Nowhere to Hide: IMF Advocates a Cashless World

[fitty]

“The European Central Bank (ECB) does not want that depositors to keep their money under the pillow. If any bank in Europe goes bankrupt, then depositors have a guaranteed right that the state will return them the amount of up to 100,000 euros. But not more,” the economist told Sputnik Germany.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/04/no_author/totalitararian-dream/

The banks and the IMF should have no say whatsoever how any of us decide to hold our money.

Well, this should lead to people finding another alternatives where to store their money aside from banks. That should bring Bitcoin more opportunity to be recognized. If the IMF did not regulate also the Bitcoin right?

[d5000]

Money is overrated It should not be the main tool for privacy-relevant activity.

That doesn't mean that I'm supporting the anti-cash/pro-bank policy of these institutions. But sometimes I think people should be less paranoid. And the following is only a personal opinion, but I think the importance of money will tend to decrease in a highly automated knowledge society.

[andrei56]

Money is overrated It should not be the main tool for privacy-relevant activity.

That doesn't mean that I'm supporting the anti-cash/pro-bank policy of these institutions. But sometimes I think people should be less paranoid. And the following is only a personal opinion, but I think the importance of money will tend to decrease in a highly automated knowledge society.

I don’t have a problem with a cashless society as long as there is privacy but we know that is not what they want, this is not about being paranoid, they want to know in what you use your money to completely monitor your activities and that is why I support bitcoin.

[Chikito]

“The European Central Bank (ECB) does not want that depositors to keep their money under the pillow. If any bank in Europe goes bankrupt, then depositors have a guaranteed right that the state will return them the amount of up to 100,000 euros. But not more,” the economist told Sputnik Germany.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/04/no_author/totalitararian-dream/

The banks and the IMF should have no say whatsoever how any of us decide to hold our money.

logic money is absolute, I've seen on youtube how the Federal Bank creates money and monopolizes government finances, I think fiat currency is very easy to be played by unscrupulous bankers, wealthy thieves.

[Anarchist]

IMF is debating/planning about cashless society since 2000, you can find it on their own website where they post reports of disscussions they have. The 100k limit is for all europeans and is limited to 1 person and per bank, so if you have 100k in bank A and 100k in bank B, you are covered for for both

[Clement Kaliyar]

I'm much more concerned about  the "Indian Experiment". In India, they:
Done: Removing 83% of the cash flow (banning big notes)
Pending 2020: Removal of all ATM machines and moving to cashless economy.
Because if it succeed, this mean  spreading it and a TOTAL control over us.

The Indian experiment is a bit crazy ,we now have issues withdrawing our own money and is it true that they are planning to remove all ATM machines by 2020,i have never seen this crazy news,let the expirement work among politicians and political parties and then let them implement these sort of crazy things over the people.

[k@suy]

IMF is debating/planning about cashless society since 2000, you can find it on their own website where they post reports of disscussions they have. The 100k limit is for all europeans and is limited to 1 person and per bank, so if you have 100k in bank A and 100k in bank B, you are covered for for both

Yes, I heard this cashless  shopping  since 2000 and at first it was referring to credit card in my opinion,debit card etc. But now, with the used of blockchain technology as in bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies I think it widen its reach.

[deisik]

I am not that worried. Most of my wealth is invested in the form of real estate, equities, and treasury bonds. So even if they do some sort of demonetization, it is not going to affect me much.

You are wrong. When you own real estate that brings you permanent loss. Only when you sell or rent the property for rent you will have the income. Where do you take clients if they don't have money? Or they'll pay you-cash money, and the government will take 50% in tax

This is not quite so

You evidently don't take into account that real estate can appreciate on its own. For example, due to the area where you have that real estate becoming more popular or just local currency heavily depreciating and people running into hard assets to save their wealth (and thus the appreciation of your property will be substantially above inflation rates, so it is real appreciation as opposed to nominal). In any case, you can mortgage your real estate and buy even more real estate or whatever. You don't even need to outright sell it

[LeGaulois]

IMF is debating/planning about cashless society since 2000, you can find it on their own website where they post reports of disscussions they have. The 100k limit is for all europeans and is limited to 1 person and per bank, so if you have 100k in bank A and 100k in bank B, you are covered for for both

Yes, I heard this cashless  shopping  since 2000 and at first it was referring to credit card in my opinion,debit card etc. But now, with the used of blockchain technology as in bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies I think it widen its reach.

You are wrong the debate from the IMF in 2000 was about to use only one currency only, you can read everything here It is very long but very informative too. The plan for a cashless society has started, i don't know but maybe 50 years ago, or more if we consider the cheques, or even more as The ancient Romans have used an early form of cheque

[cpfreeplz]

The problem is when you look at India or Greece where withdrawals are limited, certain notes are no longer accepted etc, this creates a huge problem for the citizens of that country. What are you supposed to do if you have a lot of those bills? Deposit them and take out smaller bills? What about in the future when those bills are now gone? This is where cryptocurrency needs to be used so they never have to worry about what you're doing with your money ever again. It's yours, keep it where you want.

The thing I find the strangest is the fact that people don't want to be in control of their own wealth. It's so strange to think that you'd trust someone else with all of your money and not yourself. How stupid of a society do we have to be to keep the majority of our possessions in a bank?! Oh they have insurance, great. SO if they go bankrupt you get up to 100,000 back. Ok but anyone with 100,000 should just have their own money safely in their own arms. Having to rely on some company is completely ridiculous.

[olubams]

“The European Central Bank (ECB) does not want that depositors to keep their money under the pillow. If any bank in Europe goes bankrupt, then depositors have a guaranteed right that the state will return them the amount of up to 100,000 euros. But not more,” the economist told Sputnik Germany.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/04/no_author/totalitararian-dream/

The banks and the IMF should have no say whatsoever how any of us decide to hold our money.

Whether we like it or not, a cashless world is already here. What they are doing is trying to enforce it more by bringing more people into the banking net and nothing more because even those of us already using banks and have some level of expertise in the use of technology would prefer cashless to anything even up to the point of the payment for coffee or burger and the same thing goes bitcoin as I have seen people having quite an amount of btc without physical coin and that is also cashless.

[panju1]

The problem is when you look at India or Greece where withdrawals are limited, certain notes are no longer accepted etc, this creates a huge problem for the citizens of that country. What are you supposed to do if you have a lot of those bills? Deposit them and take out smaller bills? What about in the future when those bills are now gone? This is where cryptocurrency needs to be used so they never have to worry about what you're doing with your money ever again. It's yours, keep it where you want.

The thing I find the strangest is the fact that people don't want to be in control of their own wealth. It's so strange to think that you'd trust someone else with all of your money and not yourself. How stupid of a society do we have to be to keep the majority of our possessions in a bank?! Oh they have insurance, great. SO if they go bankrupt you get up to 100,000 back. Ok but anyone with 100,000 should just have their own money safely in their own arms. Having to rely on some company is completely ridiculous.

To a common man, the probability of a bank going bust is lesser than robbers striking at your home. Especially if you choose a large, secure bank. On top of it, banks pay interest on your deposits. So the common man doesn't mind keeping his money in the bank.

[iamTom123]

“The European Central Bank (ECB) does not want that depositors to keep their money under the pillow. If any bank in Europe goes bankrupt, then depositors have a guaranteed right that the state will return them the amount of up to 100,000 euros. But not more,” the economist told Sputnik Germany.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/04/no_author/totalitararian-dream/

The banks and the IMF should have no say whatsoever how any of us decide to hold our money.

The issue is they don’t think that is your money they think it belongs to them because they are the ones to print it, also they want your money in a bank so it is easier to freeze or to steal to pay their debts, so this is another reason to buy bitcoin.

Exactly. All fiat money are issued by and guaranteed by the issuing authorities or governments via the central banks or any financial institutions. Consequently, authorities can exercise state power in cases of emergencies over our money. This happened recently in some European countries where savings in the banks were confiscated to finance the state.

No wonder that more and more people are looking at cryptocurrencies to protect them in times of economic uncertainties, chaos and problems. However, it can also mean that some governments can be critical of Bitcoin because it can be beyond their own control.

[yugo23]

Money is overrated It should not be the main tool for privacy-relevant activity.

That doesn't mean that I'm supporting the anti-cash/pro-bank policy of these institutions. But sometimes I think people should be less paranoid. And the following is only a personal opinion, but I think the importance of money will tend to decrease in a highly automated knowledge society.

Agreed.
It seems like people care much more for their money than for their private informations.
I prefer to see it public what I earn and where does it go than to have my phone number published with my living adress ^^

[mindrust]

The thing I find the strangest is the fact that people don't want to be in control of their own wealth. It's so strange to think that you'd trust someone else with all of your money and not yourself. How stupid of a society do we have to be to keep the majority of our possessions in a bank?! Oh they have insurance, great. SO if they go bankrupt you get up to 100,000 back. Ok but anyone with 100,000 should just have their own money safely in their own arms. Having to rely on some company is completely ridiculous.

One word: "Sheeple"

The government has an insurance of 100k$/€ per person (per bank in some countries) but they won't pay you interest rates for your lost time. Your 100k may lose its buying power completely during that time.

Unless you don't have anywhere to hide your money safely, depositing in a bank makes absolutely no sense.

That's why they are giving negative (or zero) interest rates. They want you to spend your money, they don't want you to save them. They are ripping us off.

When you have no cash (or some other asset as liquid as cash-might be gold or bitcoin), you will stay vulnerable to a financial crisis. They don't want you to stay liquid. They want to bury you down with Real Estate investments, Iphones, Car loans... When the shit hits the fan, you won't be able to lift a finger and banks will you rip you off one more time.

[horace08122]

The thing I find the strangest is the fact that people don't want to be in control of their own wealth. It's so strange to think that you'd trust someone else with all of your money and not yourself. How stupid of a society do we have to be to keep the majority of our possessions in a bank?! Oh they have insurance, great. SO if they go bankrupt you get up to 100,000 back. Ok but anyone with 100,000 should just have their own money safely in their own arms. Having to rely on some company is completely ridiculous.

One word: "Sheeple"

The government has an insurance of 100k$/€ per person (per bank in some countries) but they won't pay you interest rates for your lost time. Your 100k may lose its buying power completely during that time.

Unless you don't have anywhere to hide your money safely, depositing in a bank makes absolutely no sense.

That's why they are giving negative (or zero) interest rates. They want you to spend your money, they don't want you to save them. They are ripping us off.

When you have no cash (or some other asset as liquid as cash-might be gold or bitcoin), you will stay vulnerable to a financial crisis. They don't want you to stay liquid. They want to bury you down with Real Estate investments, Iphones, Car loans... When the shit hits the fan, you won't be able to lift a finger and banks will you rip you off one more time.

But in my opinion it is investment in real estate is a very good source of income. It does not matter what kind of property is residential or commercial.

[deisik]

When you have no cash (or some other asset as liquid as cash-might be gold or bitcoin), you will stay vulnerable to a financial crisis. They don't want you to stay liquid. They want to bury you down with Real Estate investments, Iphones, Car loans... When the shit hits the fan, you won't be able to lift a finger and banks will you rip you off one more time

As to me, that's mostly bullshit

If they actually wanted to rip you off, they could do that with cash as easily as with any other money (digital or otherwise). You seem to have never heard of confiscatory monetary reforms when all cash is announced null and void overnight (yes, exactly that happened in the past with some currencies). In this manner, cash is no salvation either (let alone a safe haven). Bitcoin in this aspect looks more promising overall, but you should still never forget that money is not wealth itself

[Hydrogen]

When you have no cash (or some other asset as liquid as cash-might be gold or bitcoin), you will stay vulnerable to a financial crisis. They don't want you to stay liquid. They want to bury you down with Real Estate investments, Iphones, Car loans... When the shit hits the fan, you won't be able to lift a finger and banks will you rip you off one more time.

Remember when Donald Trump complained corporate taxes in the united states?

He said none of america's wealthy nor american corporations were able to bring their money into the united states to help its economy due to tax rates being too high?

I wonder sometimes, if those high tax rates aren't deliberately implemented to keep their billions in offshore bank accounts.

So that when the world economies begin to crash, banks can steal from the wealthy and big corporations whose money they're holding.

Donald Trump is a billionaire, but the majority of his money is probably held in accounts of foreign banks. The same can likely be said for google, apple, microsoft--many big corporations and wealthy elites.

If that corporate tax rate is reduced, as Trump has planned, things are going to get very interesting if big corporations and wealthy elites are able to extract their money out of the foreign banks where they're held, almost as a form of ransom.

[Qartersa]

I think it would be beneficial to have a cashless world for the following reasons:

(1) Safety;
(2) Authenticity/Reliability; and,
(3) Convenience.

Although there may be drawbacks in the implementation of a cashless world, there are undeniably more benefits having it that (latter) way to cope up with times.

Note: When I say convenience, I meant there is no need to carry a huge sum with you nor wait for a change in every transaction.

[mindrust]

snip

snip

But in my opinion it is investment in real estate is a very good source of income. It does not matter what kind of property is residential or commercial.

Real Estate investments only make sense when the economy functions normally. It doesn't make sense to build your portfolio upon Real Estate while the central banks are printing money out of thin air.

Real Estate are not liquid assets. In an economical crisis, you won't be able to sell them fast. Because nobody will want them. Think about it, everybody needs one house to live inside and maybe one holiday house to have fun. What you gonna do with the third one? Doesn't make any sense. Even the second house doesn't make any sense to most people. You can rent the third, but you will be just another parasite to your country's economy.

When the markets crash (they will crash eventually), your RE investments will be worthless. Everybody will be running for another country's FIAT, or most likely, it will be gold they would want to have. (Gold it is If its the USA who is having a crash)

Bitcoin also is keeping to take more air because FIAT bubble haven't burst yet. When it does, nobody will want bitcoin neither. (maybe they will, it depends on how bad the situation is)

I forgot to add: What is more dangerous than owning houses is that borrowing money from banks to own them. Owning RE itself may not harm you till everything goes fullshit but you'll get rekt easily if you owe money to the banks.