FED Vice Chair-digital dollar is the future.

[Pauls' Revere]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-vice-chair-digital-dollar-144350549.html

Newly confirmed Federal Reserve Vice Chair Lael Brainard this week said the central bank views a digital dollar as part of the global financial system's future that works in sync with the private sector.

“I see the potential of a digital dollar as being complementary to a stable system that would include stablecoins and commercial bank money,” Brainard said before the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday. “A digital currency backed by the U.S. government … could be an important support to a broader system of private sector innovation.”

She also noted the Fed would still preserve banks as intermediaries in the payment system, emphasizing that banks would be responsible for verifying identities and maintaining consumer privacy.

“[The] core principle of any digital dollar would need to be privacy protected,” Brainard said, noting the Fed would not retain direct individual accounts at the central bank.

 

[devil21]

Legislation has already been introduced which lays out the "digital cash" framework. My guess is it (or a similar bill) will be passed at the same time that a paper-cash-for-digital-cash-device-trade-in is announced.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7231/text?r=1&s=1

 

[ClaytonB]

 

[oyarde]

A gov digi doll does nothing for me of course but it wont change much for the peasants as these will be of no value , no limit and unbacked.

 

[WisconsinLiberty]

Digital Currency Threatens Liberty; Bills in Congress Would Prevent It

The New American
April 28, 2022

Members of Congress are seeking to enact legislation to prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing a digital currency, which would decimate personal privacy and implement a full-fledged surveillance state.

H.R. 6415 is sponsored by Representative Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) and cosponsored by Representative Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), while S. 3954 is sponsored by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and cosponsored by Senators Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
Both bills’ texts are short and straightforward. S. 3954 — whose text is similar to H.R. 6415 — states:

No Federal reserve bank may offer products or services directly to an individual, maintain an account on behalf of an individual, or issue a central bank digital currency directly to an individual.

​

A digital currency is a major and imminent threat to Americans’ liberty and privacy. On March 9, 2022, President Joe Biden signed an executive order that, among other actions, instructed the federal government and the Federal Reserve to explore the creation of a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), and to draft a “legislative proposal” for Congress to enact.
...


Ultimately, the Federal Reserve — a blatantly unconstitutional agency — should be completely abolished, with the United States returning to constitutional money. However, H.R. 6415 and S. 3954 are good first steps that would protect Americans’ liberty and privacy; Congress would be wise to enact these bills.

To urge your U.S. representative and senators to support H.R. 6415 and S. 3954 to prevent the creation of a digital currency, visit The John Birch Society’s legislative alert here.


Act Now! - Stop Digital Currency Tyranny with H.R. 6415 and S. 3954
https://jbs.org/alert/stop-digital-currency-tyranny-with-h-r-6415-and-s-3954/

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

would you support a digital dollar backed by and exchangeable for precious metals?

 

[Madison320]

would you support a digital dollar backed by and exchangeable for precious metals?

How would a digital dollar work? Would there be a federal database with your ss# and transactions and balance? Would there be an option for anonymous paper money?

 

[ClaytonB]

would you support a digital dollar backed by and exchangeable for precious metals?

 

[ClaytonB]

How would a digital dollar work? Would there be a federal database with your ss# and transactions and balance?

Not quite. The Federal Reserve (not the US Treasury) would have a direct bank account balance with your funds in it. It would be as "federal" as the "Federal" in "Federal Reserve", in other words, it would be private. Congress could not investigate what happens to your bank account balance at the Fed using the same powers it uses for investigating public agencies like the CIA, for example.

Calling it a "cryptocurrency" is a misnomer because it would have no blockchain, there would be no payment processing network, etc. It would just be a bank account held directly at the Fed. That's it. Whoopdy-freakin-do...

Would there be an option for anonymous paper money?

Don't be silly. The whole point is to deliver the final, fatal blow to any form of hand-to-hand exchange so that 100% of all transactions pass through the central bank's clearing-house. They would not be able to directly track barter, but that's why they want the Internet of Things. You cannot exaggerate how insane these people are...

