Interesting appeals court ruling in Canada - debt-based money is done?

[devil21]

---------------

Something....something....disrupting Fed operations....something....something....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0N528G20150414

(Reuters) - The New York branch of the U.S. Federal Reserve, wary that a natural disaster or other eventuality could shut down its market operations as it approaches an interest rate hike, has added staff and bulked up its satellite office in Chicago.

Some market technicians have transferred from New York and others were hired at the office housed in the Chicago Fed, according to several people familiar with the build-out that began about two years ago, after Hurricane Sandy struck Manhattan.

Officials believe the Chicago staffers can now handle all of the market operations that are done daily out of the New York Fed, which is the U.S. central bank's main conduit to Wall Street.

The satellite office in the Midwest readies the New York Fed for perhaps the most delicate U.S. interest-rate hike ever. With rates having been near zero for more than six years, and markets flooded with reserves, the Fed will rely on an array of new tools to help it tighten policy, likely later this year.

Two of the sources, which included market participants and Fed officials and who spoke under condition of anonymity, said the Chicago office was partly protection against a possible cyber attack against the New York Fed. In February, Fed Chair Janet Yellen told a congressional panel the central bank is addressing "ever-escalating (cyber) threats to our operations."
......................
The New York Fed's Chicago-based staffers already handle some daily market operations including purchases and sales of Treasury and mortgage bonds, and controlling the central bank's key federal funds rate.

more at link

Any city with a Fed regional bank is at risk of 'something' major happening there that will disrupt Fed operations sometime this year. Signs point to Chicago but NY, Philly, Dallas too.

-------
Chicago muni debt downgraded to junk status; cities, schools and parks
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/29...nk-bond-status

--------------------------
The Pope to visit NY, DC, Philly end of September.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...ia_visi_1.html

-----------------------------
'ISIS' claims it could buy a nuke or tons of ammonium nitrate explosives in the next year
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-10270525.html

I recall reading something recently about a large amount of ammonium nitrate going missing but can't find any links on it now.

----------------------
Silverstein/Blackstone purchased Willis (Sears) Tower....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...ower/24851199/

-----------------------------
Chicago Fed bricked up first floor windows
http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/v...p?f=41&t=25582
-------------------------------

EDIT: Middle of April 2016 through early May 2016, avoid Chicago!

[devil21]

I think someone owes me a bit of credit.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...mplodes-part-5

[devil21]

Chase banks now making moves to discourage cash transactions? Waiting for more confirmations but Chase did announce changes to cash transactions a few months ago. The addition of refusing to store cash and coins in safe deposit boxes and refusing cash for debt payments appears new.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...rganchase.html

Letters are apparently going out to some JPMoragnChase (sic) customers announcing that cash will be prohibited from being stored in the bank's safety deposit boxes.

At the Collectors Universe message board, a commenter reports:

My mother has a SDB at a Chase branch with one of my siblings as co-signers. Last week they got a letter outlining a number of changes to the lease agreement, including this:

"Contents of the box: You agree not to store any cash or coins other than those found to have a collectible value."

Another change is that signatures will no longer be accepted to access the box. The next time they go in they have to bring two forms of ID and they will be issued a four-digit pin number that will be used to access the box then and in the future.

more at link, including a Mises write-up on Chase's cash policy changes. How can a bank refuse legal tender? Wouldn't that make the debt itself void per the UCC?

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Chase banks now making moves to discourage cash transactions? Waiting for more confirmations but Chase did announce changes to cash transactions a few months ago. The addition of refusing to store cash and coins in safe deposit boxes and refusing cash for debt payments appears new.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...rganchase.html

more at link, including a Mises write-up on Chase's cash policy changes. How can a bank refuse legal tender? Wouldn't that make the debt itself void per the UCC?

Storing cash & coins in a safe deposit box isn't debt-repayment so legal tender laws don't apply. Legal tender laws apply only to debt-repayment.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise

The suggestion to drastically limit cash-transactions by itself is hardly conspiratorial in nature because it's a well-known fact that Keynesians believe that borrowing & spending drives economic growth (as opposed to free marketers' view that savings drive economic growth). So the suggestion to limit cash transactions (& disallowing storage of cash & coins in safe deposit boxes) is so that people would deposit them in bank accounts, which would grow banks' reserves (as if they aren't already huge ), which will allow banks to lend more & allow people who do want to spend to borrow & spend. Weird thinking but that's Keynesianism for ya!

Another article from the same website lays out the thought-process behind it.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...es-report.html

Citi Group's top economist, Willem Buiter, sees a big problem with cash.

He is of the opinion that becasue interest rates are so low, the Federal Reserve is not able to pump sufficient quantities of money into the economy.

He holds this view despite the fact that the money supply has grown by near 50% , since the interest rate controlled by the Fed, the Fed Funds rate, has been near zero.

Buiter somehow views this money growth as not sufficnt, despite the fact that sound economics teaches that it is increased production of goods and services, not increased money printing that grows an economy.

Part of this "problem" of Keynesian imagined slow money growth, in Buiter's views, is because of cash. For Buiter, when interest rates are extremely low he sees the potential for people to hold their funds as cash instead of putting it in the banking system, where banks can use it as reserves to increase the money supply even more.

It's crazy even by mainstream economic standards because he wants to increase banks' reserves by restricting cash but the funny thing is that the banks ALREADY have huge amounts of reserves. So there's little room to think that whatever little reserves will be added to existing reserves by restricting cash are going to make a huge difference.
So lack of reserves isn't at all the problem, the problem is that there's too much debt, malinvesment & bubbles around, which need to be liquidated by raising interest rates (or rather by allowing interest rates to float freely in a free market). But raising interest rates would require the government to control spending, which it isn't doing. So Fed, being a government entity, is enabling government's continued mischief by keeping interest rates low.

Besides, if there are enough restrictions on cash & people can't get enough of the "regular" cash then alternative currencies will become more popular amongst those dealing in cash, may be bitcoins, gold/silver & whatever people find easier to use for their cash-transactions.

[devil21]

Storing cash & coins in a safe deposit box isn't debt-repayment so legal tender laws don't apply. Legal tender laws apply only to debt-repayment.

I never claimed the safety deposit box issue was related to legal tender rules. You should read the whole thread to understand the context of the post you replied to. And don't start clogging up this thread with your long-winded scribes that no one reads.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I never claimed the safety deposit box issue was related to legal tender rules. You should read the whole thread to understand the context of the post you replied to. And don't start clogging up this thread with your long-winded scribes that no one reads.

I might concede that these days perhaps more people here are interested in the conspiratorial stuff that you post than my view of analyzing every issue independently based on reason & verifiable information but you're always free not to read or reply to my posts.

[Zippyjuan]

Chase banks now making moves to discourage cash transactions? Waiting for more confirmations but Chase did announce changes to cash transactions a few months ago. The addition of refusing to store cash and coins in safe deposit boxes and refusing cash for debt payments appears new.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...rganchase.html



more at link, including a Mises write-up on Chase's cash policy changes. How can a bank refuse legal tender? Wouldn't that make the debt itself void per the UCC?

Banks don't know what you have in your safety deposit boxes. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/savi...estions-1.aspx

Some people may be reluctant to put items into their boxes because of privacy concerns. But such fears are unfounded, as liability concerns keep banks from prying into safe-deposit contents.

"We don't want to know what's in there," says Cyril "Sid" Spiro, CEO of Regent Bank in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. "Whatever is in those boxes, we have no idea."

Source for the claim that they are not allowing cash in safety deposit boxes is from some online forum according to your link.

Cash in a safety deposit box is not insured.

More research shows the alleged letter is from April Fool's Day. https://mises.org/blog/chase-joins-war-cash

In a letter to its customers dated April 1, 2015 pertaining to its "Updated Safe Deposit Box Lease Agreement," one of the highlighted items reads: "You agree not to store any cash or coins other than those found to have a collectible value." Whether or not this pertains to gold and silver coins with no numismatic value is not explained.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Banks don't know what you have in your safety deposit boxes.

Your source quoted one person.





The Economic Policy Journal says something different.

From the Economic Policy Journal:

The Bankster War on Cash; JPMorganChase Begins to Prohibit the Storage of Cash in Its Safety Deposit Boxes
Letters are apparently going out to some JPMoragnChase customers announcing that cash will be prohibited from being stored in the bank's safety deposit boxes.

At the Collectors Universe message board, a commenter reports:

My mother has a SDB at a Chase branch with one of my siblings as co-signers. Last week they got a letter outlining a number of changes to the lease agreement, including this:"Contents of the box: You agree not to store any cash or coins other than those found to have a collectible value."
Another change is that signatures will no longer be accepted to access the box. The next time they go in they have to bring two forms of ID and they will be issued a four-digit pin number that will be used to access the box then and in the future.
Professor Joseph Salerno of the Mises Institute writes:

As of March, Chase began restricting the use of cash in selected markets, including Greater Cleveland. The new policy restricts borrowers from using cash to make payments on credit cards, mortgages, equity lines, and auto loans. Chase even goes as far as to prohibit the storage of cash in its safe deposit boxes . In a letter to its customers dated April 1, 2015 pertaining to its “Updated Safe Deposit Box Lease Agreement,” one of the highlighted items reads: “You agree not to store any cash or coins other than those found to have a collectible value.”
Just last week, Citigroup's top economist, Willem Buiter, wrote a report calling for the abolishment of cash as a sound policy.


http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...rganchase.html

..

[Paul Or Nothing II]

thanks for the bumps at least....some of us will still keep talking about what matters regardless of you and your shill buddies attempts to derail

Neg-repping someone just because they have a different opinion, just shows your intolerance. Intolerance is the antithesis of liberty. One of the core principles of liberty is that a person is innocent until proven guilty & the belief in following the Due Process; so why don't you provide proofs to the admins of RPF to prove that I'm in fact a "shill" or whatever & get me banned? THAT is how someone who truly believes in liberty would be expected to act.

[devil21]

Neg-repping someone just because they have a different opinion, just shows your intolerance. Intolerance is the antithesis of liberty. One of the core principles of liberty is that a person is innocent until proven guilty & the belief in following the Due Process; so why don't you provide proofs to the admins of RPF to prove that I'm in fact a "shill" or whatever & get me banned? THAT is how someone who truly believes in liberty would be expected to act.

Oh look it's a new derail attempt from one of Zip's buddies. I do appreciate the bumps, though, seriously. More people should read this thread.

[GunnyFreedom]

Did anybody watch the Esurance commercial above and notice the US Note being used instead of the Federal Reserve Note?

Prop money

[H. E. Panqui]

devil 21 asserts: I think Bill Still is a shill for the bankers, as are a lot of other commentators that built their reputations on exposing the realities of the monetary system.



(...bill still claims he wants to take the money creation power/privilege away from the secret-squirrel banksters and place it in under a TRANSPARENT treasury dept....if true, he would be hated by said banksters...

...btw, i had to laugh at your 'other commentators who've exposed the realities of the monetary system' comment...I HAVE FOUND VERY VERY VERY FEW OF THEM...COULD YOU NAME JUST 5 OF THESE 'EXPOSER$'...(..i didn't think so!)

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Oh look it's a new derail attempt from one of Zip's buddies. I do appreciate the bumps, though, seriously. More people should read this thread.

The fact that you think I'm Zippyjuan's friend just shows how clueless you are. Anyway, as I've said, it's un-libertarian to accuse a person of being guilty without proof so go ahead, prove to the admins that I'm a "shill" & get me banned if you can otherwise you are just being intolerant & un-libertarian by merely pelting baseless accusations at me for having different opinions. How dare I disagree with the The Devil!

[Paul Or Nothing II]

(...bill still claims he wants to take the money creation power/privilege away from the secret-squirrel banksters and place it in under a TRANSPARENT treasury dept....if true, he would be hated by said banksters...

The idea that anybody, especially the government, should be allowed to issue unbacked money is ridiculous. Look how well it turned out for Zimbabwe.

...btw, i had to laugh at your 'other commentators who've exposed the realities of the monetary system' comment...I HAVE FOUND VERY VERY VERY FEW OF THEM...COULD YOU NAME JUST 5 OF THESE 'EXPOSER$'...(..i didn't think so!)

Actually, there are quite a few socialist/communist people out there who talk about the evils of central-banking in general & offer the "solution" of allowing the government to create unbacked money; obviously, being a "metalist", I don't follow them so don't remember all of their names but Mike Montagne, Steve Zarlenga, The Venus Project guys along with Bill Still & there are some guys on youtube offering the same "solution".

[devil21]

National debt has been frozen. Hmm....

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tere...18112975000000

According to the Daily Treasury Statement for Wednesday, April 22, which was published by the U.S. Treasury on Thursday, April 23, that portion of the federal debt that is subject to a legal limit set by Congress closed the day at $18,112,975,000,000—for the 40th day in a row.

[osan]

Speaking of which, can anyone state the cite for that case where a mortgage was declared void based on the fact that the borrower was in fact not loaned "money" but mere vapor? I would very much like to read up on it.

TIA.

[osan]

No court ruling will end fiat currencies. The only thing that will end fiat currency is when price inflation gets unbearable.

You must mean CURRENCY inflation.

True price inflation is most often a phenomenon of a somewhat localized nature, relating to the supply-demand relationship. The more fundamental the supply shortage, the broader the effect. For example, if 6-32 screws become scarce due to lack of production, there may then result a price inflation due to short supply. But if the shortage is due to lack of available steel to make them, then the price inflation will fan out over a far broader region of the economic landscape.

Currency inflation, OTOH, is like price inflation on steroids because the supply-demand relationship is altered in a far deeper and far-reaching fashion. Give the average man $1million and he will most often start spending with some abandon. Do that with everyone by pumping huge reserves into the economy and everyone follows suit. Demand rises, prices rise to a degree. When demand outstrips production capacities, that is when prices begin rocketing upward. Some say "well, then the manufacturers will invest in larger production facilities." Not so fast. Many businesses are not run by blind idiots. As such, they tend to analyze trends and when they see they are in a "bubble", they lay back and maintain the status quo, even if it means running three shifts a day to keep up.

So, there is clearly a similarity of nature, but a gross difference in cause and degree of effect.

[osan]

Whatever you say Zipparoo. I scaled back my enthusiasm over the article just for you. Everything is ho hum status quo right? What was I thinking??

Hate to say it pal, but Zippo makes a valid point. At the least the wording is ambiguous and poorly crafted, which calls the author into some question. This is important stuff WRT human affairs on the larger scale. Therefore, if one wishes not only to be taken seriously but also to be properly understood, it behooves an author to write well. That particular sentence is either spectacularly flawed grammatically, or the author has been smoking too many banana peels. Buying a building does not in itself imply the purchase of the institution from whom it was purchased. You have to admit that it is a pretty serious flaw in the article. After reading that, one must wonder what other possibly less conspicuous easter eggs might there be.

[osan]

Here's an example of the gov't giving resource rich land to foreign debt holders as part of settling the debt, as I described in post #4.

Good grief... the litany of issues this raises.

Federal lands are, IMO, "commons", meaning they are owned by nobody or my everyone all at once - take your pick.

Fedgov, not owning them (contrary to Theire claim) have no authority to give them to anyone.

Fedgov had no mandated Constitutional authority to secure debt with MY assets. They have no authority to assume debt in my name, leaving me on the hook to pay.

[devil21]

Hate to say it pal, but Zippo makes a valid point. At the least the wording is ambiguous and poorly crafted, which calls the author into some question. This is important stuff WRT human affairs on the larger scale. Therefore, if one wishes not only to be taken seriously but also to be properly understood, it behooves an author to write well. That particular sentence is either spectacularly flawed grammatically, or the author has been smoking too many banana peels. Buying a building does not in itself imply the purchase of the institution from whom it was purchased. You have to admit that it is a pretty serious flaw in the article. After reading that, one must wonder what other possibly less conspicuous easter eggs might there be.

I agree the author should have explained his rationale for that part of his commentary. I don't think it takes away much from the rest of the content though. Given the accuracy of the rest, I'm sure he has his reasons. It's not the first time I've seen it mentioned by people in the know that China is buying up US financial institutions, under the guise of "investment" in said institutions. Blackstone's real estate arm is an example.

Good grief... the litany of issues this raises.

Federal lands are, IMO, "commons", meaning they are owned by nobody or my everyone all at once - take your pick.

Fedgov, not owning them (contrary to Theire claim) have no authority to give them to anyone.

Fedgov had no mandated Constitutional authority to secure debt with MY assets. They have no authority to assume debt in my name, leaving me on the hook to pay.

Constitutionally, no the Fedgov has no authority to secure debt with your assets. Fortunately for Fedgov, you agreed to it contractually (assuming you are a US Citizen with a social security number), thus making the Constitutionality irrelevant.

[Zippyjuan]

Federal debt is not secured by anything but the ability of the government to tax.

[Zippyjuan]

There is no "theory". It's right there in the Fed Act. The Fed Act seems to think they are stockholder shares and call them such repeatedly.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section5.htm



Seems pretty straight-forward to me. Where's your link explaining that the stock shares aren't actually stock shares?

Also note that one of the possible conditions to dissolve the Fed is a 2/3 vote by STOCKHOLDERS to do so. Sounds like a standard meeting of stockholders making a decision, like any other corporation.

Link to 2/3 vote by share holders to close the Fed? 2/3 of Congress can if the President agrees. Fed shares have no voting powers and cannot be bought, sold (except back to the Fed if they leave the Federal Reserve banking system), or traded. They are a membership to join the banking organization but are not like corporate stock shares.

To become a Federal Reserve Bank member, a financial institution must turn over ten percent of their net assets to the Fed- in exchange, they are given the "shares".

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

[devil21]

It's right in the Fed Act, along with the other conditions under which the Fed and/or its member banks can be dissolved, such as declaring bankruptcy, violation of law, or termination by Congress through repeal of the Fed Act.

[devil21]

This thread needed a bump and an update and my spidey senses said tonight seemed like a good time

China tests yuan denominated gold price fixing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0NR06J20150506

China conducted trial runs for the planned launch of a yuan-denominated gold fix last month, three sources familiar with the matter said, in a sign the world's second-biggest bullion consumer was moving closer to creating a benchmark price.

The state-run Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE), on whose international platform the fix will be launched, conducted the trial with major Chinese banks and a few foreign banks, the sources said this week.

The SGE could not be immediately reached for comment.

China, also the top gold producer, feels its market weight should entitle it to be a price-setter for bullion and it is asserting itself at a time when the established benchmark, the century-old London fix, is under scrutiny because of alleged price-manipulation.

The London Bullion Market Association said last week it was considering the possibility of creating an exchange for gold trading in the city, a shift away from the over-the-counter system.

China plans to launch a yuan gold fix this year through trading of a 1 kg contract on the SGE, Reuters reported in February.

more at link

eta: I also recently heard that petroleum has been successfully synthesized for large scale distribution by a french company and that may play heavily into the moves to ditch the dollar as world reserve, oil price drops, middle eastern upheaval/positioning. I won't update post 4 without more confirmation of this but it fits. A large event ('ISIS'?) that coincides with what I have posted in #4 and add in an oil embargo that makes the introduction of the new oil necessary, along with the new money (Harriet Tubman on the new $20, eh?) and the rest of it.

--------------

Understanding the religious components, mainly the Shemitah cycles. This is what Goldman's Lloyd Blankfein meant when he said Goldman Sachs was "doing God's work." The changes must take place in accordance with religious observation/doctrine in order for the participants to maintain clear conscience about their actions (confession), particularly if people are harmed as a result. God made me do it!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...f-the-Shemitah

Related to Shemitah is Catholic observation. There's a lot of "overlap" between Jewish and Catholic religious schedules and observation. December 8 is the start of Catholic jubilee observation. Nov 20 2016 is the end.
http://www.nawas.com/catholic/holy-y...ilgrimages.htm

Since the year 1300, the church has declared jubilee years every 25 or 50 years.

According to Shemitah cycles, this is the 50th year of the cycle, which is a jubilee year.

ETA: Shemitah is one part of the observances. Catholic jubilees are the linchpin observation. Jewish holidays are a cover for the Catholic (Khazar) holidays. Misdirection big time.

[Ronin Truth]

The Rothschilds will probably be sending in some Mossad goons to make Canada an offer that it can't refuse.

[wizardwatson]

The Rothschilds will probably be sending in some Mossad goons to make Canada an offer that it can't refuse.

Typically with politicians and priests that rarely goes beyond sex slaves.

[phonetic lee]

Here's another editorial agitating for the abolition of cash:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...-and-bust.html

The entire article is remarkable, but here are a few clips:

In this futuristic world ... notes and coins are abolished. Your current account will no longer be held with a bank, but with the government or the central bank.

To boost spending, the bank imposes a negative interest rate on the money in everyone’s account – in effect, a tax on saving. Faced with seeing their money slowly confiscated, people are more likely to spend it on goods and services.

At the moment it’s easy for individuals to avoid seeing their money eroded this way – they can simply hold banknotes .... But if notes and coins were abolished and the only way to hold money was through a government-controlled bank, there would be no escape.

Apart from the control over the economy, there would be many other advantages of a cashless society.

... the “black economy” will be hugely diminished, and tax evasion made all but impossible.

No rational person would believe this is a good idea, but these are not rational people. Their motivation is a thirst to control other people.

That's why I doubt the Grand Conspiracy theories. It's really hard to formulate and execute a comprehensive, long-term plan when you believe 1+1 = 4.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Here's another editorial agitating for the abolition of cash:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...-and-bust.html

The entire article is remarkable, but here are a few clips:



No rational person would believe this is a good idea, but these are not rational people. Their motivation is a thirst to control other people.

That's why I doubt the Grand Conspiracy theories. It's really hard to formulate and execute a comprehensive, long-term plan when you believe 1+1 = 4.

It's a stupid proposal by some economically illiterate idiots, & it will never work as intended. If the government gets rid of their cash-money from the economy, then some other alternative currencies will be used for the cash-transactions, a fine way for the government to make its money less marketable; negative interest rates will just cause more asset-bubbles. Nothing new, government's stupidity is unlimited!

Black-markets! Throwing a wrench in government's plans since the beginning of government itself!

[phonetic lee]

Nothing new, government's stupidity is unlimited!

Pretty much, and today a German economist was in the headlines with a similar proposal. Germans are supposed to be the sensible ones because they're scarred by the memory of Weimar hyperinflation.

I do wonder about hidden motivations. Governments have accumulated huge debts. They could reduce debt through either austerity or default, but politically it's easier to simply print the money. Printing, however, can trigger a bond "revolt," driving up Treasury yields and negating the benefit to the government.

The likely government reaction then is to prop up the Treasury market by forcing assets into it. Restrictions may include nationalization of pension funds and foreign currency prohibition. Elimination of cash would facilitate the process.

As I understand, the activity has been labeled "financial repression." The key is that the government is able to print without consequence to itself. The resultant consumer price increases are blamed on evil corporations, who raise prices because they hate America.

[Occam's Banana]

Here's another editorial agitating for the abolition of cash:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...-and-bust.html

if notes and coins were abolished and the only way to hold money was through a government-controlled bank, there would be no escape.

Apart from the control over the economy, there would be many other advantages of a cashless society.

... the “black economy” will be hugely diminished, and tax evasion made all but impossible.

The bolded above has got to be one of the stupidest things I have heard in, oh ... at least a week or two.

Under a "cashless" society as envisioned by the author, not only would the "black economy" flourish and thrive, it would very likely develop its own currencies - complete with exchange rates vis-à-vis "government-controlled bank" money. And although the evasion of taxes levied upon the ones and zeros stored on "government-controlled bank" computers might indeed be significantly curtailed, the evasion of taxation upon actual wealth (you know - the stuff for which money merely serves as a medium of exchange, be it "government-controlled bank" money or "black economy" money) will hum right along ...

If anything, ridiculous schemes such as the above would ultimately serve to undermine the system's "control over the economy." John Gilmore famously said of the Internet that it "interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." The free market does the same thing with respect to the author's precious "control over the economy." They can certainly hamper and cripple the free market - sometimes quite seriously - but that is about all (though that is bad enough). But the more they do so, the more they expose as a futile delusion the notion that they can actually "control" the economy ...