CBDC (central bank digital currency) coming soon?

[GroundZero]

Watched a few youtube videos recently on how governments around the world are looking in to nationalised digital currencies.
The problem being that all these videos have painted a very negative picture and it is surrounding people's freedom over their own money/wealth.

A government owned digital currency is very different to Bitcoin and the like, because the central bank will have control over it and more importantly will have the powers to "program" it.
Having a "program" on your money/wealth can mean anything like restricting what you can or can not purchase, all the way up to having an expiry date set on your money/wealth if you don't spend it when the government wants you to.

So for example, lets say in times of recession, the government have a desire for people to go out and spend to boost the economy. But what if you don't want to, or are saving up for something? Well, government may not care much about your personal situation and are focused solely on the national situation, and by doing so may put an expiry date on your money. Forcing you to spend it or lose it. (Well, you'll lose it to the government, it won't simply disappear).

Another example, as the fear mongering surrounding the so called "climate crisis" embeds further in to the mindset of authoritarian politicians who must seemingly submit to the activists, they may start to place a CO2 quota on individuals, meaning that as you reach your quota you may find that you are unable to use money on activities that produce CO2 or spend money on products that are either CO2 rich in their manufacture or are CO2 rich in their usage.
This approach being advertised as less 'communistic' than endlessly increasing taxation - because taxation increase is often spouted as a tax on the poor whilst the rich can afford to splurge.

So I think CBDC's are not something that a freedom loving individual may wish to vote for. And when you see the likes of Sunak and other financial leaders spouting about how "secure", "safe" and beneficial they may be, I think I'll be voting for a party that has an opposition approach to it all.

[Jamesgt]

Is this still a conspiracy theory or can we now talk about it without being shot down?

[JagLover]

Jamesgt said:

Is this still a conspiracy theory or can we now talk about it without being shot down?

I think they are called Spoilers these days.

Seems to be going ahead in UK

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2021/november...

[Flooble]

Cheer up - with the way the Civil Service moves "at pace", we'll all be long dead before it's introduced.

[HammyHamster]

GroundZero said:

I think I'll be voting for a party that has an opposition approach to it all.

I'm very much against CBDCs and I think they are a terrible idea from the perspective of financial freedoms. You only have to look at what's happened in Canada recently to see the precedent for even western democracies to decide on a whim to take your money.

One problem is that I don't see us being able to "not vote for it". You may get a smaller party that is against it, but the way the electoral system is setup in this country with FPTP, you are essentially restricted to Labour or Conservatives. The majority of the population is financially illiterate so I doubt there will be mass protests on this. You already have people say things like "well I don't really use cash anyway, so this is no different". Even if there are mass protests, has it historically made any difference?

Our only option will probably be risk mitigation. Self custody (e.g. bitcoin, physical gold) is about the only thing I can think of. Or move country. Or spend all your money.

[carinaman]

HammyHamster said:

I'm very much against CBDCs and I think they are a terrible idea from the perspective of financial freedoms. You only have to look at what's happened in Canada recently to see the precedent for even western democracies to decide on a whim to take your money.

Perhaps my comaprison is crap but freezing the bank accounts and social media profiles of people that supported the protests in Canada compares to the sanctions supposedly being done to Russian Oligarchs.

[mondeoman]

carinaman said:

HammyHamster said:

I'm very much against CBDCs and I think they are a terrible idea from the perspective of financial freedoms. You only have to look at what's happened in Canada recently to see the precedent for even western democracies to decide on a whim to take your money.

Perhaps my comaprison is crap but freezing the bank accounts and social media profiles of people that supported the protests in Canada compares to the sanctions supposedly being done to Russian Oligarchs.

Its crap, you're right on that at least.

[monkfish1]

GroundZero said:

So I think CBDC's are not something that a freedom loving individual may wish to vote for. And when you see the likes of Sunak and other financial leaders spouting about how "secure", "safe" and beneficial they may be, I think I'll be voting for a party that has an opposition approach to it all.

There wont be any (meaningful) parties which oppose it. That wont be allowed.

You will have no choice but to vote for it, or not vote at all.

[JagLover]

monkfish1 said:

GroundZero said:

So I think CBDC's are not something that a freedom loving individual may wish to vote for. And when you see the likes of Sunak and other financial leaders spouting about how "secure", "safe" and beneficial they may be, I think I'll be voting for a party that has an opposition approach to it all.

