Elimination of Cash?

Dateline: 20 May 2015




I mentioned Martin Armstrong here awhile back. His daily commentaries continue to set him apart in the world of alternative economic analysis and commentary. I'm sure he is not entirely correct in his analysis. No economic commentator ever is. But he has such a good a good grasp of history and current events that I'm powerfully intrigued by his future predictions.

Martin Armstrong's recent essay ( a short one) on the coming elimination of cash really got my attention. I'm seeing other articles on the internet about this too.

The elimination of cash and cash transactions does not in any way, shape or form benefit the citizenry of this nation. It only benefits government and the financial institutions. Here are three reasons why (from the viewpoint of the controlling elites) cash must be eliminated ....

1. Cash allows privacy in personal financial transactions. Privacy can not to be tolerated in a surveillance police state, which is exactly what America has become.

2. The elimination of cash and cash transactions in a surveillance police state means the government will be able to extract more money through taxation.

3. Many people are, evidently, saving cash (the government calls it "hoarding"). This is a normal human response to an increasingly unstable economy and uncertain economic future. If the use of cash is eliminated, enormous amounts of cash would return to the banks or be spent (while it still has some worth). This would benefit the banking industry and the economy.

Seeing as less and less people use cash anyway these days, and cash is so often associated with illegal activities, it's not hard to see that there will be a great many Americans who will support the elimination of cash. 

I wouldn't be surprised if the specter of terrorism (and fear mongering) are somehow utilized in a government sponsored propaganda campaign to condition the population to accept the elimination of cash. 

In the final analysis, many Americans are of the mind that if a new law doesn't affect them, then it's okay. But, as Frederick Douglas so famously said: "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."

Which brings to mind the famous quote by Pastor Martin Neimoller.



7 comments:

wildbillb said...

great points Mr. Kimball.

2 of my banks (both very large) just notified me recently (within a few months) that cash transactions are NOT acceptable for debt payments to their bank. Chase is one of them, and has been mentioned elsewhere on the interweb.

i agree the banking system (ie gov) will take advantage of any opportunity to push cashless agendas. i also believe CONVENIENCE is the greatest tool the banking gov system has. apple pay, paypal, etc all are very CONVENIENT, and that is the religion of our day. fast, easy, CONVENIENT. all of us are rushing to cashless on this term, with much less pressure or resistance that would require an event or emergency.

used to be buying a movie ticket online was alittle cheaper, and very CONVENIENT. in some cases now, because of our shifting behavior, you can ONLY get a ticket if you buy online. especially for premiers. so, that shift originally from convenience has been successful, lowering the theater's costs and shifting the effort to the purchaser.

so the question is, how to fight it? i kept cash in a safe deposit box, and then got notification the bank (a regional chain) can search the boxes at their (or the banking gov) discression. also, in an emergency when the bank is closed, i don't have it when i need it. i don't want large $ on hand as it is unsafe and makes me less safe, so i have a few trusted family who i've distributed it about. they don't know what it is, only that it is of value. i've put ammunition with it so they are hesitant to leave it about.

but what can we do? this is what i'm exploring. turning the cash into liquid assets that have intrinsic value is one option, but limited.

thanks again!

Dennis said...

Yes, operating/sustaining a home-based economy without the use of plastic money will be difficult. This will be especially true for those who don't involve themselves in internet commerce. I have pondered the possible alternatives to the use of cash without coming up with any great ideas. Bartering, like in the past, will be an option, but difficult. I don't think our local utility company will take potatoes in payment for services rendered.

Best regards,

Dennis

Herrick Kimball said...

wildillb—

I have no idea what anyone can do to prepare for the elimination of cash in our monetary system. Probably nothing. I would guess that, if the scenario truly materializes, there would be a transition period, in which case, anyone with any cash will be able to spend it and buy needed items. Or, maybe, there would be such an outpouring of anger that the government would decide not to proceed with the scheme.

Dennis said...

I think, at least for commerce confined to a local area, the utilization of cooperatives might provide some help in providing an outlet for those involved in a home-based operation. The cooperative could be a clearing house, so to speak, for the exchange of one good or service for another.

Just a thought.

Dennis

Tewshooz said...

What a nation of urban sheeple! Doesn't anyone know what boycott means anymore; or is it just too inconvenient? The underground economy here will do very well

Clinton Johnson said...

I'm seeing too much on this one... any ideas on how the little man can profit from the elimination of cash?

Here's another blog post on the same topic a day later...
(http://www.bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-war-on-cash.html)

Tucanae Services said...

I have opined this many a time on other venues -- "Let them for the law on unintended consequences will be in full flower".

1) They may wish to go cashless. But here is a big risk. See Art 1, Sec 10 of the US Constitution. Any state is permitted to mint their own coinage in gold or silver. So lets have some role play. State of Texas decides to mint their own 'coinage' in the form of Bills with the gold impressed in it like they have security stripes in $100 USD notes. That's easy for Tx as they have $1Bn in gold in the US vaults.

Big deal you say? Well consider, if I am a big depositor (large business) I could avoid the fees and ripoffs from the TBTF banks who don't want their business by accepting TX notes from a TX regional bank. That is a reduction in risk as the notes value will float with the gold price and I can liquidate at the going rate nearly any time I want. As more business look for relief the Tx notes might actually trade at a premium. But at a minimum over time Tx would become the 'Delaware of Finance' just as Delaware itself has become the primary state to incorporate in. That KaChing you here is people rushing to Tx notes to protect themselves from a falling USD. Its just a scenario but entirely plausible.

Oh and to get around that little article in the USC will require an amendment not just a law as it is in the body of the document. The success rate of passing amendments has been pretty low in the postwar period.

2) If you are going to eliminate paper currency then that means a ewallet becomes the replacement. Well OK, but there is nothing fancy about a ewallet that BitCoin could substitute for. Which brings the quandary of in a world of ecash options a USD denominated wallet is not guaranteed success in the marketplace. Why go with a USD ewallet that is straddled with fees and % transaction costs vs BitCoin that may only have a single transaction cost at rates lower than the USD offering? And if a USD offering does flounder then is not the powers that be in the nation worse off than before as far as economic surveillance is concerned? And now the entire nation's economic transaction infrastructure unpinned from the Fed, the USD collapses totally.

3) There is the risk that going cashless would risk USD's reserve currency status. Its already shaky with paper currency. In a case where foreign investors would have to now have an ewallet they defacto are agreeing to a loss of anonymity. They may not like that. And yes there are business dealings that are not drug dealers that are legitimate. Under such a scenario investors may just steer clear of the US altogether as a place to do business.