Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Meaning of Banning Cash
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Meaning of Banning Cash (Read 2716 times)
BobK71
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 479
Joined: Jun 12th, 2015
The Meaning of Banning Cash
Mar 4th, 2017 at 5:40pm
Print Post  
You can argue that the history of the modern world is the history of financial repression.

After the Spanish empire's sovereign debt, payable in gold and silver, collapsed due to over-issuance, the next global empire, the Netherlands, innovated with the financial repression known as the central bank.  This bank would issue paper 'money,' redeemable in precious metals, and backed by the power of the entire establishment.  More debt could now be issued to benefit the elites, as long as proper caution kept the system stable.  Dutch money and debt turned out to be stable for centuries.

When Dutch decline came, due to over-issuance of public debt, the British global empire further expanded the ability to issue paper money.  A major further innovation in repression was the global colonial system, where the labor and real resources of colonies were effectively used to prop up the value of the paper money.  (Colonial governments just happened to want to hold paper pound sterling for reserves, rather than gold.)  Because of the over-issuance of money and debt by the elites, financial crises still occurred every decade or so in Britain for much of the 19th century.

By the 1870s, Britain had to institute a further step in repression known as the international gold standard, which standardized all major economies on gold rather than silver, and enabled major central banks to bail out each other in financial crises.  (The demonetization of silver wreaked major economic pain in the US and was the basis of the 'cross of gold' speech by William J. Bryan during his 1896 presidential candidacy.)  This new system was effective: the British elites issued so much paper money that, by 1914, gold represented only 3% of their money supply, even though the paper was still redeemable for gold at the long-established rate.  (This last part was crucial for the elites' claim that 'free markets' were operating to keep money issuance honest.)

Of course, such a system couldn't possibly last.  The elites' next advance came in the form of the two world wars.  One step at a time, the wars concentrated power and investor confidence in the United States, the new 'free-enterprise' economy.  Gold flowed into the US, and the dollar was so trusted that it gradually became the major form of reserves held around the world.  The US elites were able to issue dollars and debt for personal enrichment and empowerment, without regard to the ability to redeem dollars for gold.  And they did issue.

When inflation eventually threatened the faith in dollars, the US innovated a new twist on the British colonial system, alliances with dictatorships.  Under this system, oil and labor pools like China were effectively used to prop up the value of the dollar.  With various geopolitical maneuvers, the US was able to keep oil and manufactured goods artificially cheap in dollar terms.  Since your dollars could always buy these things cheaply, you had faith in dollars.

How did the US elites use the stability provided by this latest repression?  You guessed it: issuing more money and debt.  But since this eventually caused the twin crises of 2000 and 2008 in the US itself, the elites have been forced to use minor manipulations to keep their system stable for now, while waiting for the next major step-up in repression.

And that major step can be none other than the abolition of cash.  An all-electronic money system will have multiple benefits for the elites.  They will be able to collect all their taxes, including (possibly higher) taxes on profits from investing in gold and Bitcoin.  They will better observe and control all financial markets, as well as the lives of all people.  But most of all, it will allow them to use truly negative interest rates, that is, literally taking money out of bank accounts to 'encourage' people to spend and invest their money.  (They will argue this is no different from what they have been doing all along, with inflation at a higher rate than the return on 'safe' assets like insured bank accounts and Western government bonds, and they will be right.  According to their logic, past repression justifies the future one.)

So the major historical pattern is clear from the political and financial elites' point of view: gain the trust of the world by advertising that we are operating a free-market, liberal, stable system.  While that trust lasts, grab wealth and power by issuing financial assets, and propping them up with state power behind the scenes.  When the system eventually becomes unstable, do what we can to keep things stable, until we can change the system so profoundly that we take a major step in financial repression, while still claiming to operate a free market.  This will bring a new era of stability.  Repeat the cycle.

For those of us who love freedom and abhor all manifestations of financial asset inflation, down to environmental pollution, all is not lost.  Today, the anti-establishment political sentiment and disunity among big countries should stop an actual abolition of cash.  (Though the elites try to remove large-denomination cash to pave the way for any future abolition.)  Only a major terrorist attack can bring the necessary political momentum to shove an all-electronic money system through.

