Unless you are living in a cave you have heard of cashless society proposals. Readers of this blog will not be surprised that I have indeed run into people who have NOT heard of this. It pains me greatly. You too have probably encountered these troglodytes that have slime for brains. Such is life.
First we learned of the proposal to eliminate the €500 note and now we here chirpings from Larry Summers to eliminate the $100 note.
You can read more here from Zerohedge:
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/15/2016 - 19:54 Not
a bad way to launch a global ban on paper currency ahead of a global
NIRP regime, and all, of course, in the name of fighting "tax evasion,
financial crime, terrorism and corruption."
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/16/2016 - 08:45 "...a moratorium on printing new high denomination notes would make the world a better place."
- Larry Summers, Harvard Professor
So what's going on here? Why a push for a cashless society? At first glance you would think that it's an effort by incompetent and hopelessly corrupt governments to combat......wait for it......crime. In addition to crime, they claim it will help government officials across the world fight those nasty tax-evaders who are smuggling giant suit cases of cash to their private safe tax haven of choice. That's how it's done right?
Of course another reason that is conveniently ignored by mainstream media is the benefit to government should a bank run ensue. Your cash can be controlled and they can limit what you can take out Cyprus style. Not only that it will be much easier for them to reform the monetary system and make the changes invisible to the average dimwit.
If you read the link above re: Larry Summers, you will read that he references a paper recently written by Peter Sands, a Harvard Wonk. Peter pushes the agenda of fighting crime and other things, corruption being last on the list. And for good reason.
Larry Summers states in his paper, "I remember that when the euro was being designed in the late 1990s, I
argued with my European G7 colleagues that skirmishing over seigniorage
by issuing a 500 euro note was highly irresponsible and mostly would be a
boon to corruption and crime."
Do they really want to fight crime? Are they really interested in combating illegal, digital financial transactions?
Peter Sands, in his abstract, states clearly, "Yet despite huge investments in transaction
surveillance systems, intelligence and interdiction, less than 1% of
illicit financial flows are seized."
Suddenly I smell a rat. Think carefully how this could impact you. There's much more to say on the subject but I'll stop here. Other more informed people will surely be vetting this idea out over the coming weeks.