IMF explains how to subvert Public Resistance against Elimination of Cash

Norbert Häring (Apr 5, 2017) - The International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington has published a Working Paper on “de-cashing”. It gives advice to governments who want to abolish cash against the will of their citizenry. Move slowly, start with harmless seeming measures, is part of that advice. 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 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, and the reporting of cash moves across the borders. Further steps could include creating 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 decashing. 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 cyberwarfare. 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.

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.

And finally the advice to do it together:

Coordinated efforts on de-cashing could help enhance its positive effects and reduce potential costs. At least at the level of major countries and their currencies, the authorities could coordinate their de-cashing efforts. Such coordinated efforts are, in particular, important in the decisions to phase out large denomination bills for all major currencies, to use ceilings and other restrictions on cash transactions, and to introduce the reporting requirements for cash transactions or their taxation. For currency areas, a single decashing policy would be clearly preferable to a national one. Finally, consensus between the public and the private sector and outreach on the advantages and modalities of gradual decashing should be viewed as key preconditions for its success.

The paper itself is an example of such “outreach on the advantages” even though it pretends to give a balanced account . Throughout, as in the following paragraph, potential disadvantages of cash are in the indicative and strongly worded, advantages are introduced a hypothetical, by referring to the possibility that people may perceive a certain advantage of cash.

The differences between currency and transferrable deposits are also remarkable. They are often used by both sides of the debate on the pros and cons of decashing. First, currency can become technically obsolete. Banknotes fade and break, and the efforts to remedy the problem with plastics is of little help and involve unneeded costs. Transferrable deposits do not have this problem. Second, payments with currency are anonymous, which makes them a popular vehicle for abuse, tax avoidance, terrorism financing, and money laundering. Transferrable deposits are personified and generally cannot be used for these purposes. Third, currency is prone to counterfeiting, at times on a large scale. Transferrable deposits are not. Fourth, currency is often perceived as a means to preserve privacy, i.e., economic operators generally are not interested in the history of the currency of their transaction. Also, the individual right for privacy is usually enshrined in laws and transferrable deposits store each step of the payment history, which can be viewed as a threat to privacy. Transferrable deposits lead to full transparency, at least to the issuing bank, and a complete record of transactions, which in virtue of law can be used by tax and law enforcement authorities.

The paper lists a fair number of advantages and disadvantages of cash, but makes no explicit attempt to argue that overall the disadvantages are more important. The language and the recommendations make the bias more than clear, though. Needless to say that, as with all scandalous, antidemocratic recommendations, the ones described here are officially only those of the author, not of the IMF.

Financial Fascism - The Elimination of Physical Currency

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of
state and corporate power.” ― Benito Mussolini, 1932

Paul Joseph Watson (Aug 28, 2015) - The Financial Times has published an anonymous article which calls for the abolition of cash in order to give central banks and governments more power. Entitled "The case for retiring another ‘barbarous relic’", the article laments the fact that people are stockpiling cash in anticipation of another economic collapse, a factor which is causing, “a lot of distortion to the economic system.”

“The existence of cash — a bearer instrument with a zero interest rate — limits central banks’ ability to stimulate a depressed economy. The worry is that people will change their deposits for cash if a central bank moves rates into negative territory,” states the article. Complaining that cash cannot be tracked and traced, the writer argues that its abolition would, “make life easier for a government set on squeezing the informal economy out of existence.” Abolishing cash would also give governments more power to lift taxes directly from people’s bank accounts, the author argues, noting how “Value added tax, for example, could be automatically levied — and reimbursed — in real time on transactions between liable bank accounts.”

Totalitarianism of the European Financial Oligarchy - Votes change nothing!

The writer also calls for punishing people who use cash by making users “pay for the privilege of anonymity” so they will, “remain affected by monetary policy.” Dated bank notes would lose their value over time, while people would also be charged by banks for swapping electronic reserves for physical cash and vice versa. The article echoes an argument made by Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, who has called for high denomination banks notes such as the €100 and €500 notes to be phased out of existence. Rogoff attended a meeting in London earlier this year where he met representatives from the Federal Reserve, the ECB as well as participants from the Swiss and Danish central banks. The issue of banning cash was at the forefront of the agenda. Last year, Rogoff also called for “abolishing physical currency” in order to stop “tax evasion and illegal activity” as well as preventing people from withdrawing money when interest rates are close to zero. 

The agenda to ban cash was also discussed at this year’s secretive Bilderberg Group meeting, which was attended by the Financial Times’ chief economics commentator Martin Wolf. Former Bank of England economist Jim Leaviss penned an article for the London Telegraph earlier this year in which he said a cashless society would only be achieved by “forcing everyone to spend only by electronic means from an account held at a government-run bank,” which would be, “monitored, or even directly controlled by the government.” In the UK, banks are treating the withdrawal of cash in amounts as low as £5,000 as a suspicious activity, while in France, citizens will be banned from making cash payments over €1,000 euros from Tuesday onwards. The withdrawal and deposit of cash over the amount of €1,000 euros will also be subject to ID verification. “There is no more egregious anti-liberty economic policy imaginable than banning cash,” writes Michael Krieger. “Of course, if cash were involuntarily “ended,” there would be a surge in demand for physical gold and silver, which would then necessitate a ban on those items. Then the cycle of economic and financial tyranny would be complete, and crawling our way out of it, nearly impossible.”