TO BE CONTINUED IN REPLIES.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BobK71
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 479
Joined: Jun 12th, 2015
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #1 - Mar 4th, 2017 at 5:41pm
Print Post  
CONTINUING THE ORIGINAL POST:

I am speculating that the core Western elites actually want such a terrorist attack.  There is a well-documented list of leaks to the media after 9/11 by obviously high-level US officials that apparently served no purpose except to help al Qaeda.  (For example, it was leaked that the US had found a way to track bin Laden's electronic communications -- he quickly stopped using them.  No one was investigated for these leaks.)  Also, the US and its allies were somehow never quite able to squash ISIS.  Today, the US and is allies continue to fund 'rebels' in Syria, who they know are al Qaeda and ISIS associated jihadists, in the name of overthrowing an oppressor, even though the US supported many oppressors in the past, including the Shah of Iran, Noriega of Panama, Mubarak of Egypt, and Erdogan of Turkey.

I understand that it may be hard to believe the elites are capable of helping terrorists, except it would not be the first time Western elites bring death to their own people for the sake of preserving their system.  The British elites sent Britons to their deaths in World War I, for reasons that are still not quite understood.  That is, until you analyze money.  Objectively, without Britain's involvement, British money and debt would likely have suffered a hard landing after a likely German victory had propelled Germany to the global imperial seat.  The wasting of British strength in fighting the Germans, on the other hand, worked neatly to concentrate postwar imperial power on a friendly US which would help ease British money and debt through a gentle decline.  (The latter was what actually happened.)

Remember that, while crying tears over 9/11, the US used the occasion to take a sequence of legal steps that culminated in vastly increased surveillance by its intelligence apparatus, some of which has been exposed to be economic rather than anti-terrorist.  Thus, it falls to each of us to understand the system, spread the education, and stop or slow down the march of global empire.

Unlike ancient empires, modern empire needs soft power because it doesn't have the required level of hard power.  The spread of awareness is the ultimate method of denying it, by exposing the 'city on a hill,' the 'liberal rule-based order,' the 'free-enterprise system,' the 'honest broker' and the 'trusted debtor' for what it really is -- an alliance between top financiers and politicians to blow imperial financial bubbles.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4242
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #2 - Mar 4th, 2017 at 6:38pm
Print Post  
BobK71 wrote on Mar 4th, 2017 at 5:41pm:
Thus, it falls to each of us to understand the system, spread the education, and stop or slow down the march of global empire.

The "Global Empire" aka the "New World Order" is an authoritarian pipe-dream.  Won't ever happen.  Too many key players don't want to play;  China, Russia, North Korea, and virtually ALL of the Islamic States.



BobK71 wrote on Mar 4th, 2017 at 5:41pm:
Unlike ancient empires, modern empire needs soft power because it doesn't have the required level of hard power...

I would argue that the West lacks the capacity for "soft" power.  US bankster and deep-state elites understand what a disaster the Socialist E.U. model has been.  They don't want to get mixed up in that mess unless one of the non-NWO States (China, Russia, North Korea) can wrest WRC status from the US.

The only thing I can think of that would facilitate that scenario would be a complete and utter economic collapse in the US - which some experts claim is inevitable if we continue with the debt death-spiral and print our way into oblivion.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4986
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #3 - Mar 4th, 2017 at 7:09pm
Print Post  
BobK71 wrote on Mar 4th, 2017 at 5:40pm:
And that major step can be none other than the abolition of cash.  An all-electronic money system will have multiple benefits for the elites.  They will be able to collect all their taxes, including (possibly higher) taxes on profits from investing in gold and Bitcoin.  They will better observe and control all financial markets, as well as the lives of all people.  But most of all, it will allow them to use truly negative interest rates, that is, literally taking money out of bank accounts to 'encourage' people to spend and invest their money.  (They will argue this is no different from what they have been doing all along, with inflation at a higher rate than the return on 'safe' assets like insured bank accounts and Western government bonds, and they will be right.  According to their logic, past repression justifies the future one.)


So here's my only problem with this: If we want to love freedom, shouldn't we be cheering this instead of attempting to blow a hole in it? There is no aggression in it. The "negative interest" is just a fee to store the money, and it'll certainly be inconvenient that there will be no other way to store the money, but it's not aggression.

It's just using a good business model to make a profit: Supply, and demand. They e-money must be stored so there is a demand for banks to store it. It is reasonable within a libertarian mindset that people should pay for this. If they manage to accomplish this by simply paying stores not to take cash anymore, and without using force or enforcing an actual ban, it's a wonderful thing.

Taxation, okay - that's theft. But as for the banks and elites actually doing this, we should be applauding them, right?
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4242
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #4 - Mar 4th, 2017 at 7:55pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Mar 4th, 2017 at 7:09pm:
It's just using a good business model to make a profit: Supply, and demand. They e-money must be stored so there is a demand for banks to store it. It is reasonable within a libertarian mindset that people should pay for this. If they manage to accomplish this by simply paying stores not to take cash anymore, and without using force or enforcing an actual ban, it's a wonderful thing.


E-money is a misnomer - its not money at all. It's just 1s and 0s stored in a database. It is not currency or cash.  Its a digital representation of "credit".  Why on Earth would anyone agree to pay a bank a fee to store 380 k-bytes of credit information?  Any mom & pop bank could store all the credit information of every US citizen on a single 10-Terabyte hard drive! (anyone can buy one of these - they're under $500!)

The Opposition wrote on Mar 4th, 2017 at 7:09pm:
But as for the banks and elites actually [banning cash], we should be applauding them, right?

The only people who would applaud this are ones who fail to understand the true motives for banning cash. 

Its all about control. Its about preventing an individual from conducting discreet business transactions. Its about giving the banks (and the government) the ability to seize assets.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4986
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #5 - Mar 4th, 2017 at 8:59pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Mar 4th, 2017 at 7:55pm:
E-money is a misnomer - its not money at all. It's just 1s and 0s stored in a database. It is not currency or cash.  Its a digital representation of "credit".  Why on Earth would anyone agree to pay a bank a fee to store 380 k-bytes of credit information?  Any mom & pop bank could store all the credit information of every US citizen on a single 10-Terabyte hard drive! (anyone can buy one of these - they're under $500!)


Why? Because the actions of the banks - as Bob described - created that demand. In libertarianism it's perfectly fine to do this. If I shoot all the buffalo, leaving a single specimen remaining, and sell its DNA for a few million per gamete, there is nothing wrong with this.

Other philosophies call this exploitation. Libertarianism calls it good business.

SkyChief wrote on Mar 4th, 2017 at 7:55pm:
The only people who would applaud this are ones who fail to understand the true motives for banning cash. 

Its all about control. Its about preventing an individual from conducting discreet business transactions. Its about giving the banks (and the government) the ability to seize assets.


And when they seize - take without the agreement - then that's aggression. Negative interest, which is just a fancy way to say fees, is fine, as long as it's in the fine print.

The way I see it, until they do this, everyone has been storing their money in a hole. The hole - called physical existence - is not itself anyone's property. The banks simply want to burn down the hole (in other words, make it so businesses don't take cash) so people will have no other option but to use their services storing the money, creating a demand, which they will supply, and profit from.

I cannot find a single solitary thing wrong with this.

I'm the one trying to embrace this philosophy, and that means knowing that it's not about what's best for me and whining to make everything else illegal. It's about what's best for the Free Market. And it seems to me the banks stand to make a lot of money by doing this.

I want them to make money, don't I?
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BobK71
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 479
Joined: Jun 12th, 2015
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #6 - Mar 5th, 2017 at 5:43pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Mar 4th, 2017 at 6:38pm:
The "Global Empire" aka the "New World Order" is an authoritarian pipe-dream.  Won't ever happen.  Too many key players don't want to play;  China, Russia, North Korea, and virtually ALL of the Islamic States.


Global empire doesn't have to be total control of the world (which will never happen in modern times,) just enough control to make the US the top financial, military and political power, and the major driver of events.  Under this definition, US global empire has been in place for about a century.

SkyChief wrote on Mar 4th, 2017 at 6:38pm:
I would argue that the West lacks the capacity for "soft" power.
US bankster and deep-state elites understand what a disaster the Socialist E.U. model has been.  They don't want to get mixed up in that mess unless one of the non-NWO States (China, Russia, North Korea) can wrest WRC status from the US.


Sorry, I'm not sure why soft power is related to the expansion of the state, and why the loss of WRC status would facilitate the latter, if that's what you're saying.

Soft power rests precisely on the perception that the imperial center is the most free-market of all economies.  That is what makes worldwide investors trust dollars and Treasuries.

In fact, it's long been the business of the US (and Britain before it) to lend lots of money to peripheral countries based on deliberately rosy economic forecasts for those countries.  Once over-indebtedness (in dollars) sets in, there are no good scenarios possible in those countries.  At this point, the empire reaps the benefits, both by (effectively) buying resources from those countries on the cheap, and by further advertising that savers are better off putting their money in the US.  (Google 'exorbitant privilege' of reserve currencies.)

This is the face of empire.

SkyChief wrote on Mar 4th, 2017 at 6:38pm:
The only thing I can think of that would facilitate that scenario would be a complete and utter economic collapse in the US - which some experts claim is inevitable if we continue with the debt death-spiral and print our way into oblivion.


As I sort of implied, the key race at the imperial center is between issuing assets to instability on the one hand, and increasing financial repression on the other.

When the former wins, the elites will have to devalue currency against gold, silver and Bitcoin.  When the latter wins, the system will stay stable.  From the Great Depression on, the long-term result has been a messy tie.  The elites have had to both let gold rise, and increase capital market manipulations, at different times.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BobK71
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 479
Joined: Jun 12th, 2015
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #7 - Mar 5th, 2017 at 5:58pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Mar 4th, 2017 at 7:09pm:
So here's my only problem with this: If we want to love freedom, shouldn't we be cheering this instead of attempting to blow a hole in it? There is no aggression in it. The "negative interest" is just a fee to store the money, and it'll certainly be inconvenient that there will be no other way to store the money, but it's not aggression.

It's just using a good business model to make a profit: Supply, and demand. They e-money must be stored so there is a demand for banks to store it. It is reasonable within a libertarian mindset that people should pay for this. If they manage to accomplish this by simply paying stores not to take cash anymore, and without using force or enforcing an actual ban, it's a wonderful thing.

Taxation, okay - that's theft. But as for the banks and elites actually doing this, we should be applauding them, right?


What we have to remember is that we don't live in a free world.  The state's monopoly on violence, one way or another, directly or indirectly, facilitates its ability to manipulate asset values.

For example, when cash is gone and interest turns negative, you could say we can choose to use gold as money.  The problem is, even if the state doesn't ban gold, the central bank will likely allow gold to go very high just before interest turns negative, so that it has enough ammunition to manipulate gold prices such that its rate of return is even more negative than bank deposits.

Gold and silver have been deprecated by the state-bank alliance over the last 500 years.  Absent that, the system couldn't possibly survive.

Can you say this is non-aggressive?  On the face of it, maybe.  But this scheme is possible through manipulating the media, educational curricula, and discussions by economics opinion-makers.  Somewhere along the line in these complex processes, the monopoly on violence always comes into play.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
merkelstan
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 606
Joined: Jan 22nd, 2017
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #8 - Mar 5th, 2017 at 6:40pm
Print Post  
BobK71 wrote on Mar 5th, 2017 at 5:58pm:
Gold and silver have been deprecated by the state-bank alliance over the last 500 years.  Absent that, the system couldn't possibly survive.


Yes.

Now what does cashless buy the powers that be? A level of control never dreamed of by any tyrant in history.

By combining a full data feed of every expenditure, (along with browsing history and physical location) you gain a full, REALTIME profile of every person in your area of interest.

Now add to this computer AI which identifies and classifies individual behavior patterns by risk to the overlords... it's the end-game of all power struggles on earth..
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4242
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: The Meaning of Banning Cash
Reply #9 - Mar 5th, 2017 at 7:46pm
Print Post  
BobK71 wrote on Mar 5th, 2017 at 5:43pm:
As I sort of implied, the key race at the imperial center is between issuing assets to instability on the one hand, and increasing financial repression on the other.

When the former wins, the elites will have to devalue currency against gold, silver and Bitcoin.  When the latter wins, the system will stay stable.  From the Great Depression on, the long-term result has been a messy tie.  The elites have had to both let gold rise, and increase capital market manipulations, at different times.

The banks have been "issuing assets to instability" ever since 1971 when the dollar could no longer be converted to gold. There is no reason to believe this issuing of assets will stop. And they will certainly continue with the capital market manipulations. Its been a spectacular Keynesian high-wire act.

Most people think hope this can go on forever.  But a few know that it can't. The trick is knowing when the music will stop.

When the reset comes, fortunes will be made and lost.  The winners will be well-positioned with hard assets.  The losers will be left with (worthless) paper assets.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Meaning of Banning Cash
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy