More Anti-Cash Propaganda by Bloomberg

Former NYC mayor Bloomberg is probably one of the worst nannycrats who ever strode upon the US political scene. No-one has done more to take the fun out of New York than this man (we have chronicled the efforts of people of his ilk in “America’s Killjoys”). It always amazes us to no end when successful businessmen – once they have made enough money to last them a thousand lifetimes – suddenly discover their penchant for socialism and State control of every nook and cranny of people’s lives.

 

angry midgetEx-NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg, owner of the famous financial data service and professional nannycrat.

Photo via politistick.com

 

If not for the huge amount of capital our forebears wisely accumulated while the market economy was still relatively unhampered, Bloomberg wouldn’t have been able to amass his fortune – and yet, we strongly suspect that he has never really been a big fan of free market capitalism. His willingness to join the political class is by itself a major “crony indicator”. There is after all a big difference between wishing to serve consumers and wishing to rule over them.

The financial services offered by his company are nevertheless quite valuable – an unrivaled wealth of data is available via Bloomberg terminals and the financial commentary on the Bloomberg web site is often quite informative as well – as long as it is confined to the neutral reporting of facts that is. It is quite different with the magazine’s editorial line, which is steeped in the statism of the service’s founder.

For instance, central banking and central planning of the economy in general remain routinely unquestioned; Keynesian shibboleths are woven into the narratives as if they represented incontestable truth. It is therefore not a big surprise that the magazine is also editorializing in favor of banning cash. Here is the latest example, with Bloomberg’s editors urging to “Bring on the Cashless Future”.

 

The Purpose of Trial Balloons in the Media

Launching these frequent trial balloons in the media primarily serves two functions: for one thing, the rubes are to be softened up with a steady stream of propaganda.

Once upon a time, real money was replaced by irredeemable paper money under the cover of “emergency” – overnight, what used to be a warehouse certificate entitling its owners to redeem a specific quantity of gold was simply declared to be money henceforth.

This was expropriation on a truly breathtaking scale. However, it didn’t just happen out of the blue. Years of intense anti-gold and pro-inflation propaganda preceded the actual deed. By the time the theft was finally committed, people had too many other pressing concerns to worry about it – and the snake oil sellers had it easy, as they promised a “painless solution” to the economic woes of the day.

 

PF-gold-confiscati_2525827bNever let a serious crisis go to waste – the mantra of statists since time immemorial.

 

This propaganda exercise is repeated today with respect to paper money, which has become the new “standard money” after the gold theft. The public is supposed to get used to the idea that a world without cash would be just great. In article after article it has been tirelessly hammered home over the past few years how utterly “bad” cash currently allegedly is (there are even studies that purport to show how germ-infested and hence dirty and unhealthy paper money is. One wonders who actually pays for such studies – probably they are tax-funded).

The reasons for this push to abolish cash should be obvious: forcing everybody to use digital money will enable total state control over the financial lives of citizens. In the glorious cashless future envisaged by Bloomberg, the expropriation of savings will become a matter of a few keystrokes by faceless bureaucrats. Want to implement the IMF’s proposed 10% wealth tax to “fix” the government’s debt problems overnight? Easy, just press “Ctrl+T” (T stands for theft).

Naturally, the fractionally reserved private banking cartel is largely in favor of abolishing cash as well (the vast majority of extant deposit money consists of uncovered fiduciary media, which means that most banks are de facto insolvent). If here is no cash, no-one will be able to escape the banking system anymore. This fact alone should alarm even the most jaded couch potatoes.

If your bank is about to keel over, as indeed happened on several occasions in 2008 (think Northern Rock or Indy Mac), well, tough titties pilgrims! No bank runs will be possible anymore. Depositors will simply have to join the lines of unsecured creditors. As long as a system-wide bank collapse doesn’t render the FDIC or comparable deposit insurance schemes insolvent as well, one will of course get one’s money back – eventually (“eventually” and “on demand” are obviously two very different concepts).

 

Birmingham_Northern_Rock_bank_run_2007Run on a Northern Rock branch in Birmingham, 2008. Worried depositors are trying to withdraw their savings from the insolvent mortgage lender before its doors close for good.

Photo credit: Lee Jordan

 

Lastly, in their relentless drive to implement even more monetary quackery, assorted central planners supported by their claqueurs in the media and their dependents in the mainstream of the economics profession desperately want to overcome the imaginary “problem” of the “zero bound”. Central banks have so far only been able to impose negative penalty interest rates on bank reserves. Commercial banks have very little choice in the matter. QE continually creates new reserves, and these can only be used for interbank lending (a dead market) or to pay, well, for cash withdrawals by bank customers.

Apart from a handful of exceptions (which mainly affect very large deposits) commercial banks have largely refrained from passing these penalty rates on to their customers – they rightly fear that many people will simply withdraw their money and keep it as cash under the mattress. Why would anyone sit idly by and let himself be robbed as long as this alternative exists? Moreover, commercial bankers are of course aware what an utter economic perversion negative interest rates represent.

 

negative ratesBy now, negative interest rates have been introduced by central banks in countries representing 23% of global economic output. This is lunacy on a truly breathtaking scale.

 

It seems obvious to us that forcing people to keep their money on deposit with fractionally reserved banks is incompatible with property rights. This particular problem is rarely mentioned or discussed, but it strikes us as quite a crucial one. Those who regard property rights as a privilege granted by the State are presumably not worried by such objections, but everybody else should be.

The second main reason for launching such trial balloons in the press is that they serve to gauge the mood of the citizenry. Are people ready to surrender yet more of their freedoms, or will there be an outcry?

If you look at the reader comments below the Bloomberg editorial, you will notice that the idea of abolishing cash continues to meet with intense resistance. Although people in developed countries do tend to use electronic payment methods most of the time, the fact that they know they can withdraw their money in the form of cash is evidently still quite important to them. Most people appear to realize that the aim of abolishing cash is to enable total control, and ultimately theft. After all, the fairly recent cases of Greece and Cyprus have demonstrated what can happen to depositors that make the mistake of trusting the promises of politicians.

So far, the reaction to such trial balloon articles is telling the movers and shakers that the time for actually pressing on with the ban has not yet arrived. A bigger crisis will be needed, and the propaganda effort will have to be intensified.

In the meantime, cash bans are already introduced through the backdoor, by means of salami tactics: under the pretext of fighting terrorism and/or tax evasion, several countries have already imposed severe restrictions on cash use. Such restrictions exist e.g. in Greece, France, Spain, and Italy and involve ridiculously low limits (ranging from €1,000 to 1,500). In the US, civil forfeiture regulations are making anyone holding a large amount of cash potentially vulnerable to outright theft without due process – with the State’s takings by now eclipsing those of burglars.

 

forfeiture vs burglaryAsset forfeiture takings in the US are by now eclipsing theft by less professional criminals – click to enlarge.

 

A List of Tired Old Canards in a new Package

The Bloomberg editorial begins by craftily telling readers that “we” are allegedly unsatisfied with cash because it is “dirty”, “dangerous”, “unwieldy”, “antiquated” and terribly “analog”. Evidence for this consumer dissatisfaction allegedly abounds. And most importantly, the move to fully digital money apparently has the imprimatur of governments and central banks now, which “want in on the action” (surprise!):

 

“Cash had a pretty good run for 4,000 years or so. These days, though, notes and coins increasingly seem declasse: They’re dirty and dangerousunwieldy and expensive, antiquated and so very analog.

Sensing this dissatisfaction, entrepreneurs have introduced hundreds of digital currencies in the past few years, of which bitcoin is only the most famous. Now governments want in: The People’s Bank of China says it intends to issue a digital currency of its own. Central banks in Ecuador, the Philippines, the U.K. and Canada are mulling similar ideas.”

 

Naturally, if notes and coins are really so “dirty and dangerous”, something will have to be done! But didn’t Bloomberg just mention that the free market is already offering a great many alternatives to cash? What more is needed? Shouldn’t it be enough that consumers are able to choose freely what means of payment they want to use? Well, no – always keep in mind that such liberties are only provisionally granted by the State.

 

Pile-of-CashDirty, dangerous and “terribly analog” – don’t touch!

 

Here is another little remark craftily woven into the narrative by Bloomberg’s editors: up until recently, defenders of cash have inter alia always pointed to the fact that poor (and often “unbanked”) citizens simply need cash and would be at a grave disadvantage without it. Not so, says Bloomberg:

 

“Much depends on the details, of course. But this is a welcome trend. In theory, digital legal tender could combine the inventiveness of private virtual currencies with the stability of a government mint.

Most obviously, such a system would make moving money easier. Properly designed, a digital fiat currency could move seamlessly across otherwise incompatible payment networks, making transactions faster and cheaper. It would be of particular use to the poor, who could pay bills or accept payments online without need of a bank account, or make remittances without getting gouged.”

 

(emphasis added)

We would note that making “transactions cheaper and faster” is already technically feasible and in fact, they already are very cheap and fast, so this is clearly a pseudo-argument. The question remains though: why would anyone need the clutches of government in this digital pie? And what does any of this have to do with the alleged need to abolish cash?

The editorial now comes to the core of the issue – the real reasons behind the drive to ban cash. Once again readers are told that forcibly taking away the choice of using cash from the citizenry will have nothing but advantages!

 

For governments and their taxpayers, potential advantages abound. Issuing digital currency would be cheaper than printing bills and minting coins. It could improve statistical indicators, such as inflation and gross domestic product. Traceable transactions could help inhibit terrorist financing, money laundering, fraud, tax evasion and corruption.”

 

(emphasis added)

The utterly negligible cost of printing currency should be the least concern on the minds of taxpayers. Meanwhile, macroeconomic statistics are collected for two reasons only: to enable more government meddling in the economy and to make the results of this meddling look better than they are. Apart from the meddlers, any potential improvement of such statistics is at best of interest to economic historians.

The canard that traceable transactions will inhibit “terrorist financing, money laundering, fraud, tax evasion and corruption” is of course just a convenient pretext for the real goal: total control and the complete destruction of financial privacy. The only phrase still missing is “think of the children!”. We are quite sure that criminals will have little problem finding alternative media of exchange to use in their activities. Besides, we recall that the authorities have just recently accused a large bank of being one of the biggest drug money launderers on the planet – which they could not properly prosecute for fear of destabilizing the financial system!

This is followed up by real reason number two – namely the goal of making Soviet-style central economic planning easier:

 

The most far-reaching effect might be on monetary policy. For much of the past decade, central banks in the rich world have been hampered by what economists call the zero lower bound, or the inability to impose significantly negative interest rates. Persistent low demand and high unemployment may sometimes require interest rates to be pushed below zero — but why keep money in a deposit whose value keeps shrinking when you can hold cash instead? With rates near zero, that conundrum has led policy makers to novel and unpredictable methods of stimulating the economy, such as large-scale bond-buying.

A digital legal tender could resolve this problem. Suppose the central bank charged the banks that deal with it a fee for accepting paper currency. In that way, it could set an exchange rate between electronic and paper money — and by raising the fee, it would cause paper money to depreciate against the electronic standard. This would eliminate the incentive to hold cash rather than digital money, allowing the central bank to push the interest rate below zero and thereby boost consumption and investment. It would be a big step toward doing without cash altogether.

 

(emphasis added)

Readers may recognize the idea of “depreciating the value of paper money” – famous monetary crank Silvio Gesell has originally come up with it. Once again readers are presented with articles of faith that Bloomberg’s editors seem to think require no further explanation or justification. For one thing there is the idea that the imposition of negative interest rates by central banks is perfectly normal and worthy of support – when in reality it is utter lunacy.

 

220px-Silvio_Gesell_(1895)German money crank Silvio Gesell originally came up with the idea of depreciating cash automatically in order to force people to spend it on consumption. Keynes incidentally expressed admiration for Gesell and similar quacks. It seems to have escaped all of them that without saving and investment, there will actually be nothing to consume.

Photo via sozialoekonomie.info

 

Secondly, there is the associated notion that central planners have to “boost consumption” against the wishes of actors in the economy – as if one could actually consume oneself to prosperity! Putting the cart before the horse in this manner only works in the primitive Keynesian circular model of the economy. In the real world it will set us firmly on the road to ruin and impoverishment.

The form of investment artificially suppressed interest rates are primarily boosting is malinvestment, which is a waste of scarce resources. Zero or negative rates cannot “boost investment” at all. They will simply lead directly to capital consumption, without the detour of capital malinvestment. This is bound to become crystal clear once negative rates are imposed beyond the realm of central bank deposit facilities.

 

keynesian-glass-cartoonHow to boost prosperity the Keynesian way.

Cartoon by: Jon Kudelka

 

Bloomberg then informs its readers that governments simply need to tell a few lies in order to make the rubes more eager to accept the planned cash-less regime. After listing a few of the concerns people “might” have (such as the small matter of total Orwellian state control), Bloomberg dispenses the following advice to counter such objections:

 

“Governments must be alert to these problems — because the key to getting people to adopt such a system is trust.A rule that a person’s transaction history could be accessed only with a court order, for instance, might alleviate privacy concerns. Harmonizing international regulations could encourage companies to keep experimenting. And an effective campaign to explain the new tender would be indispensable. If policy makers are wise and attend to all that, they just might convince the public of a surprising truth about cash: They’re better off without it.

 

(emphasis added)

Yes, those government promises will really be reliable this time! Honest injun! Once it says on a piece of paper that “access to your transaction history will be restricted” there will be no more privacy concerns!

Convincing people that they will actually be better off without cash seems an impossible task. As the comment section shows, Bloomberg has apparently vastly overestimated the gullibility and naivete of its readers. In any case, we would suggest that while people won’t be better off without cash, they will definitely be better off without “policymakers” – especially “wise” ones.

 

Conclusion

As you can see, they have been working on their propaganda a bit, even if the result is not much to write home about. The same hoary canards continue to be presented, but in a slightly different manner. The emphasis is now on a laughably clumsy attempt to convince people that it would be to their “advantage” if their choices were restricted by force, which makes one wonder what the authors have been thinking. Once cash is prohibited, you’ll be better off serf! Can’t you see that? It’s ridiculous.

Fortunately the serfs are indeed unable to see the light just yet. In fact, they are reacting the way people in the Soviet Union tended to react to Pravda editorials praising life in the planned economy under the dictatorship of the somewhat more equal comrades. The whole effort is simply too transparent and that is bound to remain its Achilles heel for a while yet.

Lastly, we would suggest that if cash were indeed banned, there would likely be unintended consequences (from the perspective of the planners that is). The market will simply fall back on alternatives. People may either begin to use currencies issued by countries that haven’t enacted a cash ban, or they may simply re-monetize gold and silver.

In the long run the proponents of statism are actually fighting a rear-guard battle. The anachronistic nation state and its accoutrements are on their way out, their supporters just haven’t realized it yet. Until statism finally disappears in the dustbin of history (we will probably not see it in our lifetime, but one can always hope), the beneficiaries of the statist model are unfortunately still apt to inflict a lot of damage.

 

Charts by: WSJ, Washington Post

 

 
 

Emigrate While You Can... Learn More

 
 

 
 

Dear Readers!

You may have noticed that our so-called “semiannual” funding drive, which started sometime in the summer if memory serves, has seamlessly segued into the winter. In fact, the year is almost over! We assure you this is not merely evidence of our chutzpa; rather, it is indicative of the fact that ad income still needs to be supplemented in order to support upkeep of the site. Naturally, the traditional benefits that can be spontaneously triggered by donations to this site remain operative regardless of the season - ranging from a boost to general well-being/happiness (inter alia featuring improved sleep & appetite), children including you in their songs, up to the likely allotment of privileges in the afterlife, etc., etc., but the Christmas season is probably an especially propitious time to cross our palms with silver. A special thank you to all readers who have already chipped in, your generosity is greatly appreciated. Regardless of that, we are honored by everybody's readership and hope we have managed to add a little value to your life.

   

Bitcoin address: 1DRkVzUmkGaz9xAP81us86zzxh5VMEhNke

   
 

6 Responses to “Softening up the Rubes – the War on Cash Continues”

  • sufganiyah:

    My experience is that the majority of population are obedient bootlickers. They may rebel if taxes on beer quadruple overnight, but when it comes to cash, the majority will repeat the same BS about money being stained by germs, feces or cocaine and how everybody who uses cash is either old, a gangster or an evil tax avoider.

  • MikeWilliamson:

    Sadly, I don’t agree with the final paragraph. This travesty will be forced upon us. The middle-class will be destroyed. The Orwellian nightmare will become real.
    There will be only the very poor and the immensely wealthy bureaucrats and their cronies.
    “People are very adaptable. If you ruin them slowly enough, they barely notice.”

  • I suggest that mentioning “financial privacy” is counterproductive to your argument.

    The real goal of course is the complete divestment of any vestiges of wealth left in the hands of individuals.

    Exchanging labor for money is already an asymmetrical exchange. We exchange something we own outright for something we do not own, we have no control over and on which we owe taxes. Effectively, the more we earn the more we owe either in taxes or in debasement.

    This is a direct attack on private property.

    As things stand currently, economic actors are allowed the privilege to make temporary use of money but legally, it does not belong to them.

    By abolishing cash, the state will have finally guaranteed the total conquest of everyone’s property.

  • The banning of cash is a sign to run for the hills. Bankers are already creating debt out of nothing. Now, only the people will have to pay, as the banks will never have to have anything, but lawyers and repo guys to take our money. It isn’t enough that the US government has rigged the system for 200 years so that banks don’t have to pay when the chips are down. Now, they will never have to pay anyone, but each other. As for Bloomberg? Pray for cancer.

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • What Do “Think Tanks” Think About?
      “Russiagate” WEST RIVER, MARYLAND – We’re back at our post – watching... reading... trying to connect the dots. And we begin by asking: What do “think tanks” think about? The answer in a minute. First, there is a dust-up in the Washington, D.C., area. “Russiagate,” it is called. As near as we can make out, some people think the Trump team had or has illegal or inappropriate contacts with the Russian government.   It's all very obvious, if one looks...
  • Parabolic Coin
      The Crypto-Bubble - A Speculator's Dream in Cyberspace When writing an article about the recent move in bitcoin, one should probably not begin by preparing the chart images. Chances are one will have to do it all over again. It is a bit like ordering a cup of coffee in Weimar Germany in early November 1923. One had to pay for it right away, as a cup costing one wheelbarrow of Reichsmark may well end up costing two wheelbarrows of Reichsmark half an hour later. These days the question is...
  • In Gold We Trust, 2017
      The 11th Annual In Gold We Trust Report This year's Incrementum In Gold We Trust report by our good friends Ronald Stoeferle and Mark Valek appears about one month earlier than usual (we already mentioned in our most recent gold update that it would become available soon). As always, the report is extremely comprehensive, discussing everything from fundamentals pertaining to gold, to technical analysis to statistical studies on the behavior of gold under different economic...
  • Quantitative Easing Explained
      [Ed. note: This article was originally posted in November of 2010 - we have decided to republish it with updated charts, as it has proved to be very useful as a reference - the mechanics of QE are less well understood than they should be, and this article explains them in detail.]   Printing Money We have noticed that lately, numerous attempts have been made to explain the mechanics of quantitative easing.  They range from the truly funny as in this by now 'viral' You Tube...
  • The Three Headed Debt Monster That’s Going to Ravage the Economy
      Mass Infusions of New Credit   “The bank is something more than men, I tell you.  It’s the monster.  Men made it, but they can’t control it.” – John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath   Something strange and somewhat senseless happened this week. On Tuesday, the price of gold jumped over $13 per ounce.  This, in itself, is nothing too remarkable.  However, at precisely the same time gold was jumping, the yield on the 10-Year Treasury note was slip sliding down...
  • Recession Watch Fall 2017
      One Ear to the Ground, One Eye to the Future Treasury yields are attempting to say something.  But what it is exactly is open to interpretation.  What’s more, only the most curious care to ponder it. Like Southern California’s obligatory June Gloom, what Treasury yields may appear to be foreshadowing can be somewhat misleading.   Behold, the risk-free tide...   Are investors anticipating deflation or inflation?  Are yields adjusting to some other market or...
  • Stocks, Bonds, Euro, and Gold Go Up – Precious Metals Supply and Demand
      Driven by Credit The jobs report was disappointing. The prices of gold, and even more so silver, took off. In three hours, they gained $18 and 39 cents. Before we try to read into the connection, it is worth pausing to consider how another market responded. We don’t often discuss the stock market (and we have not been calling for an imminent stock market collapse as many others have).   NYSE margin debt has reached new record highs this year, dwarfing previous peak...
  • Jayant Bhandari on Gold, Submerging Markets and Arbitrage
      Maurice Jackson Interviews Jayant Bhandari We are happy to present another interview conducted by Maurice Jackson of Proven and Probable with our friend and frequent contributor Jayant Bhandari, a specialist on gold mining investment, the world's most outspoken emerging market contrarian, host of the highly regarded annual Capitalism and Morality conference in London and consultant to institutional investors.   As soon as Jayant touches down in London, he is accosted by...
  • Monetary Madness and Rabbit Consumption
      Down the Rabbit Hole “The hurrier I go, the behinder I get,” is oft attributed to the White Rabbit from Lewis Carroll’s, Alice in Wonderland.  Where this axiom appears within the text of the story is a mystery.  But we suspect the White Rabbit must utter it about the time Alice follows him down the rabbit hole.   Pick a rabbit to follow...   No doubt, today’s wage earner knows what it means to work harder, faster, and better, while slip sliding behind. ...
  • Mexicans and Chinese Aren’t “Stealing Our Jobs”
      Tremendous Flop GUALFIN, ARGENTINA – Now comes a report from the Financial Times that tells us the nation’s No. 1 industry – home building – has been backing up for a quarter of a century. According to the newspaper, U.S. home builders “started work on the same number of houses in the past year as they did a quarter of a century ago, even though there are 36% more people working as residential builders now than then.”   Moat contractors have been particularly bad....
  • The Anatomy of Brown’s Gold Bottom – Precious Metals Supply and Demand
      The Socialist Politician-Bureaucrat with the Worst Timing Ever As most in the gold community know, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown announced on 7 May, 1999 that HM Treasury planned to sell gold. The dollar began to rise, from about 110mg gold to 120mg on 6 July, the day of the first sale. This translates into dollarish as: gold went down, from $282 to $258. It makes sense, as the UK was selling a lot of gold... or does it?   Former UK chancellor of the...
  • Donald Trump is an Economic Ignoramus on Trade
      Upholding a Well-Worn Tradition Not surprisingly, Donald Trump has followed in the infamous footsteps of his presidential predecessors in the transition from candidate to chief executive.  Invariably, every candidate for the presidency makes a whole host of promises, the vast majority of which are horrible and typically only exacerbate the problems they attempt to resolve.   With respect to trade, Donald Trump has adopted a position that is essentially indistinguishable...

Support Acting Man

Austrian Theory and Investment

Own physical gold and silver outside a bank

Archive

j9TJzzN

350x200

Realtime Charts

 

Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]

 

THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

 
Buy Silver Now!
 
Buy Gold Now!
 

Oilprice.com