Posted on 04/23/2023 8:57:51 PM PDT by george76
Americans are worried that a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) could end up compromising essential freedoms, further centralizing monetary policy, and making the country’s currency vulnerable to hacking, according to a recently published Fed survey.
In January last year, the Fed published a white paper on what a CBDC could look like. It asked for public comments on issues like potential risks and benefits a CBDC can have on the country. On April 20, the Fed released the responses in nine documents. Here are some of the various answers and concerns expressed by respondents, some of whom were named, others who were unnamed, as well as those whose names were redacted.
A student from Texas pointed to the breach of privacy, government overreach, and hacking as risks posed by CBDC. “With this digital currency, the government would be able to usurp freedoms without the knowledge/consent of the public.
“The best e-hackers and cybersecurity personnel don’t work for the government. They work in the private sector. It is naive to think, given the government’s track record, that it could ever be trusted to secure such an asset.” A CBDC might also trigger a “run on financial institutions,” the individual warned.
Andrew W. from Virginia warned that centralization of monetary policies can “easily be abused and cause unintended disruption.” CBDCs can further centralize monetary policies and “only increases the risk potential.”
Hollie Bishop from Indiana cited public mistrust as her number one concern about central bank digital currencies. “People are afraid of being constantly monitored. Also, our aging and elderly population pay bills in cash and may not know how to use this system, leaving them susceptible to hunger, bills not being paid, etc.”
Power Issues, Quantum Computing Hack..
Lucas Vincent from Arizona warned that power consumption is a major issue. “The power consumption that provides the means of creating said digital currency, which has caused power outages in places like Kazakhstan and even New York, is an enormous risk that puts Earth at stake because of the environmental damage that digital currency mining causes,” he said.
Andy Garcia from Georgia notes that the dependence of CBDCs on electricity makes them vulnerable. “If the long-term goal is to get rid of paper currency, relying strictly on CBDC, the entire economic system will become vulnerable and susceptible to crippling cyber-attacks. There needs to be a fallback system that would work without electricity, much like paper currency does.”
Horacio Gasquet from Texas pointed out that with the advent of quantum computing, even the most sophisticated encryption algorithms can be cracked. As such, in order for a CBDC to be “truly secure,” the digital currency should be “rooted in quantum key encryption.”
A few of the comments highlighted purported benefits of CBDCs, like faster fund transfers and providing stability in case of hyperinflation.
Should the US Follow Other Nations?
The Fed asked, “How should decisions by other large economy nations to issue CBDCs influence the decision whether the United States should do so?”
An unnamed individual answered (pdf): “It should send warning signs to our country creating a CBDC. There’s a reason China implemented a CBDC, and it’s not for efficiency.”
Aaron Olszewski from New Hampshire also said, “A shift to a CBDC is a shift to push people away from using that nation’s currency.”
Brian Marshall from Idaho replied, “The United States should first worry about following the Constitution and preserving liberty, not trying to follow other countries in their descent into tyranny. Free markets will always provide the means to exchange one currency for another.”
JC Denton from California said that other nations adopting a CBDC does not mean the United States ought to do the same.
“Our financial purpose should be to focus on our own issues. If other nations wish to perform such actions, it is their choice. We don’t need to follow a bad idea just because other groups are doing it,” said Chad Rytting from Utah.
Phil Zobrist from Illinois said that the United States was “the standard” and it can remain so if “you maintain a strong dollar.”
Many of the respondents reacted negatively to the idea of the United States following other countries in adopting financial systems. A small minority voiced support for a CBDC, stating a goal of catching up to other nations.
The US Constitution..
Many responses (pdf) to the Fed survey mentioned how the idea of a CBDC was antithetical to the U.S. Constitution.
When the Fed asked, “Should a CBDC be designed to maximize ease of use and acceptance at the point of sale?” Lawrence Raymond from Maryland replied, “No, because all transactions would become public, which goes against the freedoms outlined in the Constitution.”
When the Fed asked, “Could some or all of the potential benefits of a CBDC be better achieved in a different way?” Richard Hay from Texas said, “Yes, return to the constitutional definition of money, which is gold and silver.
“Fiat currencies continue to destroy the poor and middle class by endless expansion of debt and the money supply destroying the value of wages and savings of the vast majority of the population while enriching the owners of assets by driving asset prices higher via inflationary pressures caused by the expansion of credit. Our founders envisioned an honest monetary system.”
Hay added, “The CBDC would eventually be weaponized against political opponents and groups of people that differ from the beliefs of a centralized control governing system.”
Rodger Reed from California said: “Our economy must remain a function of the constitutional mandate created by the founders. By design, a CBDC does not serve the American people the way sound money does.”
When the Fed asked, “What additional potential benefits, policy considerations, or risks of a CBDC may exist that have not been raised in this paper?” Charles Dowling from Colorado said: “The people who are aware of reality do not respect the government whatsoever. And would probably not use your CBDC. And no one wants an illegal, unconstitutional government poking into their business.”
Privacy Concerns..
During a recent speech in Washington, Federal Reserve Governor Michelle W. Bowman admitted that “safeguarding privacy is a top concern” with regard to the use of CBDCs. Bowman wants CBDCs to have enough protections to safeguard the privacy of customers and businesses while also being transparent enough to deter criminal activity.
“In thinking about the implications of CBDC and privacy, we must also consider the central role that money plays in our daily lives, and the risk that a CBDC would provide not only a window into but potentially an impediment to, the freedom Americans enjoy in choosing how money and resources are used and invested,” said Bowman.
“So, a central consideration must be how a potential U.S. CBDC could incorporate privacy considerations into its design, and what technology and policy options could support a robust privacy framework.”
An analysis by the Cato Institute warned that CBDCs pose a foundational threat to America’s economic systems. A U.S. CBDC will eventually “usurp” the private sector and endanger the core freedoms of American citizens, it said.
As such, CBDCs should have “no place” in the American economy, the institute stated. It called on Congress to “explicitly prohibit” the Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve from issuing CBDCs in any form.
H3LL No! Not in my lifetime!
The survey was from the Fed, not from the government.
“Thunder fvck you!”
Goes without saying. Or, apparently, it doesn’t. Because these clowns feel the need to ask, like it’ll influence their decision.
Spoiler: It won’t.
The Fed and FedGov don’t give a damn what citizens want.
-fJRuberts-
“I’m pretty sure it’s not constitutional. Taking us off the gold standard was bad enough.”
It absolutely is not...
“During the Revolutionary War two things almost led to the defeat of the struggle for American independence. One was the inadequate system of constitutional government and the other was unsound money.
Congress issued about $240 million in “Continentals” — referring to money of the Continental Congress. It was understood that this money would be redeemed in gold or silver by the states after the war.
The states thought this was a great way to manufacture money so they issued vast quantities of their own paper currency.
Even the enemy, the British, saw what was happening so they printed up bales of counterfeit “Continentals” and used them to buy supplies from Americans.
Before long confidence in the Continentals had sunk so low that by 1780 they were not even worth one cent. No further paper money was issued by the United States for over eighty years.
The American market had already accepted the Spanish dollar as its basic unit of value. It was minted in Mexico and called a “piece of eight,” or a peso. To make change, they would cut it into eight pieces or bits and small change began to be called two bits for a quarter, four bits for fifty cents, and six bits for seventy-five cents.
In 1785, two years before the Constitution was written, the Congress accepted the Spanish dollar as the official unit of value for the United States and determined that all foreign coin would be evaluated in terms of the Spanish dollar.
In 1786, the year before the Constitution was adopted, the Board of Treasury fixed the silver weight of the adopted dollar at 375 and 64/100s grains of fine silver. The value of gold coins or any other coins was to be calculated in terms of the silver dollar of this weight and fineness.
It will be noted that three things had been established before the Constitution was adopted:
That the official money of the United States would be precious metals-silver and gold.
That the basic unit of value would be called a “dollar” and consist of 375 and 64/100s grains of fine silver.
All other coins, both foreign and domestic, would be evaluated in terms of this official silver dollar.
All of this was already part of the law of the land when the Constitution was adopted. Therefore the Founders wrote the following provisions in the Constitution concerning money based on the above statutes which had previously been adopted as the official monetary system. They wrote:
“Congress shall have the power ‘to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.’” (Article I, section 8, clause 5.)”
https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/congress-shall-coin-money-and-regulate-the-value-thereof
I call it fascist coin. It would give the federal government not only the ability to see exactly who buys exactly what - each and every transaction, but it would also give the federal government the ability to:
- invalidate somebody’s money
- to make somebody’s money valid only for certain purposes/at certain locations
- to give people an individual inflation rate of their choosing
- to set a time limit on how long somebody’s money was valid
or any of a number of other means of control....all at a keystroke. If there is one thing the government has proven it is that it cannot be trusted with that much power. Hell no to a digital currency.
That is exactly why the government is trying to suppress cryptocurrencies. Those are private and in the case of Bitcoin, decentralized such that nobody can control it. There is also a finite amount of it that can ever exist so no government can inflate the value of it.
No wonder they hate it.
No.
Already happened in Canada when their government simply turned off the private bank accounts of freedom convoy protesters.
The biden crime family is their own mafia. They probably work with the drug cartels to run drugs into black neighborhoods
Reading through the remarks, I agree with them all. What no one mentions is the Biblical aspect- digital currency is a cashless society. Those pushing it will not use that term as to not alert us Bible thumpers which all know when that day comes we have entered the end times ie, “no man will buy or sell…..”.
That said, by opening a public comment on cashless, means they WILL instate it. They are merely satisfying a requirement before it is forced upon us, most likely by a huge financial meltdown occurring.
MIT and Cornwell was given millions back in Nobamas time to study how to instate digital. Those studies are no longer available on the Internet…goes like this: Terminals installed in all Post Offices (Fair Banking for All BS), cash runs parallel with digital, until bugs are worked out- then you are offered 5-10 percent premium to surrender your cash- all cash is stopped printing ( due to costs, etc) then eventual abolition of cash. Gold and “ bartering groups” which will become popular ( so they surmised) are handled in a way to squash them.
As the Bible mentions this in the Latter Days, we will not stop it, BUT we possibly may be able to slow it down and postpone it for years? A decade?
Pray for Discernment and Wisdom.
Go to hell, and wait for it to freeze over. Then it’ll be time for a digital US currency.
My reply to Deep State...
Futue te ipsum!
Hell f@#$& NO!
[Hay added, “The CBDC would eventually be weaponized against political opponents and groups of people that differ from the beliefs of a centralized control governing system.”]
(worth it to watch just the first 17 minutes - there will be no way to “prosper”, though)
The Jim Rickards Commercial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCfzQNhi_ns
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.