Showing posts with label CBDCs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CBDCs. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 24, 2024

"Big Brother Watch Reports on CBDCs, But Does it Really Have Our Back?" by Rusere Shoniwa

 

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims. 

Click here to sign the People's Proclamation and send it to everyone you know.


Source: A Plague on Both Houses

Big Brother Watch Reports on CBDCs, But Does it Really Have Our Back?

A Plague On Both Houses plagueonbothhouses@substack.com

5:21 PM (1 hour ago)
to me
e


Monopoly: Go Green Edition – Wikimedia Commons

At the end of November 2023, Big Brother Watch (BBW), the civil liberties and privacy campaigning organisation, released what they called a “groundbreaking new report” exploring “international Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) projects and their severe impact on privacy, surveillance, and financial exclusion.” I read the report to see if it aligns with my view of CBDCs and also to see what new information it had to offer.

One simple statistic underscores the momentum behind the global CBDC tsunami – “more than 130 central banks around the world are currently researching, piloting or have introduced a form of Central Bank Digital Currency.” The report delved a little deeper into eight of these projects to highlight the threats to freedom posed by CBDCs.

One piece of information may please women enormously: In the Uruguayan pilot project, uptake by men constituted 75% of the total participants, proving that men really might be far more stupid than women. Be that as it may, here are my observations from the report.

Cash and the central banks’ double game

Three out of the eight central banks studied in this report cite declining cash use as a factor in introducing a digital currency. Let’s first understand the reasons for declining cash use before deciding on whether central banks are using it as a false pretext for pushing CBDCs. I think there are two main reasons.

The first is that our current electronic payment systems have proved to be more efficient (but less private) than cash in moving money around by increasing the speed and reliability of transfer and obviating administrative handling costs associated with the physical transfer of bundles of cash, or writing cheques.

The second reason is that banking authorities are in fact waging a war on cash. The BBW report confirms this – central banks like the Bank of Israel have themselves already greatly restricted the use of cash with laws that place limits on how much cash can be exchanged in a transaction. The report also adds that “the country’s [Israel] tax authority is explicit in its goal to reduce the public’s use of cash”, claiming that this will undermine organised crime.

Both of these reasons clearly demonstrate why declining cash use is a false pretext for pushing CBDCs. In the first instance, vast improvements in payment efficiency imply that CBDCs are a solution looking for a problem. In the second instance, the central banks themselves are actively promoting declining cash use ... and then trying to use that as an excuse to introduce something else. How about just stopping the war on cash?

Furthermore, by removing cash, they’re exacerbating a problem they claim to be solving – the lack of access to banking facilities. Lack of access to banking facilities is experienced by the great unbanked about whom central banks pretend to care so much. The Israeli authorities acknowledge there are more than a million Israelis without a bank account, but getting rid of cash will only make life harder for them because a digital currency will raise the banking hurdle even higher, not lower it.

Looking at Nigeria, the rollout of the eNaira between November 2021 and May 2023 was, by all accounts, a failure. The BBW account paints a picture in which a benign, albeit hapless, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) was thwarted in its success by “a few technical issues” and a “currency crisis” in early 2023 that led banks to “limit cash withdrawals”. The CBN was in the process of swapping old notes for new notes when businesses stopped accepting old notes, causing a “a sharp contraction in the amount of cash in circulation in a largely cash-based economy”.

By November 2021, only 0.8% of people with bank accounts had downloaded a wallet. By May 2023, only 6% of the population had taken up wallets but fully 98% of those wallets had never been used. BBW concluded that “despite a major government push and a crisis with hard currency it appears that the eNaira has not enjoyed significant success”. That’s not just a gross understatement; it ignores the more nefarious role the CBN played in aggravating the cash shortage that accompanied the rollout of its eNaira.

