My theory: the paper is written for bankers and policy makers of an older generation who have heretofore ignored or dismissed crypto-based innovations. They might know something about money and banking. But they know next to nothing about computer science, digital resources, and cryptography. As a result, the paper speaks in the plainest-possible English about these technical topics. It then turns to debunking the most common myths about crypto.
Immediately following the inauguration in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt focussed on what his advisers told him was the real problem: the fall in the prices of everything. The theory, which is completely wrong, is that falling prices were causing the fall in productivity. They believed that by boosting the prices of stocks and other financials, in addition to commodities, profits and wages would rise and recovery would dawn. They would achieve this by wrecking the dollar.
Banks improved financial intermediation, but also made it much easier for rulers to reallocate resources to the themselves while indirectly imposing costs on society at large.
What would happen if Bitcoin’s and Ethereum’s biggest competitor in the cryptocurrency space was the U.S. Federal Reserve? A new report issued by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) considers whether central banks should issue their own cryptocurrencies.
In my previous posts, Andreas Hoffmann and I discussed the problem of unintended consequences in monetary policy, particularly as applied to the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank in the context of the 2008 crisis.
The Federal Reserve’s (Fed) and European Central Bank’s (ECB) policy responses to the recent financial disasters offer two tales of unintended consequences.