Alexander C. Kaufman
@kaufman
In a new New York Times essay, economist Barry Eichengreen attacks the Genius Act as a return to the United States’ mid-19th century Free Banking era, when different states and banks issued dubiously valuable currencies left and right. “The arrow of history points away from the private provision of multiple kinds of money. Virtually all economies, and not just that of the United States, have moved to create a more uniform, reliable payment system suitable for a deeply interconnected economy. Fracturing the payment system would only undermine that economy.” https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/opinion/genius-act-stablecoin-crypto.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
2 replies
0 recast
6 reactions
Ryan
@ryanfmason
This guy has never heard of a clearinghouse?
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Ryan
@ryanfmason
I’m being flippant because the different currencies causes confusion thing is honestly a pretty weak take when you just have instant digital clearinghouses but beyond that George Selgin has basically already refuted the way people have rewritten history on this. Michigan specifically for example wasn’t “free banking” they made banks collateralize notes with specific risky assets so the banks had no room to maneuver and then went under. Scotland and Canada had more true free banking and were fine.
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Ryan
@ryanfmason
And on the confusion part - convertibility is there, but also genius act requires 1:1 backing of stablecoins with cash or really short term basically cash equivalents, how could people be confused about the value?
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
