Congressman says we should be banned from mining, using cryptocurrency

Published in Digital Trends.

Also brought up during the hearing was the idea of central banks issuing their own digital currency. Alex Pollock from the R Street Institute refuted the idea, as these banks would compete directly with the Federal Reserve. Having central banks issue digital currencies is “one of the worst financial ideas of recent times,” he said.

The future of digital currency

Published by the House Financial Services Committee.

“There is no doubt that the digitalization of financial transactions, records, access to information, and communication will continue to increase, and that the electronic networks underlying the activity continue to grow more intense and omnipresent. But the fundamental nature of money, it seems to me, will not change… It is clear that having a fiat currency is far too precious and profitable for governments for them ever to go back to a government currency backed and convertible into actual assets, whether gold coins or otherwise… An increase of the monopoly power of central banks, which already have too much, should be avoided.” – Alex J. Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow, R Street Institute

Congressional hearing on the future of money & crypto: “These innovations should be fostered not smothered”

Published in Crowdfund Insider.

As previously reported, the list of witnesses included the following individuals;

Dr. Rodney J. Garratt, Maxwell C. and Mary Pellish Chair, Professor of Economics, University of California Santa BarbaraDr. Norbert J. Michel, Director, Center for Data Analysis, The Heritage FoundationDr. Eswar S. Prasad, Senior Fellow, The Brookings InstitutionMr. Alex J. Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow, R Street Institute[…]

Pollock quoted Hayek in his remarks. Sympathizing with the famous economist;

“Why should we not let people choose freely what money they want to use? … I have no objection to governments issuing money, but I believe their claim to a monopoly, or their power to limit the kinds of money in which contracts may be concluded within their territory, or to determine the rates at which monies can be exchanged, to be wholly harmful. … I hope it will not be too long before complete freedom to deal in any money one likes will be regarded as the essential mark of a free country.”

While adding he did not expect a “revolution in the international monetary system,” Dr. Prasad stated;

“While reserve currencies might not be challenged as stores of value, digital versions of extant reserve currencies and improved cross-border transaction channels could intensify competition among reserve currencies themselves.”

[…]

Pollock, on the other hand, called having a CBDC one the the worst ideas of the times.

Representative Barr asked if crypto could supplant US dollars as a reserve currency? And what type of implications this may have.

Michel said it is not going to happen. The US dollar has a competitive advantage of wealth storage added Pollock.

US Congressman stands against cryptos

Published by Live Coin Watch.

However, there are also many who are opposing the idea, pointing out potential risks, and not wanting to change the traditional methods. The concept reached the Wednesday’s hearing, and R Street Institute’s senior fellow, Alex Pollock, stood against it, saying that it is the worst financial idea that has been conceived lately.

US Congress hearing: Central bank digital currency ‘one of the worst financial ideas’

From Cointelegraph:

Alex Pollock, senior fellow at the R Street Institute, argued that “to have a central bank digital currency is one of the worst financial ideas of recent times, but still it’s quite conceivable…” Pollock said that central bank digital currencies would only increase the size, role, and power of the bank, adding that the Federal Reserve adopting a CBDC would result in it become the “overwhelming credit allocator of the U.S. economic and financial system.” He continued:

“I think we can we can safely predict that its credit allocation would unavoidably be highly politicized and the taxpayers would be on the hook for its credit losses. The risk would be directly in the central bank.”

Pollock explained that if fiat money becomes digitized, its nature will not be changed, and will still be issued by a central bank. While Pollock can envision some type of private digital currency backed by assets, he concluded that it will not be “private fiat currency” like Bitcoin. In Pollock’s view, cryptocurrencies are essentially the same as scrip.

“We should prohibit U.S. persons from buying or mining cryptocurrencies,” says Rep. Brad Sherman

Published in Hacked.com.

Unfortunately, Rep. Sherman’s utterances were not the only anti-cryptocurrency statements at the hearing. Specifically, Alex Pollock, a fellow from the Pro-Free Market think R Street Institute, stated his view that, “a central bank virtual currency is one of the worst ideas in recent times.”

A central bank digital currency is one of the worst financial ideas ever – US Congress hearing

Published in Smartereum.

Another member of the committee from R. Street Institute, Alex Pollock, argued that having a digital currency owned and regulated by the Central Bank is the worst financial idea in the recent times. According to Pollock, the digital currencies by the central bank would do nothing but increase the role and power of the central bank. It would also make the Central Bank an overwhelming credit allocator in the United States economy.

In Pollock’s words:

“Its safe to predict that the credit allocation of the central bank will undoubtedly become politicized. Taxpayers will be on hook for credit losses. The Central Bank will bear the risk directly.”

According to Pollock, if fiat money is digitized, the nature of the currency will not change and the Central Bank will still be responsible for issuing it. He said that cryptocurrencies are more or less the same as scrip.

Il Parlamento USA discute sul futuro delle crypto

Published in The Cryptonomist.

All’audizione parteciperanno il dr. Rodney J. Garratt, Maxwell C. e Mary Pellish Chairdell’Università della California a Santa Barbara, il Dr. Norbert J. Michel, Direttore del Centro per l’analisi dei dati della Heritage Foundation, il Dr. Eswar S. Prasad, Senior Fellow presso il Brookings Institution, e Alex J. Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow presso R Street Institute.

Humphrey-Hawkins originalist

Published in Grant’s Interest Rate Observer.

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh isn’t the only news-making student of original American texts. Alex J. Pollock, distinguished senior fellow at the R Street Institute in Washington, D.C., is fresh from a deep reading of the 1978 Humphrey- Hawkins Act. What it says may surprise you.

It may surprise Jerome H. Powell, who is expected to deliver his semiannual Humphrey-Hawkins testimony (on the 40th anniversary of that oft invoked legislation) on July 17. If past is prologue, the new Fed chairman will advert to the central bank’s so-called dual mandate, i.e., the promotion of “price stability,” which the Fed defines as a 2% rate of inflation, and “full employment,” which the Fed is pleased to leave undefined.

Pollock—and we—have long wondered how stable prices could be if they’re always rising. Congress is not, in fact, the source of a law to command a quintupling in the price level over the course of an 82-year lifespan, which is the clear arithmetic implication of a 2% per annum inflation target. The brain boxes at the Eccles Building and their counterparts at central banks as far away as New Zealand dreamt it up all by themselves.

Never mind by what process of reasoning the Fed settled on 2%. Pollock rather asks, What does the law say?

The Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977, for one, does not say “price stability,” as Pollock notes: “It does in particular not say ‘a stable rate of inflation.’ It says ‘stable prices.’ Does the term ‘stable prices’ mean perpetual inflation? What did Congress mean by ‘stable prices’ when it put that term into law?”