Not mentioned by BBW is that, in December 2022, the CBN limited cash withdrawals of individuals and businesses. According to this CBN memo to banks, these limits were instituted “in line with the Cashless policy of the CBN”. The CBN also instructed that “customers should be encouraged to use alternative channels (internet banking, mobile banking apps…eNaira, etc.) to conduct their banking transactions.” Failure by banks to comply with the new policy would result in “severe sanctions”. In a country of 219 million people, those with smart phones are estimated to number 25 – 40 million. The result was that banks locked customers out after cash machines dried up and caused hardship to millions of people who struggled to buy basic necessities. 

Like the Bank of Israel, the Nigerian central bank is also waging a war on cash. Which makes no sense in an economy so heavily dependent on cash.

So it’s clear – the desire to replace cash is driven solely by central banks and not the general public. The general public doesn’t need or want a CBDC, but the central banks are desperate for them. And the aim is to strengthen their control over the money supply and monetary policy by exponentially expanding control over consumer spending in the economy. CBDCs will afford central banks the power to track every single transaction, and to place limits on how, when and where money is spent. The potential scope of such control is frightening.

How we should think about cash when campaigning against CBDCs

Numerous campaigns focus on defending cash and promoting its use. I don’t disagree with that. Cash use continues to be a reality in the economy simply because existing payment systems cannot address two essential needs – access to banking for those shut out, and privacy. A digital currency will only exacerbate this problem.

That said, I don’t believe a significant increase in cash use is a realistic campaigning goal, for the simple reason that electronic payment systems have won the battle they set out to fight – efficiency of exchange. Whatever decreases in privacy that were traded off in that battle have now largely been accepted or tolerated, but we can’t move the privacy line any further back with CBDCs. We’re going to have to accept that there is a whole generation of young people whose smart phones are an extension of their bodies and who view cash as a quaint relic that will disappear once their grandparents have gone to a better place.

Sadly, the reality is that the next generation is far more likely to view CBDCs as a natural progression of a world that is already familiar to them – the digital world. My guess is that it'll be far easier to explain to them why CBDCs must absolutely be resisted rather than why cash use should be augmented, so that’s where our energy should be focussed. Defend what remains of cash by all means, but we must focus on clearly articulating why CBDCs do not solve any current problems and only create huge threats.

BBW’s conclusions

The conclusions in BBW’s report will come as no surprise to the freedom lovers who subscribe to A Plague on Both Houses. The report’s conclusion is best captured in its opening paragraph under the heading “Policy Analysis”:

“The introduction of a centralised digital currency stands to dramatically reshape the entire financial landscape, posing a threat to various human rights and fundamental freedoms, all while incurring substantial costs. A particular cause for concern lies in the potential for widespread population surveillance and intrusions on privacy, as well as exacerbating existing inequalities. Given the magnitude and gravity of these risks, the burden of proof for CBDCs to demonstrate substantial benefits over the current financial system is considerable. However, central banks have yet to present a compelling case for CBDCs as a viable solution to any existing problem.” [emphasis added]

On privacy, the report has this to say:

“CBDCs inherently lend themselves to surveillance by generating individuals’ financial data that would otherwise not exist in a centralised format… Even democratic states have chilling track records of engaging in expansive surveillance. For instance, the UK was found to have led decades-long mass surveillance programs to capture citizens’ private communications, unlawfully and without even parliament’s knowledge… A UK CBDC would not just tempt surveillance – it could legally require it. The Bank of England has said that a CBDC would need to comply with anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terror (CT) regulations, and that privacy features would be subject to meeting compliance requirements and government objectives in relation to financial crime.” [emphasis added]

Indeed. We know how sweeping and ill-defined counter terror powers are used to as a dragnet for all sorts of activity that the government of the day disapproves of. CBDCs would serve as a highly effective lever for policing all manner of dissent.

On programmability, the report has this to say:

“In the worst case scenario, programmability features could enable complete government control over how money is spent. The process could begin innocuously…However, this functionality could open the door for a world in which governments dictate how CBDCs are spent… At their worst, CBDCs could be used as a tool of digital authoritarianism, a way to exert total control over the public’s transactions. This could result in financial censorship without due process or avenues for recourse”. [emphasis added]

On financial exclusion and the unbanked:

“The Financial Conduct Authority estimates that 2.1 per cent of UK adults are unbanked compared to, for example, the estimated 55.2 per cent in Nigeria…. This is not to say that the UK does not have issues of financial exclusion that need addressing, but… there are more straightforward and efficient ways to support access to financial services without completely overhauling the entire financial landscape at the expense of the public’s privacySuch measures may include ensuring continued access to cash, upholding the integrity of cash infrastructure, improving financial and digital literacy, and supporting local and community-based methods of access to cash.” [emphasis added]

On digital identity:

CBDCs are inherently incompatible with privacy. Research suggests that issuing such currencies without a comprehensive national identity system would be difficult, if not “nigh on impossible” [quoting an FT article]... Tying CBDCs to national digital identity systems raises a number of privacy and surveillance concerns. It is wholly possible that payments or access to services could be made conditional based upon identity… Beyond concerns of surveillance and security, implementing CBDCs with a digital ID system would redefine individuals’ ability to access the economy, making it dependent on having both a digital identity and a CBDC… It is possible that CBDCs could introduce new digital ID capabilities such as biometric checking (e.g. fingerprint, voiceprint, facial recognition technology) for identity Verification…Again, the Nigerian CBDC presents a worrying case study here. The eNaira offers a “Tier Zero” account for customers without an existing bank account and verified national insurance number. However, researchers who tried to open a Tier Zero account were asked to provide bank account details and biometric details; making the supposedly more accessible option more intrusive than a standard bank account.” [emphasis added]

Echoing the view of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee that concluded that CBDCs were a “solution in search of a problem”, the report had this to say:

“The UK proposal has yet to make a convincing case as to how a CBDC would directly benefit members of the public. When coupled with the array of privacy and surveillance risks, it seems unlikely that the public would voluntarily engage with a new digital currency in significant numbers, whether from lack of interest or lack of trust.”

In short, we have nothing to gain and everything to lose from CBDCs. Which leads us into a discussion of BBW’s recommendations for dealing with the CBDC threat.

Build the gallows but ask the government not to hang anyone

Despite BBW’s vaunted claim to producing a “groundbreaking new report”, there is in fact nothing new in it. If there is a shock factor in BBW’s report, it is caused by a bone-jarring disconnect between the articulation of the threat and what to do about it. You’d think that an organisation claiming to work “relentlessly” to “reclaim our privacy, defend our civil liberties and protect freedoms for the future” would don its cape, leap into the Batmobile, and lead a campaign to put a stake through the heart of the nascent CBDC vampire. But no. After being depressed by a 74-page lamentation on the CBDC hellscape, I was expecting a bracing double shot of neat Bourbon as the cure. What I got instead was tepid, dirty dishwater in the form of these recommendations:

-          “Any exploration of a CBDC should maximise user privacy”;

-          “Any CBDC system must ensure privacy by design and that the central bank collects only the minimum data necessary for functionality”;

-          “User data must not be shared without meaningful, informed and freely given consent”;

-          “Programmability functions must be prohibited by law”.

Why didn’t I think of that? Silly me. Perhaps the reason I didn’t think of it has something to do with what our government, and nearly every other government around the world, has done over the past four years. It has: waged economic warfare on its populace by putting us under house arrest for a disease that posed a miniscule risk of death if you were under 75 years of age and in moderately good health; invoked medieval witchcraft by inventing arbitrary rules to keep everyone six feet apart; told us that the only way to get our freedom back was to surrender our bodily autonomy and succumb to an experimental injection; legislated for and instituted industrial scale censorship of its lies and propaganda about all of this, and much else besides.

I’m a bit irritated that the authors of the report don’t share my cynicism about how CBDCs will pan out. But I’m actually more irritated by the fact that, in making these recommendations, they don’t even seem to share the cynicism that they themselves have expressed throughout the report. Despite their own indictment of CBDCs, they suggest that as countries all around the world are busy developing CBDCs, “it is reasonable to expect that the Bank of England will learn from other central banks as it moves through its own process of developing one.” Mind-boggling.

Enjoining the public to view government action with naïve optimism, BBW published a template email telling members of the public to harangue their MPs with these not-so-stern words:

“The proposals are still in the early stages and there is still time to shape the development of a digital pound, which is why I am asking you to raise my concerns with the Treasury at the earliest convenience.” [emphasis added]

BBW has produced an 82-page report telling us that CBDCs are the devil’s own work…but these intrepid freedom fighters are telling you to tell your MP to “shape their development”! I’m quite sure BBW understands perfectly well that a payment system that comes neatly packaged with all the bells and whistles for financial enslavement will, sooner or later, be abused by its makers and controllers. It should not be allowed to see the light of day.

Now, under the “email your MP” section of BBW’s webpage publicising its report, you can personalise BBW’s anti-radical message to MPs. If, like me, you think CBDCs should be scrapped altogether, I would suggest that you don’t merely wag your finger at our naughty MPs and beg them to “shape the development” of our CBDC prison cell. Instead, you might want to delete the last paragraph of the draft message – the one that begins with: “The proposals are still in the early stages…” – and replace it with this one:

“A CBDC poses a threat to human rights and fundamental freedoms, all while incurring substantial costs. It has the potential for widespread population surveillance and intrusions on privacy, as well as exacerbating existing inequalities. Given the magnitude and gravity of these risks, the burden of proof for CBDCs to demonstrate substantial benefits over the current financial system is considerable. However, central banks have yet to present a compelling case for CBDCs as a viable solution to any existing problem. In short, we have nothing to gain and everything to lose from CBDCs. I am therefore asking you to work towards the goal of scrapping this project entirely and getting the Bank of England to focus its efforts and our taxpayer funds on financial stability problems that currently pose a major threat to our economy – inflation and the potential impact on the banking sector of record-high debt levels.”

Sunday, November 5, 2023

"The Daily Sceptic’s AI Bot Says CBDCs Will Set You Free!" by Rusere Shoniwa

 

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims. 

Click here to sign the People's Proclamation and send it to everyone you know.


Source: Real Left

The Daily Sceptic’s AI Bot Says CBDCs Will Set You Free!

 Read Time:20 Minutes

Quick reminder of Real Left’s meeting in Islington, London on the ‘Fallout of Lockdowns on the Global South’ on Friday 10 Nov from 7pm. Full details including how to reserve your place here.

Rusere Shoniwa dissects the claims of The Daily Sceptic’s anonymous IT reporter that CBDCs will safeguard our liberty and finds his/her supporting arguments wanting. Originally published on A Plague on Both Houses.

Why is it important to challenge independent media outlets like The Daily Sceptic when they print nonsense about important issues like central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)? It’s not just because The Daily Sceptic is big. The Daily Telegraph is big too, but we expect it to publish nonsense; that’s its job, and challenging all its nonsense would not be a wise use of one’s time. The reason to challenge The Daily Sceptic is that it has reach within the Freedom Movement, and we cannot waver on CBDCs. This really is a hill to die on.

I think more and more people are beginning to realise that The Daily Sceptic isn’t that interested in a genuine freedom movement. But some of us may be labouring under the impression that it is. In fairness to the crew at the The Daily Sceptic, they’ve never positioned themselves as defenders of liberty so you can’t accuse them of being imposters. My view is that they are defenders of the status quo, but they are a reliable fact-generating machine for climate and vaccine scepticism. And facts are important.

A brief ‘housekeeping’ note before I start deconstructing some recent nonsense on CBDCs that was written by The Daily Sceptic’s Anonymous IT reporter. Dodging the use of pronouns gets irritating when referencing or critiquing an anonymous writer’s work. However, this Daily Sceptic piece promoting CBDCs as a liberty safeguard has so many holes in it that I concluded it could not have been produced by a human with sound reasoning skills and even a rudimentary knowledge of the topic at hand. Surmising that The Daily Sceptic has resorted to AI to pump out content, I realised that the my pronoun problem had been solved – ‘AI bot’ will suffice as shorthand for ‘The Daily Sceptic’s Anonymous IT reporter’. And the pronoun for AI bot is obviously ‘it’.

