Media Discourages Cash Use; Calls Cashless Society a “Conspiracy Theory”

0
384

by Peter Schiff, Schiff Gold:

We’ve written extensively about the “war on cash.”  Government officials and academics offer all kinds of plausible rationals for moving toward a cashless society. Most of them involve consumer convenience and the ability to battle drug dealers and big-time criminal organizations. But make no mistake, governments love the idea of eliminating cash for more a more sinister reason — it would make it possible for them to track every single purchase you make. And it would also allow them to exercise a tremendous amount of control over individuals.

Of course, making that kind of argument will quickly get you labeled a “conspiracy theorist.” In fact, the media recently went after critics of the war on cash for being just that. But as Gavin Wax said in the following article, “If that makes you a conspiracy theorist in the eyes of the average journalist, who cares?”

The following article by Gavin Wax was originally published at FEE. The opinions expressed by the author for your consideration are his and do not necessarily reflect those of Peter Schiff or SchiffGold.

Before there was a coin shortage, cash was under attack in the media and portrayed as a COVID-19 hazard. Now news outlets are making sure everyone knows only to think of a looming cashless society as a “conspiracy theory.”

At the height of anxiety over the coronavirus, CNN berated the American people for using cash. “Do NOT take a bunch of cash out of the bank” rang one headline, and “Dirty money: The case against using cash during the coronavirus outbreak” read another.

CBS News similarly ran an anti-cash story at the time, as did other mainstream networks, but more recent stories feign concern about the growing suspicion of an impending digital coup against paper and coined money.

It’s always funny how the media manipulates emotions, giving us something to be outraged about one day and trying to calm us down the next day if we’re outraged about the wrong thing.

Americans should be concerned about moves away from cash, and there is nothing wrong about questioning who would benefit and who would lose in a cashless society. If that makes you a conspiracy theorist in the eyes of the average journalist, who cares?

It was just last year that Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan said, “We want a cashless society.”

Big banks and financial institutions would reap obvious benefits, beyond saving on the costs of transacting in coins and paper as well as transporting them. They would have that much more data to collect in bulk on their customers.

In the era of Cancel Culture, other more nightmarish consequences are stunningly easy to fathom. The difference between being banned from social platforms and financial platforms is a matter of degree, and the latter is already happening.

There is no downside to a cashless society for its fiercest proponents. They aren’t worried about finding an under-the-table side hustle or working for tips. They aren’t kids trying to mow a lawn or who are otherwise priced out or regulated out of the market by minimum wage and child labor laws.

The big players thrive in heavily top-down regulatory regimes. The smaller ones who might improve their standing need the freedom that cash provides.

Unfortunately, some leftist progressives are spearheading efforts to “help” people in lower economic strata be swathed up in the post-cash digital system. That would entail subsidizing free checking accounts or other special access to the financial system.

At last, inclusiveness and equality will be guaranteed once that “fascist cash” is out of the way. The campaign slogan will go something like that.

Many anti-cash advocates also tend to favor negative interest rates and much freer rein for central banks. Such policies are easier to enact without physical forms of legal tender. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell expressed his aversion to negative interest rates “for now” back in May, but President Donald Trump and other monetary theorists support the idea.

Negative interest rates mean an end to savings, so that consumerism becomes all-encompassing for economic activity. The permanent stimulus would become a compulsory force, rather than a relief amid a downturn.

Read More @ SchiffGold.com