"Cashless" society--wet-dream of central-bankers, suckers, necessary part of modern SLAVERY, morons

Apollonian

Guest Columnist
"Cashless" society--wet-dream of central-bankers, suckers, necessary part of modern SLAVERY, morons

Canada’s Going CASHLESS! – As Economy CRUMBLES, Banks Want CONTROL!

October 18, 2019 by IWB

Link: https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/canadas-going-cashless-as-economy-crumbles-banks-want-control/


Josh Sigurdson talks with author and economic analyst John Sneisen about the fast approaching cashless society worldwide, especially in Canada as the Bank of Canada not only talks about a new completely digital currency to replace cash entirely but actually pushes forward projects like Project Jasper in order to sign off on a centrally planned cashless system utilizing legal tender laws.

Governments around the world have been pushing towards a cashless society for some time now. With many central banks looking at negative interest rates, being able to go cashless before the negative interest rate policies are in place would make the job of the central bankers much easier. It would be like a bail in without people being able to do much of anything about it other than get out of the dollar.

That’s the concern. The Bank of Canada’s has been looking at a presentation called “Central Bank Money: The Next Generation” on top of Project Jasper where they hope to use a cashless system to track all transactions. They lay it out pretty clearly. They want complete control.

They point out that they must unroll such a cashless system before more people get into decentralized cryptocurrency or before more people pile up cash. This is an obvious alarming concern of theirs as it tells us exactly why they want to go into this system that the IMF has been looking into for a long time. So banks always own the money and nothing is private.

We see cashless systems showing up all over the world including India, Australia, Sweden and other even larger major powers worldwide.

This just means we as individuals have to responsibly pull more power away from that system on an individual level.

As an even larger recession approaches apart from the technical recession we’ve seen on our doorsteps for over ten years, this issue will become far more prevalent.
 

Why Does Money Have Value? Not Because the Government Says It Does.​

by Frank Shostak | Mises.org
October 6th 2021, 3:33 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/why-does-money-have-value-not-because-the-government-says-it-does/

Why do individuals desire to have money, which cannot be consumed and produces nothing?

To provide an answer to this one must go back in time to establish how money emerged.

Why does the dollar bill in our pockets have value?

According to some commentators, money has value because the government in power says so. For other commentators the value of money is on account of social convention. What this implies is that money has value because it is accepted, and why is it accepted? … because it is accepted! Obviously, this is not a good explanation of why money has value.1


The difference between Money and Other Goods​

Now, demand for a good arises from its perceived benefit. For instance, people demand food because of the nourishment it offers them once consumed. This is not so with respect to money. According to Murray N. Rothbard,

Money, per se, cannot be consumed and cannot be used directly as a producers’ good in the productive process. Money per se is therefore unproductive; it is dead stock and produces nothing.2
Why, then, is there demand for money? Why do individuals desire to have something which cannot be consumed and produces nothing? To provide an answer to this one must go back in time to establish how money emerged.

In trying to improve their lives and well-being, individuals discovered that by replacing direct exchange, where individuals exchange one good for another good, with indirect exchange they could enhance the marketability of their produce. The introduction of indirect exchange means that the produce of an individual is exchanged for some more marketable good and then this good is exchanged for the produce of another individual.

The key to a good’s emergence as a mediator of indirect exchange is that it must be widely accepted. On this, Ludwig von Mises observed that, over time,

there would be an inevitable tendency for the less marketable of the series of goods used as media of exchange to be one by one rejected until at last only a single commodity remained, which was universally employed as a medium of exchange; in a word, money.3
Similarly, Murray Rothbard wrote that,

Just as in nature, there is a great variety of skills and resources, so there is a variety in the marketability of goods. Some goods are more widely demanded than others, some are more divisible into smaller units without loss of value, some more durable over long periods of time, some more transportable over large distances. All of these advantages make for greater marketability. It is clear that in every society, the most marketable goods will be gradually selected as the media for exchange. As they are more and more selected as media, the demand for them increases because of this use, and so they become even more marketable. The result is a reinforcing spiral: more marketability causes wider use as a medium, which causes more marketability, etc. Eventually, one or two commodities are used as general media—in almost all exchanges—and these are called money.4
Through the ongoing process of selection, people settled on gold as their preferred general medium of exchange. By means of money, individuals can make goods they have produced more marketable. Thus, a butcher can now trade with a vegetarian shoemaker. The butcher can exchange his meat for money and then exchange the money for shoes.

What makes goods more marketable is the wide acceptance of money by individuals. What gives rise to this acceptance is that money has a purchasing power, i.e., a price. People demand money because it has purchasing power. How does a thing that serves as the medium of exchange acquire its purchasing power—its price in terms of other goods?

We know that the law of supply and demand explains the price of a good. Likewise, it would appear that the same law should explain the price of money.

However, there is a problem with this way of thinking, since the demand for money arises because money has purchasing power, i.e., money has a price. Yet if the demand for money depends on its purchasing power, i.e., its price, how can this price be explained by demand?

We are seemingly caught here in a circular trap, for the purchasing power of money is explained by the demand for money while the demand for money is explained by its purchasing power.

This circularity seems to provide credibility to the view that the acceptance of money is the result of a government decree and social convention.

Mises Explained How Money’s Purchasing Power Originated​

Now the process of selection explains how the most marketable commodity was selected as the general medium of exchange. This process however, does not tell us how the purchasing power of money originated.

In his writings, Mises showed how money acquired its purchasing power.4 He began his analysis by noting that today’s demand for money is determined by the yesterday’s purchasing power of money. (Remember individuals accept money because it has purchasing power, a price).

Consequently, for a given supply of money, today’s purchasing power is established. Yesterday’s demand for money in turn was fixed by the prior day’s purchasing power of money. Therefore, the price of a given supply of money was set by yesterday’s price of money. The same procedure applies to past periods. By regressing through time, we will eventually arrive at a point in time when money was just an ordinary commodity whose price was set by demand and supply.

The commodity had an exchange value in terms of other commodities, i.e., its exchange value was established in barter. On the day a commodity becomes money, it already has an established purchasing power in terms of other goods. This price enables us to form a demand for this commodity as money.

This, in turn, sets the purchasing power of a given supply of this commodity on the day the commodity starts to function as money. Once the price of money is established, it becomes an input in tomorrow’s price of money.

It follows, then, that without yesterday’s information about the price of money, today’s purchasing power of money cannot be established. History is not required to establish the prices of other goods. A demand for these goods arises because of the perceived benefits of consuming them. But the benefit that money provides is that it can be exchanged for goods and services. Consequently, one needs to know the past purchasing power of money in order to establish today’s demand for money.

Using Mises’s framework of thought, also known as the regression theorem, we can infer that it is not possible that money could have emerged as a result of a government decree, a government endorsement, or a social convention. The theorem shows that money must emerge as a commodity. On this Rothbard wrote,

In contrast to directly used consumers’ or producers’ goods, money must have pre-existing prices on which to ground a demand. But the only way this can happen is by beginning with a useful commodity under barter, and then adding demand for a medium to the previous demand for direct use (e.g., for ornaments, in the case of gold). Thus government is powerless to create money for the economy; the process of the free market can only develop it.5
Note that the fact that a thing acquires a purchasing power in terms of other goods and services does not qualify it automatically as money. What is required is that the thing become the most marketable entity. The fact that potatoes have an exchange value with respect to various goods does not make potatoes the general medium of exchange. For this to happen, potatoes must acquire wide acceptance as the medium of exchange, i.e., one could use potatoes in most transactions.

Paper Money and Gold​

How does all that we have said so far relate to the paper dollar? Originally, paper money was not regarded as money but merely as a representation of gold. Various paper certificates represented claims on gold stored with the banks. Holders of paper certificates could convert them into gold whenever they deemed necessary. Because people found it more convenient to use paper certificates in the exchange for goods and services, these certificates came to be regarded as money.

Because these certificates were seen as a representative of gold, they acquired purchasing power. Paper certificates that were accepted as the medium of exchange opened the door to fraudulent practice. Banks could now be tempted to boost their profits by lending certificates that were not actually covered by gold.

In a free market economy, a bank that overissues paper certificates will quickly find that the exchange value of its certificates in terms of goods and services is starting to decline. To protect their purchasing power, the holders of the overissued certificates would most likely attempt to convert them back into gold. If all of them were to demand gold back at the same time, this would bankrupt the bank. In a free market, then, the threat of bankruptcy would restrain banks from issuing paper certificates unbacked by gold.

The government can, however, bypass the free market discipline. It can issue a decree that makes it legal for the overissued banks not to redeem paper certificates into gold.

Once banks are not obliged to redeem paper certificates into gold, opportunities for large profits emerge that create incentives to pursue an unrestrained expansion of the supply of paper certificates. The unrestrained expansion of paper certificates raises the likelihood of setting off a galloping rise in the prices of goods and services that can lead to the breakdown of the market economy.

To prevent such a breakdown, the supply of paper money must be managed. An important reason for managing the supply, in addition to preventing galloping increases in prices, is to prevent various competing banks from bankrupting each other. This can be achieved by establishing a monopoly bank—i.e., a central bank—that manages the expansion of paper money. To assert its authority, the central bank introduces its own paper certificate, which replaces the certificates of various banks. The central bank paper certificate is exchanged for the other banks’ certificates at a fixed rate.

The central bank’s paper certificates’ purchasing power is established on the that of the certificates of the various banks. These certificates have a purchasing power because of their link to gold. Hence, the central bank’s paper certificates, which is fully backed by the other bank certificates, is also linked to gold. It follows, then, that the central bank’s paper certificates also acquired their purchasing power because of the link to gold.

Now, following the regression theorem, once the central bank paper certificate has acquired its purchasing power, this serves as an input in the demand for it. The current purchasing power of a given current supply of the central bank paper certificates can thus be established. Hence, the value of the central bank paper certificate, i.e., the paper money known as dollars, is established on account of its historical link to gold.

Conclusion​

Contrary to the popular way of thinking, the value of a paper dollar originates in its link to gold—and not government decree or social convention. Following Ludwig von Mises’s regression theorem, money must have originated as a commodity. Furthermore, the fact that an entity has established a purchasing power with respect to various goods and services does not automatically qualify it as money, i.e., as the general medium of exchange. For the entity to become money, it must have wide acceptance.
 

IMF unleashes Unicoin, a new global CBDC intended to enslave the entire planet under a one world digital currency​

STATION GOSSIP 10:12

Link: http://www.stationgossip.com/2023/04/imf-unleashes-unicoin-new-global-cbdc.html

The powers that be are working feverishly to unleash a new central bank-controlled cryptocurrency for the new world order, and one via...​


JUST IN: Supreme Court Temporary Lifts Restriction on Abortion Pill
Karine Jean-Pierre Praises Joe Biden For Walking (VIDEO)

The powers that be are working feverishly to unleash a new central bank-controlled cryptocurrency for the new world order, and one viable contender is the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) new Unicoin Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).
At the recent IMF spring meetings, the globalists unveiled their new “international central bank digital currency” called the Universal Monetary Unit, or UMU. The crypto coin functions just like a CBDC and serves as a legal and global money commodity.
“The purpose of this particular iteration of a CBDCs is to make sure banking regulations are enforced, as well as to protect ‘the financial integrity of the international banking system,'” reported Reclaim the Net.
Banks can use Unicoin via SWIFT codes and bank accounts that are linked to a UMU digital wallet. This will facilitate digital cross-border payments modeled after the existing SWIFT system, and the IMF says it will allow for the best wholesale exchange rates of settlement currencies along with real-time settlement “while bypassing the correspondent banking system.”

UMU will “strengthen” the existing international monetary system, says IMF​

Admittedly slow, expensive, and risky, the current cross-border payment system that exists can be “strengthened,” according to the IMF, by the implementation of UMU. The IMF also wants to do away with the term “crypto” in describing it, since cryptos are traditionally associated with decentralized digital currencies.

To set it apart from all that, the IMF wants UMU to be overtly a central bank-controlled crypto, or “Crypto 2.0,” as the globalist entity is now calling it.
As popular as centralized cryptos might be with the globalists, they are overwhelmingly unpopular among the general public. Most people seem to recognize that CBDCs like UMU are a pathway straight into an even worse financial slavery system than the one that already exists.
If central banks control the future of digital money, then you can be sure that all types of spying, tracking, social credit scoring, and other tyrannical schemes will be embedded into it, leaving humanity with no more freedom or liberty.
“More criticism has to do with CBDCs being seen as a way of introducing social credit scores and digital IDs, thus having individuals fully ceding to the government control over their own assets and/or the amount they spend,” reports explain.
“Unlike cash and decentralized crypto, CBCDs are feared to spell the end of private financial affairs, and usher in even more surveillance by the authorities.”
Obviously, this is all headed straight towards what the Bible predicted concerning a one-world currency and the infamous mark of the beast, which will be a necessary component of buying or selling. The question remains: will the mark be a CBDC, or will it be a much tricker decentralized paradigm that emerges just in time to “save” the world from the threat of a CBDC like Unicoin?
“No one, no matter his social class or influence, will be able to buy or sell unless he has a mark upon the forehead or hand to signify devotion to the beast,” wrote one commenter about the matter, quoting loosely from Revelation 13:16.
“It’s coming,” wrote another. “In America, the FedNow pilot program goes online later this month for early adopters, and is expected to be fully operational by fall 2023. All of the biggest payment processors are already on-board with this. Expect a major marketing blitz stressing the convenience of using it.”
 

Biden administration is quietly planning for a future where you don’t own money​

Opinion by Justin Haskins • 21h ago

Link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...t-own-money/ar-AA1aiOXO?ocid=sapphireappshare

[see vids at site link, above]
MARKETS TODAY

DJI▼‎-1.02%‎

INX▼‎-1.58%‎

COMP▼‎-1.98%‎
Under the leadership of President Joe Biden, the White House and the Federal Reserve have started to lay the groundwork for a programmable, trackable, easily manipulated digital currency. It might sound like something from a dystopian science-fiction novel, but it’s all too real, and it could soon change life in America forever.

A CBDC would not be a digital version of the existing paper-based dollar, but rather an entirely new currency that would exist exclusively in a digital (meaning an electronic, non-physical) form.

President Joe Biden departs the White House on Jan. 19, 2023. Win McNamee/Getty Images
President Joe Biden departs the White House on Jan. 19, 2023. Win McNamee/Getty Images© (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
In September 2022, the White House announced the completion of the CBDC reports. Although the administration did not officially propose a CBDC following the release of the reports, it did announce that it had developed "policy objectives" for a U.S. CBDC system.

BIDEN RULE WILL REDISTRIBUTE HIGH-RISK LOAN COSTS TO HOMEOWNERS WITH GOOD CREDIT

Biden also directed the leadership of the National Economic Council, National Security Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Treasury Department to "meet regularly" with the Federal Reserve to further design a potential CBDC.

READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP

Since the flurry of action in September, the administration has worked tirelessly – and quietly – to advance the creation of a CBDC, through various working groups, speeches and coordinated efforts with non-government groups.
Under the various CBDC proposals floated by the Biden administration and Federal Reserve, a U.S. CBDC would be programmable, traceable and designed to promote various left-wing social goals, such as improving "financial inclusion" and "equity." It would also be designed to help with "transitioning to a net-zero emissions economy and improving environmental justice."

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testifies during a U.S. House Oversight and Reform Select Subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill, June 22, 2021. Graeme Jennings/Pool via Reuters
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testifies during a U.S. House Oversight and Reform Select Subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill, June 22, 2021. Graeme Jennings/Pool via Reuters© Graeme Jennings/Pool via REUTERS
Unlike with decentralized cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, every transaction made using a CBDC could be easily traced to individual users by financial institutions, government agents and/or the Federal Reserve (depending on the details of the final design).
Additionally, because a CBDC would be digital and programmable, rules could be imposed that limit spending on approved activities. So, if the federal government or Federal Reserve were to determine that Americans are buying too much gasoline, for example, it could stop people from using CBDCs at gas stations with a few clicks on a computer.
Perhaps most disturbing of all, however, is that under most of the CBDC designs discussed by the Biden administration and Federal Reserve, nearly all forms of ownership of CBDC money would also be strictly limited. Only large institutions such as banks, the federal government, and/or the Federal Reserve would actually have ownership of CBDCs. Everyone else would be prevented from having absolute control over their digital money.

That means in Biden’s future, you will not own CBDC money, and you’ll have no privacy either.
How, exactly, would the Biden administration prevent most forms of private ownership of digital money? To best understand the answer to that question, you first need to know important details about the existing banking system.
Currently, when you go to the bank and deposit money into a checking or savings account, you immediately cease to own the money. The cash becomes the property of the bank. In most situations, the bank is required to return the money you provided to it at your request, but the cash ultimately belongs to the bank until you remove the money from your deposit account.
Under the current system, there is a way to regain control of your money, by withdrawing cash from a deposit account, and privacy laws prevent banks in many situations from giving away details about your financial accounts to third parties, including the government.

But because CBDCs would only exist in digital form in a deposit account, and because they would be programmed to feed data to government, there would be no way for you to physically take CBDCs out of a depository account, store them privately, own them directly, or use them without being surveilled by a large institution.
The Biden administration has directly acknowledged that a future where you don’t own CBDCs is exactly what it and the Federal Reserve are now considering. For example, in a 2022 report about CBDCs, the Treasury Department stated, "There are two general architectures for CBDC intermediation: (1) a single-tier (i.e., direct) CBDC with the central bank, and (2) a two-tier CBDC where intermediaries (potentially banks or nonbank financial intermediaries) would onboard and manage payments while the central bank records account balances."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

In other words, there’s no scenario in which you would be able to store your digital money in a local hard drive or private storage account. All of your money would be kept by a bank or the Federal Reserve directly, which means they would own all of your CBDC money.

The Federal Reserve building in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 22, 2008. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The Federal Reserve building in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 22, 2008. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images© Provided by FOX News
Regardless of where your CBDCs are held, it’s likely the federal government would have access to data about your purchases and other information – a design choice CBDC supporters say is necessary so that officials can limit criminal activity. The only significant privacy questions that remain in the minds of those who support CBDCs are about the extent of the data collection.
For example, Biden’s under secretary for domestic finance, Nellie Liang, explained in a March 2022 speech about CBDCs that "one way of reconciling privacy with illicit finance concerns in a retail CBDC might be to have a tiered structure in which less data are collected for small dollar transactions or small volume accounts."
Note that Liang says "less data" "might" be collected for small dollar accounts. She doesn’t say no data will be collected.
If a programmable CBDC is rolled out in the near future, you won’t own money and you’ll have very little privacy, if any at all. That’s great news for those who advocate for bigger government and want more power for large financial institutions, but it could prove to be a catastrophic loss of freedom for the rest of us.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JUSTIN HASKINS [ck site link, above, to
 
Here's the gameplan, suckers: CBDCs are such KNOWN disaster for the people, that the powers are going to create a horrendous economic disaster, replete w. gross starvation and economic depression, morons--to encourage the masses of brainless fools and scum to BEG for CBDCs as savior, u idiots

 
Here's great vid by Stossel and DeSantis, showing DeSantis very well understands the real implications of this criminal scam involving merely an electronic version of fiat-currency--excellent to know about DeSantis

 

Nomi Prins: The US Is A Giant Ponzi Scheme And Gold Will Be $3,500 Next Year… Jesse Colombo: Gold Is Ultra Cheap Relative To Stocks, Which Is What Has Occurred Before Major Historic Gold Bull Markets.​

May 29, 2023 8:37 am by IWB

Link: https://www.investmentwatchblog.com...urred-before-major-historic-gold-bull-market/

[see charts at site link, above]

Nomi Prins: Broadcast Interview – Available Now [Prins is a Jew, BUT tells truth about coming inflation, necessity of buying gold (or silver) as hedge to this coming catastrophe]

Nomi Prins is an American author, journalist, and Senior Fellow at Demos. She has worked as a managing director at Goldman-Sachs and as a Senior Managing Director at Bear Stearns, as well as having worked as a senior strategist at Lehman Brothers and analyst at the Chase Manhattan Bank. Prins is known for her books All the Presidents’ Bankers: The Hidden Alliances that Drive American Power, Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World and Permanent Distortion: How the Financial Markets Abandoned the Real Economy Forever.

See also Obese passengers weighed before flight…

BUCKLE UP: The “War on Inflation” Is Creating Even More Inflation | King World News

May 28 (King World News) – Matthew Piepenburg, partner at Matterhorn Asset Management: It’s true that, “the Devil is in the details.”
Anyone familiar with Wall Street in general, or market math in particular, for example, can wax poetic on acronym jargon, Greek math symbols, sigma moves in bond yields, chart contango or derivative market lingo.
Notwithstanding all those “details,” however, is a more fitting phrase for our times, namely: “Keep it simple, stupid.”
 

Americans Don't Want A Central Bank Digital Currency; New Poll Finds​

BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, JUN 12, 2023 - 05:30 AM
Authored by Adam Dick via The Ron Paul Institute,

Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-...-central-bank-digital-currency-new-poll-finds

A poll from the Cato Institute indicates that, while about half of Americans do not have an opinion regarding whether the Federal Reserve should “begin offering a government-issued digital currency, called a ‘central bank digital currency’ (CBDC),” among those with an opinion on the matter over twice as many - 34 percent of poll participants - oppose the prospect as support it - 16 percent.

This result of the poll conducted from February 27 through March 8 in collaboration with YouGov is promising for Americans concerned about the threat a CBDC, which the Federal Reserve and big financial companies have been testing in preparation for its potential introduction, poses to freedom and privacy in America.
The poll results further indicate that, if Americans can be educated about the abusive government powers a CBDC can advance, many Americans currently undecided regarding the introduction of a CBDC will see good reason to oppose it. Emily Ekins and Jordan Gygi wrote in their May 31 in-depth Cato Institute article concerning the poll results:
Overwhelming majorities would oppose the adoption of a CBDC if it meant that the government could control what people spend their money on (74%), that the government could monitor their spending (68%), that a CBDC would abolish all U.S. cash (68%), that a CBDC would attract cyberattacks (65%), that the government could charge a tax on those who don’t spend money during recessions (64%), or that the government could freeze the digital bank accounts of political protesters (59%). Americans were marginally opposed (52%) if a CBDC could cause some people to stop using private banks, resulting in some banks going out of business.
The candidates now in second place in the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries - Ron DeSantis and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. - appear to be in the anti-CBDC camp.
Hopefully, we will see more and more politicians joining them over the coming months in standing up against this threat posed by the Federal Reserve and US government.
Meanwhile, it is also important that Americans across the country educate the people they come into contact with about why a CBDC in America is unacceptable.
The new poll from the Cato Institute suggests that many people will be receptive to this message.
 
Back
Top