Getting rid of cash

easynote

I have started to get suspicious about the attempt in some countries to begin to wean people off using money in form of notes and coins, and start using plastic all the time instead, for every little purchase. This way the banks will eventually have control of all money in circulation and also it will be impossible for people to do business between themselves for example sell their old bicycle to a stranger or whatever. Only people with permission will be able to sell things and we will start to be only able to buy new things, -the second hand market will become illegal and impossible as no-one has any or uses any paper money and that will be a great thing for capitalism....

TerryTibbs!

Well ATM's and places where you can get cashback grow in numbers everyday so I don't think you are on to anything there.

Mahatma coat

Ah but the ATM and cashback Systems require that You have a Card Aready, and they anticipate that mostpeople will just use th cards as that technology improves, so the ilusion of Free will is being used

easynote

It is not as bad in Ireland yet as in some other European countries. The point about number of ATM's increasing is valid, but it does not apply to other countries as much. Also there is often a maximum limit of withdrawal and that maximum limit is constantly being lowered. There is no maximum limit on purchasing for any amount at one time with plastic.

Basically, I do not think 'they' want us to keep money and exchange it between ourselves. They are using scare-tactics in form of making us aware of the risk of robberies, and therefore they don't want those sort of crimes being culled by police. So, they are using criminals to meet their own ends. I mean petty criminals, they are the real criminals, obviously.:pac:

easynote

Also the cash-back system is a way of trying to make us feel that ATM's are no longer necessary, and stop using them, and always ask for cash back instead. That way they have a valid reason to start removing them soon because they are no longer being used as much. Then it will be easy to all of a sudden remove the system of cash-back with some stupid excuse or make it very expensive for shops to give cash-back- therefore they will refuse. Voila, no cash for the people.

There is also many bank-branches in other countries that do not handle cash anymore, therefore withdrawals in branch will also be weaned out as that becomes more and more common.

seannash

so what if we stop using money.
Plus is this thread not pointless as the whole forum is basically a place to do what you are describing

easynote

Yeah, I kind of realised that. I will edit my first post to just be about cash for the people. I can't edit the title though.

The Recliner

easynote wrote: »

Yeah, I kind of realised that. I will edit my first post to just be about cash for the people. I can't edit the title though.

Thread title edited

who what when

Getting rid of money is not a terrible idea. It would hugely reduce crime, tax evasion and the black market. Just because we've all come familiar with cash doesnt make it the best option

easynote

who what when wrote: »

Getting rid of money is not a terrible idea. It would hugely reduce crime, tax evasion and the black market. Just because we've all come familiar with cash doesnt make it the best option

I am sure crime and tax evasion can find other ways to operate. It is already operating to a great extent without the involvement of cash. In a way it will be good because of making the major part of sex industry including sex tourism more difficult to avail of for the common person. However, black market is also you and me being able to decide to grow vegetables and sell at a farmers market and also selling on things that we no longer have any use for, isn't it? Basically being able to provide things that we need for ourselves and eachother without involving multi national companies.

Freeconomy is a good idea, where exchanging things and services would be the way of getting around this, although I do not believe it will work in day-to-day life. How will you always find someone that has something you can exchange for something else that you need. I'd say we have to invent our own currency.

nullzero

who what when wrote: »

Getting rid of money is not a terrible idea. It would hugely reduce crime, tax evasion and the black market. Just because we've all come familiar with cash doesnt make it the best option

The reason making cash obsolete is a bad idea has to do with the fact that the monitery system would then be under the complete control of a very small group of people.
To an extenet this is already the case but with physical money it isn't possible to have complete control in the way it is with a cashless electronic system.

I'm not saying that the only use for electronic currency is to enslave the masses but it does have the ability to facilitate such an action and therefor should be viewed with caution.

shedweller

I find it harder to get to an ATM nowadays. They seem to be disappearing, the rent going up for them being one reason for their demise.
Once we all go cashless the money will ALWAYS be in the bank. There will be massive profits earned by the banks just by doing this.
You see, cash in my pocket doesn't earn the bank anything. But if it's in electronic form then it gets transferred from one account to another at the point of purchase. But it STAYS within the bank at all times.

You could go further and say they have the power to not let you buy anything for instance. Handy to prevent crime but the cost of crime is miniscule compared to what the banksters have done to the world.

phantom_lord

nullzero wrote: »

The reason making cash obsolete is a bad idea has to do with the fact that the monitery system would then be under the complete control of a very small group of people.
To an extenet this is already the case but with physical money it isn't possible to have complete control in the way it is with a cashless electronic system.

Do you guys not realise how little of the money supply is in the physical form in the first place?

easynote

phantom_lord wrote: »

Do you guys not realise how little of the money supply is in the physical form in the first place?

The percentage of total money in physical form and circulation is probably shrinking day by day.

shedweller

phantom_lord wrote: »

Do you guys not realise how little of the money supply is in the physical form in the first place?

I did and it just goes to show how much money the banks deal with! Those guys just add zeroes daily. It's another planet compared to the real world. As others have said, small scale trade at the local level will practically disappear.
Those card readers come at a price too, for the retailer. They are charged per transaction and pay to rent the card readers too. There are threads here talking about the issue of not being able to buy something for less than a tenner or something. This is due to the rental costs of the card readers themselves!
So here we have a situation where the banks are in the process of railroading us off cash by making it less accessible and charge shops to use the machines we more or less have no choice but to use.
And when the banks profits surge they will continue to cry at us about being broke and having to raise interest rates etc.

We are idiots for putting up with this nonsense

MCMLXXXIII

nullzero wrote: »

...the monitery system would then be under the complete control of a very small group of people...

The monetary system already is under the control of a very small group of people.

The whole world uses money. How many people sit on the IMF? How many people actually make decisions for the European Central Bank? ...or the Federal Reserve?

I don't think these central banks want physical money to go away because it would eliminate the need for them, but they may soon be in over their head. Governments like the idea of credit because it multiplies the currency without debt to the country. Before the economic meltdown, every dollar printed in the US turned into eight dollars on the market. (I would be paid a dollar amount, then be able to borrow money to buy a house/car/etc, then those companies would pay their employees enabling them to get another loan, etc.)

I don’t know what the statistics are after the crash.

My question is two-fold: Why would a government want to keep all paper money and indebt itself by printing it off, when it could easily allow the money to multiply itself eight times through the private sector? And why would banks want to put themselves out of business, since the only way they turn a real profit is through loans?

My answer (and main point) is two words: They don’t.

phantom_lord

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Governments like the idea of credit because it multiplies the currency without debt to the country.

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

My question is two-fold: Why would a government want to keep all paper money and indebt itself by printing it off,

huh? a government doesn't indebt itself by printing money.

sunshineoh9

i don't think its so much about removing cash from the world, more about tracking what you spend and finding out how to get more money out of you..
GREAT READ: http://thenumerati.net/
(never got to finish the book...:( i checked out 10 books and was only able to get half way through before it was due)

easynote

The point is, by removing cash we will not be able to buy things off eachother.

We will have to swap things and services instead, and that way it will become very difficult and messy, and just easier to buy food in the supermarket and only buy new things.

This is a great way to have us controlled as good consumers, without consumerism the whole globalisation agenda will collaps. No rich men are making money off us when we buy potatoes off the old man down the road who grows them on his little patch.

It is about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Also the middle classes are getting poorer, there is not so much room for them to be free and happy. We have to keep being enslaved to make sure we keep our crappy jobs, pay our taxes, and still barely have the freedom to buy things off who we want and always have no choice but to buy things that multinational companies make profit from.

phantom_lord

you guys need to calm down. it may be used less but no ones gettiing rid of cash.

Mahatma coat

And you can say that with Great certainty, Because????

Mahatma coat

phantom_lord wrote: »

huh? a government doesn't indebt itself by printing money.

So Banknotes have ZERO Debt incurred in their creation??

Governments Dont Borrow the money into existence,they just Print Debt free Currency, is that what you're saying?????

easynote

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So Banknotes have ZERO Debt incurred in their creation??

Governments Dont Borrow the money into existence,they just Print Debt free Currency, is that what you're saying?????

I do not know whether printing money incurres debt, but if it does it is just another reason for them to start getting rid of it.

I would recommend all freethinking people to start using cash as much as possible, keep using ATM's and don't get cashback, and prevent this before it becomes a reality.

Money is power, therefore we need to keep as much money as possible to ourselves, away from the banks and multinational companies.

phantom_lord

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So Banknotes have ZERO Debt incurred in their creation??

Governments Dont Borrow the money into existence,they just Print Debt free Currency, is that what you're saying?????

jesus not that nonsense again. that has to be the most absurd illogical ct spouted.

Yitzhak Rabin

Why not explain why? Arrogant one-liners normally don't get much discussion going.

phantom_lord

yekahs wrote: »

Why not explain why? Arrogant one-liners normally don't get much discussion going.

because we've already been over it a few times already and yet the posters here still seem believe in some silly notion of the fed being part of a jewish banking conpiracy because some youtube clip said so.

Yitzhak Rabin

Then there is always the option of biting your tongue and not posting. This forum for discussion. If you're not interested in discussing it, don't post.

easynote

phantom_lord wrote: »

because we've already been over it a few times already and yet the posters here still seem believe in some silly notion of the fed being part of a jewish banking conpiracy because some youtube clip said so.

No-one said anything about fed(?) or jewish conspiracy. You may draw directions here and tell people what they are actually talking about when they haven't mentioned anything about it, but that will not make this a very popular forum for any kind of discussions with people who are genuinely interested, and not just here to debunk, criticise and ridicule.

phantom_lord

yekahs wrote: »

Then there is always the option of biting your tongue and not posting. This forum for discussion. If you're not interested in discussing it, don't post.

is it a forum for discussion of misinformation? clearly the two posters who talked about govs printing money have no understanding of what they're talking about.

if someone decided to start a ct thread saying that the earth is flat, and they've come across youtube clips that say so. would you have a problem with someone saying they're deluded and not taking them seriously?

Yitzhak Rabin

phantom_lord wrote: »

is it a forum for discussion of misinformation? clearly the two posters who talked about govs printing money have no understanding of what they're talking about.

if someone decided to start a ct thread saying that the earth is flat, and they've come across youtube clips that say so.

The international monetary market and money supply is a much more complex topic than whether or not the world is flat. I have a BComm and I have no shame in admitting I don't fully understand the ins and outs of it.

The best way to counter misinformation, is by providing the correct information, not simply dismissing it.

would you have a problem with someone saying they're deluded and not taking them seriously?

Yes I would, as I consider calling someone deluded to be personal abuse.

I have taken this off-topic enough, so, I won't be posting further, but I'll clarify anything you want by PM.

easynote

I thought Phantom Lord was moderator of this forum...

Anyway, can we please stay on topic not talk about moderation.

If printing money is indepting or not may deserve it's own thread. I don't mind but am only interested in talking about signs of cash disappearing and becoming more expensive (I have to pay 3% on withdrawal in penalty on my credit card but purchases are free, why?) and what consequences this will have for you and me and the younger generation.:)

easynote

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

And why would banks want to put themselves out of business, since the only way they turn a real profit is through loans?

They would still be able to as much business through loans, they don't usually give you cash when you take out a loan. Cash is barely ever involved in any bank loans.

phantom_lord

easynote wrote: »

I don't mind but am only interested in talking about signs of cash disappearing and becoming more expensive (I have to pay 3% on withdrawal in penalty on my credit card but purchases are free, why?)

They make about that much from retailers on your purchases, by you taking your credit as a cash advance they miss out on that money so they charge you instead.

phantom_lord

yekahs wrote: »

The international monetary market and money supply is a much more complex topic than whether or not the world is flat. I have a BComm and I have no shame in admitting I don't fully understand the ins and outs of it.

The best way to counter misinformation, is by providing the correct information, not simply dismissing it.

It's printing money though, it's a simple aspect of that tbf.

The whole premise is so ridiculous and only talked about in ct circles, no economics textbook/forum/or anyone with pertinent knowledge would mention it or have any time for it.

Now either cters have found something out about this area that no one who works or studies it knows about, or they just haven't a clue what their talking about and have just come up with some wild fantasies pretty much like that freeman nonsense.

Seriously this ct is just so absurd and illogical.

Anyway without getting into any of the ins and outs of it; to debunk it really simply and quickly take the extreme examples of governments turning on the printing press in the case of the weimar republic in the 20s and then zimbabwe in recent years. Both times this was done to PAY OFF debts. Now if printing money incurred debt, they wouldn't have gone down that route would they?

old_aussie

easynote wrote: »

I have started to get suspicious about the attempt in some countries to begin to wean people off using money in form of notes and coins....

Please tell me which countries

Mahatma coat

You Live in One

Mahatma coat

phantom_lord wrote: »

It's printing money though, it's a simple aspect of that tbf.

You still havent explained your point tho

The whole premise is so ridiculous and only talked about in ct circles, no economics textbook/forum/or anyone with pertinent knowledge would mention it or have any time for it.

And the Fundamentals of the Economy were Considered Sound in 2007 by these self same Economists Pertinent Knowledge.

Now either cters have found something out about this area that no one who works or studies it knows about, or they just haven't a clue what their talking about and have just come up with some wild fantasies pretty much like that freeman nonsense.

Have you Seen the Money Masters, What points do you disagree with????

Seriously this ct is just so absurd and illogical.

:rolleyes:

Anyway without getting into any of the ins and outs of it; to debunk it really simply and quickly take the extreme examples of governments turning on the printing press in the case of the weimar republic in the 20s and then zimbabwe in recent years. Both times this was down to PAY OFF debts. Now if printing money incurred debt, they wouldn't have gone down that route would they?

I Think that actually highlights the Point I was trying to make

phantom_lord

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I Think that actually highlights the Point I was trying to make

Well, you may think that but your point was printing money incurs debt. Which is pretty much the opposite of what the example I gave did.

And the Fundamentals of the Economy were Considered Sound in 2007 by these self same Economists Pertinent Knowledge.

Um, nope. But irrespective of that, that's not very relevant to the point in hand is it? Apples and oranges.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Have you Seen the Money Masters

Of course not. But if it's points are what you said earlier then I really don't need to waste my time on it.

easynote

phantom_lord wrote: »

They make about that much from retailers on your purchases, by you taking your credit as a cash advance they miss out on that money so they charge you instead.

No, they have a flat fee for every transaction, they are not charging the reatailers a percentage fee for every purchase amount...

In nordic countries this fee has recently been lowered, due to the fact that 'they' want us to use our cards as often as possible, and they don't want the retailers to have a minimum purchase amount set for card transactions.

I am talking about about mainly western countries, in some countries this practice of trying to get rid of the cash-use is more prevalent and noticable than in others.

You'd notice if you travel.

easynote

Is anyone here considering starting using cash more often and telling their friends why they should also do so?

MCMLXXXIII

phantom_lord wrote: »

huh? a government doesn't indebt itself by printing money.

"huh?" Of course it does. This goes back to when money was either backed by gold or other metals, or it was pegged to a currency backed by gold/metal. During this time, you could take the bank note to the government, and they would give you the proper amount of gold, etc. So each note was considered a debt to the public. Bank notes are considered property of the central bank, which is why it is technically a crime to deface or destroy them.

