If productivity picks up strongly as the recovery gathers pace - as the more optimistic reading of the evidence would imply – this means that we are likely to have a relatively prolonged  policy is not being set with particular reference to the unemployment rate; rather the threshold simply provides a convenient point at which to reassess the stance of policy. Monetary policy continues to be set on the basis of a wide range of variables affecting the outlook for growth and inflation. 3  See, for example, Miles (2012 and 2013) and McCafferty (2103). 4  See, for example, Broadbent (2011, 2012, 2013). 5  My fellow MPC member Paul Tucker recently referred to this as a “probing strategy” (Tucker 2013). BIS central bankers’ speeches  5  period of strong growth, and a relatively prolonged period of low interest rates, before unemployment reaches the 7% threshold. But if, even as the recovery gathers pace, productivity growth remains relatively muted, unemployment will likely fall more quickly and the Committee will need to raise rates sooner. A threshold defined in terms of the unemployment rate is particularly well suited to dealing with this uncertainty. As demand picks up, those companies that can use their existing workforces more intensely or can shift employees to more productive activities are likely to do so before hiring additional staff. This suggests that to the extent that productivity picks up in response to increasing demand it should largely do so before unemployment falls materially.
In Chairman Clayton’s view, “tokens and offerings that incorporate features and marketing efforts that emphasize the potential for profits based on the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others continue to contain the hallmarks of a security under U.S. law.”22 In 2018, SEC staff published guidance to clarify that exchanges, investment vehicles, investment advisers, and dealers doing business in digital currencies that are digital asset securities would be subjected to securities laws.23 The guidance makes clear that digital currencies that function as securities will be subject to U.S. securities law, but where we draw this line may not always be clear. Products that blur the boundaries between money and securities are not new. Take, for instance, certificates of deposit. In 1982, the United States Supreme Court analyzed whether a certificate of deposit was a security for purposes of certain U.S. anti-fraud laws. The Court concluded that it was not. In doing so, the Court recognized that the most important distinction between a certificate of deposit issued by a bank—money—and other long-term debt was the comprehensive regulation of the banking system. 24 The Court’s conclusion was a sensible one more than a century after the “wildcat” banking era: Lawmakers could not  have intended to treat money in the banking system like it was something else because there was no need to do so. At least for now, the case does not appear to be as strong for digital currencies.