Are You Ready For ‘The War on Cash’? Here are 10 Crazy Quotes…

The war on cash is escalating. As Mises’ Jo Salerno reports, the latest combatant to join the fray is JP Morgan Chase, the largest bank in the U.S., which recently enacted a policy restricting the use of cash in selected markets; bans cash payments for credit cards, mortgages, and auto loans; and disallows the storage of “any cash or coins” in safe deposit boxes. In other words, the war has moved on from one of words to actions.

Here are ten quotes that should chill the spine of any individual who cherishes his or her freedom and anonymity:

1. Kenneth Rogoff (from the intro to his paper The Costs and Benefits to Phasing Out Paper Currency):

Despite advances in transactions technologies, paper currency still constitutes a notable percentage of the money supply in most countries… Yet, it has important drawbacks. First, it can help facilitate activity in the underground (tax-evading) and illegal economy. Second, its existence creates the artifact of the zero bound on the nominal interest rate.

In other words, cash (not money) is the source of all evil and must be destroyed because governments can’t trace its every movement, and it represents a limiting factor on central banks’ ability to continue their insane negative-interest-rate experiment.

2. Citigroup’s Chief Economist Willem Buiter responds to the monetary economist Charles Goodhart’s description of abolishing currency as “shockingly illiberal.”

(T)his cost has to be seen against the cost that the anonymity of currencypresents to society. Even though hard evidence is hard to come by, it is very likely that the underground economy and the criminal community are among the heaviest users of currency.

This, I believe, is the hidden intent behind all the excited talk about banning cash: to do away with the personal anonymity it offers.

3. France’s finance minister Michel Sapin adds a dose of scare-mongering, which can do wonders.  In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo murders, he put much of the blame for the attacks on the assailants’ ability to buy dangerous things with cash. Shortly thereafter he announced a raft of capital controls that included a €1,000 cap on cash payments, down from €3,000. Such radical counter measures were necessary, he said, to “fight against the use of cash and anonymity in the French economy.”

4. Guillermo de la Dehesa, a Spanish economist, former senior civil servant and current international advisor to Banco Santander and… (cue drum roll) Goldman Sachs, already demonized cash (as opposed to digitalized bank credit) as a source of all crime and evil back in 2007, when he wrote the following in an El Pais article titled “The Great Advantage of a Cashless World”:

Without cash, we would live in a much safer, less violent world with enhanced social cohesion, since the major incentive fuelling all illegal activity [i.e. cash]… would disappear.”

Dehesa also lamented that political authorities in all countries were incapable of taking this “transcendental step” to build a “safer and fairer world, in which there will be a reduced need for public and private policing and fewer wars, terrorist attacks, and burglaries, and drugs could only be bought legally.” So he ludicrously elevated cash (rather than money) as a major cause of war and a laundry list of other evils. They’d be stamped out by electronic payments where every single movement will be tracked and recorded for posterity.

5. Economist and former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, among the growing ranks of policymakers, business leaders, academics, and bankers picking up the torch of Dehesa’s dystopian dream, is barely able to conceal his glee as he tells CBS news:

There will be a time – I don’t know when, I can’t give you a date – when physical money is just going to cease to exist.

6. David Wolman, author of the Death of Money, told CBS just why cash is so impractical (not to mention unhygienic, or as he puts it “pretty gross”):

Everyone thinks cash is so simple and so easy and so fast and so secure. It’s NONE of those things. It’s really expensive to move it, store it, secure it, inspect it, shred it, redesign it, re-supply it, and round and round we go!

7. Founder of mobile payments provider Square, Jack Dorsey seems to understand that to kill cash for good the authorities must go beyond just vilifying it; they must romanticize the alternatives. Here’s his take on mobile money:

I think there is a general desire in American culture right now to find something that is more crafted, more personal.

As anyone who’s ever received money as a gift will tell you, there’s nothing more impersonal (and, of course, more untraceable and anonymous) than cash. Mobile payments will fix that shortcoming.

8. Chris Skinner, author of The Future of Banking and Digital Bank, drives home the point that digital money doesn’t just offer a more personal touch; it also offers a far more secure payment system, especially with the advent of biometric authentication systems.

