A Well Regulated Militia Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» A Well Regulated Militia » General Discussion » Guerrilla Economics » The Death of Cash (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: The Death of Cash
ConSigCor
Administrator

Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ConSigCor   Email ConSigCor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Check this out.

Why Central Banks Were Forced To Rig The Gold Market

by SRSrocco February 28, 2017

According to newly uncovered information in the gold market, it provides additional evidence of why the Fed, Central Banks and the IMF were forced to RIG the gold market.

https://srsroccoreport.com/new-uncovered-information-why-central-banks-were-forced-to-rig-the-gold-market/

--------------------
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861

Posts: 14922 | From: A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
ConSigCor
Administrator

Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ConSigCor   Email ConSigCor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The War on Cash Finds Its General

03/08/2017David Gordon

The Curse of Cash
Kenneth S. Rogoff
Princeton University Press, 2016

Kenneth Rogoff would sharply disagree with Peale, a character in the 1915 novel It Pays to Advertise, who said that the most beautiful word in the English language is “cash.” For Rogoff, a distinguished monetary economist (and chess grandmaster) who teaches at Harvard, cash, especially in large denominations, ought to be eliminated.

Rogoff has two main arguments for his proposal; but, before examining them, let us look at exactly what he wishes to do. In his suggested plan, which “can be adapted and tweaked in many directions,” “All paper currency is gradually phased out, beginning with all notes of $50 and above (or foreign equivalent), then next the $20 bill, leaving only $1, $5, and (perhaps) $10 bills. ... The government provides all individuals the option of access to free basic-function debit card/smartphone accounts, either through banks or through a government option. ... Regulatory and legal framework aims to discourage other means of making large-scale payments that can be completely hidden from the government. ... Government helps facilitate ... real-time clearing for most transactions.”

One word reverberates throughout this proposal: “government.” For Rogoff, the government must combat nefarious characters in the “underground economy,” not to mention tax cheats, who transact business in paper money. Think of all the revenue the government has lost, owing to the selfishness of these miscreants!

The problems posed by the underground economy, Rogoff tells us, are far-reaching in scope: there is a great deal of “missing” cash, mostly in large denominations. “The bulk of US cash in circulation cannot be accounted for by consumer surveys. Obviously, if consumers are holding only a small fraction of all cash outstanding, they cannot possibly be holding more than a small fraction of the $100 bills in circulation, since $100 bills account for nearly 80 percent of the value of US currency.”

Where are the missing $100 bills? Much of it is used in illegal activities, like the drug trade. “The drug trade is a famously cash-intensive business at every level. ... The RAND Corporation has estimated the combined size of the market for four major illegal drugs in the United States to be more than $100 billion in 2010. ... Eliminating cash would hardly eliminate drug cartels. Nevertheless, it would be a significant blow to their business model at many levels.”

But could we not instead deal with this problem by ending the drug war? In a legal market, could the drug cartels survive? Rogoff has in part anticipated this response, but he rejects it summarily. “Obviously there are other ways of reducing drug-related crime. A simple one would be to legalize marijuana ... [but] hard drugs would remain problematic.” The thought that the drug war should be ended entirely has not entered his head.

He might reply in this way: “Even if you crazed libertarians would make all drugs legal, you still have to acknowledge that some activities that should be illegal, like human trafficking, depend on dealing in cash. This fact by itself suffices to justify my proposal.”

And this is not all that concerns Rogoff. Cash transactions enable people to avoid paying taxes. “The largest holdings and use of cash in the domestic underground economy likely derive from residents of all types ... who are broadly engaged in legal activities but who are avoiding taxes, regulations, or employment restrictions ... the tax gap is sufficiently huge that if eliminating cash can close it by as little as, say, 10 percent, the revenue gains would be quite substantial ... the gains would be on the order of $50 billion from federal taxes alone and perhaps another $20 billion for state and local taxes.” Rogoff recognizes that many people do not want tax regulations to be “rigidly enforced” but responds that tax evasion creates a “horizontal equity” problem: if you evade your taxes, others, who do not, will have to pay more. But once again, the libertarian response does not occur to him: taxes are unjust exactions that violate people’s rights.