Claim number 1 – the private money in circulation that has anything to do with our central bank constitutes only 3% of money in use, so the central bank has no leverage over us.

AI bot begins its argument by discussing a complete irrelevancy – the composition of money within the banking system. It tries to convince us that there is nothing to worry about because “only 3% of the circulating money in daily use by you and me has anything to do with the central bank”, and that none of the payment activity in the “private money” sector – the payment activity that matters to us as consumers – is controllable by central banks. This is evidence not just of confusion about what CBDCs are (and therefore the fundamental danger they pose), but also of confusion about money concepts. So let’s unpack some basics about money as it relates to CBDCs.

There is no need to get bogged down in a lecture about all the facets of money, but it’s important to say that, when thinking about money and its relationship to CBDCs, there are three elements that can cause us to get in a muddle. Those elements are: what money is, what money does, and where money sits in the banking system. We must focus on the element that is most relevant to the CBDC debate – what money does. But let’s quickly go through the three elements so that you can be convinced that the element I am focusing on is indeed the right one.

1)      What money is: it’s basically a store and measure of value. What is it storing and valuing? The wealth (or lack thereof!) of businesses and individuals.

2)      What money does: It allows businesses and individuals to exchange their stored wealth with other businesses and individuals.

3)      Where it sits in the banking system: this is the least relevant element, but it reflects the size and importance of different money stakeholders, as well as the differing needs of those stakeholders in storing and exchanging wealth. As I will explain, where it is in the system is of no relevance to the CBDC argument insofar as its threat to liberty is concerned.

So, the most important element in the discussion of CBDCs as a threat to liberty is the second one – money as a medium of exchange. It’s important to grasp at the outset that CBDCs are not, in spite of their name, a ‘currency’. CBDC is a payment system. It is in fact a radical revision to existing payments systems. And as a payment system, it affects mostly the exchange element – how we go about transacting with each other and with businesses and, crucially, our ability to transact freely without fear of undue intervention in the transaction from our government.

Don’t take my word for CBDCs being a payment system. It’s the unequivocal view of Sir Jon Cunliffe, the BoE’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability. When challenged by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee on the ‘currency’ canard he replied:

“I agree with you entirely on currency [i.e. the use of the word as a misnomer], but the term is out there now and it is difficult to change it. I would probably refer to it as central bank digital money, because money is a means of payment, rather than central bank digital currency. The horse has bolted. Once an acronym becomes established, it is really difficult to change it.” [emphasis added]

At this point, I don’t have to argue with or fact-check AI bot’s breakdown of where money is in the system and whether the proportion that most concerns us as consumers is 3%, 30% or 90%. None of it matters. 3% is small, but if 3% is all you need to control the public’s payment system by virtue of the fact that the population is entirely reliant on that 3% for its day-to-day existence, then 3% obviously becomes a big deal as a lever of control. And what we are contesting is undue control over the population via control of the payment system that we rely on for everyday exchanges of our wealth. You’re welcome to accept AI Bot’s analysis of the percentage of money in the system that the ordinary citizen relies on. All it proves is how small a lever can be for it to have such a disproportionately negative impact on liberty.

Claim number 2 – none of that small percentage of private money with which we should be concerned is “controllable by central banks. Not now and not in future, with or without CBDCs.”