There wont be any (meaningful) parties which oppose it. That wont be allowed.

You will have no choice but to vote for it, or not vote at all.

Same as with the green agenda. You can vote for any tie colour you like just don't expect to be able to change anything meaningful as a result.

[grumbledoak]

You will struggle to avoid them -
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/g7-publ...

Tied to a digital ID they will be able to control what you spend it on, or expire it so you cannot save it.


Our financial system is wrecked. It has been since 2008, though it was headed that way for decades before. There was no attempt even to kick the can in 2008, and under cover of COVID they have printed money like crazy, trying to give it direct to avoid inflation. That won't work for long. What will be their solution to the rampant inflation they caused? Go on, guess.

[carinaman]

grumbledoak said:

Tied to a digital ID they will be able to control what you spend it on, or expire it so you cannot save it.

So we will have nothing and be happy.

[Flooble]

carinaman said:

grumbledoak said:

Tied to a digital ID they will be able to control what you spend it on, or expire it so you cannot save it.

So we will have nothing and be happy.

Rarely do dictators and demagogues succeed for long. Command economies have never worked and almost certainly will never work.

So we may briefly have nothing and be happy, shortly before all being very very dead.

[grumbledoak]

carinaman said:

So we will have nothing and be happy according to the YouGov polls and all the mainstream media.

Corrected, slightly.

[Plymo]

Well, it'll make future lockdowns easier to enforce I suppose.

[nick30]

Flooble said:

carinaman said:

grumbledoak said:

Tied to a digital ID they will be able to control what you spend it on, or expire it so you cannot save it.

So we will have nothing and be happy.

Rarely do dictators and demagogues succeed for long. Command economies have never worked and almost certainly will never work.

So we may briefly have nothing and be happy, shortly before all being very very dead.

But we are conspiracy theorists

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/03/is-the-wor...



https://rumble.com/vwgsbb-are-vaccine-passports-go...

[GroundZero]

JagLover said:

monkfish1 said:

GroundZero said:

So I think CBDC's are not something that a freedom loving individual may wish to vote for. And when you see the likes of Sunak and other financial leaders spouting about how "secure", "safe" and beneficial they may be, I think I'll be voting for a party that has an opposition approach to it all.

There wont be any (meaningful) parties which oppose it. That wont be allowed.

You will have no choice but to vote for it, or not vote at all.

Same as with the green agenda. You can vote for any tie colour you like just don't expect to be able to change anything meaningful as a result.

I think this root issue for our democracy is becoming more clear each time when such issues crop up, in that people are noticing (or will soon become aware) that on some issues that they feel strongly about, there simply isn't the alternative option at the ballot box.

I've mentioned a few times on various politics posts that there is an ever creeping authoritarian mindset within the political elite where such mindsets are cross party and there is little to no political thinking that represents a majority viewpoint within the public.
The more this happens the more the public and government become separated, the more it becomes a dictatorship disguised as a democracy, and the more that people will show unrest and dissent.

It has a smell that our democracies are offering up individual nation sovereignty for the sake of a wider political 'global' group think, akin to being under a global government power. Such a government, in its concept, has always said to be an authoritarian regime, akin also to the likes of the EU, where by sovereignty is ceded to a super-national power and the individual nation electorate's vote counts for very little.

[RichTT]

GroundZero said:

It has a smell that our democracies are offering up individual nation sovereignty for the sake of a wider political 'global' group think, akin to being under a global government power. Such a government, in its concept, has always said to be an authoritarian regime, akin also to the likes of the EU, where by sovereignty is ceded to a super-national power and the individual nation electorate's vote counts for very little.

AKA:

The WEF's Great Reset.

[Gecko1978]

a CBDC is an odd one as the state would print an unlimited amount so it would not solve issues but would allow control etc but I think it would also see many move to other crypto an might see a CBDC devalue rapidly

[tangerine_sedge]

GroundZero said:

I think this root issue for our democracy is becoming more clear each time when such issues crop up, in that people are noticing (or will soon become aware) that on some issues that they feel strongly about, there simply isn't the alternative option at the ballot box.

The political parties go where they think the votes are, but single issue parties can shape public opinion, i.e. UKIP and the BREXIT vote (regardless of your views on BREXIT, it was good that a single party could influence policy - that's democracy in action).

GroundZero said:

I've mentioned a few times on various politics posts that there is an ever creeping authoritarian mindset within the political elite where such mindsets are cross party and there is little to no political thinking that represents a majority viewpoint within the public.

Authoritarian, because there's a portion of the population which actively wants this as long as it's authoritarian against the things they don't like. It pains me when the blue rosettes cheer as their candidate attempts to circumvent law, and they boo as the opposition try the same (and vice versa).

Why do you think that the current political parties don't represent the majority viewpoint? This is the silent majority fallacy - there is no silent majority, just fringe viewpoints which can't accept that they are in the political minority.

GroundZero said:

The more this happens the more the public and government become separated, the more it becomes a dictatorship disguised as a democracy, and the more that people will show unrest and dissent.

The public and government have always been separated to some extent (perhaps more so before the second world war), but I agree there seems to have been a step-change in the last 25 years. When will we next get a prime minister that hasn't been on the Public school -> Oxbridge -> Westminster conveyor belt?

GroundZero said:

It has a smell that our democracies are offering up individual nation sovereignty for the sake of a wider political 'global' group think, akin to being under a global government power. Such a government, in its concept, has always said to be an authoritarian regime, akin also to the likes of the EU, where by sovereignty is ceded to a super-national power and the individual nation electorate's vote counts for very little.

BREXIT was most definitely an electorates indication to retain sovereign power, which kind of undermines this part of your argument.

[GroundZero]

tangerine_sedge said:

The political parties go where they think the votes are, but single issue parties can shape public opinion, i.e. UKIP and the BREXIT vote (regardless of your views on BREXIT, it was good that a single party could influence policy - that's democracy in action).

True, but recently (maybe a decade or so), across a range of issues there seems to be cross-party mindset that doesn't fit with many of the public. As pointed out, there is a lack of alternative at the ballot box. As some others have mentioned, this is mostly due to the two-party system that we have in the UK.
I guess the cross-party mindest may be a result of the trend of "career politicians", and the way many of them arrive at a seat from a common progression up through the ranks so to speak. It may also be down to how opinion polls are conducted, in that they often give a faux public opinion, which has shown to be the case on numerous occasions.

tangerine_sedge said:

Authoritarian, because there's a portion of the population which actively wants this as long as it's authoritarian against the things they don't like. It pains me when the blue rosettes cheer as their candidate attempts to circumvent law, and they boo as the opposition try the same (and vice versa).

Why do you think that the current political parties don't represent the majority viewpoint? This is the silent majority fallacy - there is no silent majority, just fringe viewpoints which can't accept that they are in the political minority.

The silent majority fallacy is a convenient statement to counter my points, but I do hold it up to having an amount of significant weight when it comes to a range of politics by which many feel they have no control over.

tangerine_sedge said:

The public and government have always been separated to some extent (perhaps more so before the second world war), but I agree there seems to have been a step-change in the last 25 years. When will we next get a prime minister that hasn't been on the Public school -> Oxbridge -> Westminster conveyor belt?

Good question to be fair. It is likely this conveyor belt that creates the common political group think.

tangerine_sedge said:

GroundZero said:

It has a smell that our democracies are offering up individual nation sovereignty for the sake of a wider political 'global' group think, akin to being under a global government power. Such a government, in its concept, has always said to be an authoritarian regime, akin also to the likes of the EU, where by sovereignty is ceded to a super-national power and the individual nation electorate's vote counts for very little.

BREXIT was most definitely an electorates indication to retain sovereign power, which kind of undermines this part of your argument.

Not sure how it undermines my point, but yes, brexit was a rare occasion whereby the public had their say directly on a matter. The politicians and opinion polls did not reflect the true mindset of the public of the time, and many previously would have said the silent majority wanted out of the EU, but only proved a majority via the referendum.

If I read your last point about 'undermining', being that the elected UK government with its new found brexit sovereignty is walking us in to this 'global government' mindset and ignoring public opinion (whether silent majority or not), then I think this may be ignoring my point that the political group-think authoritarian mindset which it feels like is present within our politicians, is such that it needs to be addressed. But the big question is how can the electorate address this if there isn't an alternative at the ballot box? We are seemingly reliant on populist parties threatening the votes of the two-party system. Which is a big ask, but albeit shown possible by UKIP and the like.