Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is it minimizing fraud if you don't give people the option to keep their "money" in a safe place of their own choosing?
What happens if a person makes a cashless purchase at target and someone breaches target's system and steals a person's info? Would it be fair to force someone to give Target their "personal info" just to buy a t shirt or a candy bar?
Sorry about that I didn't expand on it. I concur there is no reason to force someone to buy everything in a mode of purchase / medium of exchange that forces the purchaser to divulge personal information to that degree. Certain types of transactions obviously have different levels of verification / system checks in place based on the type and $value of items being purchased.
I was mainly trying to point out the very 'group' that espouses this as a way to fight fraud and bad behavior are the very ones engaging in it systemically. And by doing so, undermine the supposed reasons for doing so i.e. they are corrupt and above the law in the financial system they 'rule' so how can we trust them to use a currency less system properly.
Sorry about that I didn't expand on it. I concur there is no reason to force someone to buy everything in a mode of purchase / medium of exchange that forces the purchaser to divulge personal information to that degree. Certain types of transactions obviously have different levels of verification / system checks in place based on the type and $value of items being purchased.
I was mainly trying to point out the very 'group' that espouses this as a way to fight fraud and bad behavior are the very ones engaging in it systemically. And by doing so, undermine the supposed reasons for doing so i.e. they are corrupt and above the law in the financial system they 'rule' so how can we trust them to use a currency less system properly.
Hope that clarifies my view.
I agree with your view, these people are as trustworthy as far as i could throw them, which isn't far. The only reason "they" would go cashless is to benefit themselves, its not a "convenience" to anyone to have a police state government know more of your moves than they already know.
Questions.
Do you believe the purported benefits of digitizing all currency and transactions
are valid benefits, or trojan horses ?
Would you be willing to allow the government and study groups
of corporations have access digitally to all your financial information, with no loopholes ?
How important is the financial privacy which physical currency provides to you ?
Do you believe the world banking and political system has a hidden agenda ?
Is a cashless control grid part of the Antichrist system prophesized in the Bible ?
Would you be willing to fight, and possibly lose your life rather than be forced
to comply with draconian financial oversight of your life ?
This is not a subject that is comfortable to discuss. It's a scary subject, but
it's becoming apparently more likely that the population is prepared to accept
restrictions of freedom in exchange for perceived security and convenience.
After all, unless you're a criminal, you don't need cash. Right ?
how will you force people to go cashless?
i for one do not have any credit cards, i always pay with cash, and the bank account I do have is just there to pay for the minimum debt i do have.
I will never go to having a credit card, as that is 1 surefire way to let your debt get out of control, and i am teaching my daughters the same thing.
plus the fact that if you do not pay with cash, then your activities can be tracked by any company or government agency that wants or needs your information.
For the very existence of cash places the power over fractional-reserve banks squarely in the hands of their depositors who may withdraw their cash in any amount and at any time, bringing even the mightiest bank to its knees literally overnight (e.g., Washington Mutual). What is a surprise is how little notice the rollout of Chase’s new policy has received. As of March, Chase began restricting the use of cash in selected markets, including Greater Cleveland. The new policy restricts borrowers from using cash to make payments on credit cards, mortgages, equity lines, and auto loans. Chase even goes as far as to prohibit the storage of cash in its safe deposit boxes . In a letter to its customers dated April 1, 2015 pertaining to its “Updated Safe Deposit Box Lease Agreement,” one of the highlighted items reads: “You agree not to store any cash or coins other than those found to have a collectible value.” Whether or not this pertains to gold and silver coins with no numismatic value is not explained. https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...n-war-on-cash/
If we move to a cashless society, which I think is very likely in coming decades, people will barter with other things besides currency. I really think cash should be used as a choice of currency as it is now so there is some "privacy" so to speak. We are definitely moving away from that to the majority of transactions being electronic.
I don't like the idea of all my purchases being traced with using an electronic system. I prefer to use cash overall for most of my everyday purchases anyway.
how will you force people to go cashless? i for one do not have any credit cards, i always pay with cash, and the bank account I do have is just there to pay for the minimum debt i do have.
I think that is why the Swedish experiment is getting so much attention. The central bank has removed far more cash from circulation than they put back in. In particular the large denomination banknotes are almost gone. They are in the process of printing new banknotes, but so far they seem to be taking advantage of the situation to accelerate the removal of cash.
In contrast, Norway has more or less frozen the amount of cash they have in circulation about two years ago. However, they are not really eliminating any.
The equivalent of what Sweden is doing would be if US issued
10 $2 bills per person
2 $5 bills per person
8 $10 bills per person
$20 is a new denomination replacing $50 banknotes on 1 note:1 note basis
10 $50 bills per person
$100 bills would exist, but would be much less than one banknote per person
USA current circulation figures in number of notes per capita is:
$1 34.4
$2 3.4
$5 8.2
$10 5.9
$20 25.3
$50 4.8
$100 31.7
The government has a strong vested interest in a cashless society. With the tax code written as it is, essentially any time money moves from one person or entity to another, it is a taxable event. This breaks down whenever a transaction is done in cash. Then reporting of the transaction becomes voluntary.
With a cashless society, the government would gain knowledge of who paid how much to whom, and also a high level reason code. It can assess tax on each transaction and it forces participants in the marketplace to give enough information for them to be serviced by banks, who could easily begin charging fees for this service once it stops being a voluntary function.
What a cashless society would open up is an avenue for an alternative currency. Vice, crime, favors and quiet transactions would very likely not stop, but move into gold or diamond type forms of payment...or bitcoin. Already, the US has a law that requires purchases of gold more than $600 must be reported. They want an idea of who owns how much of this as cash grows slimmer.
When it gets close enough, the government will decree all cash must be turned into the banks or holders will forever hold their worthless paper. People sitting on hordes of unreported cash may face difficulty at that point, but I would imagine they'll use confusion as a backdrop to give an open door policy to get the system to move on. After that, cashless will be the only way to transact and everyone in the cold will need to adapt quickly.
I expect to see it in my lifetime, though I don't think they'll force it until a majority is convinced that going cashless is better and more efficient. In older personal finance texts they talk about keeping 5-10% of your wealth in gold. In a much older book, it speaks of only being able to transact if one bears a certain mark, and that the end of time happens after 42 months or so. Pragmatically I think it means you may want to get a bit of family gold in case things go poorly, and you should always remember to praise God above all.
It certainly benefits any government that wants to exercise total surveillance. I wouldn't necessarily term it a hidden agenda, but both governments and corporations yearn for ever more control.
I believe that you are correct that most people are happy to give up a lot for supposed convenience, or even just the prospect of saving a little money. Giving up one's life for something where you have no chance of making a dent seems silly to me. Anyone who really wanted to have an effect would to better to try to change public opinion and public perception.
What will drug dealers do in a cashless society? Or bank and store robbers?
Bitcoin transfers? Do bank robbers still exist in the Western world?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
