The Phaserl


War On Cash

by Dirk Steinhoff, Mountain Vision:

When the term first made it into the mainstream media, about 6 years ago, to describe the rise of anti-cash regulations, it was hard to predict the international snowballing effect that would today establish it as one of the most powerful monetary policy waves in modern economic history.

At first, national governments started gently “nudging” citizens to embrace more modern and convenient alternatives, initially by transitioning state-related payments and services, like tax collections and welfare payments, into the banking system. Soon thereafter, they also began placing restrictions on cash transactions.

Starting in 2011, Spain and Italy outlawed cash transactions over certain limits, €2500 and €1000 respectively, then Belgium and Portugal followed suit and France reduced the limit from €3000 to €1000 in 2015, while Germany, to the public’s great displeasure, announced plans to ban cash payments of more than €5000. As shown in the chart below, the regulatory wave effectively swept through Europe and soon became the “new normal”. In the meantime, Norway’s biggest bank DNB called for a total ban on cash, while Sweden’s plan for a cashless society, meant that now in more than half of the branches of the country’s largest banks, no cash is kept on hand, nor are cash deposits accepted. However, the term “war on cash” was really catapulted into the headlines this February, when ECB President Mario Draghi announced his plans to scrap the €500 note. The very next day, Harvard economist and former Secretary of the Treasury, Larry Summers called for the elimination of the £50, the €500, the Swiss CHF 1,000, as well as the $100.


Official narrative vs. Counter-narrative

The reason given for the escalation of governmental efforts to restrict or, indeed, outlaw cash transactions is the same in all of the above-mentioned cases: cash is the ”instrument of choice” for terrorists, drug lords, money launderers and tax evaders; law-abiding citizens have no real use for it anymore. With the rise of credit and debit cards for everyday payments, online banking and wire transfers for large sums, all being embraced as modern alternatives to cash, the average citizen is now actively being encouraged to abandon physical currencies and digitalize all their transactions, for the sake of transparency. In other words, the official narrative, reading between the lines, roughly translates to “you have nothing to fear, if you have nothing to hide”.

“Without being able to use high-denomination notes, those engaged in illicit activities — the ‘bad guys’ — would face higher costs and greater risks of detection. Eliminating high denomination notes would disrupt their ‘business models’,” argues Peter Sands, the former chief executive of Standard Chartered.

Upon closer inspection, these arguments generally fail to stand up to factual scrutiny. The abolition of €500 banknotes or $100 bills is unlikely to have any effect on serious crime or terrorist operations. Merely switching to another denomination, or any other currency for that matter, be it conventional or not (blood diamonds, drugs, art, etc), would not significantly impact organized crime operations, nor would it make any real difference in the fight against terror. Only last November, the official investigation into the horrific Paris attacks, revealed that the IS-affiliated terrorists used prepaid bankcards to rent hotel rooms outside the capital the night before. As for money laundering and tax evasion, both most commonly involve sneaking “ill-gotten” gains into the conventional financial system in the form of real estate, stocks, bonds or other assets, or as the Panama Papers showed us, often using obscure regional legal loopholes, intricate “Russian doll” schemes of shell companies and creative accounting. So far, no scientific evidence, nor research findings, other than anecdotal, have been presented to substantiate these claims as the basis of the anti-cash crusade.

Another way, however, to look at this policy trend, is to juxtapose the so-called War on Cash with the concurrent and increasingly widespread adoption of negative interest rates by central banks worldwide. The core rationale of this measure is rather simplistic: Negative interest rates are, in essence, a tax on bank deposits, ultimately aiming to discourage depositors from saving and to incentivize spending instead, thereby stimulating economic demand. In this light, cash is the fatal flaw of this plan, as it places serious constraints on the central banks’ power to practically enforce the strategy. As long as paper money is available as an alternative store of value, customers have leverage against the bank’s negative interest rates. They can simply withdraw their deposits to avoid being penalized for saving and just hoard cash instead of spending it; a course of action greatly simplified by using large-denomination bills, that would allow for efficient storage. Naturally, such a choice would imply shouldering various risks and expenses, mostly security- and convenience-related. However, as the penalties for saving become steeper, there comes a moment where the cost-benefit analysis would dictate that cash is the preferred vehicle of storing wealth and would provide a viable “way out”, if negative rates become “too negative”.

Read More @


Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>