U.S.War on Cash Declared- from Aug 28th

"Abolish Cash"- KC Fed paper

written by Vince Lanci , Echobay Partners

Jackson Hole as Backdrop to "War on Cash"

Friday at the Fed Symposium a document was handed out in conjunction with a discussion. Note the discussion's title:

11:55 a.m. - Negative Nominal Interest Rates: author Marvin Goodfriend (Carnegie Mellon), discussant Marianne Nessen, head of monetary policy at Sweden’s Riksbanki 

However, the discussion's accompanying handout had a different title: The Case for Unencumbering Interest Rate Policy at the Zero Bound- Marvin Goodfriend.

We initially dismissed this last Thursday as a sales pitch of the Fed's ability to handle NIRP if it came to that. "Risky but in the right hands it can work" was our predicted synopsis

Then we read it Friday.  Our takeaway was that this document was not just a discussion on NIRP risk and how to assess if/when to use it. This was also an answer key on how to make it happen. And among those recommendations was to "Abolish Paper Currency". 

Paper Excerpt: How to Kill Cash

This is a logical extension for using ATMs as profit centers. And just one of many ways you will be sold on the cure for your problems. 

Related Reading


Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death

Remember when ATM's were introduced? We were petrified to use our Manny-Hanny cards at first. But they were a cost reducer for banks and the idea was TBTF for them. Tellers could be sacked then and the public embraced it for convenience reasons eventually. Like long lines from no tellers being open ( see EZ Pass today). Then it became a source of revenue as bank ATM's charge you money if the machine is not theirs. Bank sells on a cure for a disease they create. Imagine being a fired teller having to use an ATM the rest of your life. Dehumanizing we'd imagine.

You will eventually be charged for convenience on any innovation that  reduces a company's operating cost through implementation of said innovation. It is the curse of incumbency. Once behavior becomes a habit, it is hard to break. Electronic incumbency is at the top of that list. Electronic Incumbency in business would be a function of lost executive function and addictive behavior in Psychology.

Here are some bullet points to consider on the topic:

  • Abolishing cash makes it easier to manage the markets especially in a NIRP environment
  • The rationale of transacting with ease via electronic swipes of a card is the pretense
  • The reality is once cash is abolished there will be no way to transact business except with a debit/credit card
  • And we will all be locked into the system, our choices made for us.
  • Net effect, reduces bank risk via no clearing time, ease of transactions  for user, forces all trade to be intermediated by a bank
  • Banks get the ultimate  exchange type franchise.
  • Probably right afterwards they become pure utilities for the Government again.
  • our childhood friends wouldn't be able to launder counterfeit $10's at hot dog stands- wait, ignore that one.. You get the point though. You would be a walking EZ Pass


Banning Cash Solves Global Economic Problems- Harvard economics professor 

On Saturday, an Echo of Friday's attack on currency was published by the Wall street Journal. If people like  Prof. Kenneth Rogoff have their way In their cashless utopia, you'd have no choice - all purchases and transactions would be recorded, stored, hacked, and sold. It is laughable to say removing the $100 bill would be helpful. Removing the $1000 bill was valid, but that is a factor of 10X Ben Franklin's note. So it is 1/10 as effective practically. Professor Rogoff is also former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and about to publish a book called we kid you not " The Curse of Cash".

More from the paper. There are too many to go into at this time. We strongly recommend a full reading of  it.

An implication that NIRP was not unlike going off the Gold standard and therefore justified.

Perhaps that is a good parallel but we don't see it. Both actions take us further from hard money and deeper into the realm of subjective valuation. So we see NIRP not as a parallel comparison at all, more of an extension of the first action (No gold standard) by the second action (NIRP). From The Article:

If the Gold standard was a deflationary encumbrance at one extreme, then what can negative interest rates be but its polar opposite? How does putting more control into a subjective authority's  hands increase its credibility to "sustain a stable purchase power of money"? We don't see it.


Cash worth Less than e-Cash? YES WE CAN

Here's one Jim Rickards  alerted us to in a twitter comment he made:

 Imagine different $ values for cash & bank deposits not "defended" by Fed. (The) Fed considers it (already)

We  think he is referring to this section from the article which implies that paper money can be made to trade at less than its digital counterpart.

So unless we are misreading this, if used, the Fed would be debasing your faith in a  FIAT paper currency even while it tries to establish an even more esoteric form of FIAT, digital money.   But what would give credibility to a  digital currency that is based only on (unseen) electrons? Janet Yellen's opinion and the occasional fat finger?

Those of us familiar with swaps know that the real thing almost always trades at a premium to the tracking product. Here the tracking product would become the physical, and the physical an unsupported tracking stock. This is about tails wagging dogs.

Let's be clear. Gold is the ultimate FIAT money.  It has value because we believe it has value. But it is suited to have value because it is unused in industry and as a monetary unit its supply growth is very predictable. What could change that? Two polar opposite examples would be: If Gold were alchemically synthesized (loses value) or if it were used industrially and  irrecoverably  (gains value). These would undermine Gold's credibility as a stable currency. Our issue here is demoting a tangible object (currency) that represents an intangible store of value (FIAT), to an intangible currency (101101101010's) representing the same.

-follow Vince on twitter @ Vince Lanci


Editor's Comment

Given the above concept; How easy would it be for the Fed to declare in an emergency: "All Comex Gold contracts are now settled in cash. Delivery has been suspended by force majeure'. There would be no need to make ownership illegal if it ever came to that. The government has far better tools at its disposal these days to confiscate Gold if it ever needs.

good Luck


[VIDEO] Jim Rickards on Central Bankers, Gold, and SDRs








Read more by Soren K.Group