Progressive Paraside: Central Government Control of Cashless Soceity

[The2ndAmendment]

Because you can't make this shit up:

Ban cash end boom and bust - Telegraph

The move could be a key moment in the advent of “cashless societies”. And once all money exists only in bank accounts – monitored, or even directly controlled by the government – the authorities will be able to encourage us to spend more when the economy slows, or spend less when it is overheating.

Having everyone’s account at a single, central institution allows the authorities to either encourage or discourage people to spend. 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. When this change in behaviour takes place across the country, the economy gets a significant fillip.

The recipient of cash responds in the same way, and also spends. Money circulates more quickly – or, as economists say, the “velocity of money” increases.

What about the opposite situation – when the economy is overheating? The central bank or government will certainly drop any negative interest on credit balances, but it could go further and impose a tax on transactions.

So whenever you use the money in your account to buy something, you pay a small penalty. That makes people less inclined to spend and more inclined to save, so reducing economic activity.

Such an approach would be a far more effective way to damp an overheated economy than today’s blunt tool of a rise in the central bank’s official interest rate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Another ridiculous straw man fallacy from the OP.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's a bizarre idea, but that's the point.

There is nothing "progressive paradise" about it, though. That's just from your own delusions.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Another ridiculous straw man fallacy from the OP.

What's the strawman?

Are you claiming the article is false?

 

[occupied]

It would work, It couldn't help but work, but there is still a place for cash when drugs and prostitution are still illegal.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Another ridiculous straw man fallacy from the OP.

What's the strawman?

Are you claiming the article is false?

The straw man is that it represents a "progressive paradise".

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Another ridiculous straw man fallacy from the OP.

What's the strawman?

Are you claiming the article is false?

The straw man is that it represents a "progressive paradise".

Are you claiming that Progressives don't want this?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because you can't make this shit up:

Ban cash end boom and bust - Telegraph

The move could be a key moment in the advent of “cashless societies”. And once all money exists only in bank accounts – monitored, or even directly controlled by the government – the authorities will be able to encourage us to spend more when the economy slows, or spend less when it is overheating.

Having everyone’s account at a single, central institution allows the authorities to either encourage or discourage people to spend. 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. When this change in behaviour takes place across the country, the economy gets a significant fillip.

The recipient of cash responds in the same way, and also spends. Money circulates more quickly – or, as economists say, the “velocity of money” increases.

What about the opposite situation – when the economy is overheating? The central bank or government will certainly drop any negative interest on credit balances, but it could go further and impose a tax on transactions.

So whenever you use the money in your account to buy something, you pay a small penalty. That makes people less inclined to spend and more inclined to save, so reducing economic activity.

Such an approach would be a far more effective way to damp an overheated economy than today’s blunt tool of a rise in the central bank’s official interest rate.

Progressives would drool at the prospect of eliminating cash.
The reasons are obvious

 

[thereisnospoon]

Another ridiculous straw man fallacy from the OP.

What's the strawman?

Are you claiming the article is false?

The straw man is that it represents a "progressive paradise".

Are you claiming that Progressives don't want this?

Two of USMB's lefty moon bats are not objecting to the possibility of a cashless Denmark....
Ruh roh....

 

[bripat9643]

Because you can't make this shit up:

Ban cash end boom and bust - Telegraph

The move could be a key moment in the advent of “cashless societies”. And once all money exists only in bank accounts – monitored, or even directly controlled by the government – the authorities will be able to encourage us to spend more when the economy slows, or spend less when it is overheating.

Having everyone’s account at a single, central institution allows the authorities to either encourage or discourage people to spend. 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. When this change in behaviour takes place across the country, the economy gets a significant fillip.

The recipient of cash responds in the same way, and also spends. Money circulates more quickly – or, as economists say, the “velocity of money” increases.

What about the opposite situation – when the economy is overheating? The central bank or government will certainly drop any negative interest on credit balances, but it could go further and impose a tax on transactions.

