I've posted a few times (here and here) on Kenneth Rogoff's proposals to get rid of the $100, $50, and possibly $20 bill. Here are a few more questions I asked about his writing at the colloquium:
On page 93, second paragraph, Rogoff distinguishes between "protection from government snooping and protection from relatives, friends, employers, or other private entities." He would like less protection from government snooping than from relatives snooping.
Question: Does he have his priorities right? If we must choose, which would you prefer: more protection from government snooping than from relatives or less protection from government than from relatives? And why would you choose the way you would?
On page 101, Rogoff writes:
"the government already has eavesdropping capabilities once thought to be purely in the realm of science fiction. And it is only going to get worse."
(i) Is Rogoff right that government surveillance of us is extreme and will get more extreme? Why or why not?
(ii) If he is right, then does he sufficiently handle the related potential problem with his proposal, namely that government surveillance of our money will threaten us in an important way?