There is much else wrong with AI bot’s argument based on this assumption that the money circulating in daily use by us has nothing to do with the central bank. AI bot states triumphantly that :

“Your mortgage, loans… credit card balances are all private money, none of it controllable by central banks. Not now and not in future, with or without CBDCs.” [emphasis added]

Putting aside the smoke and mirrors in the BoE’s suggestion that this new-fangled money is a ‘currency’, the idea that the BoE will have no control over its own ‘currency’ once it successfully infiltrates these sectors of private money, is frankly stupid. The BoE is the issuer of the CBDC, and the clue to that is in the first two words of the name – Central Bank Digital Currency. It will therefore, in conjunction with the government, determine the conditions of its use. And remember, because this money is really a dystopian revision to the payment system, the conditions of use primarily relate to the rules of exchange to be imposed once it has issued its money. In the discussion further down about disintermediation, I will demonstrate that the BoE intends to be in control of its new form of money, but it will use retail banks to do its dirty work by administering it. And you won’t need to take my word for it because it comes straight from the horse’s mouth.

The method of control embedded in the CBDC exchange system is by now well understood. The payment system (I will keep using that term in relation to CBDC to ram home what it actually is) is programmable. That means the BoE will have the ability to set conditions on the exchange of money at the transaction level and in real time. Don’t take my word for it. Listen to the head of the central bank of central banks, Agustin Carstens, head of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), who said this:

“A key difference with the CBDC is that the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of that central bank liability and also we will have the technology to enforce that. Those two issues are extremely important and makes a huge difference with respect to what cash is.” [emphasis added, time stamp 7:30]

Do you still want to believe AI bot when it says that none of your private money is “controllable by central banks. Not now and not in future, with or without CBDCs”? Or would you rather pay attention to what the head of BIS is saying?

Now, the nice Mr Carstens’ explicit reference to “the technology to enforce” the CBDC rules and regulations provides a good segue into Digital ID, without which no discussion of CBDC is complete. Funnily enough, Digital ID is conspicuous by its absence in AI bot’s Swiss cheese analysis of CBDC.

The desired levels of hyper control in CBDC cannot be achieved without Digital ID, which is why the G20 is hell-bent on introducing the two together. To appreciate the threat to liberty that CBDC poses, you must understand that there are essentially only two prerequisites for the complete loss of all freedom – CBDC and Digital ID. An analogy for the interaction between these two things might be the plug attached to an electrical appliance and the socket that supplies the electricity to power it. Each needs the other to achieve the controllers’ dream.

The CBDC payment system is fully intended to operate on a platform that will integrate personal data that will link to each CBDC wallet. The System controllers pushing the ridiculous concept of Digital ID want you to think that it’s as harmless and as necessary as a ‘driver’s license’ to allow you to access the internet ‘safely’. Never mind that we’ve been accessing the internet perfectly ‘safely’ without a license for 30-odd years now. And that’s the problem. It’s been too free, and some of us are starting to exceed our thinking limit.

As we all know, licenses are issued with conditions and can be revoked if those conditions are breached. And what if those conditions are opaque and change with the seasons and whims of government policy and diktat?

Once the payment platform is integrated with Digital ID, the government will have at its disposal:

·         an automated real-time mechanism for identifying behaviour deemed to be in breach of the conditions of both the CBDC usage and your online digital ’license’, and;

·         the ability to punish breaches, without due process, by curtailing your ability to transact.

Will this integration of the CBDC and Digital ID happen? Again, don’t take my word for it. Our pals at the BoE have indicated that it is inevitable because you cannot stop technological progress. When pressed by the Economic Affairs Committee on whether Digital ID would be a feature of CBDCs, the BoE governor was somewhat coy; however, very little reading between the lines is necessary to understand its inevitability:

“To what extent that digital ID would be unique to that platform or something that was broader in terms of your identity, it is rather like Jon’s [Deputy Governor for Financial Stability] point about the iPhone: the technology will probably move us on very rapidly in a short time, so it is a bit of speculation to some degree.” [emphasis added]

Claim number 3 – a CBDC pilot in the Bahamas did not go very well, ergo CBDCs will fail.

AI bot goes on to cite the launch of a CBDC in the Bahamas in 2019 and its apparent failure as proof that CBDCs don’t have legs:

“If we want to know what really happens when a CBDC is introduced, we don’t have to speculate because it has already happened in the Bahamas where the so-called Sand Dollar was introduced in 2019.”

In citing the apparent failure of the Bahamas Sand Dollar, AI bot also gives us a clue as to what’s really going on there and indeed other locations where CBDCs are being rolled out or, more accurately, trialled:

 “Only one of six retail banks and one of five credit unions is even in the pilot.” [emphasis added]

It’s a pilot. Look that word up in the dictionary – experimental, exploratory, trial, test. You wouldn’t roll out a new technology to a market with hundreds of millions, and ultimately billions, of customers until you’ve tested it in a controlled live setting on a small bunch of guinea pigs. African countries or others judged to be insignificant backwaters are used as guinea pigs by both Big Pharma and Big Finance. They are less sensitive to the impact on test subjects in these markets, not because they care more about consumers in the West, but because fallout from bad consumer reactions cannot be as easily contained or completely ignored here in the West.

Nigeria was another CBDC guinea pig earlier this year. The take-up for the Nigerian e-Naira was 0.5% – a comprehensive rejection – so the government responded by restricting cash withdrawals. That caused rioting as people struggled to buy basic necessities. By all accounts, the E-Naira was a spectacular failure and the Bahamas Sand Dollar a damp squib. But they are trials. The CBDC control freaks and their central-bank-mafia bosses are learning from their mistakes, and once they’ve ironed out the creases, their products will be coming to a bank near you.

Claim number 4 – disintermediation is another massive hurdle for central banks to jump in rolling out CBDCs.

AI bot then cites disintermediation as being another insurmountable problem facing central banks in their quest to introduce CBDCs. The disintermediation risk in this context simply refers to the movement of money out of existing retail bank accounts and into the BoE’s CBDC product or Digital Pound. The risk is that, if this happened fast enough and at high enough values, it would cause a banking liquidity crisis – effectively a run on banks. This would be a risk if the BoE were to create a new product and compete with retail banks for business. But it’s not. Remember, CBDCs are primarily a new payment system. The BoE has no intention of competing with banks for deposits. The aim is to shift money out of one payment system and into another.

To the extent that the Digital Pound could be considered a financial product within the retail banking system, then it’s a product within the overall payment system in the same way that a particular type of current account or savings account is. It makes no sense for the BoE to get its hands dirty managing millions of retail CBDC wallets when retail banks already have the infrastructure and know-how to do this. Retail banks would therefore administer CBDC wallets on behalf of the BoE. Under this likely arrangement, the BoE would create inter-bank accounts with retail banks as it issues its new ‘currency’. That would give the retail banks the liquidity buffer they need to convert existing retail accounts into CBDC wallets. As existing accounts are converted and moved onto the BoE’s CBDC platform, the banks would use up their accounts with the BoE.

Disintermediation is a red herring thrown into the debate to give the impression that CBDC is a new financial product in competition with existing money. This is simply not true. The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee that looked into the BoE’s CBDC fixation and concluded that it was a “solution in search of a problem” discusses disintermediation as if it were a frightening contingency requiring stringent mitigation. The clue as to how it would be batted away lies in paragraph 80 of the report:

“Patrick Honohan told us [the committee] that commercial banks could issue bonds, which may be an expensive funding source, or central banks would have the option to lend their holdings of CBDC deposits back to commercial banks: “that moves the risk of a bank failure from the depositor to the central bank…” [emphasis added]

The more explicit confirmation that disintermediation has been thought through by the BoE and is, as I say, a total red herring, comes again from the horse’s mouth in oral hearings of the Economic Affairs Committee. When pressed by Lord Fox on the disintermediation issue and the BoE’s relationship with commercial banks, Sir John Cunliffe, deputy governor responsible for financial stability, responded:

“The central assumption that we are working with is a so-called platform model, which would be partnership between the Bank of England and the private sector. In the same way that we do not issue cash directly to the public—we issue it to the banks, which then issue it to the public—the interface with the customer would be private sector…There are some proposals in other jurisdictions to give customers direct accounts. It comes back to what Andrew was saying. The intention here is not to disintermediate the banking system by putting the Bank of England where the banking system is at the moment. The aim would be for us to provide the settlement asset but for the private sector to deal with the distribution, the storage of the settlement asset and the technological innovation around the settlement asset.” [last 2 exchanges of Q96]

This confirms that the BoE aren’t in the least bit concerned about disintermediation. So why is AI bot? It also confirms my hunch that the retail banks will be administering the CBDC wallets on behalf of the BoE.