Suppose, though, that one grants to Rogoff that taxes are legitimate and also that ready access to cash makes some crimes much easier to commit. Has he made his case for the abolition of cash? As he recognizes, the advantages of his proposal must be balanced against concerns about privacy: “It is important to separate out protection from government snooping and protection from relatives, friends, employers, or other private entities. Of course, people will always want to keep some expenditures or income secret from spouses, parents, and friends. The government can perfectly allow such transactions as long as they do not entail recurrent large expenditures and income to be completely hidden from the government.”

Incredibly, he fails to realize that many of us do not want the government to monitor what we are doing. As long as our neighbors cannot snoop on us, everything is fine. Where liberty is concerned, Rogoff just does not “get it.” He points that a critic of his proposals quoted against him Dostoevsky’s remark, “Money is coined liberty,” but notes that the remark in The House of the Dead describes life in prison. “To draw an analogy between life in a Tsarist prison and life in the modern liberal state as a defense of large-denomination notes borders on the absurd.” The modern liberal state is your friend; why worry?

What we have discussed so far is only Rogoff ’s first argument for the abolition of cash: he has another as well. If the economy is in a recession, the monetary authorities may need to “turbocharge” the economy by pushing interest rates down. Doing so, they hope, will stimulate production and increase aggregate demand. But at present an obstacle blocks these plans. The money rate of interest has already fallen to zero. Further reductions require negative rates. But if these are imposed, depositors will withdraw their funds. Why keep money in the bank if part of your money will be confiscated?

Rogoff describes the problem of the “zero bound constraint” in this way: “paper currency can be thought of as a zero-interest-rate bond. ... As long as people have the choice of paper money, they are not going to be willing to accept an interest rate that is significantly lower on any kind of bond ... the zero bound has essentially crippled monetary policy across the advanced world for much of the past 8 years since the financial crash of 2008. If unconstrained negative rate policy was possible ... central banks would never ‘run out of bullets’ (i.e., room to keep cutting interest rates)” (p. 5).

If paper money is eliminated, depositors will no longer be able to withdraw their money. What could be simpler?

It is disappointing that Rogoff fails to mention Austrian arguments that stimulating aggregate demand through monetary expansion is not the appropriate response to recession. He has read Rothbard and cites him on paper money in the colonial period (p. 235, note 26). But the Austrian theory of the business cycle is not
within his range of vision.

He does, though, address an argument by Milton Friedman that is highly relevant to stabilization policy. “Friedman perfectly well understood that monetary policy could be a potent tool for economic stabilization, but he argued that central banks were so incompetent and so prone to inflationary finance that life would be simpler and better if the whole concept of Keynesian activist monetary policy was simply forgotten” (p. 188).

He replies that Friedman’s alternative of limited monetary expansion according to a fixed rule has not worked. Friedman thought that there was a fixed relationship between the quantity of money and prices, but this has not always proved to be the case. Rogoff may be right, but he has not responded to Freidman’s argument against central bank discretion. The fact, if it is one, that a particular alternative to discretionary policy fails is irrelevant. If someone argues that policy A will fail, claiming that alternative B is no better is hardly a response.

Regardless of whether Rogoff ’s way of dealing with the zero bound constraint is economically sound, though, is it not unfair on its face? If you deposit money in a bank, why should it be subject in part to confiscation? Rogoff answers that those who press this objection are victims of a “money illusion”: “Many people will likely regard negative interest rates as a violation of the trust citizens place in their government. ... To see negative nominal interest rates as unholy but moderate inflation as just bad is to suffer what economists call ‘money illusion’ ” (emphasis in original). But why not take this point to be an argument against government-mandated inflation rather than, as Rogoff wishes, a defense of negative interest rates? Rogoff complains of the “zero bound constraint,” but he is himself bound by statist assumptions.

--------------------
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861

Posts: 14922 | From: A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
Breacher
Senior Member
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There has already been a big demand for bills larger than $100, but the feds won't do it, and the world bankers were pulling the 500Euro notes out of circulation starting a while back.

Traditionally, that's the turf of diamonds and gold, but diamonds are fickle market with high margins and ambiguous actual value.

That leaves silver, but it does not have such a great value to weight ratio. Then gold, which gets tricky because counterfeiting is fairly easy compared to the values that people are looking for and there have already been controversies over gold covered tungsten.

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Huskerpatriot
NCO Contributor
Member # 20208

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Huskerpatriot   Email Huskerpatriot   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The thought of fake metals always scares me. There is a great deal of trust in any purchase.

Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight. Proverbs 11:1

--------------------
"Government at its best is a necessary evil, and at it’s worst, an intolerable one."
 Thomas Paine (from "Common Sense" 1776)

Posts: 794 | From: Omaha Nebraska | Registered: Nov 2013  | Report this post to a Moderator
Breacher
Senior Member
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I came close to getting scammed on a trade deal a while back involving a 1911 for a bunch of silver coins. The guy had kept slipping some "commemorative" coins into the mix that were not marked as 999 silver. Stuff from the Bahamas and such. Far as I could tell, they were like challenge coins or Franklin mint stuff.

Another time a friend of mine got nailed on some supposedly Chinese 10oz ingots.

My advice, NEVER deal with the poured silver stuff. If it looks poured, then the answer is no, unless you are making your own jewelry and poured art out of it. Under those circumstances, the game is that it can get through checkpoints and customs and isn't declared as currency.

That game is played by the ultra rich with jewelry all the time. That's how my amily escaped Europe right before the war, but the price you pay in the conversion process is a major head trip. I shit you not, a 30% spread on cost to loss on a fast sale is entirely normal. That goes to the whole old world thing of big chunks of family wealth getting wrapped up in a large ornate thing that someone would wear for a painting. Then when the painting is done with the person wearing the piece, the painting is then put on display in a museum somewhere, or a regional capitol. It stands as a permanent record of verification of the wealth of a certain family jewel set. Public events and showings then act as a verification process for the family wealth and security. A family fallen on hard times or using that as security for a loan though, faces the appraisal process which judges them as much as it judges the actual value of the item. Hence the very reasons why someone has the right to be offended at the notion that their gems are "blood diamonds". Meaning that the wealth was gotten in some illegitimate way, or represents illegitimate wealth.

A major bullshit hustle with people dealing precious metals is that someone with government connections comes along and claims your stuff is stolen property, but if you take care of their needs in some way, make the right offer, that suspicion might go away... That's one of the problems you get with bullion, but with custom jewelry, especially if it was also part of an art showing or purchased through public auction or jewelry showings where everyone knows that particular artist and their work, and the social circle of people who had bought or commissioned that work, that's where the non-bullion stuff comes in.

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
ConSigCor
Administrator

Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ConSigCor   Email ConSigCor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
IMF Plan to Force a Cashless Society On World Unfolding – Here’s How

April 9, 2017

The IMF (International Monetary Fund)…has drawn up plans to force aWays-to-make-money-1 cashless society upon all the people within IMF member nations. In their “The Macroeconomics of De-Cashing” it gives the following advice to governments who want to abolish cash against the will of their citizenry:

Move slowly; phase in the de-cashing in specific uncontested steps which give the impression that measures are based on individual consumer choice and cost-benefits considerations.
Avoid any attempts to impose de-cashing by a decree given the popular personal attachment to cash.
Implement a targeted outreach program to alleviate suspicions related to de-cashing; in particular, that by de-cashing the authorities are trying to control all aspects of peoples’ lives, including their use of money, or push personal savings into banks.

The comments above & below are edited ([ ]) and abridged (…) excerpts from the original article by Rory Hall (TheDailyCoin.org)

In “The Macroeconomics of De-Cashing”, IMF-Analyst Alexei Kireyev recommends in his conclusions:

Although some countries most likely will de-cash in a few years, going completely cashless should be phased-in in steps.

The de-cashing process could build on the initial and largely uncontested steps, such as:
the phasing out of large denomination bills,
the placement of ceilings on cash transactions,
the reporting of cash moves across the borders…
the creating of economic incentives to reduce the use of cash in transactions,
simplifying the opening and use of transferrable deposits,
and further computerizing the financial system.

The private sector led de-cashing seems preferable to the public sector led de-cashing.

the former seems almost entirely benign (e.g., more use of mobile phones to pay for coffee), but still needs policy adaptation.
The latter seems more questionable, and people may have valid objections to it.

De-cashing of either kind leaves both individuals and states more vulnerable to disruptions, ranging from power outages to hacks to cyber warfare.

In any case, the tempting attempts to impose de-cashing by a decree should be avoided, given the popular personal attachment to cash.

A targeted outreach program is needed to alleviate suspicions related to de-cashing; in particular, that by de-cashing the authorities are trying to control all aspects of peoples’ lives, including their use of money, or push personal savings into banks.

The de-cashing process would acquire more traction if it were based on individual consumer choice and cost-benefits considerations. Source

It doesn’t get much clearer than that – if the people resist, simply change the rules and…simply enact a new law that the majority of people will accept and the remaining 3-5% will be forced into enslavement with the rest.

Let’s break it down a little so the picture is as clear as possible.

The de-cashing process could build on the initial and largely uncontested steps, such as:

the phasing out of large denomination bills [like the $100 bill],
the placement of ceilings on cash transactions [to perhaps no larger than $1,000 as most of the European Union countries have already done thus requiring the] use of electronic means or of having a bank involved at some level, e.g. cashier check so their is a record of the transaction for tax and tracking purposes,
making it almost impossible to get cash out of your country and into another by requiring the reporting of cash moves across the borders. In the U.S., for example, you are required to declare more than $10,000 cash moving across the border and my guess is this [could] suffer a substantial cut….
and perhaps having, for example, “big-box stores” agree to simply no longer accept cash “for your safety” of course. By implementing this type of policy change the government would not seen as the ‘bad guy’ but, [rather, the retail outlet would be portrayed as]…looking out for its shoppers’ safety and the safety of its employees…

Once these the steps are in place, it makes it much easier to get people to accept financial enslavement as a “convenience” and “for your protection and safety” – “for the children”.

Note, that the author is not talking about unreasonable objections and imagined disadvantages: He does count it among the advantages of de-cashing in the very next paragraph that personal savings are pushed into banks and he also does count total control of all aspects of financial life under the pros, as in the last sentence of the last quote below.

“As de-cashing gives incentives to economies’ agents to convert their currency in bank deposits, the deposit base of the banking system will increase, which can help reduce the lending rates and expand credit.” Source

As the criminal banking cabal becomes more desperate to steal our remaining wealth they are devising more devious ways of doing it. Soft-sell the people into their own enslavement instead of forcing them. The past few decades we have been treated just a step above cattle, now the gloves seem to be coming off and the banking cabal no longer cares that we can see their crimes and their true colors.

http://www.munknee.com/imf-plan-to-force-a-cashless-society-on-world-unfolding-heres-how/

[ 04-12-2017, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: ConSigCor ]

--------------------
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861

Posts: 14922 | From: A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
Breacher
Senior Member
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
De-cashing also would go with the agenda 21 in that lack of communications coverage in remote areas kills the economy of those areas. Thus if you can't do transactions "out there" then you are going to be living in primitive poverty.

I have been watching a bunch of thenbritush documentaries on Amazon recently, and while they are mainly a bunch of snotty social critics, they do cover some stuff from perspectives they probably don't even realize. For example, the way natives get treated in some of those Amazon rain forests is exactly the plan the international corporate types have been doing to rednecks in the south and Cowboys in the American west.

All these Brits hating on the central banks and debt situations are missing the mark but their problem is unique to developed areas. Specifically high end developed areas because the young there cannot saddle the costs of a winner take all economy. They will demand socialism because foreign buyers take the housing market.

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Breacher
Senior Member
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't like Bitcoin, but I decided to try it and am stumbling through the protocols on setting up the account right now.

If I am not mistaken, this block chain if that's what they call it, can receive money

18G869EkgbQJntkFq47Xu3xvU4L568AiiR

I think it might be a one time code.

What I already dislike is the way these things require a lot of personal information to actually make purchases in a non-cash manner. You can shift money into and out of anonymous accounts, but try spending it on stuff and they can easily figure out exactly who you are.

As soon as I get money in the account, I'll try sending it to someone. If I haven't forgotten all of the associated passwords already...

[ 04-22-2017, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Breacher ]

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | A Well Regulated Militia

All information posted on this site is the private property
of the individual who posted the information and AWRM.org,
and may not be reproduced anywhere without permission.
© 2001-2016 AWRM.org All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2