 

[Madison320]

Not quite. The Federal Reserve (not the US Treasury) would have a direct bank account balance with your funds in it. It would be as "federal" as the "Federal" in "Federal Reserve", in other words, it would be private. Congress could not investigate what happens to your bank account balance at the Fed using the same powers it uses for investigating public agencies like the CIA, for example

You're being sarcastic I assume? The Fed is private in name only. In reality they are just a branch of the government.

Don't be silly. The whole point is to deliver the final, fatal blow to any form of hand-to-hand exchange so that 100% of all transactions pass through the central bank's clearing-house. They would not be able to directly track barter, but that's why they want the Internet of Things. You cannot exaggerate how insane these people are...

As much I hate hate the unbacked dollar, a gold backed digital dollar would be much worse. The loss of freedom would be massive and far outweigh any benefits from a gold backing. But I doubt it will ever fly. Don't get me wrong. The government would love to implement a digital dollar and track 100% of your spending but I doubt the voting public would ever go for that. I think any politician suggesting it would get wiped out in an election and if they actually tried it there'd be a civil war.

 

[ClaytonB]

You're being sarcastic I assume? The Fed is private in name only. In reality they are just a branch of the government.

The Fed is whatever gender it needs to be at any given moment... private, public, public, private.

Apparently you've been living under a rock, so let me refresh your memory:

2012: Ron Paul's ‘Audit the Fed' bill passes the House

Gee, I wonder why a bill is required to audit the Fed... even the Pentagon can be audited by Congress without needing to pass a bill. "Just another branch of government" my a$$. Spoiler alert: That bill never passed the Senate and died.

From the Federal Transparency Act Factsheet [PDF]:

- Audit the Fed amends section 714 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code to remove the restrictions on how the Government Accountability Office (GAO) can audit the Federal Reserve.

- With these limitations gone, the Fed’s discount window operations, funding facilities, open market operations, and agreements with foreign central banks and governments would all finally be open to timely and thorough congressional oversight.

Congress has the authority to audit the CIA budget, specifically including its black budget. But Congress does not have the authority to audit the Fed. In other words, the Federal Reserve is more secretive than the CIA. It uses its status as a private corporation, in combination with the US Code cited above, to shield itself from auditing.

a gold backed digital dollar

Yes, the gold-backed digital dollar is a proud member of the pantheon of mythical creatures such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

 

[Madison320]

The Fed is whatever gender it needs to be at any given moment... private, public, public, private.

Apparently you've been living under a rock, so let me refresh your memory:

2012: Ron Paul's ‘Audit the Fed' bill passes the House

Gee, I wonder why a bill is required to audit the Fed... even the Pentagon can be audited by Congress without needing to pass a bill. "Just another branch of government" my a$$. Spoiler alert: That bill never passed the Senate and died.

From the Federal Transparency Act Factsheet [PDF]:



Congress has the authority to audit the CIA budget, specifically including its black budget. But Congress does not have the authority to audit the Fed. In other words, the Federal Reserve is more secretive than the CIA. It uses its status as a private corporation, in combination with the US Code cited above, to shield itself from auditing.



Yes, the gold-backed digital dollar is a proud member of the pantheon of mythical creatures such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

I agree that the Fed is more secretive than the rest of government branches. But it's still "government" as opposed to "private". What bothers me is when people describe the Fed as a "private" bank as if they were some sort of free market entity. They're not only a government bank they're a secretive government bank.

 

[devil21]

I agree that the Fed is more secretive than the rest of government branches. But it's still "government" as opposed to "private". What bothers me is when people describe the Fed as a "private" bank as if they were some sort of free market entity. They're not only a government bank they're a secretive government bank.

Umm, pardon but no the Fed is not a branch of government. Wth? It's literally owned by the non-governmental member banks who buy stock in the Federal Reserve System at $100/share. You've been here how long and still don't know this? The corporate federal government has licensed the FRN money creation process to the Fed, and therefore to its member banks who own the Fed. Brush up on USC Title 12.

Yes, the debt notes are a liability of the Treasury, but with a FRN licensee label attached, so the debt currency and corporate government debt is still legally "federal" but the Fed itself is not a branch of government any more than the CDC is. The corporate federal government owes the Fed real assets (ahem gold) in exchange for the Fed continuing to "finance" the corporate federal government since it declared bankruptcy in 1930.

 

[ClaytonB]

I agree that the Fed is more secretive than the rest of government branches. But it's still "government" as opposed to "private". What bothers me is when people describe the Fed as a "private" bank as if they were some sort of free market entity. They're not only a government bank they're a secretive government bank.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. When it comes to the powers of the Fed, yes, it's like any other government entity. But when it comes to the accountability of the Fed, it treats itself as a private entity. People often get this backwards and think that "private" would mean that Congress could just bulldoze them, since Congress has regulatory power over private agencies. But it's backwards of what you expect. Congress has certain investigatory powers of any agency of government on the principle that the public has a right for its representatives to know what the agencies of government are doing -- no matter how secret their mission! -- because it is paid for from the public treasury. Makes sense. But the Fed is not a department of the government, so none of those powers apply to the Fed. The USPS is similar in this respect, and for similar reasons. See Cabinet noir. So innocent and boring, yet more secretive than the NSA.

In order to audit/investigate these special public-private corporations, the Congress can either file a lawsuit like any other citizen, or they have to pass some kind of resolution or law that gives themselves investigatory powers that were not in the charter of the original legislation. And that's always going to be a political minefield because the Fed's lobbyists will make sure of it, and they have infinity-cash to work with...

 

[ClaytonB]

Umm, pardon but no the Fed is not a branch of government. Wth? It's literally owned by the non-governmental member banks who buy stock in the Federal Reserve System at $100/share. You've been here how long and still don't know this? The corporate federal government has licensed the FRN money creation process to the Fed, and therefore to its member banks who own the Fed. Brush up on USC Title 12.

Yes, the debt notes are a liability of the Treasury, but with a FRN licensee label attached, so the debt currency and corporate government debt is still legally "federal" but the Fed itself is not a branch of government any more than the CDC is. The corporate federal government owes the Fed real assets (ahem gold) in exchange for the Fed continuing to "finance" the corporate federal government since it declared bankruptcy in 1930.

But all of the details you are explaining here are just so much mattress stuffing and carpet foam. The entire thing is a charade. The Fed handles the process of money creation which is most accurately described in the vernacular as printing money even though it is just ledger money, not actually printed notes. And the Fed could never collect the "debts" which the US Government "owes" it since if it ever went head-to-head with the Federal government it would just be dissolved by Congress (much more easily than actually auditing it), and its balance-sheet would be nationalized and seized by the Treasury. So, these are not real debts, they are just paper-shuffling. A three-card shell-game to keep the public -- and even most of the Congress -- confused.

 

[devil21]

But all of the details you are explaining here are just so much mattress stuffing and carpet foam. The entire thing is a charade. The Fed handles the process of money creation which is most accurately described in the vernacular as printing money even though it is just ledger money, not actually printed notes. And the Fed could never collect the "debts" which the US Government "owes" it since if it ever went head-to-head with the Federal government it would just be dissolved by Congress (much more easily than actually auditing it), and its balance-sheet would be nationalized and seized by the Treasury. So, these are not real debts, they are just paper-shuffling. A three-card shell-game to keep the public -- and even most of the Congress -- confused.

I generally agree but it doesn't somehow make the Fed a government agency. The ownership and organizational structure of the Federal Reserve System is clearly laid out in USC Title 12, along with plenty of companion books on the topic such as the Creature from Jekyll Island and Fruits From a Poisonous Tree, among others.

 

[Madison320]

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. When it comes to the powers of the Fed, yes, it's like any other government entity. But when it comes to the accountability of the Fed, it treats itself as a private entity. People often get this backwards and think that "private" would mean that Congress could just bulldoze them, since Congress has regulatory power over private agencies. But it's backwards of what you expect. Congress has certain investigatory powers of any agency of government on the principle that the public has a right for its representatives to know what the agencies of government are doing -- no matter how secret their mission! -- because it is paid for from the public treasury. Makes sense. But the Fed is not a department of the government, so none of those powers apply to the Fed. The USPS is similar in this respect, and for similar reasons. See Cabinet noir. So innocent and boring, yet more secretive than the NSA.

In order to audit/investigate these special public-private corporations, the Congress can either file a lawsuit like any other citizen, or they have to pass some kind of resolution or law that gives themselves investigatory powers that were not in the charter of the original legislation. And that's always going to be a political minefield because the Fed's lobbyists will make sure of it, and they have infinity-cash to work with...

One of my major annoyances is the idea that somehow banks are inherently evil. Private free market banks are a vital part of free market capitalism. The problem is with government/central banks that have a legal monopoly on the currency. So anytime I hear someone say that the Fed is especially bad because it's private I get irritated. If the Fed was actually a private free market bank and had no legal monopoly it would be a good thing. The problem with the Fed is that it is controlled by the government, granted a monopoly by the government, part of the government, whatever. However you want to say it, it is NOT a private free market bank. We may agree and we're just getting hung up on semantics.

 

[ClaytonB]

One of my major annoyances is the idea that somehow banks are inherently evil.

This kind of sentiment usually comes from the Left (for obvious reasons) or the very far right with anarchic tendencies (baiting Mad Max world, Boogaloo Bois, etc.)

Private free market banks are a vital part of free market capitalism.

Yes, and banking usually consists of two wholly distinct businesses that modern banking intentionally conflates. The first is money warehousing (secure storage of on-demand deposits), and the second is interest-bearing time-deposits (savings accounts, CDs, etc. etc.) Under just banking law, use of the money from on-demand deposit accounts for investment purposes would be treated as fraud and misappropriation of funds, and the banking officers responsible could be criminally charged. The only money that banks could legally loan would be time-deposits, under just banking law. As soon as you allow these two to overlap ("fractional" reserves), it's no longer a bank, it's a casino that is gambling the depositors' funds without their knowledge or consent. See Rothbard's Mystery of Banking for more info.

The problem is with government/central banks that have a legal monopoly on the currency. So anytime I hear someone say that the Fed is especially bad because it's private I get irritated.

I know what you're saying, but that's not what I'm highlighting, here. I'm not saying, "It's privately owned and those dirty private-property capitalists are profiting from it!" I'm saying that it's private and so Congress actually has reduced investigatory powers over it, which is the point.

PS: This very confusion is part of the reason why they engineered the Fed this way! They have intentionally confused the language. It's a Clown fingerprint...

If the Fed was actually a private free market bank and had no legal monopoly it would be a good thing.

It could not exist in that case. Nobody would be interested in its worthless slips of paper.

The problem with the Fed is that it is controlled by the government, granted a monopoly by the government, part of the government, whatever. However you want to say it, it is NOT a private free market bank. We may agree and we're just getting hung up on semantics.

Yes, we agree in substance. And no, I'm not saying, "It's evil because of those dirty private-sector free-market capitalists!" Private, for-profit banking based on just banking law is the foundation of the prosperity of the modern world going back to the banks of Venice, and earlier. Banking plays a crucial role in specialization and division-of-labor in investment, which massively increases the amount of investing in society which, in turn, has massively increased the overall productivity of humanity, collectively and individually.

 

[Madison320]

This kind of sentiment usually comes from the Left (for obvious reasons) or the very far right with anarchic tendencies (baiting Mad Max world, Boogaloo Bois, etc.)



Yes, and banking usually consists of two wholly distinct businesses that modern banking intentionally conflates. The first is money warehousing (secure storage of on-demand deposits), and the second is interest-bearing time-deposits (savings accounts, CDs, etc. etc.) Under just banking law, use of the money from on-demand deposit accounts for investment purposes would be treated as fraud and misappropriation of funds, and the banking officers responsible could be criminally charged. The only money that banks could legally loan would be time-deposits, under just banking law. As soon as you allow these two to overlap ("fractional" reserves), it's no longer a bank, it's a casino that is gambling the depositors' funds without their knowledge or consent. See Rothbard's Mystery of Banking for more info.



I know what you're saying, but that's not what I'm highlighting, here. I'm not saying, "It's privately owned and those dirty private-property capitalists are profiting from it!" I'm saying that it's private and so Congress actually has reduced investigatory powers over it, which is the point.

PS: This very confusion is part of the reason why they engineered the Fed this way! They have intentionally confused the language. It's a Clown fingerprint...



It could not exist in that case. Nobody would be interested in its worthless slips of paper.



Yes, we agree in substance. And no, I'm not saying, "It's evil because of those dirty private-sector free-market capitalists!" Private, for-profit banking based on just banking law is the foundation of the prosperity of the modern world going back to the banks of Venice, and earlier. Banking plays a crucial role in specialization and division-of-labor in investment, which massively increases the amount of investing in society which, in turn, has massively increased the overall productivity of humanity, collectively and individually.

I agree and yeah, there's a lot of confusion as to what fractional reserve banking actually is. It's been awhile since I've thought about it, I just remember no one seemed to agree on the definition.

 

[ClaytonB]

I agree and yeah, there's a lot of confusion as to what fractional reserve banking actually is. It's been awhile since I've thought about it, I just remember no one seemed to agree on the definition.

I find it is easiest to translate the issue out of money and into some other kind of tangible good or commodity. Imagine you run a combined car storage and rental service. People who store their car with you can also mark it as rentable, and you split the profits with them when people rent their car. So far, so good. But let's say I go into your business one day to pick up my car which I have been storing with you, not marked as rentable. "Oops, sorry, we rented out your car. Luckily, we have another one of the same make/model on the lot that you can use until yours is returned."

But what happens if the bank becomes illiquid? "Oops, sorry, we rented out your car. You can get it back as soon as the person who is using it returns it." Well, that's not just "a mistake", it's a tort and there would be real damages awarded if it were to become a lawsuit. At the very least, you owe me some kind of payment to prevent a lawsuit for the wrong done.

And this is precisely what fractional-reserve banking does. It permits banks to loan out funds based on "reserves", where "reserves" are actually demand-deposits (cars not marked rentable). If your bank has 100 "cars", it can rent out 90 of them and then any withdrawals (customers coming to pick up their "car" from storage) are serviced from the 10 cars kept on the lot for that purpose. It "probably" works, "most of the time", until it doesn't, and that's when you get bank runs and banking collapses. So the entire system is operating in default from the word Go, it's just a matter of time until the weak link in the chain breaks.

And that's why we "need" a central bank. Because the central bank can print infinity-cash (materialize cars from nothing-ness), whenever there are too many demands for withdrawals for a local bank to service from its reserves, the Fed is there to back them up. Obviously, it's not that cut-and-dried in practical operation, but this is the essence of it when you strip away the layers and layers of charade. The Fed backs the commercial banks (and is comprised of them) which, in turn, back your standard deposit banks (or operate one of their own), and so on. So it's layered, but the principle is still the same.

Needless to say, the real reason the Fed exists is to print infinity-bribe-cash (including bribes that fund war). So, its role as a "lender of last resort" is really just theatrics whose purpose is to conceal what it's really doing. Obviously, if you can materialize cars from nothing-ness, your last concern will be a few whiny car storage customers bitching about their car being rented out from under them. There are much bigger fish to fry, such as buying up the entire globe....