So whenever you use the money in your account to buy something, you pay a small penalty. That makes people less inclined to spend and more inclined to save, so reducing economic activity.

Such an approach would be a far more effective way to damp an overheated economy than today’s blunt tool of a rise in the central bank’s official interest rate.

The creation of the Federal Reserve was supposed to end the boom and bust. Why would anyone belief this latest scam would work?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Another ridiculous straw man fallacy from the OP.

What's the strawman?

Are you claiming the article is false?

The straw man is that it represents a "progressive paradise".

Are you claiming that Progressives don't want this?

Two of USMB's lefty moon bats are not objecting to the possibility of a cashless Denmark....
Ruh roh....

In other words, it is indeed their paradise.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Another ridiculous straw man fallacy from the OP.

What's the strawman?

Are you claiming the article is false?

The straw man is that it represents a "progressive paradise".

Are you claiming that Progressives don't want this?

Why don't you show me some "Progressives" in the US that do?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Another ridiculous straw man fallacy from the OP.

What's the strawman?

Are you claiming the article is false?

The straw man is that it represents a "progressive paradise".

Are you claiming that Progressives don't want this?

Two of USMB's lefty moon bats are not objecting to the possibility of a cashless Denmark....
Ruh roh....

Why should anyone "object" to a theoretical argument published in a British newspaper?

 

[bripat9643]

Another ridiculous straw man fallacy from the OP.

What's the strawman?

Are you claiming the article is false?

The straw man is that it represents a "progressive paradise".

The fact that a claim may be false doesn't make it a staw man argument. Neither you nor Clayton know the first thing about logic.

 

[bripat9643]

Another ridiculous straw man fallacy from the OP.

What's the strawman?

Are you claiming the article is false?

The straw man is that it represents a "progressive paradise".

Are you claiming that Progressives don't want this?

Two of USMB's lefty moon bats are not objecting to the possibility of a cashless Denmark....
Ruh roh....

Why should anyone "object" to a theoretical argument published in a British newspaper?

They should object because it's a stupid totalitarian scheme.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Another ridiculous straw man fallacy from the OP.

What's the strawman?

Are you claiming the article is false?

The straw man is that it represents a "progressive paradise".

Are you claiming that Progressives don't want this?

Two of USMB's lefty moon bats are not objecting to the possibility of a cashless Denmark....
Ruh roh....

Why should anyone "object" to a theoretical argument published in a British newspaper?

It's not a theoretical argument, it's up for a vote in Denmark.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What's the strawman?

Are you claiming the article is false?

The straw man is that it represents a "progressive paradise".

Are you claiming that Progressives don't want this?

Two of USMB's lefty moon bats are not objecting to the possibility of a cashless Denmark....
Ruh roh....

Why should anyone "object" to a theoretical argument published in a British newspaper?

They should object because it's a stupid totalitarian scheme.

Do you make it a habit to make sure you're on record "objecting" to everything in the world you disagree with?

 

[occupied]

The thing I like most about this plan is that banks do not have access to consumer accounts to play on the stock market. We used to have that rule here but the banks wanted it so we naturally gave it to them.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What's the strawman?

Are you claiming the article is false?

The straw man is that it represents a "progressive paradise".

Are you claiming that Progressives don't want this?

Two of USMB's lefty moon bats are not objecting to the possibility of a cashless Denmark....
Ruh roh....

Why should anyone "object" to a theoretical argument published in a British newspaper?

It's not a theoretical argument, it's up for a vote in Denmark.

No, a "cashless society" is NOT "up for a vote" in Denmark. A law allowing businesses to refuse cash is.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No, a "cashless society" is NOT "up for a vote" in Denmark. A law allowing businesses to refuse cash is.

AND WHAT IS THE DESIGN BEHIND THAT LAW? WHAT DOES THAT LAW INTEND TO ACCOMPLISH?

(mod note: fixed quote tags)