Ruble with the right to transfer
In the USSR, there was once a transferable CMEA ruble, which was not abandoned in Finland, Mexico and Iraq, and then in India and Pakistan, as soon as it became possible to exchange it for dollars and Deutschmarks.
On the basis of the transferable ruble, a large-scale system of international settlements independent of the dollar was created, which existed until 1990, for almost three decades. In the period 1985-1990, about five percent of all international trade was carried out using the transferable ruble.
The transferable ruble existed only on paper or in the form of a token for the 25th anniversary of the IBEC
However, all attempts to apply the experience of the transferable ruble within the EAEU or at least the Union State have failed. The idea of using a single currency - "altyna", put forward by the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, also failed.
But everything failed only because our neighbors and partners still do not believe in the real independence and independence of the Bank of Russia. In the opinion of the near abroad, in some of his decisions and actions, he is becoming more and more like a disguised branch of either the IMF, or the US Federal Reserve, which the authors have repeatedly complained about (“Our most central bank in the world. Whom does he serve? ").
It was the Bank of Russia, which is still only studying the possibility of issuing a digital ruble, that made an official announcement that such work was underway. And right there, the Central Bank hastened to sweep aside inappropriate, in their opinion, parallels with cryptocurrencies. And the main argument in favor of the digital ruble against the notorious bitcoin is the strict control over the emission, of course, by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.
I would very much like to believe, how to believe, and that the issue of digital rubles will not increase the amount of money in circulation, which means it will not backfire on us with inflation. Although the authors, together with other experts, never tire of repeating that Russia is still experiencing an acute liquidity shortage.
At the same time, even the strongest threat of inflation within the country can be easily eliminated at least by tightening currency and export controls. But this cannot be in Russia, because, like a classic, it can never be. The Central Bank has long taken a course towards liberalizing control. Moreover, this was done clearly under the influence of the lobbying of the exporting oligarchs, which means that any changes simply require a different political will. More precisely, a radically different economic and monetary policy aimed at making the poor richer and the rich not poorer because of this.
Ruble outside brackets
It only seems that the economic pressure on Russia began not so long ago, somewhere after Crimea or after Georgia. Only then let it be explained, who repainted Ukraine in "orange" and made the same "Ossetian porridge"? Is it really Russia, just saving compatriots from robberies and murders? ..
However, this is not about this, but about whether it is possible with the help of the new ruble instrument in digital form to provide additional protection for national finances. After all, the invasion of the world currency to us was possible only with the collapse of the USSR, and the euro settled in Russia at all only due to the fact that we are ready to sell our raw materials to Europe for many years to come.
The dollar became a supranational currency because it helped to stop the risks of world exchange. The ruble got attached to it as best it could, although it had every right to rely on the resource potential of the state. But they did not allow it, giving the go-ahead to the policy of periodic devaluations of the national currency.
This saves the federal budget, reduces the debt burden on the country, but at the same time leads to the impoverishment of the majority of the people. At least due to the fact that even with minimal inflation, imported goods, which are the majority on our shelves, by definition cannot but rise in price.
However, rogue countries such as Russia, or, for example, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran, stubbornly resist large-scale dollarization of their economies - with varying degrees of success, of course. Therefore, they tried to impose another tool that has no clan and tribe - cryptocurrencies with bitcoin in the lead.
It turned out somehow not very well, although the environment for this in Russia, it would seem, is the most suitable. Most likely, even the advanced audience too quickly sensed some kind of "network" catch. Therefore, I decided not to sacrifice the latter for the sake of an absolutely unpredictable and seemingly uncontrolled bitcoin.
Bitcoin both rose to the skies and fell, and now, by and large, it is simply forgotten (it has occupied its modest half-percent niche in the world turnover). Whether it is a lot or a little, we do not undertake to judge, just recall only two characteristic points.
First: racketeers of the 90s and early 0,01s in Russia always insisted that two percent was a controlling stake, but they easily selected enterprises and banks for themselves, sometimes without them either. Second: the current situation with the coronavirus makes it clear that a loss of 0,1 percent and a slight malaise in XNUMX percent of the population can also scare the public to a semi-faint.
Let's consider it a blessing that Russians, by and large, chose not to mess with bitcoin, but they almost certainly won't give up digital rubles. Moreover, we are not talking about adopting the practice of the American Federal Reserve, which, under the guise of a pandemic, never ceases to pump the States with billions of unsecured dollars. Electronic, by the way.
Is it all new or nothing new?
Extremely banal passages are published on the Bank of Russia website. "The digital ruble can become a new form of money along with cash and non-cash." "Like non-cash money, the digital ruble makes remote payments and online payments possible."
You might think that the advanced audience in our country does not pay by cards and even simply from mobile phones. The Central Bank did not receive any intelligible explanation of the difference between the digital "wooden" one from this form of payment.
Although there is one very real innovation: "... the digital ruble, like cash, can be used offline - in the absence of access to the Internet."
Digital rubles, instead of numbers on banknotes or entries in bank accounts, should, according to the developers of the system, receive unique codes. Again, there is a parallel with bitcoins, and payments in digital rubles will assume a trivial transfer of these codes.
One digital ruble will, of course, be equivalent to 1 cash and 1 non-cash, but more free in circulation. The same Bank of Russia, through the mouth of its deputy chairman Alexei Zabotkin, assures everyone that “the economically key innovation in the issue of the digital ruble is not in a new form of money, but in expanding the direct access of economic agents to the obligations of the Central Bank”.
It is hard to believe that ordinary citizens, having borrowed digital rubles, will be able to lend directly to the Central Bank of the Russian Federation just as easily as banks from the top ten, or operate with securities issued by the Bank of Russia, but liberalization can reach this point. What the hell is not kidding, but who will get better from it?
Perhaps the main advantage of the digital ruble is that it will help make payments faster, easier and safer. The main thing is where access to financial infrastructure is limited. That is, in remote, sparsely populated and hard-to-reach areas. Although there are gas stations there, and they have long become something of a hearth of civilization up to access to inexpensive Wi-Fi.
The Central Bank assures us that the digital ruble is another means in the fight against dollarization, although in the same Russian provinces there is nothing to do with dollars and euros. And it seems that the digital ruble should make various kinds of financial services more accessible, although people do not need too many of them.
However, the realities of the third millennium are such that digitalization a priori is required, and we are reminded for a reason that both China and the United States are engaged in the development of national digital currencies. Who would doubt that.
But the fact that in three countries, Uruguay, Ukraine and Ecuador, the testing of the national digital currency has been completed, let us doubt it a little. Based on the question: why? Just to work out the budget resource?