The IMF (International Monetary Fund)…has drawn up plans to force a cashless society upon all the people within IMF member nations. In their “The Macroeconomics of De-Cashing” it gives the following advice to governments who want to abolish cash against the will of their citizenry:
- Move slowly; phase in the de-cashing in specific uncontested steps which give the impression that measures are based on individual consumer choice and cost-benefits considerations.
- Avoid any attempts to impose de-cashing by a decree given the popular personal attachment to cash.
- Implement a targeted outreach program 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 comments above & below are edited ([ ]) and abridged (…) excerpts from the original article by Rory Hall (TheDailyCoin.org)
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 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,
- the reporting of cash moves across the borders…
- the creating of 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 de-cashing.
- 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 cyber warfare.
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. Source
It doesn’t get much clearer than that – if the people resist, simply change the rules and…simply enact a new law that the majority of people will accept and the remaining 3-5% will be forced into enslavement with the rest.
Check out this Facebook wall. There’s a lot there to “Like”!
Let’s break it down a little so the picture is as clear as possible.
The de-cashing process could build on the initial and largely uncontested steps, such as:
- the phasing out of large denomination bills [like the $100 bill],
- the placement of ceilings on cash transactions [to perhaps no larger than $1,000 as most of the European Union countries have already done thus requiring the] use of electronic means or of having a bank involved at some level, e.g. cashier check so their is a record of the transaction for tax and tracking purposes,
- making it almost impossible to get cash out of your country and into another by requiring the reporting of cash moves across the borders. In the U.S., for example, you are required to declare more than $10,000 cash moving across the border and my guess is this [could] suffer a substantial cut….
- and perhaps having, for example, “big-box stores” agree to simply no longer accept cash “for your safety” of course. By implementing this type of policy change the government would not seen as the ‘bad guy’ but, [rather, the retail outlet would be portrayed as]…looking out for its shoppers’ safety and the safety of its employees…
Once these the steps are in place, it makes it much easier to get people to accept financial enslavement as a “convenience” and “for your protection and safety” – “for the children”.
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.” Source
As the criminal banking cabal becomes more desperate to steal our remaining wealth they are devising more devious ways of doing it. Soft-sell the people into their own enslavement instead of forcing them. The past few decades we have been treated just a step above cattle, now the gloves seem to be coming off and the banking cabal no longer cares that we can see their crimes and their true colors.
Win An iPad Pro!
What does a ‘ban on cash’ really mean to the banks? It means ‘DEBT JUBILEE’ for the banks.
A deposit account represents a bank debt liability to the account holder and what the bank owes, by law, is cash money. Ban/outlaw cash and the banks are relieved of their debt obligations to the account holders. Within the U.S., a ban on cash would represent a gift of about $13-Trillion to the banks. To figure out how much of a gift European banks will receive with the banning of cash, simply total their deposit account debt obligations and that amount will be your gift to them. They get a debt jubilee, and we get screwed.
A ban on cash is the effective dissolution of nation states and of sovereignty, both political and individual, in favor of an unaccountable banking elite who will effectively control the lives and livelihoods of all, including governments.
BANK-ROBBERS UNITE !