Progressive Paraside: Central Government Control of Cashless Soceity

[theDoctorisIn]

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)

I don't know. Let's ask the authors of the law, as quoted in the article you linked:

The aim is to ease “administrative and financial burdens”, such as the cost of hiring a security service to send cash to the bank, and is part of a programme of reforms aimed at boosting growth – there is evidence that high cash usage in an economy acts as a drag.

 

[occupied]

You government control paranoiacs should pause for a moment and consider that even in a cashless society crypto-currency will still provide an anonymous means of exchange so you can still buy hookers and blow.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Centralized government banking accounts? Why don't I like this?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, yeah, this is why:

But 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.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is government telling you how to spend your money. Government shouldn't have that power. Once you earn your money, it's yours; to spend as you please within legal means.

 

[BluesLegend]

They racked up $18 trillion dollars in debt, yeah I'll take financial advice from the government when hell freezes over.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh, yeah, this is why:

But 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.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is government telling you how to spend your money. Government shouldn't have that power, once you earn your money, it's yours to spend as you please within legal means.

You're not mistaken, but it doesn't matter. It's not "real", it's just an article in a magazine.

 

[occupied]

Centralized government banking accounts? Why don't I like this?

Because no one is getting obscenely wealthy? Couldn't possibly fuck us as badly as the big banks.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's not "real", it's just an article in a magazine.

I know. I think the whole thing is preposterous. But its still cool to analyze and discuss it, even though it will never happen. A cashless society would be too prone to fraud and crime. Right now it would be impossible to implement such a system, same in the future. When a system adapts, so too do those seeking to exploit it.

A theory isn't a reality unless it's proven.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ahhh, sensationalism...

 

[occupied]

It's not "real", it's just an article in a magazine.

I know. I think the whole thing is preposterous. But its still cool to analyze and discuss it. Even though it will never happen.

We will go cashless at some point, not anytime soon but it will happen. As I said earlier, a crypto-currency such as bitcoin will fill the need for anonymous exchange.

 

[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....

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

How is it you concluded my comment to the OP had anything to do with you?

 

[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?

How is it you concluded my comment to the OP had anything to do with you?

It doesn't matter whether it was directed towards me, or anyone else. That's why I said "anyone".

 

[thereisnospoon]

Centralized government banking accounts? Why don't I like this?

Because no one is getting obscenely wealthy? Couldn't possibly fuck us as badly as the big banks.

Obscene wealth?
You don't get to make that determination because it's none of your business.
Worry about your own bank account.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

How is it you concluded my comment to the OP had anything to do with you?

It doesn't matter whether it was directed towards me, or anyone else. That's why I said "anyone".

Ha...Nice try....Of course it matters.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

We will go cashless at some point, not anytime soon but it will happen. As I said earlier, a crypto-currency such as bitcoin will fill the need for anonymous exchange.

No it won't.

The preservation of Bitcoin's anonymity is indirectly linked to the anonymity of cash. Governments will not go to extreme lengths to monitor Bitcoin so long as cash exists, since anyone seeking anonymity could always REVERT to cash if Bitcoin became too heavily monitored (and thus all the time and resources spent on monitoring Bitcoin would go to waste).

However, once cash is removed, then there is NO ALTERNATIVE to Bitcoin for anonymity, and you can bet your ass that's when an incredible amount of resources devoted to heuristic analysis of of microdata will be ushered forward to remove all anonymity for electronic currency.

And then where do we turn after cash is gone, and the confidence in Bitcoin's anonymity is forfeit? Bartering?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

We will go cashless at some point, not anytime soon but it will happen. As I said earlier, a crypto-currency such as bitcoin will fill the need for anonymous exchange.

No it won't.

Bitcoin's anonymity is indirectly linked to the anonymity of cash. Governments will not go to extreme lengths to monitor Bitcoin so long as cash exists, since anyone seeking anonymity could always REVERT to cash if Bitcoin became too heavily monitored (and thus all the time and resources spent on monitoring Bitcoin would go to waste).

However, once cash is removed, then there is NO ALTERNATIVE to Bitcoin for anonymity, and you can bet your ass that's when an incredible amount of resources devoted to heuristic analysis of of microdata will be ushered forward to remove all anonymity for electronic currency.

And then where do we turn after cash is gone? Bartering?

Um, that's not my quote.

How is it that you manage to screw the quote tags up so often?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

We will go cashless at some point, not anytime soon but it will happen. As I said earlier, a crypto-currency such as bitcoin will fill the need for anonymous exchange.

No it won't.

Bitcoin's anonymity is indirectly linked to the anonymity of cash. Governments will not go to extreme lengths to monitor Bitcoin so long as cash exists, since anyone seeking anonymity could always REVERT to cash if Bitcoin became too heavily monitored (and thus all the time and resources spent on monitoring Bitcoin would go to waste).

