviours. It ought to give one pause when the words *inclusion* and *community* make your skin crawl.
I read the article and I wondered, at first, if CBDC was a 'Nineteen Eighty Four' play to underpin Big Brother.
But on reflection, if there are enthusiasts, I have come around to the idea that CBDCs are a step, a big step, on the long march to Utopia. Progressives have already practically completed the long march through the institutions and have now raised their eyes to distant Utopia. Getting there will require a second long march and there will be literal or figurative corpses cast by the wayside. People who don't follow the leaders of the march (those outside financial inclusion) will be regarded with suspicion and eventually compelled to join the march.
Since Utopia is an ideally perfect state, especially in terms of social, political and moral aspects (all defined by our Glorious Leaders) it will never be achieved. Humans are too variable in these aspects to abide such a straightjacket.
To quote from another song:
There may be trouble ahead
But while there's moonlight and music and love and romance
Apart from the questions raised here, I wonder how wise it is to rely entirely on digital for anything. There has to be some event at some point that renders the ledger inoperable, even temporarily.
This is the truly weird thing about the CBDC concept. Either lots of people will use it, in which case it creates a single point of failure for the retail industry. Or nobody will use it, in which case what’s the point?
"if anybody alive in the world in 2024 is unable or unwilling to avail themselves of a bank account or to make digital payments for things, ‘How about storing what little wealth you have in a completely untested digital currency which only exists online and which can only be transacted on the central bank’s core ledger?’ is somewhat unlikely to be a winning proposition."
If you are in and out of prison, of no fixed abode, got a terrible credit rating, got no ID, the list goes on, then you are in the "unable to avail" category. The financial services available to these people are somewhere between non-existent and criminal. 40% APR anyone? Using a BoE provided system that is secure and has no fees may indeed look like the winner relative to these crappy alternatives. Even to physical cash: how do you stop it being nicked when you are sleeping in a public place or in a coercive relationship? I am not saying the CBDC proponents really care about these people (other than taking care to step over them when leaving the opera / management consultancy offices) but because of the BoE's negligence in keeping cash relevant, the people who need it can't spend it online and spending it in person is getting harder and only heading in one direction.
The better solution to this is to enshrine a legal right to pay in cash. The central bank of Norway is recommending precisely this. This will be the subject of my next post.
There is no such state imposed restriction now. How is it going to work for online purchases? News From Uncibal will be forced by the state to accept envelopes of coins. How is it going to look in 100 years when we are all using Bitcoin, but every UK merchant will still have to handle today’s equivalent of gold sovereigns. How about a right to be able to pay without revealing one’s identity?
It’s precisely because we have no right to pay in cash that the ‘war on cash’ can be perpetrated. But the more interesting point I’d like to discuss - as I said, in my next post - is what the future will look like. In 100 years I think it is actually much more likely that we will be paying for things in physical cash than in BitCoin or any other digital method. But this requires some explanation.
"every single person’s every financial decision included in the central bank’s core ledger, is clearly the trajectory which these people are on". I can't work out if you are saying they wish this were the case but it illustrates their delusion because for practical and technical reasons it is as likely as actually leaving the ECHR, or they are working on it and sooner or later they will make it a reality. If it is the latter, how? The ledger would have CBDC transactions, not "every financial decision", so not include physical cash, credit cards, bank transactions, asset transfers etc. Or are you saying they would somehow be copied onto the ledger?
Cornerstone of corporate feudalism managed via social credit. We're already in it (in case anyone hasn't noticed), so I'm guessing that's why the language is so mealy and the intention is to go ahead without any democratic conversation. What seems odd to me (and this is historically consistent) is how easy it is to get enough folks on board with clearly destructive ideas and behaviours. It ought to give one pause when the words *inclusion* and *community* make your skin crawl.
I read the article and I wondered, at first, if CBDC was a 'Nineteen Eighty Four' play to underpin Big Brother.
But on reflection, if there are enthusiasts, I have come around to the idea that CBDCs are a step, a big step, on the long march to Utopia. Progressives have already practically completed the long march through the institutions and have now raised their eyes to distant Utopia. Getting there will require a second long march and there will be literal or figurative corpses cast by the wayside. People who don't follow the leaders of the march (those outside financial inclusion) will be regarded with suspicion and eventually compelled to join the march.
Since Utopia is an ideally perfect state, especially in terms of social, political and moral aspects (all defined by our Glorious Leaders) it will never be achieved. Humans are too variable in these aspects to abide such a straightjacket.
To quote from another song:
There may be trouble ahead
But while there's moonlight and music and love and romance
Let's face the music and dance
Some nifty footwork may be required.
Apart from the questions raised here, I wonder how wise it is to rely entirely on digital for anything. There has to be some event at some point that renders the ledger inoperable, even temporarily.
This is the truly weird thing about the CBDC concept. Either lots of people will use it, in which case it creates a single point of failure for the retail industry. Or nobody will use it, in which case what’s the point?
Restore Magna Carta to reinstate trial by jury then we can hold the usurpers to account and annul treasonous statutes.
"if anybody alive in the world in 2024 is unable or unwilling to avail themselves of a bank account or to make digital payments for things, ‘How about storing what little wealth you have in a completely untested digital currency which only exists online and which can only be transacted on the central bank’s core ledger?’ is somewhat unlikely to be a winning proposition."
If you are in and out of prison, of no fixed abode, got a terrible credit rating, got no ID, the list goes on, then you are in the "unable to avail" category. The financial services available to these people are somewhere between non-existent and criminal. 40% APR anyone? Using a BoE provided system that is secure and has no fees may indeed look like the winner relative to these crappy alternatives. Even to physical cash: how do you stop it being nicked when you are sleeping in a public place or in a coercive relationship? I am not saying the CBDC proponents really care about these people (other than taking care to step over them when leaving the opera / management consultancy offices) but because of the BoE's negligence in keeping cash relevant, the people who need it can't spend it online and spending it in person is getting harder and only heading in one direction.
The better solution to this is to enshrine a legal right to pay in cash. The central bank of Norway is recommending precisely this. This will be the subject of my next post.
There is no such state imposed restriction now. How is it going to work for online purchases? News From Uncibal will be forced by the state to accept envelopes of coins. How is it going to look in 100 years when we are all using Bitcoin, but every UK merchant will still have to handle today’s equivalent of gold sovereigns. How about a right to be able to pay without revealing one’s identity?
It’s precisely because we have no right to pay in cash that the ‘war on cash’ can be perpetrated. But the more interesting point I’d like to discuss - as I said, in my next post - is what the future will look like. In 100 years I think it is actually much more likely that we will be paying for things in physical cash than in BitCoin or any other digital method. But this requires some explanation.
"every single person’s every financial decision included in the central bank’s core ledger, is clearly the trajectory which these people are on". I can't work out if you are saying they wish this were the case but it illustrates their delusion because for practical and technical reasons it is as likely as actually leaving the ECHR, or they are working on it and sooner or later they will make it a reality. If it is the latter, how? The ledger would have CBDC transactions, not "every financial decision", so not include physical cash, credit cards, bank transactions, asset transfers etc. Or are you saying they would somehow be copied onto the ledger?
That's the eventual end goal - the long-term destination. It won't happen overnight, or even in the medium-term. It will start small and it will grow.