maybe my opinion is different,
for now the central bank should still exist to serve the people who have not known cryptocurrency, maybe everyone here already knows cryptocurrency, but actually in my area maybe only 4% know about cryptocurrency
therefore, the role of the central bank must still be improved to serve non crypto users
Topic: Do we Need Central Banks? - page 10. (Read 2997 times)
Of course, we do need central banks. Stop this manifesto nonsense. And by the way, we also need governments. 
Actually we do need central bank even if you had explained well on the use of it but still you do not consider the exchange from fiat to crypto. As we all know that some of these local exchange will not going to receive directly fiat money in order for them to let you exchange your fiat to crypto. So local exchanges in short may use the third party to enable sure transactions process especially if it involves huge amount of money.
If someone lives in a virtual world, then, probably, central banks are no longer needed. Since I still live in this rough physical world, where there still exist paper national money, the rate of which is supported by central banks and where central banks provide a unified monetary policy for the state, I still need central banks.
Some already write that we and the state do not need. Only how they are going to live in such an anarchic world where the right of the strong will reign, you can not hide from the armed gang in the virtual world.
Some already write that we and the state do not need. Only how they are going to live in such an anarchic world where the right of the strong will reign, you can not hide from the armed gang in the virtual world.
Of course Yes. Almost all the countries do have central banks to perform these functions. Central banks are autonomous bodies that work independently keeping economic growth priorities in view.
But talking about cryptocurrency, bitcoin specifically, central banks will not be needed.
I really do not think we need them,although we have been made to believe the contrary. People used money effectively before the advent of central bank,
The first central banks were created in Amsterdam and Stockholm in the early 1600s. The early central banks were largely utilized to assist in financing government operations. The Bank of England was formed as a private company in the late 1700s to help the government raise funds for financing the wars that England was engaged in at the time. By the mid-19th century, the Bank of England (misnamed because it is the central bank of the U.K., not just England) became totally government owned and had the monopoly on the issue of bank notes (currency). The U.S. did not have a central bank until the Federal Reserve came into existence in 1913. As it's shown that central bank is practically needed in our society to meet up the needs of what the central bank stands for.
I think we must consider the point of literacy especially when it comes to the technology. Even in developed countries, there are many people who are not familiar with modern technology and hence they are not fit for using decentralized currency at this stage and if we are willing to spread the knowledge and understanding about cryptocurrencies then the transformation should be smooth and it will take comparatively higher time so at this stage we cannot eliminate the role of central banks.
That's complete BS if you ask me. Have you ever tried to fill a real payment order in your bank? I strongly suspect that you didn't. So I advise you to go and fill the one to learn how it feels in real life. After that you will definitely reconsider your point of view that many people are not "fit" for using decentralized currency at "this stage". If anything, even more people are not fit to use a fiat currency when it comes to making online payments using, for example, a wire transfer for moving money from one bank to another (and will never be).
As long as there are Fiat money banks will exist. Whether we want it or not. This need is primarily related to the development of the country's economy.If we assume that the whole world has moved to the crypto currency then in fact banks will lose their function as a financial institution.Every person will be a Bank to himself. But how it was said, banks also transfer funds Perform many other functions.
I think we must consider the point of literacy especially when it comes to the technology. Even in developed countries, there are many people who are not familiar with modern technology and hence they are not fit for using decentralized currency at this stage and if we are willing to spread the knowledge and understanding about cryptocurrencies then the transformation should be smooth and it will take comparatively higher time so at this stage we cannot eliminate the role of central banks.
Shifting from Central Planning to a Decentralised Economy: Do we Need Central Banks?
by Professor Richard A. Werner, D.Phil. (Oxon)
I. The Central Bank Narrative
For more than the past four decades, public policy discourse, especially when touching on macroeconomic and monetary policy, has been dominated by the views held and actively sponsored by the central banks, particularly in Europe and North-America, as well as Japan.
Their policy narrative has been consistent over time and virtually identical between central banks, which is why I shall refer to it collectively as the ‘central bank narrative’. It has been mirrored in the type of economics that central bankers have supported and that has indeed subsequently become dominant in academia and among the economists selected as the experts of choice in the major newspapers and television channels: the theoreticians advancing neo-classical economics.
This central bank narrative (and hence also the dominant neo-classical economics, also known as ‘mainstream economics’) has at least five major pillars, which I shall list briefly:
The truth of the matter is: We don’t need central banks. Since 97% of the money supply is created by banks, the importance of central banks is far smaller than generally envisaged. Moreover, the kind of money that commercial banks create is not privileged at law. Legally, our money supply is simply private company credit, which can be created by any company, with or without banking license.
Eurozone countries, having given up the right to their own currencies, can still create money and reflate the economy: the government, for instance in Spain, simply needs to stop the issuance of government bonds, and fund the entire public sector borrowing requirement from the domestic banks that create it out of nothing – and can do so at more competitive rates as the bond markets: this policy of Enhanced Debt Management (Werner, 2014b) not only would make it obvious that Spain does not need the ECB, but it would also put the national debt profiteers – the bond underwriting firms such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley – out of business.
This reality of private money creation also means that we can, without legal obstacles, create a decentralized system of local currencies, without central bank involvement.
The key principle of such decentralization is local autonomy, self-determination, self-responsibility and self-administration. These are in fact the fundamental principles of the co-operative movement, as championed by Hermann Schultze-Delitzsch and Wilhelm Raiffeisen over 150 years ago. This co-operative movement early on realized that a crucial role for co-operatives is in the creation of co-operative banks controlled by the local communities. Sadly, in the UK credit unions are not banks, since they are not allowed to lend to firms in meaningful amounts, and don’t have a banking license. Thus we need to create true community banks.
Lord Action pointed out:
“It is easier to find people fit to govern themselves than people fit to govern others”.
“Towns were the nursery of freedom.”
The German banking system is dominated by 1,500 community banks, which are also the majority of banks in the entire EU. This means that 80% of German banks are not-for-profit, which has strengthened the German economy for the past 200 years. A banking system consisting of many small banks is also far less prone to boom-bust cycles and it creates more jobs per given amount of loan than large banks. Thus community banks also result in a more equal income and wealth distribution.
Local banking is highly popular in Germany, because SMEs get access to finance that would not be serviced by large banks. The community banks provide their services at competitive rates and support their customers also during recessions. With community banks, the wider community gets a bank whose goals are aligned with theirs, banks that pay taxes, banks that support local growth and jobs. At the same time community banks offer customers a place to put their money where it can benefit the local community, not far-flung projects or speculators.
Can we tackle this challenge?
Until the 1970s, there has been much optimism in economics and there have been high expectations that many of the problems of mankind would soon be solved.
Was this a reasonable expectation?
While it has not come true, it was a reasonable expectation. This is because
“Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings”
John F. Kennedy
It might sound good on paper and in theory but while having a great convenience and ease of access as well as benefits that would later on be unfolded, but we are putting all our investments and ourselves at risk, because when the central bank's database is hacked, all our investments would become vulnerable to thievery. As long as that issue is not resolved I would disagree with the idea of a central bank.by Professor Richard A. Werner, D.Phil. (Oxon)
I. The Central Bank Narrative
For more than the past four decades, public policy discourse, especially when touching on macroeconomic and monetary policy, has been dominated by the views held and actively sponsored by the central banks, particularly in Europe and North-America, as well as Japan.
Their policy narrative has been consistent over time and virtually identical between central banks, which is why I shall refer to it collectively as the ‘central bank narrative’. It has been mirrored in the type of economics that central bankers have supported and that has indeed subsequently become dominant in academia and among the economists selected as the experts of choice in the major newspapers and television channels: the theoreticians advancing neo-classical economics.
