by CEPR Discussion Paper 13065, July 2018. PDF. (Personal copy.) I offer a macroeconomic perspective on the “Reserves for All” (RFA) proposal to let the general public use electronic central bank money. After distinguishing RFA from cryptocurrencies and relating the proposal to discussions about narrow banking and the abolition of cash I propose an equivalence result according to which a marginal substitution of outside for inside money does not affect macroeconomic outcomes. I identify key conditions on bank and government (central bank) incentives for equivalence and argue that these conditions likely are violated, implying that RFA would change macroeconomic outcomes. I also relate my analysis to common arguments in the discussion about RFA and point to inconsistencies and open
Topics:
Dirk Niepelt considers the following as important: 100% money, Bank, Central Bank, Central bank digital currency, Contributions, Crypto currency, Deposits, Digital money, Equivalence, Narrow banking, public debt, Research, Reserves, Reserves for all, Time inconsistency, Vollgeld
This could be interesting, too:
Dirk Niepelt writes The New Keynesian Model and Reality
Dirk Niepelt writes “Money and Banking with Reserves and CBDC,” JF, 2024
Dirk Niepelt writes A Financial System Built on Bail-Outs?
Dirk Niepelt writes Budgetary Effects of Ageing and Climate Policies in Switzerland
CEPR Discussion Paper 13065, July 2018. PDF. (Personal copy.)
I offer a macroeconomic perspective on the “Reserves for All” (RFA) proposal to let the general public use electronic central bank money. After distinguishing RFA from cryptocurrencies and relating the proposal to discussions about narrow banking and the abolition of cash I propose an equivalence result according to which a marginal substitution of outside for inside money does not affect macroeconomic outcomes. I identify key conditions on bank and government (central bank) incentives for equivalence and argue that these conditions likely are violated, implying that RFA would change macroeconomic outcomes. I also relate my analysis to common arguments in the discussion about RFA and point to inconsistencies and open questions.