A quick thought on stablecoin, Facebook nation, and government pushback

Just had a thought on creating a digital nation and admittedly I am still just fleshing out the idea so bear with me.

Crypto currencies still have a chance at succeeding, but the issue commenters and the public continue to overlook is that as currencies, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, and whatever the hell else is out there have no underlying political economies to support them. Currency valuations transmit to the world the value and/or level of economic output a nation has. Bitcoin, for example, is not a nation’s currency. If it were, it would give Zaire’s currency volatility a run for the money. With the advent of stablecoin, particularly Facebook’s expected issue of the digital coin in 2019, we could see the beginning of a truly digital political economy.

Stablecoin is defined as a cryptocurrency pegged to some reserve currency like the U.S. dollar or another crypto currency such as Ethereum. No matter the model, the goal is to provide users with some stability in the coin’s exchange price. Consumers and investors may like the convenience of not having to check Bitcoin’s price every time they want to buy a cup of coffee or make a currency exchange. Stablecoins, at least in theory, helps to avoid all that.

Facebook will reportedly first play in India’s remittance market. As we descendants of the Commonwealth are all to familiar with, the remittance process can be emotionally taxing when the lack of necessary middlemen are not in place to get money to our relatives in Europe, Asia, and the Caribbean.

The blockchain technology platform that Facebook’s stablecoin will use is expected to provide the transparency and peer-to-peer capabilities that ensure that monies are sent and received under a system of trust, verification, and lack of intermediaries.

But I can see Facebook and even Amazon going beyond playing a relatively minor role in a country’s payment system. Not only could Facebook or Amazon issue digital currencies in the next ten years, they could and should go all out in developing their own digital nations.

Facebook could finally add some meat to his currently weak mission of “connecting the world” by leveraging every business and consumer in his network to engage with each other commercially by using his stablecoin. Consumers subscribing to Facebook or Amazon could be assessed annual membership fees or be charged a “tax” substantially less than the average state or local sales tax in exchange for exclusive access to every merchant listed on either platform with the medium of exchange being a stablecoin.

As one of the largest companies in the world with a 2.5 billion people user base, Facebook, via commercial exchange on its platform, can generate the value necessary for traders in currency to express enough faith in the currency to trade in it drive up its value. Unlike current crypto currencies, a “Facecoin” could exhibit more organic and trustworthy movement because it would be backed by a company large enough to be a national economy.

As for local, state, and federal governments, they could be left a few decades from now with nothing left to regulate and tax but physical infrastructure. Would government be understanding and wish more and more taxpayers a fare thee well, or would government act like the pharaoh in the Old Testament, chasing the people with its tax chariots.

The ensuing issue may be the legal relationship between the old State and the new Digital State that online platforms like Facebook and Amazon will hopefully morph into and how best to treat citizens who have to spend time in both worlds.

Advertisements

In this theater, the media is also a combatant

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is meeting over the next two days to discuss whether or not to raise the federal funds rate.  The federal funds rate is an interest rate that banks assess each other when borrowing money overnight from each other.  The Federal Reserve, America’s central bank, drove the rate to near zero in attempt to boost the economy after the financial markets crashed. 

Lenders became wary of the collateral other financial firms were carrying in their portfolios, typically asset and mortgage-backed securities that were declining in value due to the inability of commercial and residential borrowers to keep up with interest and principal payments. By buying these securities from financial firms on poor footing and giving them cash, the Federal Reserve hoped to prime the lending pump and provide financial institutions with the confidence to go out and lend again.

 Mr. Trump has been taking issue with rate hikes, making the argument that the timing is horrible for the financial markets and the economy overall.  To some extent, he has a point; increasing rates could eventually lead to a devaluation of assets sensitive to rate increases, and where these assets are used as collateral for loans, being awarded a loan becomes a lot tougher if a bank does not think collateral is strong enough.

From a political warfare perspective, the media has time to time pointed out Mr. Trump’s apparent lack of respect for the independence of the Federal Reserve, specifically taking issue with Mr. Trump questioning Federal Reserve Board chairman Jerome Powell’s rationale for rate hikes.

But by commenting on the direction of rate hikes, is Mr. Trump really attacking the independence of the Federal Reserve? My answer is no.  

Under the Full Employment Act, the Congress, the Federal Reserve, and the President are to coordinate their activities in order to bring about the effective control of inflation, genuine full employment, production, balanced growth, and a balanced federal budget. The chairman of the Federal Reserve is to connect his monetary policy to the numerical goals established by the president in his economic report. That the President was transparent and vocal in pointing out what he considers the Federal Reserve’s pursuit of a policy that seems out of sync with his may be brash, but is not out of step with the coordination the law requires and even the transparency that many citizens in the United States allegedly prefer.

How well has the Trump administration, the Board of Governors, and the Congress coordinated on the economy is subject to another discussion, but the point here is that the media and other critics have failed to give the public a full picture of what is entailed in economic management and this lack of full disclosure on the part of media only adds to Mr. trump’s assertion of fake news and unfair targeting of him by the press.

The other takeaway, of course, is going and investigating other sources of information on the management of the American political economy.  In political warfare, you need to know where all the bullets are being fired from.  In this theater, the media is a combatant.   

The banking industry prepares itself for Maxine Waters

The past 48 hours have been filling up with analysis as to what the next moves by the House Democrats will be as they take over the lower chamber on 3 January 2019.  Here is my quick take.

U.S. Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, is expected to become chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services and using her new position to seek increased regulation of the major banks in the United States.  These banks may include JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo.

According to reporting by CNBC, Mrs. Waters would like to shut down Wells Fargo for good.  Mrs. Waters holds the financial industry responsible for foreclosures that occurred during and in the wake of the 2008-2009 financial crisis.  She wants higher fines for financial institutions that break the law and some banks believe that Mrs. Waters will use the committee’s subpoena powers to harass Wells Fargo and other banks. It is also believed that Mrs. Waters would focus on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and housing reform should she become chairman.

According to analysis by MarketWatch, elevated levels of headline risks are expected for banks with Ms. Waters at the helm of the House financial services committee. While her measures won’t pass the Republican-dominated Senate, it is the negative perceptions she may create about the financial industry that has analyst worried.

And these negative perceptions may be generated by investigative powers stemming from Mrs. Waters ability to issue subpoenas once she assumes the chairmanship.

The American Bankers Association acknowledges the flip in agendas resulting from a new chairman at the helm and expects Congress to be very involved in oversight. The ABA wants the banking industry to brace itself for something it has never seen before in terms of the tone of the potential incoming chairman.  Given Mrs. Waters tenor, the ABA hopes that remaining moderates on the Committee can move Mrs. Waters toward pragmatism.

The ABA is has identified top issues for the 116th Congress including anti-money laundering, data security, cannabis banking, and reform in government sponsored entities. With one-third of the house financial services committee expected to be new members, the ABA is ready to launch an education campaign toward these members.

Watching Mrs. Waters at the helm of the Committee will be an experience to say the least.