Claim number 5 – CBDCs won’t be able to track your spending for energy rationing purposes because a Swedish credit card tried that in 2019 and failed.

AI bot goes on to discuss a feared goal of CBDC implementation – imposing spending limits based on CO2 emissions. AI bot then dismisses this concern by citing the failure of a Swedish credit card that was launched in 2019 on the premise that it would stop overspending on your carbon footprint. It failed because while credit cards are very good at relaying merchant information (the seller’s identity) within the payment system, merchant information is a woeful proxy for actual CO2 emissions and carbon footprint. I don’t disagree and nor do I need to. Have you spotted AI bot’s logic failure yet? It’s using a ‘weakness’ in the current payment system and projecting this weakness onto the CBDC payment platforms that are still being trialled. In plain terms, it’s comparing apples and oranges.

Now, we don’t yet know whether CBDCs will overcome this inability to effectively ration energy through spending restrictions, but it’s a massive failure of logic to assume that an upgraded system – whose aim (see Mr Carstens above) is to impose “rules and regulations” on the use of the currency – will fail because the current payment system does not deliver this Orwellian feature. That’s why they’re moving to the CBDC platform – to go where they have not gone before! What we do know is that, as I have been at great pains to emphasise, the CBDC platform is intended to interface on a vastly expanded scale with Digital ID, smart devices and the internet of things. When it comes to energy rationing, think smart meters, which the government is now legally empowered to smash down your door to install.

Claim number 6 – cash is becoming increasingly archaic and is not the answer to a need for a public form of money. A well designed CBDC is the answer to problems such as the plight of the unbanked, “having something useful to withdraw if your bank is about to fail, or simply not wanting an intermediary between you and your counterparty.”

AI bot’s final salvo in its argument for CBDCs is to trash cash. It says cash is the only form of public money but is failing owing to being “anachronistic, expensive to handle and vastly less convenient than its private money alternatives”. Stating the bleeding obvious, AI bot triumphantly claims that as the private sector stops accepting cash (due to “private sector innovation”), the more useless cash will become. Well, yes. And in this context, that argument is a form of begging the question.

No-one in their right minds would deny the inherent inefficiency of cash as a medium of exchange in many sectors of today’s economy, but pro-liberty advocates are keen to retain cash as a medium of exchange because it is the most private method of transacting. And for a minority of people not in the banking system, it is the only way they can survive. A CBDC will not miraculously cure the dilemma of the unbanked because all the same hurdles and more – Digital ID and a smartphone – to getting retail CBDC wallets will need to be jumped. I actually don’t care about how we exchange money as long as privacy is maximised and I don’t have to use a smartphone to transact. For all the reasons I’ve mentioned, a CBDC won’t do that, and arguing in favour of a new form of public money simply because the demise of cash is inevitable in an increasingly digital world is not an argument for CBDCs being a safeguard of liberty.

Daily Sceptic’s AI bot score – 0/6

So there you have it. Six CBDC claims made by The Daily Sceptic’s AI bot, all of them pants. To top it all, not one of those claims constitutes an argument in favour of the proposition in the title of its article – namely how “CBDCs will safeguard our liberty.” With the exception of the last claim, which is a failed argument for replacing cash with CBDCs, they are all a mish-mash of why CBDCs might not succeed if implemented. That does not amount to an argument for how they will safeguard liberty. And that’s because it’s not possible, even for an AI bot, to make an argument for CBDCs safeguarding liberty.

I hope that the counter-arguments I’ve offered make it patently clear that sitting back and allowing CBDCs to happen would be like bringing home a lion cub, feeding it well, and hoping that it doesn’t turn into fully grown lion that may one day eat you.

Disqus