Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by bretto, Feb 11, 2019.
Direct link to the IMF paper: https://blogs.imf.org/2019/02/05/cashing-in-how-to-make-negative-interest-rates-work/
Also, Rickards warned about this 2.5 years ago: https://dailyreckoning.com/get-ready-unencumbered-interest-rate-policy-2/
Quick... where did I put my tin foil hat?
There are many reasons why cash could someday be eliminated or "banned" by a gov. For one, without cash it would be more difficult for tax cheats to operate.
It would also give govs more control because they could track a person's spending etc if said person was a suspect in a crime or tax investigation.
Further, it would eliminate any possible "bank runs", which could be very important in the next financial implosion.
The banks absolutely want an end to cash currency and they will make sure that politicians are rewarded for enabling that outcome. The bribes and graft and revolving door syndrome will be epic. Because for the banks an end to cash currency massively reduces their staff and operational costs. No more cash transport, security and armoured vehicles, no more ATMs, no need for bank tellers and no more need for expensive bank branch security - no cash means nothing to rob.
Then there is the even bigger payoff - no cash means that unless you have a bank account and a credit or debit card you die. You will have no other way to buy food or pay rent than to use a card or digital transfer. This means that the ultimate banker dream is realised - they get a cut of every single transaction in the world. You buy a cup of tea the bank gets a fee. You buy a ticket from a parking meter, the bank gets a cut of the transaction. You buy a sandwich, park your car, go to a movie, buy a Mars bar, buy a cup of chai at a market stall, buy a box of mangos at a readside stall and the banks get a fee. And on top of this they get to know every single, solitary item that you buy and that information has a huge monetary value so the banks get to actually monetise your life. Banker Nirvana.
And then there is a very dark side to this. Once there is no cash and every transaction is electronic then in the event of a power failure or internet outage you are dead until the service is restored. If you are in the outback or a remote place without internet or power for some reason you will have no means to transact for food or fuel. If you are away from home and there is an outage you can walk and that’s it.
Cash isn’t about tax evasion or illegal activity.
It’s about having a choice.
Any rational person who actually looks at the numbers in the banking system has to be concerned.
In many parts of the world, banks are pitifully capitalized and EXTREMELY illiquid.
This is especially the case in Europe right now where entire nations’ banking systems are teetering on insolvency.
In the United States, liquidity is also quite low, and banks play all sorts of accounting games to hide their true financial condition.
Plus, never forget that the moment you deposit funds at a bank, it’s no longer YOUR money. It’s the bank’s money.
As a depositor, you’re nothing more than an unsecured creditor of the bank, and they have the power to freeze you out of your life’s savings without even giving you a courtesy call.
Physical cash provides consumers another option.
If you don’t want to keep 100% of your savings tied up in a system that’s rigged against you and has a long history of screwing its customers, you can instead choose to hold physical cash.
There’s very little downside in doing this, especially since most people are barely making any interest in their checking accounts anyhow.
Physical cash means there is no one else standing between you and your savings.
But your goverment don’t want that.
They want a massive, centralized bureaucracy to have control over your savings.
As we move to a cashless society, I wonder if the cheque book would come back into fashion?
If so, during an internet outage, smart operators could then sell cash for a cheque, taking a small profit.
Wouldn’t it be easier for them?
How would it be easier? Today in the US lots of people work for cash (called under the table) and don't pay taxes. The person paying in cash usually gets a discounted price for paying in cash. I have seen folks on federal disability (for health reasons) yet can go skiing and such, who work for cash doing manual labor type gigs, like house remodeling, mowing lawns, etc. Total deadbeat crooks milking the system.
Without cash, how would the tax cheat get paid? You might say PMs but nobody here has them hardly at all so that is not likely. True barter is very difficult for most folks in today's world.
PS I am not for banning cash but for desperate govs trying to grab every tax dollar (and for other nefarious gov purposes) it would make sense to ban cash.
They'd take it directly from your bank account. Or from your wage. Like they normally do.
There are lots of folks here (generally at the lower end of socioeconomic) that don't have "real jobs", but do hustle for cash doing various things like drug dealing, providing various services for cash (both legal and illegal), panhandlers (some make hundreds per day in big cities), etc.
Some folks who have outstanding legal judgments or who owe child support payments can't have bank accounts because it can be grabbed. They don't have real jobs because their wages can be garnished. Many types of gov assistance like disability payments are exempt from such things, so they can still collect those but do the cash stuff on the side.
Perhaps if the government didn't meddle into every aspect of everyone's life it wouldn't be so complicated. Minimal government = less taxation = more prosperous society.
Yes and no.
Minimal government was a lot easier when societies weren't so large and so anonymous. People generally don't fear or try to rob people they know. They just help one another. Heck, you don't even need money to accomplish mutually beneficial trade within small and trusting units (families, close friends, etc). Nowadays, govt has to provide that help to many, and that means taxation. For better or worse, that's just the way it is.
Present day, things get pretty violent and selfish pretty fast without the "overseer" idea. Human brains are most comfortable in grouped networks of about 50-300 at most... after that number, everyone else is basically a "stranger." That has been researched extensively with social science, social media, phone records, etc. That is why religion, tribalism, police, security cameras, fraud protection guarantees, and everything have evolved. People want to feel safe (usually by being in "their" group), and people also behave better and feel taken care of when they know they're being watched. Sad but true.
A peaceful society with charity instead of most taxes could work if everyone felt safe and secure and personal among one another, but unfortunately, "fine manners require the support of fine manners in others." It will be hard to ever have that work well, outside relatively small groups. With internet and high independence of online ordering and communication, people's actual local network of trusted people they see "IRL" is sadly smaller than ever. Taxation is unfortunately essential to have the lonely and scared masses feel secure. Taxes or not, it would be hard to run my business with a bunch of violent, mentally ill, starving and scared people all over the streets
One unfortunate occurrence in modern Western societies is that we have been fed the bull$hit line that "diversity equals strength", or some derivation thereof. I'm not talking about people with different skin color, I'm talking diversity of allegiances.
In earlier times folks came to the US to be Americans and supported the American ideal. Today, foreigners want to come here to escape $hithole places, but want to maintain their foreign identity, fly their foreign flags, etc. These folks don't like America nor Americans generally speaking in my opinion.
I wonder why you never hear them talk about the need for diversity in Asian nations, African nations, Mid East nations, Russia, South America, etc.? It is only the western nations that need diversity to be healthy and proper. And the dumb$hits that live there fall for it hook, line and sinker.
That is why you see the elites pushing to make the US national anthem and pledge of allegiance to be bad things. It is much easier to destroy nations (their main goal for Europe and the US, etc) from the inside out when there is no national identity and to promote such is considered unacceptable (plus all the other crap they come up).
I've seen where a kid in school can't wear a shirt with a us flag image on it because it was offensive to the foreign kids in the school. No political statements, etc, just a small flag image on the front.
Today we have openly socialist politicians proposing ideas that on their face violate the Constitutional principles the country was founded upon, and people support them. I believe the US that I experienced in the 70s 80s etc was so much better than now as far as living conditions. I wish I knew a better place to move but I don't know where it is (that is not leftist, etc).
Most of NC, SC, TX, TN, WV, etc etc would probably meet your needs best. Other 'country' places like rural Midwest, southwest, or mountain west states could probably also fit the bill. Trust me, if Texas ever secedes, I will be there by the end of the month... and I have a successful business that is not easily transferrable, so that's saying something!
USA will eventually fracture like the Balkans; make no mistake. It will probably be dust settling with the lefties in the far coastal west, Mormon-type ultra conservatives in the southwest, conservatives in central south, mostly hispanics in the Florida area, leftish academics in the north (Midwest), and who knows what in the northeast (maybe remnants of "USA" since that is where the country began and that region has WashDC, most key military, majority of historic landmarks, etc are located). Might not be in our lifetime, but it will happen. Human history knows that borders are artificial and certainly don't last forever.
...back to the cash topic, though. I don't think it'll ever go away. It would take some major changes to the constitution, and that moves at snail pace. Cash becoming less used? Yeah, that's clearly happening, but it will never go away. If it did, there would just evolve some black market hard currency to transact "under the radar" anyways.
Physical cash is issued by the government. What do you think backs it?
Nothing backs it up apart from the actual believe they can be changed for goods and services. When this believe stops to exist the result is on the picture.
it used to be money and who would have thought about dumping the money on the street
same as bullion, we consider they as money...just may be...if we are caught with it we got thrown in jail..-> this will force us to dump them on the street just like the above picture
for a reason
Agreed, but to some extent what backs cash is the government's assets, ability to tax (extract productive things) and I suppose the assets of the central bank.
Separate names with a comma.