This central bank narrative (and hence also the dominant neo-classical economics, also known as ‘mainstream economics’) has at least five major pillars, which I shall list briefly:
The truth of the matter is: We don’t need central banks. Since 97% of the money supply is created by banks, the importance of central banks is far smaller than generally envisaged. Moreover, the kind of money that commercial banks create is not privileged at law. Legally, our money supply is simply private company credit, which can be created by any company, with or without banking license.
Eurozone countries, having given up the right to their own currencies, can still create money and reflate the economy: the government, for instance in Spain, simply needs to stop the issuance of government bonds, and fund the entire public sector borrowing requirement from the domestic banks that create it out of nothing – and can do so at more competitive rates as the bond markets: this policy of Enhanced Debt Management (Werner, 2014b) not only would make it obvious that Spain does not need the ECB, but it would also put the national debt profiteers – the bond underwriting firms such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley – out of business.
This reality of private money creation also means that we can, without legal obstacles, create a decentralized system of local currencies, without central bank involvement.
The key principle of such decentralization is local autonomy, self-determination, self-responsibility and self-administration. These are in fact the fundamental principles of the co-operative movement, as championed by Hermann Schultze-Delitzsch and Wilhelm Raiffeisen over 150 years ago. This co-operative movement early on realized that a crucial role for co-operatives is in the creation of co-operative banks controlled by the local communities. Sadly, in the UK credit unions are not banks, since they are not allowed to lend to firms in meaningful amounts, and don’t have a banking license. Thus we need to create true community banks.
Lord Action pointed out:
“It is easier to find people fit to govern themselves than people fit to govern others”.
“Towns were the nursery of freedom.”
The German banking system is dominated by 1,500 community banks, which are also the majority of banks in the entire EU. This means that 80% of German banks are not-for-profit, which has strengthened the German economy for the past 200 years. A banking system consisting of many small banks is also far less prone to boom-bust cycles and it creates more jobs per given amount of loan than large banks. Thus community banks also result in a more equal income and wealth distribution.
Local banking is highly popular in Germany, because SMEs get access to finance that would not be serviced by large banks. The community banks provide their services at competitive rates and support their customers also during recessions. With community banks, the wider community gets a bank whose goals are aligned with theirs, banks that pay taxes, banks that support local growth and jobs. At the same time community banks offer customers a place to put their money where it can benefit the local community, not far-flung projects or speculators.
Can we tackle this challenge?
Until the 1970s, there has been much optimism in economics and there have been high expectations that many of the problems of mankind would soon be solved.
Was this a reasonable expectation?
While it has not come true, it was a reasonable expectation. This is because
“Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings”
John F. Kennedy
Putting the national debt profiteers such as Goldman&Sachs and Morgan Stanley out of business will be nice for all, only that the powers that be will not allow that to happen. Articles like there are brilliant ideas but will gain attention because of the cabals that benefit from the current system.
We still need the central bank where the money will be managed, which will also allow us to carry out our lending activities or send us money to the bank so that we can hand over more convenient transactions.
Shifting from Central Planning to a Decentralised Economy: Do we Need Central Banks?
by Professor Richard A. Werner, D.Phil. (Oxon)
I. The Central Bank Narrative
For more than the past four decades, public policy discourse, especially when touching on macroeconomic and monetary policy, has been dominated by the views held and actively sponsored by the central banks, particularly in Europe and North-America, as well as Japan.
Their policy narrative has been consistent over time and virtually identical between central banks, which is why I shall refer to it collectively as the ‘central bank narrative’. It has been mirrored in the type of economics that central bankers have supported and that has indeed subsequently become dominant in academia and among the economists selected as the experts of choice in the major newspapers and television channels: the theoreticians advancing neo-classical economics.
This central bank narrative (and hence also the dominant neo-classical economics, also known as ‘mainstream economics’) has at least five major pillars, which I shall list briefly:
The truth of the matter is: We don’t need central banks. Since 97% of the money supply is created by banks, the importance of central banks is far smaller than generally envisaged. Moreover, the kind of money that commercial banks create is not privileged at law. Legally, our money supply is simply private company credit, which can be created by any company, with or without banking license.
Eurozone countries, having given up the right to their own currencies, can still create money and reflate the economy: the government, for instance in Spain, simply needs to stop the issuance of government bonds, and fund the entire public sector borrowing requirement from the domestic banks that create it out of nothing – and can do so at more competitive rates as the bond markets: this policy of Enhanced Debt Management (Werner, 2014b) not only would make it obvious that Spain does not need the ECB, but it would also put the national debt profiteers – the bond underwriting firms such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley – out of business.
This reality of private money creation also means that we can, without legal obstacles, create a decentralized system of local currencies, without central bank involvement.
The key principle of such decentralization is local autonomy, self-determination, self-responsibility and self-administration. These are in fact the fundamental principles of the co-operative movement, as championed by Hermann Schultze-Delitzsch and Wilhelm Raiffeisen over 150 years ago. This co-operative movement early on realized that a crucial role for co-operatives is in the creation of co-operative banks controlled by the local communities. Sadly, in the UK credit unions are not banks, since they are not allowed to lend to firms in meaningful amounts, and don’t have a banking license. Thus we need to create true community banks.
Lord Action pointed out:
“It is easier to find people fit to govern themselves than people fit to govern others”.
“Towns were the nursery of freedom.”
The German banking system is dominated by 1,500 community banks, which are also the majority of banks in the entire EU. This means that 80% of German banks are not-for-profit, which has strengthened the German economy for the past 200 years. A banking system consisting of many small banks is also far less prone to boom-bust cycles and it creates more jobs per given amount of loan than large banks. Thus community banks also result in a more equal income and wealth distribution.
Local banking is highly popular in Germany, because SMEs get access to finance that would not be serviced by large banks. The community banks provide their services at competitive rates and support their customers also during recessions. With community banks, the wider community gets a bank whose goals are aligned with theirs, banks that pay taxes, banks that support local growth and jobs. At the same time community banks offer customers a place to put their money where it can benefit the local community, not far-flung projects or speculators.
Can we tackle this challenge?
Until the 1970s, there has been much optimism in economics and there have been high expectations that many of the problems of mankind would soon be solved.
Was this a reasonable expectation?
While it has not come true, it was a reasonable expectation. This is because
“Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings”
John F. Kennedy
It might sound good on paper and in theory but while having a great convenience and ease of access as well as benefits that would later on be unfolded, but we are putting all our investments and ourselves at risk, because when the central bank's database is hacked, all our investments would become vulnerable to thievery. As long as that issue is not resolved I would disagree with the idea of a central bank. by Professor Richard A. Werner, D.Phil. (Oxon)
I. The Central Bank Narrative
For more than the past four decades, public policy discourse, especially when touching on macroeconomic and monetary policy, has been dominated by the views held and actively sponsored by the central banks, particularly in Europe and North-America, as well as Japan.
Their policy narrative has been consistent over time and virtually identical between central banks, which is why I shall refer to it collectively as the ‘central bank narrative’. It has been mirrored in the type of economics that central bankers have supported and that has indeed subsequently become dominant in academia and among the economists selected as the experts of choice in the major newspapers and television channels: the theoreticians advancing neo-classical economics.
This central bank narrative (and hence also the dominant neo-classical economics, also known as ‘mainstream economics’) has at least five major pillars, which I shall list briefly:
The truth of the matter is: We don’t need central banks. Since 97% of the money supply is created by banks, the importance of central banks is far smaller than generally envisaged. Moreover, the kind of money that commercial banks create is not privileged at law. Legally, our money supply is simply private company credit, which can be created by any company, with or without banking license.
