War on Paper Money

Back in 1933, Roosevelt implemented Executive Order 6102 “forbidding the Hoarding of gold, coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States.” Now in 2016, they’re coming for your cash.

Earlier this year, Argentina issued a plan to print bills of larger denominations in order to compensate for the loss in value of the peso caused by inflation, while at Harvard, scholars made the case to ban the $100 bill.

The European Central Bank recently announced they have put a plan in motion to phase out the 500 euro note. Like many other counties, the U.S. is experiencing the ramifications of a debased currency; What $20 could purchase in 1913 would cost nearly $500 today.

While I am no proponent of the fractional reserve system and its esteemed printing press, I am however, an advocate of the minting of higher denominations of the Federal reserve notes. This would help compensate for inflation, and give individuals the ability to retain the holding capacity for paper currency.

Due to the effects of inflation, it would make sense for the Treasury to once again print bills in denominations of $500 and $1,000. Legally, the Treasury is required under ‘Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act,’ to print bills in denominations of up to $10,000:

“In order to furnish suitable notes for circulation as Federal reserve notes, the Secretary of the Treasury shall cause plates and dies to be engraved…and shall have printed therefrom and numbered such quantities of such notes of the denominations of $1, $2, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100, $500, $1,000 $5,000, $10,000 as may be required to supply the Federal reserve banks.”

However since 1945, the Treasury has not printed notes of more than $100. By only circulating small denominations of notes and expanding reporting requirements on cash, the banking cartel has cornered more purchases into operating through computer transactions. 

The war on cash is being waged by the banking cartel, which is made up of governments, central banks, and the “too big to fail.” The cartel’s conflict with paper currency is a systematic effort to make it neither convenient nor legal to use cash, in order to transition society into a cashless economy, which can be easily monitored and manipulated through an electronic transaction format.

Cash allows transactions to occur without banks charging additional fees. Without cash, the 43 million individuals without bank accounts will be exiled from the marketplace, and depositors will lose the ability to withdraw their money.

However, Harvard scholars Larry Summers, Kenneth Rogoff, and Peter Sands are pushing the U.S. to ban $100 bills, as part of the larger effort faze out cash altogether. These economists essentially claim that the data gathered by the electronic system can be used in order to manipulate the macro economy for the better.

Cashless advocates also argue that the push towards an electronic transaction system is to the benefit of the consumer. In some ways it is, as some services provide additional layers of security, as well as facilitate the ability to purchase goods online. But electronic payments are only good as a choice among options. 

The phasing out of larger bills would also make it difficult to withdraw money in order to avoid negative interest rates imposed by banks, which is essentially the subtraction of savings from your deposits. Japan, Switzerland, and Denmark have already begun establishing negative rates, imposing costs on banks for holding money. These costs will inevitably be passed on to the customer, making the client pay for the ability to keep their money in the bank. In Switzerland, banks have already begun to force clients to cover the cost of negative rates.

In Denmark, bankers are understandably hesitant to pass the costs onto their customers, which they acknowledge will lead to a loss of clientele. Danish bankers have admitted that they “cannot pay interest on an account and then deposit the money at negative rates in the central bank.” If negative interest rates were implemented now, most depositors would cash out, but once cashing out is not an option, the banking cartel will swiftly establish negative rates.

By systematically fastening depositor’s cash within the electronic system, the banking cartel will be able to keep clients from withdrawing their money in the form of cash, which will allow them to bully depositors into paying fee’s that few would voluntarily pay.

A value added tax (VAT) could also be automatically raised within the electronic system, which would operate as an unwanted consumption tax. Inflation too will continue to run ramped even without the need for a printing press, as the Federal Reserve will continue to increase the supply of credit to its cartel.

ATM surcharges serve as another step towards the electronic system, a VAT, and negative rates, by making it more expensive to use cash and easier to use the electronic system. This is a systematic process by which banks are pricing money out of the marketplace. 

In 2015, JPMorgan Chase sent a letter to its depositors pertaining to its “updated safe deposit box lease agreement,” stating “You agree not to store any cash or coins other than those found to have a collectible value.” This is because the banks cartel depends desperately on the ability to monitor all money as deposits in order to target it for taxes, fee’s, and negative interest rates.

The trend away from checks is also a part of the transition towards the electronic system. Between 2000 to 2012, use of credit cards, direct deposits, and electronic methods tripled, while use of checks declined by more than 50%.

The banks make it inconvenient to use cash, the government phases it out and manipulates the market, while tech entrepreneurs set up alternatives to cash as the market adjusts. Sometimes these market changes are real innovation, like use of encryption and fingerprints. However, as the cashless system is implemented, the government will continue to force more encryption services to provide a backdoor in order to facilitate access.

Since the Money Laundering Control Act in 1986, the laundering of cash has been deemed a federal crime. Courts have also deemed that the possession of a large amount of cash is “reasonable suspicion” that an individual or business is engaging in illegal activity. This presupposition leads to the belief that all victims of assumption are essentially guilty until proven innocent.

The cartel claims that only criminals need cash. This idea has manifested itself in the process of “civil forfeiture.” Over a period of 12 years, governments agencies have taken more than $20 billion in civil forfeiture cases, while it is estimated that in 85% of the time, the property owner was not charged with a crime, with 11,000 noncriminal civil forfeiture cases in 2010 alone. This makes it too risky for businesses and individuals to deal in cash, who are instead forced into an electronic transaction system than will allow the government greater access to all financial data.

If this cashless trend continues, depositors will be told how and when to spend their money. For example, if the electronic system does not allow you to buy firearms (a policy of PayPal), then in order to purchase firearms you would have to buy government approved goods that you could then trade for a firearm. This roundabout economy would be fascist and inefficient.

Firearms and gaming have already been precluded by the electronic system, but once the cartel has direct access to your personal financial information, Big Brother will implement sin taxes on goods it deems as “bad for you,” and could soon deny individuals purchase of alcohol, cigarettes, salt, gluten, etc.

Optional anonymity is also very important to consumer freedom. In the electronic system, every transaction is tracked and traced, applying an electronic trail to all past purchases for every individual. The government already has an data obsession and a distaste for the grey market, and is currently licking its chops at the potential of gathering more data.

Cash is not synonymous with criminal activity, it is however, synonymous with consumer freedom. Electronic payment methods, credit cards, and cryptocurrencies like bitcoin can be great, for they allow individuals additional choices for consumer to do things like purchase goods online.

However a society forced to use only electronic transactions is, ironically, a society in reverse. Cash, as a choice, is essential to both consumer freedom and the health of the economy because of what if facilitates; financial freedom on the micro level, and free(er) markets on the macro level.

Banks/governments will continue to gain control over private wealth through the direct access to the electronic system. Under this system citizens are not the true owners of their deposit, for they cannot spend it on what they want, or withdraw it. Instead, it serves as a loan to the “failed & bailed” banking cartel.