The short answer is nobody knows; Volcker never really got steeped within the fast-developing world of crypto.
“Bitcoin? What’s that?” Volcker replied when asked about the most important cryptocurrency by a Quartz reporter in April 2013. “I’m too old to understand anything that .”
The question is worth asking, though, since Volcker, who died in the week at 92, is considered perhaps the foremost effective and credible Fed chief of the past half century.
Volcker led the U.S. financial institution from 1979 through 1987 and is understood primarily for jacking up short-term interest rates to as high as 20 percent to short-circuit double-digit inflation. The aggressive move helped to push the U.S. into recessions within the early 1980s, driving the percentage to just about 11 percent from 6 percent and drawing outcry and pushback from corporate executives, unions and lawmakers. But by the mid-1980s, the rate of inflation dropped back below 2 percent, and therefore the economy resumed its growth.
Now, the Fed and central bankers round the world are grappling with the emergence of a replacement sort of money: digital currencies made possible by cryptography and advances within the distributed-ledger technology referred to as blockchain. Authorities from Ghana to Sweden are examining the concept while China, the world’s second-largest economy, is moving forward with tests of a digital version of its national currency, the yuan. Some observers of say China’s effort could be partly geared to undermine the U.S. dollar’s supremacy.
Easier on consumers
The promise of those government-backed digital currencies is that they could reduce the necessity for paper bills and coins, making it easier for consumers and businesses alike to exchange payments. Those are benefits that Volcker likely would have embraced, says Richard Sylla, a replacement York University economics professor emeritus who focuses on financial history.
“One of the arguments for digital currencies is that it could lower the prices of moving money round the world,” Sylla said during a phone interview. “And he certainly wouldn’t are against investigating the likelihood of that.”
Sylla, who knew Volcker professionally, says he was with the previous Fed chief once when he was close to fly to Mexico for a gathering . consistent with Sylla, Volcker casually remarked that the planet could be more happy if it had one currency; things might just be simpler that way.
Of course, the U.S. dollar is the de facto global reserve currency, stockpiled by central banks and investors in only about every country. The U.S. is that the world’s largest economy, and therefore the dollar is the default tender for several cross-border loans also as payments in international trade and large global commodity markets like oil and gold. There’s also the necessity for dollars to shop for dollar-denominated assets like U.S. Treasury bonds, seen as a far better store useful than risky assets like stocks in an economic downturn or financial crisis.
Volcker was a critic of Wall Street financial-engineering products like credit-default swaps and collateralized loan obligations, and he famously pushed (successfully) after the 2008 crisis to prevent banks from making speculative proprietary trades with customer deposits.
But Volcker was reportedly a lover of technological improvements to form the economic system work faster and more efficiently, or to enhance the convenience of payments within the broad economy. Volcker said in December 2009 that he thought the ATM machine was the foremost important innovation within the banking system of the prior 20 years , because it “really helps people and prevents visits to the bank and it’s a true convenience.”
‘Volcker would have created it’
Dick Bove, a five-decade financial-industry analyst for the brokerage Odeon Capital, said during a phone interview that Volcker likely would have opposed bitcoin and other digital assets built by independent developers. consistent with Bove, Volcker believed that “central banks should have control of the economic system during a given nation, and it should have control of interest rates and therefore the volume of currency being created, and it should be wont to help the country meet whatever goals are needed at any point in time.”
But a digital currency issued by the central bank? Bove bets Volcker would are all for it – only for the sake of maintaining with new technology.
“If the necessity for a financial institution digital currency arose, i feel Volcker would have created it,” Bove said.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said last week that he and therefore the current Fed chair, Jerome Powell, agree there is no need for a digital version of the dollar “in the near future, within the next five years.”
Paul Brodsky, a partner at the crypto-focused investment company Pantera Capital, said Volcker likewise may need taken a cautious approach to a digital dollar rollout.
“He would have waited and let it see how it played call at the private sector before pushing forward with a Fed digital currency,” Brodsky said.
Keeping a decent lid on money…
Jimmy Song, with crypto-focused risk capital firm Blockchain Capital, says Volcker may need endorsed a digital dollar as a technology. But that leaves unsolved what Song sees because the basic problem that led to the first formation of bitcoin, within the wake of the 2008 crisis: technocrats’ efforts to exercise an excessive amount of control over money, resulting in mistakes and excesses.
Volcker is “not someone who wanted to offer people self-sovereignty or freedom,” Song said during a phone interview. “A Fed-backed digital currency is conceptually not very different from the system that he oversaw. It’s mainly just an infrastructure upgrade.”
…but not too tight
David Yermack, chair of latest York University’s finance department, said the late Fed chief was surprisingly conservative when it came to the advantages of limited government. One advantage of some digital-dollar proposals is that individuals could be ready to deposit money directly with the Fed, without having to line up accounts at commercial banks.
But which may create the “risk of abuse for political reasons,” since the govt would have more direct control over people’s money, says Yermack, who teaches courses on bitcoin and has co-authored research papers on central-bank digital currencies. Some critics of China’s push for a digital yuan argue that it might simply become easier for central authorities to watch citizens.
The benefits of a financial institution digital currency “might be desirable but encroach on personal freedom,” Yermack said. Volcker “had tons of religion within the private sector. He was never an individual who stressed big government for its own sake.”
But consistent with Sylla, the financial historian, Volcker wouldn’t have wanted to cede monetary authority to non-public companies like Facebook, which is developing a digital asset for payments, referred to as Libra.
“What Volcker would have said if he were still with us and that we could ask him, is that the thought of a financial institution digital currency was a thought worth studying, but I’m pretty certain he wouldn’t want it to be under the control of Mark Zuckerberg,” Sylla said, pertaining to Facebook’s CEO.
Correction: An earlier version of this text incorrectly stated that Yermack knew Volcker. That reference has been removed.