Imagine that your payment mechanism is built into a watch that your bank gave you. The watch includes an RFID or NFC capability, biometric recognition and is supported by existing infrastructures at the merchant front-end and money transmissions process back-end. The retail consumer can therefore go into any store, wave their watch at the contactless terminal, press their finger to the pay point and they have purchased the goods. No card or cash involved.

That is the vision of the future of retail payments and we are almost there today. We already have contactless payment terminals, fingerprint recognition payments, micro and mobile payments. The only logical step is to introduce non-card based (i.e. biometric-based) payment systems.

As the saying goes: you can create a new password many times (for example, if your accounts get hacked), but you can create your biometrics only once. If they’re compromised, they remain compromised. So a payment system based on them would be really cool.

9. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in its 2015 annual letter, adds a new twist. The technologies are all in place; it’s just a question of getting us to use them so we can all benefit from a crimeless, privacy-free world. What better place to conduct a massive social experiment than sub-Saharan Africa, where NGOs and GOs (Government Organizations) are working hand-in-hand with banks and telecom companies to replace cash with mobile money alternatives? So the annual letter explains:

(B)ecause there is strong demand for banking among the poor, and because the poor can in fact be a profitable customer base, entrepreneurs in developing countries are doing exciting work – some of which will “trickle up” to developed countries over time.

What the Foundation doesn’t mention is that it is heavily invested in many of Africa’s mobile-money initiatives and in 2010 teamed up with the World Bank to “improve financial data collection” among Africa’s poor. One also wonders whether Microsoft might one day benefit from the Foundation’s front-line role in mobile money.

10. Buiter’s employer Citi, a big player in the African arena, recently launched a partnership with USAID aimed at accelerating mobile money adoption in developing countries. Here’s a nugget from their joint press release:

[E]xpanding the adoption of mobile financial solutions is a critical economic development strategy with the potential to drive growth and increase financial access and security for the developing world’s poor population. The effort seeks to strengthen alternatives to a cash-based system that is inefficient, costly, and prone to corruption.

As a result of technological advances and generational priorities, cash’s days may well be numbered. But there is a whole world of difference between a natural death and euthanasia. It is now clear that an extremely powerful, albeit loose, alliance of governments, banks, central banks, start-ups, large corporations, and NGOs are determined to pull the plug on cash — not for our benefit, but for theirs.

As I warned in We Are Sleepwalking Towards a Cashless Society, we (or at least the vast majority of people in the vast majority of countries) are willing to entrust government and financial institutions – organizations that have already betrayed just about every possible notion of trust – with complete control over our every single daily transaction. And all for the sake of a few minor gains in convenience. The price we pay will be what remains of our individual freedom and privacy. By Don Quijones, Raging Bull-Shit.

Wolf here: Governments and corporations have one thing in common: they want to know everything. Data is power. And money. Technologies for collecting, mining, and using data are now so cheap that totally impoverished Somaliland has turned into the model of just this sort of cashless society. It sure is convenient. But…. My report from nearly two years ago:  Perfecting The Surveillance Society – One Payment At A Time

Free "dummies guide" to trading options

Did you know trading options can actually be safer and more profitable than buying and selling stocks? Video and plain English training guide reveals how to get started tonight. 100% free.

Download now.

You May Also Like

About the Author: TTR Admin

  • JohnDille

    IT MAY SURPRISE YOU TO LEARN THAT WE LIBERALS DISTRUST AND DISLIKE HIGHLY CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT EVEN MORE THAN CONSERVATIVES DO. AFTER ALL, LIBERALS ARE, BY DEFINITION, ANTI AUTHORITARIAN. HOWEVER… THIS IS THE MODERN WORLD… AND THE RULES THAT WORKED IN THE 17 HUNDREDS DO NOT WORK VERY WELL IN OUR DAY AND AGE…. HARDLY ANYWHERE EXCEPT MAYBE IN REALLY PRIMITIVE TRIBAL SOCIETIES SUCH AS ARE FOUND DEEP IN THE AMAZON BASIN AND OTHER SUCH PLACES. AND SINCE THE PLANET IS ADDING ABOUT 85 MILLION PEOPLE EVERY YEAR… ABOUT A QUARTER MILLION PEOPLE PER DAY… EVERY DAY… AND SINCE WE ARE A PLANET WITH OVER 200 NATIONS AND SEVERAL THOUSAND DIFFERENT CULTURES AND SUB CULTURES, AND SINCE MODERN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGIES ARE CAUSING CHANGES THAT ARE HAPPENING AT 10 AND 25 AND A HUNDRED TIMES FASTER THAN AT ANY OTHER TIME IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY… AND SINCE WE ARE BEGINNING TO RUN UP AGAINST REAL NATURAL LIMITS TO HOW WE USE OUR PLANET AND IN THE AVAILABILITY OF CRITICAL RESOURCES…. THE RATIONAL HUMAN BEING UNDESTANDS THE HARD COLD AND PERHAPS VERY GRIM TRUTH…. LIKE IT OR NOT… THE WORLD OF TOMORROW MUST BE MUCH MORE COLLECTIVELY CONTROLLED AND REGULATED THAN THE WORLD OF TODAY IS. WHAT YOU SEE TODAY IS MERELY THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD THAT OUR GRANDCHILDREN WILL TAKE FOR GRANTED…. BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS A CHAOTIC NIGHTMARE WITH POVERTY AND HORRORS THAT FEW PEOPLE CAN EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE. AND SINCE THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS THE GLUE THAT HOLDS ANY CIVILIZATION TOGETHER, THE ECONOMIC ORDER OF TOMORROW WILL BE MUCH MORE TIGHTLY CONTROLLED AND REGULATED THAN THE SYSTEM OF TODAY IS. AND SINCE FIAT MONEY IS BY FAR THE EASIEST MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE TO CREATE AND TO INTEGRATE INTO THE NORMAL DAY TO DAY AFFAIRS OF MOST PEOPLE AND MOST ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, EXPECT FIAT MONEY TO PLAY AN EVER LARGER ROLE IN THE WORLD OF TOMORROW. IF YOU WANT TO OWN GOLD AND SILVER… BUY THEM FOR YOURSELF… BUT DO NOT EXPECT NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS… ANYWHERE ON EARTH… TO ADOPT THOSE METALS AS ANYTHING MORE THAN A SMALL PART OF THEIR FINANCIAL RESERVES… BECAUSE DOING SO WOULD BE FAR TOO EXPENSIVE… AND WOULD NOT… COULD NOT.. DO ANYTHING TO MAKE THE TURBULENT WORLD OF TOMORROW ANY LESS TURBULENT OR STABLE THAN IT OTHERWISE IS OR WOULD… OR COULD… EVER BE!

  • berky

    I’ve done some more research on this. Sounds to me like there are solid arguments on both sides, but also a lot of assumptions from both sides as well. In the end I am still in favor of a non-centrally controlled monetary system, and I still think having multiple systems is the best we can do.

  • JohnDille

    HERE IS A VERY GOOD ARTICLE ON THE GOLD STANDARD… SHORT AND TO THE POINT!
    Cullen Roche, Orcam Financial Group (504 clicks)
    Follow (65,855 followers)

    Why No One Should Support The Gold Standard

    Nov. 12, 2015 7:30 AM ET by: Cullen Roche

    The gold standard is silly. No one should be in favor of going back to it. Here’s why:

    The Gold standard does not create “Sound Money” policy. One of the biggest myths about the Gold Standard is that it will create “sound money” policies that won’t allow the government to debase the currency. History shows this is totally wrong. A gold standard does not restrict the government from devaluing the currency. Over the course of the existence of the bimetallic system in the U.S., the ratio of the values in silver/gold relative to dollars was consistently and continuously altered, as more of the metals were mined and the economy evolved. The history of the metallic standard shows very little consistency in the value of the conversion rates and in fact exposes the reality that the gold standard’s inflexibility resulted in numerous depressions during which these metallic pegs were consistently altered or abandoned (temporarily before eventually being abandoned permanently). The gold standard imposed very little discipline on the government and instead created restrictions that were inevitably changed.

