The Regime’s War on Cash Could Destroy the Economy

According to some “experts,” there is an urgent need to remove cash from the economy. It is held that cash provides support to the “shadow economy” and permits tax evasion. Another justification for its removal is that, in times of economic shocks, which push the economy into a recession, the run for cash exacerbates the downturn—it becomes a factor contributing to economic instability. Moreover, it is argued that, in the modern world, most transactions can be settled by means of electronic funds transfer. Money in the modern world is allegedly an abstraction.

The emergence of money

Money emerged because barter could not support the market economy. A butcher, who wanted to exchange his meat for fruit, might not be able to find a fruit farmer who wanted his meat, while the fruit farmer who wanted to exchange his fruit for shoes might not be able to find a shoemaker who wanted his fruit. The distinguishing characteristic of money is that it is the general medium of exchange. It has evolved as the most marketable commodity. On this process, Mises wrote,

“…there would be an inevitable tendency for the less marketable of the series of goods used as media of exchange to be one by one rejected until at last only a single commodity remained, which was universally employed as a medium of exchange; in a word, money.”

Similarly, Rothbard held that,

Just as in nature there is a great variety of skills and resources, so there is a variety in the marketability of goods. Some goods are more widely demanded than others, some are more divisible into smaller units without loss of value, some more durable over long periods of time, some more transportable over large distances. All of these advantages make for greater marketability. It is clear that in every society, the most marketable goods will be gradually selected as the media for exchange. As they are more and more selected as media, the demand for them increases because of this use, and so they become even more marketable. The result is a reinforcing spiral: more marketability causes wider use as a medium which causes more marketability, etc. Eventually, one or two commodities are used as general media—in almost all exchanges—and these are called money.

Since the general medium of exchange emerged from a wide range of commodities, money is a commodity. Again, according to Rothbard,

Money is not an abstract unit of account, divorceable from a concrete good; it is not a useless token only good for exchanging; it is not a ‘claim on society’; it is not a guarantee of a fixed price level. It is simply a commodity.

Moreover, in the words of Mises, “…an object cannot be used as money unless, at the moment when its use as money begins, it already possesses an objective exchange value based on some other use.” Why must this be the case? Rothbard explains further,

In contrast to directly-used consumers’ or producers’ goods, money must have pre-existing prices on which to ground a demand. But the only way this can happen is by beginning with a useful commodity under barter, and then adding demand for a medium to the previous demand for direct use (e.g., for ornaments, in the case of gold).

Hence, money is that for which all other goods and services are traded. Through an ongoing selection process over thousands of years, people settled on gold as money. In today’s monetary system, the money supply is no longer gold, but coins and notes issued by the government and the central bank. This fiat-money still has exchange-value because of its prior connection with true money and the inertia caused by the fact that it is already accepted as a general medium of exchange. Consequently, coins and notes still constitute money, known as cash, which are employed in transactions. Goods and services are exchanged for cash.

Keep reading

‘Digital Euro’ To Be “Most Private Electronic Payment Option”; ECB Claims

The digital euro will be one of the most private forms of electronic payment, according do a data protection official from the European Union. 

On Oct. 2, 2020, the European Central Bank (ECB) released a report laying the groundwork for its central bank digital currency (CBDC), the digital euro.

The digital euro has been in its investigation phase since October 2021, during which ECB officials and bankers hypothesized about its possible design and purpose.

As of November 2023, the digital euro has entered the preparation phase, with possible legislative adoption expected by the last financial quarter of 2024.

If the ECB can stick to its roadmap, digital euro use cases could roll out by November 2025.

Despite still being in development, the digital euro is already facing resistance over privacy concerns.

Keep reading

Is this the end of 1p and 2p coins? Treasury orders NO new coins to be minted for first time amid decline in cash payments as officials consider scrapping coppers altogether

The Treasury has made no orders to the Royal Mint for new coins to be minted for the first time amid a decline in cash payments, with officials considering scrapping coppers altogether. 

No new 1p and 2p coins are expected to be ordered in the coming years with proposals being worked on to be put to ministers over the future of the coinage, reported the Evening Standard

If the coppers are scrapped it would be the first time a coin was taken out of circulation in 40 years when the half-penny ceased in 1984. 

The 1p and 2p coins’ future has been in a precarious state in recent years with Bank of England governor Mark Carney previously hinting they could be ditched as Britons increasingly move towards a cashless society. 

Keep reading

The Real Reason Behind the Push for Digital Currencies and the Elimination of Cash

In recent years, there has been a noticeable shift towards digital currencies and the elimination of cash. Governments, banks, and tech giants all seem to be singing the same tune: the future is digital. But what lies beneath this harmonious chorus? Is it really about convenience and efficiency, or is there a deeper motive at play?

Control and Surveillance

One of the primary drivers behind the push for digital currencies is the unprecedented level of control and surveillance they offer. Unlike cash transactions, which are inherently anonymous, digital transactions can be traced, monitored, and recorded. This means that every financial move you make can be scrutinized. For those in power, this represents a significant advantage. It allows for the monitoring of spending habits, the detection of illegal activities, and the ability to track the flow of money with pinpoint accuracy.

With digital currencies, governments and financial institutions can gather a treasure trove of data. They can see where you shop, what you buy, and even your travel patterns. This data can be used to build comprehensive profiles of individuals and groups, providing insights into behavior and preferences. In essence, it offers a level of surveillance that was previously unimaginable.

Financial Control

Beyond surveillance, digital currencies provide a mechanism for enhanced financial control. Cash is tangible and can be stored privately, away from prying eyes. Digital currencies, however, exist in a realm where access can be controlled and restricted. This means that in times of economic uncertainty or political unrest, governments can exert control over digital funds in ways that are impossible with cash.

Imagine a scenario where access to your money could be limited or frozen with the click of a button. This could be justified under the guise of preventing crime, terrorism, or even managing economic crises. The reality is that it gives those in power an unprecedented tool to control the populace. In extreme cases, this could be used to suppress dissent or force compliance with governmental policies. Even more concerning is the potential for governments to cut off access to funds as a way to control speech. If you speak out against the government or engage in activities they disapprove of, they could simply restrict your access to your own money, effectively silencing you by limiting your ability to function in society.

Keep reading

Prosecutor Fani Willis Touts the Value of Cash, But What About the Rest of Us?

It’s quite a turn when a prosecutor defends the use of cash for financial transactions. After years of authorities treating mere possession of physical money as sketchy and grounds for seizure, this week a law enforcement official claimed there’s nothing to see in her alleged cash reimbursements to her boyfriend for an enviable lifestyle arguably funded by the taxpayers. Either Fani Willis and company were right in the past and she should be subject to scrutiny for anonymous transactions, or she’s right today and she and her colleagues owe the rest of us a pass on our taste for financial anonymity.

If you haven’t kept up on the details, Fani Willis is the Fulton County district attorney overseeing the Georgia election interference case, which has been described as potentially the strongest and most consequential case against former (and maybe future) president Donald Trump. At least, it was described that way until defense attorneys revealed that Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor in the case, is unqualified for the job, was romantically involved with Willis, and is being paid much more than any of his colleagues (around $654,000 in all)—money from which Willis seemingly benefited in the form of expensive vacations and other pleasures of life with Wade.

Keep reading

Gates Foundation Wants Help to Create Digital ID and Payments System

“Financial inclusion” seems to be the buzzword that proponents of digital IDs, payments, and data exchange have picked for their PR sloganeering in favor of something that is, objectively, very controversial.

And where better to “test” something of that kind than among those who due to their economic circumstances don’t have much of a say – like a number of African countries.

But don’t expect those behind the effort, juggernauts like Mastercard or the (Bill) Gates Foundation, to ever spell it out in those stark terms. After all, it’s genuine concern for other humans, equity, equality, and kindness that’s been behind the billions, if not trillions of dollars they have amassed thus far, right?

Clearly not.

But what are they up to now?

“Stakeholders” they call themselves – self-appointed though, and their goal – other than, ostensibly, to keep the “global south” in check – is to make sure that digital public infrastructure projects, “including digital IDs,” get as much traction as possible in developing countries (first).

Both Mastercard, and the Gates Foundation, are telling us this is part and parcel of their selfless global fight against poverty and other ills plaguing humankind.

Their resume, though, these last couple of years/decades, does speak for itself – specifically, otherwise.

Right now, Mastercard, that little person’s best friend /s, has come up with something called Community Pass. “Farm Pass” – apparently a “sub-project,” is another term being thrown around.

Reports say it’s “a platform for digital IDs aimed at individuals such as business owners and farmers.”

And wouldn’t you know it, it’s one that happens to focus on African countries.

Keep reading

Federal Reserve: desire for cash-like anonymity for digital assets based on ignorance

The Federal Reserve published a paper that explores various privacy strategies in digital asset ecosystems. A key point is that cash like anonymity is very unlikely in digital systems. Confidentiality from certain parties is the best to hope for.

It asserts the desire for cash-like anonymity is based on a misunderstanding of how digital systems work. Even with encryption, activity logs and audit trails leak small pieces of information. Of course, current versions of most public blockchains reveal an enormous amount of data which is easy to link to an identity by tracing wallets back to exchange onramps.

Although it may be true that anonymity is almost impossible to achieve in the digital realm, people desire it. While comparing digital systems to cash at a practical level, the paper doesn’t acknowledge the broad recognition that digital money will accelerate the crowding out of cash.

Keep reading

Taco Bell’s Push To Go Cashless is a Gateway To A Surveillance Society

Taco Bell’s recent announcement of transitioning to a cashless business model raises alarming concerns about privacy and civil liberties. While the company proudly touts its endeavor to become a fully digital establishment in the near future, it obscures the deeper implications for consumers.

The company’s aim to capitalize on impulse digital transactions over traditional cash exchanges might sound like a novel approach to modernize sales techniques. However, behind this facade lies a concerning benefit: to heavily surveil and monetize consumers’ preferences. Taco Bell’s new data platform, designed to analyze consumer behavior meticulously, embodies a step towards an invasive corporate oversight into what people eat, when, and how often.

Chris Turner, CFO of Yum! Brands, Taco Bell’s parent company, might express enthusiasm about the potential of this platform for “personalized marketing, joint branding, and future automation.”

Yet, such initiatives might just be a veneer for a more troubling reality – the erosion of consumers’ privacy.

Even more disconcerting is the potential societal exclusion this move could propagate. A cashless model marginalizes groups who predominantly rely on cash and prefer privacy.

Keep reading

Worldcoin isn’t as bad as it sounds: It’s worse

Worldcoin — a new financial system connected to sensitive biometric information, mostly harvested from poor people — sure sounds like a terrible idea.

“Terrible” doesn’t do it justice.

Worldcoin will need to assemble a vast database of iris data. But not everyone is eager to gaze into an Orb. In the bootstrapping phase, at least, you had to pay people to scan their eyes. And so Worldcoin turned to the global south — home to the cheapest eyeballs — and played a dark game of ‘what will people do for money?’

Incredibly, Worldcoin was unprepared for an obvious consequence of this rollout strategy: A black market for verified credentials. You can now seemingly buy a World ID for as little as $30. Anyone, then, with more than $30 on hand can command more than one digital identity (although Worldcoin is aware of this issue and has proposed solutions to resolve it). Connecting real people to digital identities is a thorny puzzle. 

Worldcoin does not fix this. And it’s unlikely it ever can, since nothing in the design can stop professional sybil attackers farming eyeballs on the ground level through nefarious means.

This does not inspire trust in the system or its designers. And yet trust is what they demand. Worldcoin’s promotional materials are full of promises — to delete sensitive biometric information, or keep it hidden from view, or not use it in nefarious ways. One blog post (quoted here; the original appears to have been changed since initial release) put it this way: “During our field-testing phase, we are collecting and securely storing more data than we will upon its completion… We will delete all the biometric data we have collected during field testing once our algorithms are fully-trained.”

“Trust us,” in other words. “We’ll totally delete the eyeball database.”

But when it comes to sensitive information, promises aren’t enough. And the very people who insist that you trust them are the ones who should command the most suspicion. The fact that Worldcoin’s co-founder Sam Altman also heads up OpenAI — a firm currently being sued over allegations of dubious uses of large data sets — asks more questions than it answers.

Sometimes Worldcoin’s privacy promises are conjoined with dazzling technical details. Zero-knowledge proofs, we’re told, will save the day, and allow users to prove humanity without connecting any particular financial activity to a World ID or other associated transactions.

There’s a grain of truth here. Zero-knowledge proofs can generate impressive privacy guarantees. But in the case of Worldcoin marketing, they’re more theater than substance. Taking off your shoes at the airport makes it look like important precautions are being taken (but doesn’t actually make you any safer); and long blog posts about zero-knowledge proofs distract from, but don’t in fact address, the problem of Worldcoin asking for users’ trust.

Linking immutable biometric traits to money could have dystopian consequences.

Keep reading

Biden administration is quietly planning for a future where you don’t own money

Under the leadership of President Joe Biden, the White House and the Federal Reserve have started to lay the groundwork for a programmable, trackable, easily manipulated digital currency. It might sound like something from a dystopian science-fiction novel, but it’s all too real, and it could soon change life in America forever.

In March 2022, the Biden administration released a sweeping executive order that directed numerous federal agencies to crack down on digital assets, including on popular cryptocurrencies, as well as to study the potential development of a central bank digital currency (CBDC).

A CBDC would not be a digital version of the existing paper-based dollar, but rather an entirely new currency that would exist exclusively in a digital (meaning an electronic, non-physical) form.

Keep reading