Those seeking favor with freedom fighters need only decry the advent of digital central bank money (CBDC) to earn their applause. Populist demagogues exploit this sentiment, conveniently ignoring the true threats posed by monetary repression and digitization.
Most recently, former and wannabe US President Donald Trump voiced sentiments cherished by Bitcoin enthusiasts, vowing to “never allow central bank digital money to be created.” He decries the “digital dollar” as a menacing assault on freedom, purportedly poised to stifle individual liberties.
Following suit, Vivek Ramaswamy, a contender in the presidential race, echoes Trump’s tune. Just days earlier, he denounced CBDCs as “a threat to freedom,” positing them as a government mechanism to seize assets at will. Such rhetoric is misleading at best.
In Texas, proposed legislation aims to block the central bank from rolling out a CBDC, mirroring similar efforts in Utah and Florida. At the federal level, Republican Tom Emmer is spearheading resistance against a digital dollar.
Meanwhile, in the UK, a petition to Parliament garnered over 30,000 signatures against programmable CBDCs.
In Germany, outspoken MP Joana Cotar vehemently opposes a digital euro, while her former party, the AfD, decried the potential surveillance of citizens through digital central bank money. They rightly caution against models like India’s e-rupee, which grants the government alarming control over welfare payments.
Yet, this fervent opposition seems misplaced. The right-wing’s staunch resistance to CBDCs suggests a desperate attempt to capitalize on public fears rather than genuine concern for monetary freedom.
However, the reality is far less dire:
1.) CBDCs pose no additional threat to monetary control as long as alternative payment methods remain available. Governments already wield power to freeze funds in bank accounts based on existing laws. As an optional system, CBDCs could even enhance financial autonomy.
2.) Private digital fiatcoins like Tether and Circle have long provided avenues for governmental intervention, contradicting claims of CBDCs as unique threats to financial liberty. Why preemptively bar central banks from competing with these private entities? A democratically controlled digital dollar could offer a viable alternative.
3.) Critics of CBDCs overlook existing monetary censorship, epitomized by Germany’s selective distribution of aid. The same politicians decrying CBDCs now endorse payment cards that restrict refugee assistance to designated areas. It’s hypocrisy at its finest.
4.) CBDCs remain a distant prospect in the EU, USA, and UK. While the US Federal Reserve and the ECB entertain the idea, no concrete plans are in motion. The British government has explicitly stated its lack of intent to introduce programmable CBDCs.
In essence, the fervent opposition to CBDCs appears more rooted in political posturing than genuine advocacy for monetary freedom. The deafening silence regarding actual instances of monetary control further exposes the opportunistic nature of this rhetoric.
