可以由国家发行一种虚拟币
不过要先解决分叉的问题
Topic: 金融时报 -重量级人物肯尼思·罗格夫：“淘汰纸币的时候到了” (Read 752 times)
完全淘汰纸币要涉及到很多问题，不是那么简单的，这辈子能不能看到都是问题
需要注意的是，如果政府停止发放匿名货币，那么他们很可能必须确保私营部门并没有毫无顾忌发行一种类似比特币的替代品。否则，非法活动将继续进行下去，并且政府将得不到小通货膨胀带来的税收。
匿名化实现后管理太麻烦了
纸币及主要电子支付系统源于人类的信用而创设，加密货币、黄金源于上帝的工作量而存在，各有长短，并存无妨。
我们在收发微博，在阅读电子书，在使用纸质媒介。
我们在收发微博，在阅读电子书，在使用纸质媒介。
如果淘汰纸币的话一些经济落后的国家会照成商业控国的。
说的好，都用BTC才是正道
很期待，到时会是什么样子
也许正确的入口是淘汰大面额的纸币。
纸币早该淘汰了
一些落后国家还是得依靠纸币！ 
纸币早该淘汰了
如果真的要淘汰，这个过程将会非常漫长！
肯尼思·罗戈夫,哈佛经济学教授，在金融时报提出的问题是“是时候考虑淘汰纸币？ ” Kenneth Rogoff是公共政策和哈佛大学经济学的托马斯· D.卡伯特教授。2001-2003年，罗格夫所表达的任何意见，都必须非常认真的考虑，因为他担任国际货币基金的首席经济学家与研究部主管。
罗格夫指出：
“是的，有赞成维持现状的一些重要争论。这包括可能损失铸币税收益 – 央行印钞票来盈利 – 即使匿名纸币换成据称是匿名的电子政务货币。尽管央行“利润”都上缴国库，但可以从中获取费用，而不必乞求政府，这样的能力可以帮助央行不怕政治压力。但是，政府真正损失的成本会比损失铸币税的收益要少得多，因为他们可以加大逃税难度来获得收益。也可从减少犯罪来节约成本。 “
另外还有一点，有时人们可能希望就某些交易保持匿名，有人可能希望招一个妓女，他们可能买大麻，这些交易可能会导致非法，但可能在将来不是非法的。
大家都认为应该在国家流通一定比例的高面额纸币，但是，作为一个社会，我们过于天真，如果我们认为所有的这些钱都在合法流通。
欧盟在一个更大的范围内提供高面额纸币。当华金“厄尔尼诺查坡”古斯曼近日被捕，他的房间藏有2亿美金。据估计，地下或非法社区内流通的高面额纸币，至少是美国境内GDP的7至8 ％，显著高于欧洲。
“当然，如果政府能够令人信服地发出一种匿名电子货币，零界问题仍然会被解决，央行可以继续推动他们的产品。即使这样的结果是可行的，但它几乎是不可期望的。需要注意的是，如果政府停止发放匿名货币，那么他们很可能必须确保私营部门并没有毫无顾忌发行一种类似比特币的替代品。否则，非法活动将继续进行下去，并且政府将得不到小通货膨胀带来的税收。最终，匿名纸币将摇身一变，成为政府的理想合作伙伴。也许正确的入口是淘汰大面额的纸币。这可能足以实现主要目标。现在是时候考虑纸币功能是否正在退化，甚至更糟。 “
当肯尼思·罗戈夫这样重量级人物怀疑实物货币的未来，世界应该坐起来听。他提出的问题是有趣的和值得关注的。作为一个社会，我们是否准备好做出如此重大的改变或是装着没看见。有趣的是，已经有象罗格夫这样有影响力的人曾提出这样的问题，同样有趣的是，他已经提出这样的问题了，大气，保守，有影响力，在金融时报上提出。
Kenneth Rogoff, the professor of Economics atHarvard, writing in Financial Times, poses the question “Is it time to consider the phasing out of paper money?” Kenneth Rogoff is the Thomas D. Cabot Professor of Public Policy and Professor of Economics at Harvard. Any opinion expressed by Rogoff has to be taken extremely seriously as from 2001-2003, he served as Chief Economist and Director of Research at theInternational Monetary Fund. Rogoff’s treatiseFoundations of International Macroeconomics(joint with Maurice Obstfeld) is the standard graduate text in the field worldwide, and his monthly syndicated column on global economic issues is published regularly in over 50 countries.
Writing in Financial Times, in an article titled:Paper Money is unfit for a world of high crime and low inflation, Rogoff argues that abolishing physical currency would achieve currency’s two important objectives. First, it would eliminateZero Bound on policy interest rates that has acted to handcuff central banks since the financial crisis. At the moment, if central Banks set interest rates too low, in an attempt to stimulate growth, people simply move their money into cash. Secondly. phasing out large denomination notes would make it difficult for criminals to conduct their business; it is believed that a high proportion of large denomination notes are in the hands of criminals. Large denomination notes facilitate tax evasion and illegal activity.
Rogoff points out:
“Yes, there are some important arguments in favour of the status quo. These include a likely loss of seigniorage revenue – the profit central banks make by printing money – even if anonymous paper currency is replaced with purportedly anonymous electronic government currency. Even though central bank “profits” are turned over to national treasuries, the ability to skim off expenses without having to beg can help insulate central banks from political pressures. But the real costs to governments would be much less than the loss of seigniorage revenues might indicate, because they would gain revenue by making tax evasion more difficult. There would also be savings from crime reduction.”
There is also the argument that there are occasions that people may wish to remain financially anonymous in regard to certain transactions, Someone may wish to pay a prostitute, they may wish to buy marijuana, these transactions may lead to illegal activity at the moment but may not be illegal in the future.
It is accepted that a certain percentage of high denomination notes circulate internationally, however, we would be naive as a society if we believed that all of this money is circulating within a legal environment.
“Without going into gory detail, in both the eurozone and the US there is roughly $4,000 in circulation for every man, woman and child, and it is not easy to find. In Japan the figure is almost double that. In the US and Japan, more than 75 per cent of currency is held in the largest denomination notes, the $100 bill and the Y10,000 note”.
In the EU, there is an even larger range of high denomination notes available. When Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán was arrested recently, he had a room containing $200Million. It is estimated the amount of high denomination notes in circulation within the underground or illegal community, is at least 7 to 8% of GDP within the US and would be significantly higher in Europe.
“Of course, if governments could credibly issue an anonymous electronic currency, the problem of the zero bound would still be solved and central banks could keep pushing their product. Even if this outcome is feasible, however, it is hardly desirable. Note that if governments do stop issuing anonymous currency, then they would probably have to ensure that the private sector did not proffer a Bitcoin-like substitute. Otherwise, illegal activities would proceed unabated, and the government would forfeit even the small inflation tax revenue it gets now. Finally, a shift away from anonymous paper currency would ideally involve co-operation among governments. Perhaps the right place to begin is by phasing out large denomination notes. This might be enough to accomplish the main objectives. It is time to consider whether paper currency is vestigial, or worse.”
When someone of the heavyweight credibility of Kenneth Rogoff queries the future of physical currency, the world should sit up and listen. The questions he poses are interesting and relevant. Whether we are ready, as a society, to make so momentous a change or not remains to be seen. It is interesting that someone as influential as Rogoff has posed the question, it is also interesting that he has posed the question in an organ as substantial, as conservative, as influential, as the Financial Times.
Featured image by Shutterstock.
from:http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/financial-times-kenneth-rogoff-time-phase-paper-money/2014/05/29
本文固定链接: 三个硬币 | http://www.3-coin.com/2014-05-30/2306/
罗格夫指出：
“是的，有赞成维持现状的一些重要争论。这包括可能损失铸币税收益 – 央行印钞票来盈利 – 即使匿名纸币换成据称是匿名的电子政务货币。尽管央行“利润”都上缴国库，但可以从中获取费用，而不必乞求政府，这样的能力可以帮助央行不怕政治压力。但是，政府真正损失的成本会比损失铸币税的收益要少得多，因为他们可以加大逃税难度来获得收益。也可从减少犯罪来节约成本。 “
另外还有一点，有时人们可能希望就某些交易保持匿名，有人可能希望招一个妓女，他们可能买大麻，这些交易可能会导致非法，但可能在将来不是非法的。
大家都认为应该在国家流通一定比例的高面额纸币，但是，作为一个社会，我们过于天真，如果我们认为所有的这些钱都在合法流通。
欧盟在一个更大的范围内提供高面额纸币。当华金“厄尔尼诺查坡”古斯曼近日被捕，他的房间藏有2亿美金。据估计，地下或非法社区内流通的高面额纸币，至少是美国境内GDP的7至8 ％，显著高于欧洲。
“当然，如果政府能够令人信服地发出一种匿名电子货币，零界问题仍然会被解决，央行可以继续推动他们的产品。即使这样的结果是可行的，但它几乎是不可期望的。需要注意的是，如果政府停止发放匿名货币，那么他们很可能必须确保私营部门并没有毫无顾忌发行一种类似比特币的替代品。否则，非法活动将继续进行下去，并且政府将得不到小通货膨胀带来的税收。最终，匿名纸币将摇身一变，成为政府的理想合作伙伴。也许正确的入口是淘汰大面额的纸币。这可能足以实现主要目标。现在是时候考虑纸币功能是否正在退化，甚至更糟。 “
当肯尼思·罗戈夫这样重量级人物怀疑实物货币的未来，世界应该坐起来听。他提出的问题是有趣的和值得关注的。作为一个社会，我们是否准备好做出如此重大的改变或是装着没看见。有趣的是，已经有象罗格夫这样有影响力的人曾提出这样的问题，同样有趣的是，他已经提出这样的问题了，大气，保守，有影响力，在金融时报上提出。
Kenneth Rogoff, the professor of Economics atHarvard, writing in Financial Times, poses the question “Is it time to consider the phasing out of paper money?” Kenneth Rogoff is the Thomas D. Cabot Professor of Public Policy and Professor of Economics at Harvard. Any opinion expressed by Rogoff has to be taken extremely seriously as from 2001-2003, he served as Chief Economist and Director of Research at theInternational Monetary Fund. Rogoff’s treatiseFoundations of International Macroeconomics(joint with Maurice Obstfeld) is the standard graduate text in the field worldwide, and his monthly syndicated column on global economic issues is published regularly in over 50 countries.
Writing in Financial Times, in an article titled:Paper Money is unfit for a world of high crime and low inflation, Rogoff argues that abolishing physical currency would achieve currency’s two important objectives. First, it would eliminateZero Bound on policy interest rates that has acted to handcuff central banks since the financial crisis. At the moment, if central Banks set interest rates too low, in an attempt to stimulate growth, people simply move their money into cash. Secondly. phasing out large denomination notes would make it difficult for criminals to conduct their business; it is believed that a high proportion of large denomination notes are in the hands of criminals. Large denomination notes facilitate tax evasion and illegal activity.
Rogoff points out:
“Yes, there are some important arguments in favour of the status quo. These include a likely loss of seigniorage revenue – the profit central banks make by printing money – even if anonymous paper currency is replaced with purportedly anonymous electronic government currency. Even though central bank “profits” are turned over to national treasuries, the ability to skim off expenses without having to beg can help insulate central banks from political pressures. But the real costs to governments would be much less than the loss of seigniorage revenues might indicate, because they would gain revenue by making tax evasion more difficult. There would also be savings from crime reduction.”
There is also the argument that there are occasions that people may wish to remain financially anonymous in regard to certain transactions, Someone may wish to pay a prostitute, they may wish to buy marijuana, these transactions may lead to illegal activity at the moment but may not be illegal in the future.
It is accepted that a certain percentage of high denomination notes circulate internationally, however, we would be naive as a society if we believed that all of this money is circulating within a legal environment.
“Without going into gory detail, in both the eurozone and the US there is roughly $4,000 in circulation for every man, woman and child, and it is not easy to find. In Japan the figure is almost double that. In the US and Japan, more than 75 per cent of currency is held in the largest denomination notes, the $100 bill and the Y10,000 note”.
In the EU, there is an even larger range of high denomination notes available. When Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán was arrested recently, he had a room containing $200Million. It is estimated the amount of high denomination notes in circulation within the underground or illegal community, is at least 7 to 8% of GDP within the US and would be significantly higher in Europe.
“Of course, if governments could credibly issue an anonymous electronic currency, the problem of the zero bound would still be solved and central banks could keep pushing their product. Even if this outcome is feasible, however, it is hardly desirable. Note that if governments do stop issuing anonymous currency, then they would probably have to ensure that the private sector did not proffer a Bitcoin-like substitute. Otherwise, illegal activities would proceed unabated, and the government would forfeit even the small inflation tax revenue it gets now. Finally, a shift away from anonymous paper currency would ideally involve co-operation among governments. Perhaps the right place to begin is by phasing out large denomination notes. This might be enough to accomplish the main objectives. It is time to consider whether paper currency is vestigial, or worse.”
When someone of the heavyweight credibility of Kenneth Rogoff queries the future of physical currency, the world should sit up and listen. The questions he poses are interesting and relevant. Whether we are ready, as a society, to make so momentous a change or not remains to be seen. It is interesting that someone as influential as Rogoff has posed the question, it is also interesting that he has posed the question in an organ as substantial, as conservative, as influential, as the Financial Times.
Featured image by Shutterstock.
from:http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/financial-times-kenneth-rogoff-time-phase-paper-money/2014/05/29
本文固定链接: 三个硬币 | http://www.3-coin.com/2014-05-30/2306/
Jump to: