Nowhere to Hide: IMF Advocates a Cashless World

[Hydrogen]

There is no any monopoly over currency exchange. You can go in a bank and exchange your money by bank's prices or can go in a street exchanger and exchange there. The world is too far from the bank's monopoly, baddy 

Street exchangers work for banks or are owned by banks.

You don't exchange anything without banks being involved.

Cashless society is a banker monopoly, and a bad idea.

You make a few false assumptions in your post

First, banks and large international corporations are essentially the same. Some corporations even set up their own banks (though the connection may be not open, of course), so they can't possibly steal their own money. Further, you erroneously assume that the wealth of both big and small corporations consists in money they keep in banks. This is obviously not so. Even the largest corporations may have a very small amount of money in their bank accounts, just enough for current operational expenses. And if these expenses are small it doesn't make sense to keep plenty of money in the bank account

Almost anyone living in a capitalist country can start a corporation.

When it comes to banks, no one is allowed to start a bank. In many cases its illegal to start a bank, just like its illegal for someone to print their own currency. This idea you have that corporations set up their own banks has no basis that I have seen. Some corporations like facebook have their own digital currency that they allow people to use to exchange things. But they do not setup their own banking or financial entities.

As undoubtedly many have said before, banks have the best financial network for exploiting tax loopholes. All of those offshore accounts corporations and evil dictators use to hide money are run by the banking institution. This is a part of how banks wield so much political influence over politicans and leaders of the world.

[1715443423]

1715443423

[1715443423]

1715443423

[1715443423]

1715443423

[CyberKuro]

“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.

I know IMF and bank will do everything to keep you bringing your hard earned to them. That is the major way the elites and politicians can control the world and humanity and that is the reason they are fighting bitcoin and crypto currencies. In every country few enjoy the benefits of banking and those are elites and they children.

People have been influenced to keep their money in bank and nowadays we can't avoid to use bank service to do some daily transactions, not only just send-receive money. But, every country have their own policy about return amount if bank goes bankrupt, so never save your money exceed those numbers. Nothing can force you to keep all of your funds in bank, that's your choice.

[andrei56]

In the 21st century, cashless world is here whether we like it or not and the teeming population especially those who have the little ability of using the internet couple with affordable smart phones would continue to embrace it because it makes our life easier. Even the bitcoin we have today, majority of us don't have the physical coin rather the e-bitcoin so its not a bad thing but rather a development in the right direction for everyone to tap into.

A true cashless society would be one where people wouldn't even be allowed to use cash for anything, so it's still not here.
I really don't see how that could even work 100% of the time, cash is still needed for some people.

What do you mean by saying that people do not have 'the physical coin' (Bitcoin?)?

I think a society where no cash is used at all is impossible but we could argue that a cashless society is one where most of the transactions are not done with cash and you will see that most first world countries societies already fit that description.

[deisik]

There is no any monopoly over currency exchange. You can go in a bank and exchange your money by bank's prices or can go in a street exchanger and exchange there. The world is too far from the bank's monopoly, baddy 

Street exchangers work for banks or are owned by banks.

You don't exchange anything without banks being involved.

Cashless society is a banker monopoly, and a bad idea.

You make a few false assumptions in your post

First, banks and large international corporations are essentially the same. Some corporations even set up their own banks (though the connection may be not open, of course), so they can't possibly steal their own money. Further, you erroneously assume that the wealth of both big and small corporations consists in money they keep in banks. This is obviously not so. Even the largest corporations may have a very small amount of money in their bank accounts, just enough for current operational expenses. And if these expenses are small it doesn't make sense to keep plenty of money in the bank account

Almost anyone living in a capitalist country can start a corporation

To start a bank you need sufficient capital

If you have that, you can start a bank, as plain and simple as it gets. This is certainly not about "no one is allowed to start a bank". Apart from that, I don't see what it has to do with your point. Further, it is not my idea that big corporations can and do establish their own "pet" banks (I have provided you a link). In fact, many international or just large enough companies which started as pure production (or whatever) firms are now part of large financial groups which include banks to serve the interests of these groups. The fact that Facebook doesn't have a bank means that it is not a corporation (which it is not) or it doesn't need a bank, just as simple. I don't understand why you continue this futile argument

[Przemax]

The whole reason for a cashless society is to sieze your money.

Not many people know that you, by putting your money on a bank you agree that those money are not yours. The banks are only obliged to give you back your money because of the PR costs. If the PR is bad enough they would no incentive to give them back. And noone wil fore them to do that.

I would say. Go ahead and go after the cash. All of those that want to diversify their assets will come and buy cryptos.

[Hydrogen]

To start a bank you need sufficient capital

If you have that, you can start a bank, as plain and simple as it gets. This is certainly not about "no one is allowed to start a bank". Apart from that, I don't see what it has to do with your point. Further, it is not my idea that big corporations can and do establish their own "pet" banks (I have provided you a link). In fact, many international or just large enough companies which started as pure production (or whatever) firms are now part of large financial groups which include banks to serve the interests of these groups. The fact that Facebook doesn't have a bank means that it is not a corporation (which it is not) or it doesn't need a bank, just as simple. I don't understand why you continue this futile argument

Gazprombank was founded in 1990. Its not a new bank. Russia being one of the few countries not run by international bankers, it is probably one of the few countries which would allow someone to start a relatively new bank.

Can you name a bank that was recently founded by a large corporation as you claim?

It is illegal to start a bank in most countries that are run by central banks. There's a reason why no one goes into the banking business despite the technology being used by most banks being old, obsolete and outdated.

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

To start a bank you need sufficient capital

If you have that, you can start a bank, as plain and simple as it gets. This is certainly not about "no one is allowed to start a bank". Apart from that, I don't see what it has to do with your point. Further, it is not my idea that big corporations can and do establish their own "pet" banks (I have provided you a link). In fact, many international or just large enough companies which started as pure production (or whatever) firms are now part of large financial groups which include banks to serve the interests of these groups. The fact that Facebook doesn't have a bank means that it is not a corporation (which it is not) or it doesn't need a bank, just as simple. I don't understand why you continue this futile argument

Gazprombank was founded in 1990. Its not a new bank. Russia being one of the few countries not run by international bankers, it is probably one of the few countries which would allow someone to start a relatively new bank.

Can you name a bank that was recently founded by a large corporation as you claim?

It is illegal to start a bank in most countries that are run by central banks. There's a reason why no one goes into the banking business despite the technology being used by most banks being old, obsolete and outdated.

Russia is one of the oldest to be run by international bankers: The Central Bank of the Russian Federation also known as the Bank of Russia (Russian: Бaнк Poccии Bank Rossii) is the central bank of the Russian Federation, founded in 1860.

How else would profiteering from FINANCED wars involving Russia be so easy for international central banks to coordinate?

[deisik]

To start a bank you need sufficient capital

If you have that, you can start a bank, as plain and simple as it gets. This is certainly not about "no one is allowed to start a bank". Apart from that, I don't see what it has to do with your point. Further, it is not my idea that big corporations can and do establish their own "pet" banks (I have provided you a link). In fact, many international or just large enough companies which started as pure production (or whatever) firms are now part of large financial groups which include banks to serve the interests of these groups. The fact that Facebook doesn't have a bank means that it is not a corporation (which it is not) or it doesn't need a bank, just as simple. I don't understand why you continue this futile argument

Gazprombank was founded in 1990. Its not a new bank. Russia being one of the few countries not run by international bankers, it is probably one of the few countries which would allow someone to start a relatively new bank.

Can you name a bank that was recently founded by a large corporation as you claim?

Can you name a large corporation founded recently?

Until you can your whole question is pointless. Just in case, Facebook is not a corporation. On the other hand, Samsung is such corporation (just the first name which came to my mind), simply and unpretentiously called Samsung Group (and it is from Korea). Unsurprisingly, this group also includes quite a few affiliated businesses or owned companies busy with financial and banking operations. As per Wikipedia, "Samsung Life Insurance currently holds a 7.4% stake in the South Korean banking company DGB Financial Group, making it the largest shareholder". And this is only what can be called public knowedge, something which you can read about in Internet

[Hydrogen]

Russia is one of the oldest to be run by international bankers: The Central Bank of the Russian Federation also known as the Bank of Russia (Russian: Бaнк Poccии Bank Rossii) is the central bank of the Russian Federation, founded in 1860.

How else would profiteering from FINANCED wars involving Russia be so easy for international central banks to coordinate?

I think most can agree Hillary Clinton represents international banking cartels.

If russia is run by central banks, why would Hillary call for war between russia and the united states? NATO and the UN have consistently acted against russian interests in ukraine and europe. Conflict between russia and politicians who are funded by globalists, doesn't make much sense if you think about it. Russia waging war against the united states, with both countries trying very hard to undermine each other is like bankers going to war with bankers. It only makes sense if russia isn't run by central banks.

A country having a central bank isn't evidence they're on team globalism. Hungary has a central bank and managed to cut all ties with globalist parties. Russia having a central bank, doesn't mean anything.

Neither Putin nor russia's government are pushing gender fluidity, atheism, socialism, open borders & immigration nor any of the campaigns bankers push worldwide. Russia does not look like a country run by central bankers.

Can you name a large corporation founded recently?

Until you can your whole question is pointless. Just in case, Facebook is not a corporation. On the other hand, Samsung is such corporation (just the first name which came to my mind), simply and unpretentiously called Samsung Group (and it is from Korea). Unsurprisingly, this group also includes quite a few affiliated businesses or owned companies busy with financial and banking operations. As per Wikipedia, "Samsung Life Insurance currently holds a 7.4% stake in the South Korean banking company DGB Financial Group, making it the largest shareholder". And this is only what can be called public knowedge, something which you can read about in Internet

Initially, you said corporations "start" their own banks.

Now you're saying corporations do not start banks.

They buy stock in existing banks.

What you're saying seems to evolve and change everyday!

 

[deisik]

Can you name a large corporation founded recently?

Until you can your whole question is pointless. Just in case, Facebook is not a corporation. On the other hand, Samsung is such corporation (just the first name which came to my mind), simply and unpretentiously called Samsung Group (and it is from Korea). Unsurprisingly, this group also includes quite a few affiliated businesses or owned companies busy with financial and banking operations. As per Wikipedia, "Samsung Life Insurance currently holds a 7.4% stake in the South Korean banking company DGB Financial Group, making it the largest shareholder". And this is only what can be called public knowedge, something which you can read about in Internet

Initially, you said corporations "start" their own banks

And I provided you a link which proves my point

Then you complained that it was a way too old. I don't know how it disproves my point. I didn't say that all corporations start their own banks but some certainly do. If you come to disagree, you may have to bring forth more substantial arguments and evidence rather than just claiming that it was 25 years ago. But if you are still going to insist (that 25 years is too long ago), you may have to come up with a corporation that was founded within this time frame. Nevertheless, you may really want to read this. Fill free to ask if you have any questions