    The Gold Standard is inherently deflationary. During the history of the U.S., there have been 11 major depressions and/or financial panics. With the exception of the Great Recession, all 10 of the other panics or depressions occurred under the metallic standard, thanks in large part to its inflexible design and inherently deflationary nature (the Panic of 1797, the Depression of 1807, the Depression of 1815, the Panic of 1837, the Panic of 1857, the Panic of 1873, the Panic of 1893, the Panic of 1907, the Depression of 1920 and the Great Depression). Although growth was a bit higher in the era of the metallic monetary system this growth was also extremely volatile and resulted in numerous long and destructive depressionary periods.¹

    A gold standard is disastrous for foreign trade. Under a true gold standard, a country with an overvalued currency will experience a deflationary bias as they will be forced to settle cross-border transactions by losing gold to foreign countries. This process will continue for as long as it takes for the currency to fully rebalance, a process that can take years and even decades. A modern day example of this nightmare is Greece, which exists in a single currency system with no floating exchange rate. Greece is experiencing the equivalent of a gold standard style “internal rebalancing” where they suffer through a long sustained deflation that makes their economy more competitive. The U.S. tried to move to a quasi-gold standard after the Great Depression, but found that, as the key player in the international monetary system, the same inflexible design led to substantial demand for U.S. dollars in the foreign markets and continual trade imbalances.

    There’s a reason why almost no mainstream economist supports a return to the gold standard – it is an economic disaster. It was too restrictive and too deflationary. Yes, the current system is far from perfect. It is inherently inflationary and controlled largely by an oligopoly of banks. But it is a market based system with an elastic money supply that expands and contracts with the needs of its users. Further, the system of international trade has moved to more fully free-floating exchanges rates. This has substantially alleviated the global deflationary pressures we once experienced and has established a much more market-based rebalancing mechanism. While imperfect, the current system is far superior to the excessively inflexible gold standard.

  • g13man

    JDillie ur tirades do not provide stimuli , now keep ur hands and comics to ur self !

  • JohnDille

    GMAN STILL BRAIN DEAD AND BRAIN WAVES NOT RESPONDING TO STIMULI!

  • g13man

    Jdillie still not comprehending and replies with with the same brain dead response

  • JohnDille

    NOBODY LISTENS TO YOU BECAUSE ARE NEVER SOBER ENOUGH TO MAKE A COHERENT COMMENT!!! EITHER THAT OR YOU FLUNKED OUT OF THIRD GRADE AND CAN.T WRITE A COHERENT SENTENCE!!! OR, YOU ARE JUST ANOTHER BRAIN DEAD RIGHT WINGER. NOT BEING PARTICULARLY JUDGEMENTAL, I WILL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO DECIDE WHICH OF THOSE PROBLEMS IS THE CAUSE OF YOUR INABILITY TO WRITE LIKE AN EDUCATED ADULT!

  • g13man

    you truly do not listen to him or me !!!! why do u continue to ask the question that we have answered !
    Just because it is outside your reason or comprehension to acknowledge is still no reason to be stupid and ask again and again !
    WE are not republican or democratic !
    There are more then two options [pub & dem ] !! Especially when the 2 options are both corrupt and deal with the same elite to the detriment of all others , can not make a budget [but only spend what is not there]

    As Berky said above ,

    deflation is not a problem the FED or gov should have to worry about IF the gov had not gone in to debt !!!

  • g13man

    lol , stupid grandpa , gold should have been buried , ( unlike the logic and sanity of urs] [u should be using logic and not burring it ] Annd now we know why ur afraid of guns , they need powder and ur family does not know safety precautions [ or was granddaddy an ignorant provicator like U ? { ie did he not know how to control fire or did he create an enemy that burnt him out ,, LOL true to much gov when we hire idiots like him and or U .

  • JohnDille

    Why would I support such a standard? Because it’s not controlled by governments or really by any group of humans. I cannot grasp the logic that a gold standard only benefits the few. Please provide a link of some sort that can help me understand such logic. WELL… I CAN SAFELY ASSUME THAT WHOLE BOOKS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ON THE SUBJECT OF THE FLAWS IN THE GOLD STANDARD. I HAVE NEVER READ SUICH BOOKS… BUT I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE EXPERINCE THE BRITISH HAD… THEY WERE TIED TO THE GOLD STANDARD FOR SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS… AND IT WAS REALLY GREAT FOR THE RULING CLASS AND THEIR WEALTHY ALLIES. BUT FOR ORDINARY FOLKS, IT WAS A NIGHTMARE! THE BRITISH STILL SUFFER FROM THEIR MANY HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF UPPER CLASS DOMINATION OF SOCIETY… A MAJOR HOLD OVER FROM CENTURIES OF USING THE GOLD STANDARD CREATED BY AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL FEW TO DOMINATE NOT JUST ENGLAND… BUT MORE THAN A QUARTER OF THE ENTIRE WORLD!!! OUR OWN FOUNDING FATHERS REBELLED AGAINST ENGLAND IN PART BECAUSE THE GOLD STANDARD IN ENGLAND STIFLED TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT HERE IN THE COLONIES! MAYBE IF YIOU RIGHT WINGERS UNDERSTOOD REAL HISTORY BETTER, YOU WOULD NOT BELIEVE SO MUCH BALONEY…. MOST OF IT IMPOSED UPON YOU BY PEOPLE WHO MAKE MONEY… OR MAINTAIN THEIR WEALTH AND POWER… BY SEDUCING YOU WITH BALONEY AND LIES!!! AS FOR MY UNCLES DISASTER, THE POINT WAS… THAT KIND OF THING CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE, AT ANY TIME! THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES IN LIFE… EXCEPT THAT… IN THE LONG RUN… WE ALL DIE! THE DETAILS OF EACH PERSONS PATH THROUGH LIFE WILL BE DIFFERENT… BUT WE CAN ALL SAFELY ASSUME THAT NONE OF US WILL GET OUT OF THIS NIGHTMARE ALIVE… AND THAT NEARLY ALL OF US WILL SCREW UP… SOMETIMES CATASTROPHICALLY… ON A ROUTINE BASIS! ANYONE WHO BELIEVES OTHERWISE IS TRULY A FOOL!!!

  • berky

    Why would I support such a standard? Because it’s not controlled by governments or really by any group of humans. I cannot grasp the logic that a gold standard only benefits the few. Please provide a link of some sort that can help me understand such logic. The way I see it, if a group of ‘elite’ hoard a bunch of gold, it will only serve to reduce the velocity of the money supply, thereby causing a reduction in prices (deflation). Deflation is only bad when you live in a world of debt. This can cause problems in that now those same people can take their stashes and buy up things cheaper than before, causing an increase in velocity and therefore inflation. I understand the concept of (at a VERY large scale) how this can be manipulated. However, if we have more than 1 currency option, the market can switch to other options when the timing is right. Also, I believe the real method to wealth is creating cashflow, not hoarding gold. I think gold plays its part, but ultimately no one should rely 100% on any single “investment”. That said, I mean absolutely no disrespect to your uncle, but your story is one of personal negligence and poor planning. His loss was not the fault of gold, guns, gunpowder, prepping, government, etc, but the fault of himself. He had no one to blame but his own poor judgement.

  • JohnDille

    As I’ve stated before, I prefer options. I don’t think either system is perfect, but any monetary system that is completely controlled by a small group is just asking for trouble. SO… WHY WOULD YOU SUPPORT A GOLD STANDARD???? AS HISTORY HAS SHOWN, GOLD STANDARDS ARE OPERATED BY THE FEW FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE FEW. YEAH… IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A FEW HUNDRED OUNCES OF SHINY METALS STORED AWAY SOMEPLACE SAFE… BUT RELATIVELY FEW PEOPLE CAN AFFORD VERY MUCH GOLD, OR EVEN SILVER. SO, THEY MAKE DO WITH PAPER MONEY…. JUST LIKE 98% OF THE PEOPLE ON EARTH ROUTINELY DO!!! AS FOR THE SAFETY OF GOLD AD SILVER… THAT REMINDS OF A A NOT SO FUNNY… AT LEAST NOT TO MY UNCLE… STORY! MY UNCLE, AND MY DAD IN HIS LAST YEARS… LIVED IN ALASKA RIGHT ON THE YUKON RIVER. MY UNCLE LIVED IN ALSAKA FOR MOST OF HIS ADULT LIFE, AND HE PNNED FOR GOLD EVERY CANCE HE GOT… AND HE PRODUCED MANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF THE STUFF. WELL… HIS RETIREMENT PLAN WAS SIMPLE… HE SET ASIDE SOME OF THE GOLD HE PRODUCED, AND BY HIS RECKONING, HE HAD ABOUT 300 OUNCES OF RAW GOLD SET ASIDE IN HIS BASEMENT. WHILE HE WAS AWAY, HUNTING, HIS CABIN… WHICH HE HAD BUILT TOTALLY BY HIMSELF… BURNED TO THE GROUND. AND IF THAT WAS NOT BAD ENOUGH, THE SEVERAL TENS OF POUNDS OF GUN POWDER THAT HE HAD STORED… IN HIS BASEMENT… ALONGSIDE THE GOLD…. BLEW UP… AND SPREAD HIS RETIREMENT FUNDS OVER SEVERAL ACRES OF DENSE ALASKAN WILDERNESS!!! SO MUCH FOR SURVIVALISTS AND PREPPING… AND THE SAFETY OF GOLD AND GUNS… AND GUNPOWDER! AND NONE OF THAT DISASTER WAS CAUSED BY GOVERNMENT, OR BY OTHER HUMAN BEINGS!!! FORTUNATELY FOR MY UNCLE, HE HAD A GOVERNMENT JOB… HE WAS A SUPERVISOR FOR ALSAKAS HIGHWAY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE TEAM… SO HE HAD GOVENMENT MONIES… WAGES AND RETIREMENT FUND… TO FALL BACK ON!!! DANG GOVERNMENT LEECHES!!!

  • berky

    Firstly, I have no addiction to shiny metals. Only an addiction to freedom and liberty.
    Secondly, gold standards fail only when governments make too many promises they can’t keep and go into debts they can’t pay back. Here’s a thought, why can’t we have both? If you want to get paid in fiat currency, go right ahead. If you want to get paid in a gold-backed currency, that’s an option too. There’s no rule that we can only have a single currency. And given the option, I’d bet that you’d find most people would start to prefer the gold-backed currency. As I’ve stated before, I prefer options. I don’t think either system is perfect, but any monetary system that is completely controlled by a small group is just asking for trouble.

  • berky

    i would have thought it was obvious that there’s a difference between declaring yourself independent of tyranny vs declaring value.

  • JohnDille

    I RAN ACROSS THIS STORY, AND INSTANTLY THOUGHT OF YOUR ADDICTION TO SHINY METALS…
    During the Republican presidential primary debate Tuesday night, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz called for returning the United States to the gold standard. The loud sound heard across the nation immediately afterward came as thousands of economists and monetary policy experts simultaneously slapped palms to faces in disbelief.

    The gold standard requires U.S. dollars to be backed by a fixed amount of actual gold held by the government and redeemable on request by anyone in possession of paper currency. The U.S. abandoned the gold standard in practice in 1933 and by law in 1976, in favor of what is known as fiat money. The dollar bills in circulation today are worth something not because they can be redeemed for gold but by law which declares them “legal tender.”

    Related: Fact Checkers Working Overtime – Top Whoppers from the GOP Debate

    Economists are almost universal in the belief that a return to the gold standard would be absolutely disastrous for the United States economy.

    “It’s basically seen as nuts, and I think even most conservative economists would say that,” said David Wessel, director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution. “We learned the hard way that the gold standard does not bring financial stability. We learned that it’s really bad to have a money supply that’s restricted to the amount of gold you can mine.”

    “There are two fundamental problems with a gold standard or any kind of commodity standard,” said economist Bert Ely of Ely & Co. in Alexandria, VA. “One, the standard is a price-fixing mechanism that requires taxpayer-backing. Two, the supply of gold or whatever commodity is used as the standard, relative to demand for that commodity, will vary over time, which is why such standards eventually fail, after a bout of inflation or deflation.”

  • JohnDille
  • JohnDille

    TO HEAR YOU TELL IT… ALL POLITICANS ARE PILES OF FILTH. SO EITHER YOU FLOAT LIKE AN ANGELIC BEING FAR ABOVE THAT STEAMING PILE, AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTIONS AND SUCH…. OR YOU SECRETLY VOTE FOR SOME GROUP OF BOVINE EXCREMENT EMITTING BUNCH OF POLITICOS WHO HAPPEN TO SHARE YOUR PARTICULAR SET OF FANTASIES!!! AND WHAT FANTASIES THEY APPEAR TO BE!!! FROM THE SOUNDS OF IT, THEY ARE DRUG INDUCED FANTASIES… WHICH PERHAPS EXPLAINS YOUR MEANS OF EARNING AN INCOME… DOG DAM THE PUSHER MAN!!!

  • berky

    except that the term “fiat” means that the value is created by nothing more than a gov’t decree. and the difference being that gov’t can’t just create more gold/silver/platinum/etc. it has to be mined, discovered, or recycled from unused items like circuit boards. If you give me that same choice, I would sometimes choose the cash and sometimes choose the gold. It all depends on the situation at that time. But to each his own. It is your right to make your choice. What I have a problem with is that a “central authority” of any kind is what creates the currency, sets its value, and can, with a few keystrokes, wipe out the value of everything that we hold in our bank accounts. Everything we’ve worked hard for, for years, could be gone in an instant. No one should hold that kind of power. Using something tangible like gold/silver limits that power, and in turn, creates confidence in the currency.

  • Joe Cabot

    Now comrade, why would I vote for a pile of filth? Doesn’t seem prudent.

  • JohnDille

    AND WHICH PILE OF FILTH ARE YOU SUPPORTING WITH YOUR VOTES…. OR ARE YOU TOO SUPERIOR TO BOTHER WITH THE ELECTRORAL PROCESS!!!

  • Joe Cabot

    Attempting to name the dollar amount at which someone is considered very rich? Nice try. Face it, you have elected some political liars, grifters, criminals, and scumbags, and they have left you, Derrell, and the rest of you minions in the dust. Tough reality to face, and until you do, you will keep voting for the same pile of filth.

  • JohnDille

    JAMES RICKARDS IS JUST ANOTHER RIGHT WING CON AERTIST… SO HE PROBABLY STOLE THE WHOLE IDEA AND TITLE FROM WOLMAN!!! I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THAT STATEMENT IS TRUE OR NOT… BUT RICKARDS IS CLEARLY A RIGHT WINGER… AND RIGHT WINGERS HAVE THE MORALITY OF MAFIA THUGS!!!

  • JohnDille

    WHICH IN TURN IS NOT REALLY DIFFERENT THAN FIAT METAL CURRENCIES LIKE GOLD AND SILVER… THE VALUES OF WHICH VARY FAR MORE WIDELY THAN THE LEGAL VALUE OF THE FIAT CURRENCIES!!! GIVE ME A CHOICE BETWEEN A ONE OUNCE PEICE OF GOLD AND $ 1,100 IN CASH… AND I WOULD MOST LIKELY TAKE THE CASH, BECAUSE USING IT WOULD BE FAR FAR FAR MORE CONVENIENT. GOLD AND SILVER CAN MAKE NICE JEWELRY, BUT I AM NOT A WOMAN AND I OWN NO JEWELRY WHATSOEVER… AND HAVE NO INTEREST IN OWNING ANY!!!

  • JohnDille

    VERY FEW RICH PEOPLE LIVE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AND BY RICH, I MEAN PEOPLE WORTH 25 MILLION OR MORE. ANYONE WORTH LESS THAN THAT IS CONSIDERED SMALL POTATOES BY THE TRULY WEALTHY AND THEIR WALL STREET…. AND K STREET… PROSTITUTES!

  • berky

    electronic fiat currency is no different than paper fiat currency

  • berky

    Sounds like Derrell needs to figure out a better income situation. Lots of options out there…. but according to your twisted logic, the best (and only?) solution is to force employers to pay more….

    What would you do in his situation John? Whine to the government or increase your skillset and provide more value to an employer? or start your own business and make your own way?

  • Joe Cabot

    That tale does nothing but avoid the very idea that your beloved lefty dirtbags in DC have gotten rich while leaving you, Derrell, and the rest of the minions behind.

  • JohnDille

    Today we honor and thank our nation’s veterans for their brave service, including Derrell Odom who received a Purple Heart serving our country in Iraq. Derrell marched with us yesterday – and this moving video shows exactly why.

    Watch the video. It’s easy to see why the New York Times said the Republican presidential candidates reject $15 an hour and union rights “at their own electoral peril.” Derrell makes just $7.25 an hour at KFC and struggles every day just to provide for his son. It’s not right – and it’s why Derrell and thousands of others went on STRIKE yesterday.

    Derrell isn’t giving up. Neither are the millions of underpaid people across the nation who make less than $8 an hour.

  • Joe Cabot

    A good number of the richest folks in DC are libs/dems/lefties. Guess that they must have given you and the rest of their gullible minions the heave-ho and decided to join up with the righties.

  • Cormac McDonough

    James Rickards wrote The Death of Money not David Wolman

  • g13man

    i see the barter system coming back strong with this cash less society !

    also more flash -crash and loot situations !
    wanna TV ? i will tell u when the mob hits so & so on time & date for a steak and six pack you can buy me on your fund card now..
    after all , criminals accept tide laundry detergent for drugs & etc now [which increased the shop lifting of detergent ! ]or[ food stamp purchase for drugs][happens already!]
    But it will be fun to see how politicians get payola with this new system [ oh wait , they take the funds to get elected to pass the bills that past & future employers will pay them exorbitant salaries for ” , already happens]

  • JohnDille

    LOW INCOME PEOPLE DEAL IN CASH BECAUSE THEY USUALLY HAVE LITTLE ACCESS TO THE MODERN FINANCIAL SYSTEM. LOWER INCOME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MARGINALIZED BY REPUBLICAN POLICIES AND ATTITUDES… AND FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THE BOTTOM 40 TO 50% OF THE US POPULATIUON DOES NOT EVEN EXIST BECAUSE THEIR AGGREGATE INCOME AND SPENDING BARELY REGISTERS ON HE NATIONAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM. CONSIDER THIS GRIM FACTOID…. AFTER THE BOTTOM 52% OF ALL AMERICANS DEDUCT THEIR STANDARD DEDUCTIONS AND PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS… SORT OF AN INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX VERSION OF BUSINESSES DEDUCTING THEIR OPERATING EXPENSES ETC. THAT BOTTOM 52% OF ALL AMERICANS HAVE ALMOST EXACTLY 1% OF ALL THE TAXABLE INCOME IN AMERICA! TAXABLE INCOME IS… IN SSENCE… WHAT PEOPLE HAVE LEFT OVER AFTER PAYING ALL OF THEIR ESSENTIAL BILLS… RENT… FOOD… UTILITIES AND OHER SUCH MANDANTORY BASICS! INOTHER WORDS, THE BOTTOM HALF OF ALL AMERICANS HAVE ALMOST ZERO TRULY UNENCUMBERED ABILITY TO BUY OR INVEST OR DO ANYTHING BEYOND JUST SURVIVING!!! WHY??? BECAUSE THEIR WAGES ARE FAR TOO LOW… MUCH MUCH LOWER THAN THEIR WAGES USED TO BE. AND THE CRIMINAL CLASS… ALSO KNOWN AS REPUBLICANS… LOVE THIS NEW SYSTEM OF SLAVERY, BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM ENORMOUS ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND POLITICAL POWER… AND MAKES IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS AND LOW INCOME PEOPLE TO FIGHT BACK!!! MONEY IS POWER… AND RICH REPUBLICANS HAVE ALMOST ALL OF BOTH!!! AND CREATING A MOSTLY CASHLESS SOCIETY SERVES THE BEST INTERESTS OF RICH RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS EVEN FURTHER!!! GOOD BYE, FIAT MONEY… AND GOOD BYE, FREEDOM AND LIBERTY!!!

  • JohnDille

    SO… NOW… THE RIGHT WINGERS WHO HATE AND DESPISE ALL THAT FIAT MONEY THAT IS FLOATING AROUND OUT THERE… ARE NOW HATING AND DESPISING CORPORATE AMERICAS EFFORTS TO RIDE THE WORLD OF… ALL THAT FIAT MONEY THAT IS FLOATING AROUND OUT THERE???? WHICH IS IT, RIGHT WINGERS… IS FIAT MONEY GOOD… OR IS IT BAD??? OR ARE YOU TOO DUMB AND HYPOCRITICAL TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE???

  • Eileen

    For all this talk about “helping the poor”, it is low income people who are most likely to deal in cash because they do not always have access to financial institutions willing to give them the same deals as their more well-heeled neighbors. Of course, as Obamacare showed us, the purpose of cashless is to raid bank accounts just because they can