However, once cash is removed, then there is NO ALTERNATIVE to Bitcoin for anonymity, and you can bet your ass that's when an incredible amount of resources devoted to heuristic analysis of of microdata will be ushered forward to remove all anonymity for electronic currency.

And then where do we turn after cash is gone? Bartering?

Um, that's not my quote.

How is it that you manage to screw the quote tags up so often?

No idea.

 

[occupied]

We will go cashless at some point, not anytime soon but it will happen. As I said earlier, a crypto-currency such as bitcoin will fill the need for anonymous exchange.

No it won't.

The preservation of Bitcoin's anonymity is indirectly linked to the anonymity of cash. Governments will not go to extreme lengths to monitor Bitcoin so long as cash exists, since anyone seeking anonymity could always REVERT to cash if Bitcoin became too heavily monitored (and thus all the time and resources spent on monitoring Bitcoin would go to waste).

However, once cash is removed, then there is NO ALTERNATIVE to Bitcoin for anonymity, and you can bet your ass that's when an incredible amount of resources devoted to heuristic analysis of of microdata will be ushered forward to remove all anonymity for electronic currency.

And then where do we turn after cash is gone, and the confidence in Bitcoin's anonymity is forfeit? Bartering?

Even if crypto-currency becomes un-anonymous there will be something, black markets will exist as long as sinful activities and substances are illegal. Also do not discount the value of barter, it works very well in places where the money is practically worthless and even here it goes on more than you probably think. I do not fear a cashless society because it can only happen if the people who use money decide to go that way. I do not think this is something any government can simply impose and actually control street-level commerce. The people will simply start trading in some other nation's currency and a flourishing business will develop to convert hard cash to E-cash and back, plenty of countries would be happy to print money for use elsewhere because it never comes back.

TLDR: People will find a way, they always do.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

We will go cashless at some point, not anytime soon but it will happen. As I said earlier, a crypto-currency such as bitcoin will fill the need for anonymous exchange.

No it won't.

The preservation of Bitcoin's anonymity is indirectly linked to the anonymity of cash. Governments will not go to extreme lengths to monitor Bitcoin so long as cash exists, since anyone seeking anonymity could always REVERT to cash if Bitcoin became too heavily monitored (and thus all the time and resources spent on monitoring Bitcoin would go to waste).

However, once cash is removed, then there is NO ALTERNATIVE to Bitcoin for anonymity, and you can bet your ass that's when an incredible amount of resources devoted to heuristic analysis of of microdata will be ushered forward to remove all anonymity for electronic currency.

And then where do we turn after cash is gone, and the confidence in Bitcoin's anonymity is forfeit? Bartering?

Even if crypto-currency becomes un-anonymous there will be something, black markets will exist as long as sinful activities and substances are illegal. Also do not discount the value of barter, it works very well in places where the money is practically worthless and even here it goes on more than you probably think. I do not fear a cashless society because it can only happen if the people who use money decide to go that way. I do not think this is something any government can simply impose and actually control street-level commerce. The people will simply start trading in some other nation's currency and a flourishing business will develop to convert hard cash to E-cash and back, plenty of countries would be happy to print money for use elsewhere because it never comes back.

TLDR: People will find a way, they always do.

In other words, the law abiding people will be under 100% surveillance and the actual criminals will be unaffected. It's Gun Control 2.0

A Progressive Paradise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We will go cashless at some point, not anytime soon but it will happen. As I said earlier, a crypto-currency such as bitcoin will fill the need for anonymous exchange.

No it won't.

The preservation of Bitcoin's anonymity is indirectly linked to the anonymity of cash. Governments will not go to extreme lengths to monitor Bitcoin so long as cash exists, since anyone seeking anonymity could always REVERT to cash if Bitcoin became too heavily monitored (and thus all the time and resources spent on monitoring Bitcoin would go to waste).

However, once cash is removed, then there is NO ALTERNATIVE to Bitcoin for anonymity, and you can bet your ass that's when an incredible amount of resources devoted to heuristic analysis of of microdata will be ushered forward to remove all anonymity for electronic currency.

And then where do we turn after cash is gone, and the confidence in Bitcoin's anonymity is forfeit? Bartering?

Even if crypto-currency becomes un-anonymous there will be something, black markets will exist as long as sinful activities and substances are illegal. Also do not discount the value of barter, it works very well in places where the money is practically worthless and even here it goes on more than you probably think. I do not fear a cashless society because it can only happen if the people who use money decide to go that way. I do not think this is something any government can simply impose and actually control street-level commerce. The people will simply start trading in some other nation's currency and a flourishing business will develop to convert hard cash to E-cash and back, plenty of countries would be happy to print money for use elsewhere because it never comes back.

TLDR: People will find a way, they always do.

In other words, the law abiding people will be under 100% surveillance and the actual criminals will be unaffected. It's Gun Control 2.0

A Progressive Paradise.

In other words you're a liar, and this remains a straw man fallacy.