Skip to main content

A free market case for CBDC?


Central bank digital currency, or CBDC, is a form of highly-liquid digital debt that most governments have, till now, held back from issuing. But there is a growing push to change this. Free market economists are generally not big fans of CBDC. They see it as government encroachment on the banking sector.

In this post I'm going to push back on the free market consensus.

(This post was inspired after reading posts by Tyler Cowen and Scott Sumner).

Look, we're always going to have a government. Right? And that government is going to have to raise funds somehow in order to keep the lights on. The question is, how? Should it issue 30-day Treasury bills? Fifty-year bonds? Perpetual debt? Paper currency? Why not issue currency-ish debt instruments in digital form?

Let's start with a parable. Imagine a world in which the government has only ever issued 30-year bonds. But next month it wants to shift some of its borrowing from the 30-year bond range to the 10-year range. Government officials believe that this will reduce the government's interest costs and diversify government sources of funding.

Seems like a good idea, no?

But wait. The grocery industry has historically relied on funding itself with 10-year bonds. Till now, it hasn't had to compete with the government for the attention ten-year bond investors. Grocery store owners are furious over the impending decision. We could have difficulties funding ourselves! they fret. We might have to cut back on selling food!

Meanwhile, the restaurant industry in our imaginary world prefers to fund itself by issuing 30-year bonds. If the government raises more money in the 10-year end of the debt market and less in the 30-year end of the spectrum, restaurants will face less competition for investor attention. Go for it! say restaurant owners.

Which sector should the government choose to favor, grocery stores or restaurants? The choice seems entirely arbitrary. Government shouldn't be picking winners or losers, right? Civil servants should choose the most cost-effective form of financing.

The same argument goes for CBDC.

Bonds, bills, and CBDC are all just forms of transferable government debt.* But instead of having a fixed maturity like a bond, CBDC never matures. And whereas the interest rate on a bond is fixed and its price floats, the interest rate on CBDC is periodically adjusted while its price is fixed to $1. Either way, the government can use these instruments for funding projects and investments.

(For the rest of this post I'll use the terms CBDC and fixed-value floating-rate perpetual debt interchangeably.)

For whatever reason, modern governments choose not to fund themselves in the fixed-value floating-rate corner of the debt market.** No industry benefits more from this than banks. Individuals and businesses who want to buy fixed-value floating-rate perpetual debt have only one option available to them: bank-issued deposits. Regulations prevent all other industries from participating in this end of the debt market. So these non-banks have to turn to the 3-month to 30-year segment of the debt market where they must face the full brunt of government competition.

The presence of government competition means that non-banks' funding costs will be more onerous than otherwise. Conversely, banks' funding costs will be less onerous given a lack of government competition.

I don't see any compelling reason for why the government should avoid one end of the debt market and, in the process, favor the banking industry over other industries. I mean, if the government can cost-effectively issue CBDC in a way that reduces its overall interest obligations, then that's a win for taxpayers, no? It shouldn't go with an option that hurts taxpayers because it wants to help out a certain sector, should it?

The argument could be made that the banking industry is far more important than other industries because it does a lot of lending, and if lending slows then everyone loses. 

If the banking sector really deserves to be subsidized, why doesn't the government just pay the subsidy in a more transparent way, say by taking money directly from the pockets of individuals and non-banks and giving it to banks? 

Also, banks aren't the economy's only lenders. There are many non-bank lenders too. Sure, if a government were to issue CBDC, banks would now face more competition in the fixed-price floating-rate corner of the debt market, and perhaps would choose to lend less. But at the same time the government would be issuing less 30-year bonds, or 10-year bonds, or treasury bills. Non-bank lenders that issue debt in these ends of the debt market would face less competition than before, and might lend more.

In the end, it's a wash. One industry's loss is another's gain.

So let governments issue CBDC and compete for the attention of the fixed-price floating-rate investor, just like they already compete for the attention of the 30-year bond investor. This would remove an inefficient distortion, namely a subsidy to banks and a penalty on non-banks. This seems to be the free market position, no?



*It could be argued that one type of debt is a currency, and can be transferred from you to me, while the other isn't. But I don't buy that. Both types of debt are liquid. They can be bought and sold on exchanges. Or they can be transferred bilaterally. With bonds, a bilateral transfer can be conducted by conveying an old style physical bearer bonds, or by transferring a bond to a recipient using Treasury Direct.

**The government does issue banknotes, which are sort of like perpetual floating-rate debt, where the decision has been made to keep the rate at 0%. And it does issue reserves to the banking sector. But the quantity of banknotes and reserves is quite small relative to overall government borrowing.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Shadow banks want in from the cold

Remember when shadow banks regularly outcompeted stodgy banks because they could evade onerous regulatory requirements? Not any more. In negative rate land, regulatory requirements are a blessing for banks. Shadow banks want in, not out. In the old days, central banks imposed a tax on banks by requiring them to maintain reserves that paid zero percent interest. This tax was particularly burdensome during the inflationary 1970s when short term rates rose into the teens. The result was that banks had troubles passing on higher rates to savers, helping to drive the growth of the nascent U.S. money market mutual fund industry. Unlike banks, MMMFs didn't face reserve requirements and could therefore offer higher deposit rates to their customers. To help level the playing field between regulated banks and so-called shadow banks, a number of central banks (including the Bank of Canada) removed the tax by no longer setting a reserve requirement. While the Federal Reserve didn't go as f...
Post a Comment
Read more

Does QE actually reduce inflation?

There's a counterintuitive meme floating around in the blogosphere that quantitative easing doesn't do what we commonly suppose. Somehow QE reduces inflation or causes deflation, rather than increasing inflation. Among others, here are Nick Rowe , Bob Murphy , David Glasner , Stephen Williamson , David Andolfatto , Frances Coppola , and Bill Woolsey discussing the subject. Over the holidays I've been trying to wrap my head around this idea. Here are my rough thoughts, many of which may have been cribbed from the above sources, though I've lost track from which ones. Let's be clear at the outset. Inflation is a rise in the general price level, deflation is a fall in prices. QE is when a central bank purchases assets at market prices with newly issued reserves. In equilibrium, the expected returns on all goods and assets must be equal. If they aren't equal then people will rebalance towards superior yielding assets until the prices of these assets have risen high...
Post a Comment
Read more

The bond-stock conundrum

Here's a conundrum. Many commentators have been trying to puzzle out why stocks have been continually hitting new highs at the same time that bond yields have been hitting new lows. See here , here , here , and here . On the surface, equity markets and bond markets seem to be saying two different things about the future. Stronger equities indicate a bright future while rising bond prices (and falling yields) portend a bleak one. Since these two predictions can't both be right, either the bond market or the stock market is terribly wrong. It's the I'm with stupid theory of the bond and equity bull markets. I hope to show in this post that investor stupidity isn't the only way to explain today's concurrent bull market pattern. Improvements in financial market liquidity and declining expectations surrounding the pace of consumer price inflation can both account for why stocks and equities are moving higher together. More on these two factors later. 1. I'm with...
Post a Comment
Read more