Eurozone countries, having given up the right to their own currencies, can still create money and reflate the economy: the government, for instance in Spain, simply needs to stop the issuance of government bonds, and fund the entire public sector borrowing requirement from the domestic banks that create it out of nothing – and can do so at more competitive rates as the bond markets: this policy of Enhanced Debt Management (Werner, 2014b) not only would make it obvious that Spain does not need the ECB, but it would also put the national debt profiteers – the bond underwriting firms such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley – out of business.
This reality of private money creation also means that we can, without legal obstacles, create a decentralized system of local currencies, without central bank involvement.
The key principle of such decentralization is local autonomy, self-determination, self-responsibility and self-administration. These are in fact the fundamental principles of the co-operative movement, as championed by Hermann Schultze-Delitzsch and Wilhelm Raiffeisen over 150 years ago. This co-operative movement early on realized that a crucial role for co-operatives is in the creation of co-operative banks controlled by the local communities. Sadly, in the UK credit unions are not banks, since they are not allowed to lend to firms in meaningful amounts, and don’t have a banking license. Thus we need to create true community banks.
Lord Action pointed out:
“It is easier to find people fit to govern themselves than people fit to govern others”.
“Towns were the nursery of freedom.”
The German banking system is dominated by 1,500 community banks, which are also the majority of banks in the entire EU. This means that 80% of German banks are not-for-profit, which has strengthened the German economy for the past 200 years. A banking system consisting of many small banks is also far less prone to boom-bust cycles and it creates more jobs per given amount of loan than large banks. Thus community banks also result in a more equal income and wealth distribution.
Local banking is highly popular in Germany, because SMEs get access to finance that would not be serviced by large banks. The community banks provide their services at competitive rates and support their customers also during recessions. With community banks, the wider community gets a bank whose goals are aligned with theirs, banks that pay taxes, banks that support local growth and jobs. At the same time community banks offer customers a place to put their money where it can benefit the local community, not far-flung projects or speculators.
Can we tackle this challenge?
Until the 1970s, there has been much optimism in economics and there have been high expectations that many of the problems of mankind would soon be solved.
Was this a reasonable expectation?
While it has not come true, it was a reasonable expectation. This is because
“Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings”
John F. Kennedy
The central bank can regulate the economy to some extent. If the market is perfect and does not require banks to regulate, it is a good thing, but in fact, it is still needed. ,
Well, central banks and fiat currencies are only a pretty new concept to humankind. The economy, as well as the currency, can definitely function without a central bank, as demonstrated by the days where paper currency did not exist and we used gold and silver as main forms of currency.
These are essentially the most basic forms of decentralized currencies, and they certainly worked well to serve their purpose - to store value, and to serve as a medium of exchange in transactions.
It's up to debate whether or not society would function better without a central bank, but all I know is that if I wanted to save my net worth in something, I would not put the majority of it in something which value is based on a central organization's trust, and they essentially can inflate the supply of as much as they want to.
Rightly said, central banking or centralization is relatively a new concept to humanity. Anthropological,man tends towards a decentralized system as trust is often broken, such was the case in the "hunter-gatherer"stage of our evolution till some "Lords"intoroduced some quasi governance and ultimately control by a few. These are essentially the most basic forms of decentralized currencies, and they certainly worked well to serve their purpose - to store value, and to serve as a medium of exchange in transactions.
It's up to debate whether or not society would function better without a central bank, but all I know is that if I wanted to save my net worth in something, I would not put the majority of it in something which value is based on a central organization's trust, and they essentially can inflate the supply of as much as they want to.
We still need the central bank.Because the central bank is national, don't you trust your country.The technology of the chain is not mature enough to be fully trusted, and it is not too late to discuss it when it can be fully trusted.
Yes we need Central Bank for providing financial and banking services in the country's, government and commercial banking system also implementing the government monetary policy and issuing currency
we do need it now. it serve as a regulatory body for the national currency. without it there will be chaos in the financial system. but when cryptos be the world currency in the future, everything decentralized, no need for this central banks
We don't! I want world without centralized money printers!
Jump to: