Friday, April 17, 2015

Citi Economist Says It Might Be Time to Abolish Cash



Would this save the world economy?
Akos Stiller/Bloomberg
The world's central banks have a problem.
When economic conditions worsen, they react by reducing interest rates in order to stimulate the economy. But, as has happened across the world in recent years, there comes a point where those central banks run out of room to cut — they can bring interest rates to zero, but reducing them further below that is fraught with problems, the biggest of which is cash in the economy.
In a new piece, Citi's Willem Buiter looks at this problem, which is known as the effective lower bound (ELB) on nominal interest rates.
Fundamentally, the ELB problem comes down to cash. According to Buiter, the ELB only exists at all due to the existence of cash, which is a bearer instrument that pays zero nominal rates. Why have your money on deposit at a negative rate that reduces your wealth when you can have it in cash and suffer no reduction?
Cash therefore gives people an easy and effective way of avoiding negative nominal rates.
Buiter's note suggests three ways to address this problem:
1.      Abolish currency.
2.      Tax currency.
3.      Remove the fixed exchange rate between currency and central bank reserves/deposits.
Yes, Buiter's solution to cash's ability to allow people to avoid negative deposit rates is to abolish cash altogether. (Note that he's far from being the first to float this idea. Ken Rogoff has given his endorsement to the idea as well, as have others.)
Before looking at the practicalities of abolishing currency, we should first look at whether it could ever be necessary. Due to the costs of holding large amounts of cash, Buiter puts the actual nominal rate at which the move to cash makes sense as closer to -100bp. So, in order for a cash abolition to become necessary, central banks would need to be in a position where they wished to set nominal rates much lower than that.
Buiter does not have to go far to find an example of where a central bank may have wanted to set interest rates much lower to -100bp. He uses (a fairly aggressive) Taylor Rule to show that Federal Reserve rates should have been as low as -6 percent during the financial crisis.
It seems Buiter is correct: Sometimes strongly negative nominal rates are called for. 
Buiter is aware that his idea may be somewhat controversial, so he goes to the effort of listing the disadvantages of abolishing cash.
1.      Abolishing currency will constitute a noticeable change in many people’s lives and change often tends to be resisted.
2.      Currency use remains high among the poor and some older people. (Buiter suggests that keeping low-denomination cash in circulation — nothing larger than $5 — might solve this.)
3.      Central banks and governments would lose seigniorage revenue.
4.      Abolishing currency would inevitably be associated with a loss of privacy and create risks of excessive intrusion by the government.
5.      Switching exclusively to electronic payments may create new security and operational risks.
Buiter dismisses each of these concerns in turn, finishing with:
In summary, we therefore conclude that the arguments against abolishing currency seem rather weak.
Whatever the strength of the arguments, the chances of an administration taking the decision to abolish cash seem vanishingly small. 


This of course is the kind of thought process that occurs when you allow government partnered with a monopoly banking interests to control money and prices rather than free market forces.    Of course this is exactly the trajectory envisioned by those who pushed for the adoption of the Federal Reserve or the England centric worldwide central banking system in the first place.   

To me the most interesting part and the most obvious with respect to how the fed wants to rob you of your wealth is in their rationalization for the so called effective lower bound (ELB) on nominal interest rates.  As it is all savers and people on fixed income are taking a pounding.. their solution was to steal a full 6% more… 

18 comments:

  1. Nobody robbing the middle class of it's wealth except the wealthy, the corporations and the republican party. Corporations won't pay workers fairly, the republican party continues to strip workers of their rights, and the wealthy now have the ability to buy the very government you claim is robbing us of everything they can.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what do you suggest? We should elect a politician who is honest, has been consistent in their beliefs and has integrity above reproach... like say... Hillary? or maybe a Nancy Pelosi type?

      Delete
    2. We should elect a politician who is honest, has been consistent in their beliefs and has integrity above reproach. When you find one, let me know. Meanwhile, we are stuck with what we have, like it or not. Hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil.

      Delete
    3. Oh, I don't know Mick... they do pop up... they do tell the truth and the public sticks their fingers in their ears and then votes for the lesser of two evils...

      What was that definition of insanity again???

      Delete
    4. "Doing the same thing over and expecting different results." A. Einstein

      Delete
    5. So who TS. A republican who is going to give even more to the rich through the continuation of the republican belief that the worker has to much power, that exorbitant incomes shouldn't be taxed, that money should be hidden offshore. That's honest isn't it.

      Delete
    6. Mick and TS. "We should elect a politician who is honest, has been consistent in their beliefs and has integrity above reproach." What a tragedy it is that only in a mans posterity can we make the judgment Mick looks for. Would that we could ring a bell and have Honest Abe throw down his axe upon the woodpile and come running to your aid!.

      I note the article states that some classes of folk would resist the cashless society. Too bloody right we would, at age eighty the idea of using the infernal card for everything is appalling. I have a few shares in a BANK. Recently they advised that the twice a year dividends are no longer available to shareholders by Check and we must have the funds directed into a bank account . I have kicked up such a fuss that the bank has magnanimously agreed to treat me as a “one off shareholder” and will write a check for me every six months. I was not strictly honest with the bank as I told them I have no bank account and live in an all cash world. I think I was successful because none of the staff could envisage the all cash society which people of my age grew up in.

      Cheers from Aussie

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. I would suggest Rick, that when you can actually start holding people to any kind of standard… when you can stop excusing the use of precedent of one you favour because of some pass behaviour, then we might have a discussion… by the way… square importing millions of untrained workers in absoluter union with the chamber of commerce somehow makes democrats more worker centric and less of the business apologist… when you can square that then we can expand the discussion to why you would flood the market with low skilled workers and force a minimum wage to counter its negative and very predictable eventualities. Who were Obamas biggest donors again?

      Delete
  2. This is a socialists wet dream. Now that they've spent themselves into a black hole they're inventing negative interest rates and other lawyer games out of whole cloth. Let's add another ten or twenty thousand pages to the tax code and allow the regulators to use it as a political weapon to enable the spenders to continue to spend out their ass.

    A few years ago on the old MW board I told everyone that they better have "stuff." For our resident leftest I refer them to Billy Joel ' s Allentown recording. Cause we're on our way to Allentown and the only thing that will matter is having a cut of "stuff." Their socialist wet dream chickens having as the Reverend Wright would say, "come home to roost."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is bad when fiat paper actually becomes 'stuff' in a world of digital nothingness...

      Delete
    2. TS I wish that you would expand your post re FIAT paper. Sometimes I think I am alone in the world in having an understanding of the term and the historical knowledge that all fiat economies have failed in the past. Perhaps you would be more successful than I in prosecuting the argument. I confess to having failed utterly as those that I know rush headlong into the abyss giving no thought for the morrow.

      Delete
    3. Democracy, in the direct sense, has a rather dubious history as well, yet we careen tirelessly in its pursuit… cashlessness isn’t the only thing we will bestow on our posterity…

      Delete
    4. King... people know full well what is going on... once you assign intrinsic value to a denomination of money, devaluation and promulgating unlimited spending becomes considerably trickier as the theft is visible to all... besides, running an actual budget is such a drag…

      Delete
  3. Actually, I view the elimination of cash as a form of insanity. But, many economists live in their own dream world where the realities of everyday life, for average people, seldom appear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When control is the imperative, everyday reality is of little consequence... an RDFI chip implanted at birth, a social security number to start indoctrination classes… er… I mean school and a mandatory bank account for wire transfer wage deposits... and they are all set... but that falls in the realm of conspiracy.... just put your forehead on the scanner to make your purchase….

      Delete
    2. Cradle to grave. "They" know what's good for us.

      "I don't understand anything," she said with decision, determined to preserve her incomprehension intact. "Nothing. Least of all," she continued in another tone "why you don't take soma when you have these dreadful ideas of yours. You'd forget all about them. And instead of feeling miserable, you'd be jolly. So jolly,"

      Delete
    3. Do you know the 'Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy' song?

      Delete