Now, money isn't tied to gold or any other metal anymore, which leads to the question:

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So Banknotes have ZERO Debt incurred in their creation??

Governments Dont Borrow the money into existence,they just Print Debt free Currency, is that what you're saying?????

You (obviously) can’t take bank notes and demand gold anymore because money is “backed by the full faith and credit” of the issuing central bank. However, when you get a loan from (example) Bank of Ireland, they consider it a debit to their account and therefore a liability of which they hope to eventually recover. It’s the same way with a central bank and a government. The central bank borrows money to commercial banks, and the central bank hopes to eventually be repaid. Even on a personal level it remains the same. If you borrow money from a bank to buy a house, the bank will take the house back if you do not make the payments. In places with property tax (like the US), if you do not pay the tax the government takes the land/house/etc. away from you. The problem, becomming apparent in the current recession, is that it would be hugely detrimental to socioety if a central bank called back all its loans from a commercial bank. This is why, I think, no one knows what to do or is too scared to do anything because it will (most likely) make everything even worse.

easynote wrote: »

They would still be able to as much business through loans, they don't usually give you cash when you take out a loan. Cash is barely ever involved in any bank loans.

Banks don’t give cash for loans because you (usually) need a good reason for taking out a loan, and it's (usually) a large sum of money. If I’m buying a house, I might need 200,000 euro, and that would be ridiculous to carry around. Plus, once I give the cash to the seller, all they are going to do is bring it back to the bank. To get back on point – credit cards were actually meant to replace cash. Well, credit cards were meant to replace checks, and checks were meant to replace cash. So, it seems what started out as a convenience became a runaway issue that banks and governments don’t necessarily want to stop, nor could they stop even if they tried.

easynote

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Banks don’t give cash for loans because you (usually) need a good reason for taking out a loan, and it's (usually) a large sum of money. If I’m buying a house, I might need 200,000 euro, and that would be ridiculous to carry around. Plus, once I give the cash to the seller, all they are going to do is bring it back to the bank. To get back on point – credit cards were actually meant to replace cash. Well, credit cards were meant to replace checks, and checks were meant to replace cash. So, it seems what started out as a convenience became a runaway issue that banks and governments don’t necessarily want to stop, nor could they stop even if they tried.

This is stating the obvious. I was answering your question that suggested banks would no longer do business in form of loans if cash was removed.

MCMLXXXIII

easynote wrote: »

This is stating the obvious. I was answering your question that suggested banks would no longer do business in form of loans if cash was removed.

I believe they would. Maybe because I'm thinking "too inside the box," but I can't imagine them doing anything else besides loans if cash was removed. How else would you get a loan for a house, etc.? Who would give you the money? ...and do you really think the banks would just "throw in the towel" that easily? The banks and government wouldn't (and couldn't) just let the entire banking industry disappear like that...

easynote

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Who would give you the money?

As been previously stated, you don't usually pay someone with cash when you get a bankloan to buy a house.

hugs to you- it is kind of a cute question...

MCMLXXXIII

easynote wrote: »

hugs to you- it is kind of a cute question...

Perhaps something just went over my head...

My arguement regarding this: banks would still exist, and would be used as an administrator of personal finance and wealth management based on the amount of credit received (electronically) from its respective central bank.

I think money, international currency, credit, tracking, etc. would substantially change, but I think commerce would remain the same.

easynote

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I think money, international currency, credit, tracking, etc. would substantially change, but I think commerce would remain the same.

ok so how would small scale trade at local level stay the same? *hugs*

MCMLXXXIII

easynote wrote: »

ok so how would small scale trade at local level stay the same? *hugs*

The bank of PayPal.

Seriously.

Either that, or some sort of direct-transfer option within your own commercial banks.

easynote

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

The bank of PayPal.

Seriously.

Either that, or some sort of direct-transfer option within your own commercial banks.

You're too cute.

The Recliner

easynote wrote: »

You're too cute.

Would you mind not cracking onto other users and either discuss the issue or drop it