When First Republic Bank failed, the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) organized a shotgun sale of its assets to JPMorgan Chase. That contravened the FDIC’s cardinal rule that no bank owning more than 10 percent of insured US deposits should be allowed to expand by absorbing another US bank.
However, because sparing taxpayers the cost of another bank bailout took precedence, the US authorities permitted — indeed helped — the US’ largest bank, already a too-big-to-fail (TBTF) institution, to grow even larger.
In a rare show of bipartisanship, Democrats and Republicans applauded the FDIC’s actions, rejoicing that JPMorgan had stepped in with a “private sector” plan to avoid burdening taxpayers. Unfortunately, the truth was less heroic: JPMorgan Chase chairman and chief executive officer Jamie Dimon negotiated a US$50 billion credit line and a loss-sharing deal with the FDIC that would result in a US$13 billion loss to US taxpayers.
In short, the resolution of First Republic burdened the US with a hefty tax bill and with the larger systemic risks implicit in a bigger TBTF bank.
First Republic was small, but its fate is a harbinger of bigger things. Owing to the rise in prices and — to a lesser extent — wages, the US public debt as a share of national income shrank.
However, with the US Federal Reserve boosting interest rates to arrest inflation, the value of US Treasury bills sitting on the banks’ books declined. Why buy a second-hand, low-yield bond when you can buy a higher-yielding fresh one?
As most of the safe assets held by banks are Treasury bills, bankruptcies like those of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and First Republic ensued.
This dynamic is unlikely to end any time soon. More banks could fail, which mean TBTF banks pose even larger systemic threats to society. Besides misleading the public that their taxes are being spared, the authorities are setting the stage for a banking crisis, which would force an exasperated public to pay even more.
There is an alternative to the tax-funded absorption of small banks such as First Republic by megabanks like JPMorgan. It would not shift the cost of backing uninsured deposits to the taxpayer: US Fed deposit accounts or the gradual rollout of a Fed-issued digital dollar.
Consider how a US central bank digital currency (CBDC) would have worked out in the case of First Republic. Instead of having the FDIC guarantee the bank’s deposits with taxpayer money, the Fed creates digital accounts — or wallets — for First Republic’s depositors, and credits their balance to them. Depositors can keep the money in their Fed account, making payments from it using a username and PIN provided by the Fed, or transfer the balance to any other bank account.
While on their Fed account, their deposits are de facto guaranteed by the Fed without any need to burden taxpayers or levy charges to other banks. If the Fed is worried that, by boosting the money supply, the associated increase in its balance sheet would be inflationary, it can sterilize the new money by selling an equivalent value of some of the mountain of assets — such as mortgages and bonds — it already owns.
At the end of the day, taxpayers are shielded while megabanks, like JPMorgan, are not allowed to grow even larger. Wall Street would finally face competition from the Fed accounts, forcing them to raise their game.
I imagine outraged opponents of CBDCs rushing to their keyboards to denounce me for aiding Big Brother’s nefarious effort to control citizens’ every transaction.
However, they are barking up the wrong tree. Digital money is already here, increasingly eradicating cash payments. At the drop of a hat, the US Internal Revenue Service, the FBI and even local police have instant access to people’s payments.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did not need a CBDC to freeze the bank accounts of protesting anti-vaccination truckers. Banks and big tech are regularly cutting off, or refusing to trade with, people whose views are deemed inappropriate.
We already live in a techno-feudal society in which we need to ask banks, and indirectly the government, for permission to pay. Digital payments can be centrally interdicted by credit card companies, banks, bureaucrats and other unaccountable, opaque intermediaries.
Perhaps counterintuitively, CBDCs can enhance people’s privacy relative to the status quo and avoid exorbitantly centralized power. Checks and balances can be introduced based on two separate and siloed data-management systems. The system that manages Fed accounts can be made anonymous — just as crypto accounts are anonymous and identified by a long string of numbers — while a separate system supervised by authorities can check for illicit activity such as tax evasion and money laundering.
Thus, a proper and democratically controlled CBDC rollout can bring the combined benefits of strengthening tax collection, fighting deflation and enhancing protection against Big Brother — and his many little brothers.
So, why so much venom against CBDCs by those untroubled by the surveillance and control already exercised over us by Wall Street-controlled digital money? Who is really afraid of CBDCs?
Once upon a time, the greed of tobacco companies was channeled through libertarian outrage over the restriction of smokers’ freedom to choose cancer. This time, the outrage is serving the interests of bankers panicking at the prospect of Fed accounts.
Dimon and other masters of the TBTF universe are right to be scared, because a Fed CBDC would threaten their empire. Bankers around the world are right to fear that many of their lucrative services would no longer be required. With those services — holding deposits, processing payments and so on — disintermediated, they would no longer be able to hold societies hostage.
Yanis Varoufakis, a former Greek minister of finance, is the leader of the European Realistic Disobedience Front and a professor of economics at the University of Athens.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS