A recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has drawn attention to the challenges that assets like Bitcoin pose for governments seeking to maintain fiscal deficits. The paper, released on October 17, argues that the fixed supply of Bitcoin complicates budgetary policies, particularly when the government aims to operate with permanent deficits through nominal debt.
According to the findings, Bitcoin presents what the research describes as a “balanced budget trap,” which necessitates that governments find ways to balance their budgets due to the cryptocurrency’s existence. To navigate this issue, the authors propose that either taxing or prohibiting Bitcoin could help mitigate the complexities of managing government debt. A tax on Bitcoin or a legal ban could potentially enable a more straightforward execution of policies aimed at sustaining permanent primary deficits.
A primary deficit occurs when government expenditures exceed its revenue, not including interest on outstanding debt. The term “permanent” refers to an ongoing strategy where the government continues spending beyond its means indefinitely. Currently, the United States faces a staggering $35.7 trillion in national debt, with an annual primary deficit that stands at around $1.8 trillion. A significant factor contributing to this deficit is the increase in interest costs associated with Treasury bonds, which have risen by 29% to $1.13 trillion due to high borrowing rates.
Responses to the Minneapolis Fed’s paper have emerged from various sectors, including digital asset research firms. Critics highlight the Fed’s alignment with sentiments previously expressed by the European Central Bank regarding Bitcoin . There is an ongoing debate about Bitcoin ’s role in wealth distribution and its impact on both newer and existing investors, with some advocates suggesting regulatory measures be put in place to address these concerns.
Interestingly, historical research from the Minneapolis Fed itself revealed a perspective on Bitcoin that predated the cryptocurrency’s inception, outlining the characteristics of money as an object with a fixed supply that does not directly facilitate production. The current discourse continues to evolve, reflecting the complex dynamics between traditional fiscal policy and emerging digital assets.
