Do we Need Central Banks?

[Keeping Up]

i believe that when central banks were created it was meant for the greater good of mankind.
but nowadays it just shows that this type of system are being used in order to promote the personal welfare of those who composes it.
yes it is indeed very helpful when it comes to regulation but nowadays it is becoming a venue to restrict people how they spend their assets.
rules and regulations are created not for the greater good anymore but for the benefit of some already.

[shashkova]

we do need central banks for the regulation of the national currency. and if the day comes that bitcoin will replace the fiat money,  and everything is decentralized, these central banks will probably be obsolete.

[hadveach]

i believe that when central banks were created it was meant for the greater good of mankind.
but nowadays it just shows that this type of system are being used in order to promote the personal welfare of those who composes it.
yes it is indeed very helpful when it comes to regulation but nowadays it is becoming a venue to restrict people how they spend their assets.
rules and regulations are created not for the greater good anymore but for the benefit of some already.

I agree with you that the centralized system only makes them richer. can not give satisfaction to consumers, this system also is not safe, easy hacked, and they only have the legality only.

I am sure, this system will only make them bored, the world needs innovation, blockchain is the solution to create a system with a new model.

[Rapidgator]

Be Your Own Bank !!!

[elygil2022]

All countries need a central bank. I don’t see the point of some people wanting to get rid of governments and central banks. Makes me think these people are anarchists. 

[spadaccino]

We definitely do not need one !
and let's fuck with them.

Banks ruined our economic world and you can never trust them anymore.
Dump FIAT and buy your crypto - as easy as that

[135cc]

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

I think if this problem is regarding to the financial condition of a country, of course we need a central banks, because we need at least one institutions that can rule and make the law regarding to the financial system in order to make it equal and fair. But, if this case is for bitcoin i think we don't need a central banks. Because the initial goal of bitcoin is to make a decentralized system that based on freedom.

[tee-rex]

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.

The dude obviously doesn't understand how modern banking system works. Banks create money on behalf of the Central bank. To better understand that idea, just imagine that there are no commercial banks in the neighborhood but only branches of a Central bank everywhere. Banks create money because 1) Central bank allows them to, 2) they are allowed to create only the Central bank money (dollars, euro, etc), and 3) Central bank backs up these banks if something bad happens to them. There was a time when banks were truly independent with no Central bank as we understand it today, and this didn't end well.

[ghosong]

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

The central bank will continue to exist, regardless of whether we want it or not.
The fact is that the central bank is an integral part of the current state system. Each country is a complex system that can no longer be done without a central bank, which, first of all, forms the country's monetary policy and supports the running of national money with monetary measures. Therefore, in fact, They will continue to exist.

[cathund3rra]

We don't! I want world without centralized money printers!

[sitnibtc]

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

[delightme]

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

[alanimba]

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.

[csdga]

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. ,

[jaaeeeyyyy]

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.

[Hirikama29]

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.

[Soots]

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.

Central bank is the safest ways to be free from risks, despite of hacking issues. The bank is always liable of the funds that we have, because it is needed an insurance agreement that protects your digital asset to be more secured. If ever there might be cases that your holding or savings be stolen, then they're liable for the circumstances that had happened.

[Dudeperfect]

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.

[JerryJam]

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.

[tee-rex]

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).