This Harvard Economist Is Trying to Kill Cash

[Pony Soldier]

I don't see cash being that much of a problem that we need to "kill" it and I also don't see it going away anytime soon. To be honest I find paying in cash more secure and faster than paying with cards. I'll use my debit card once in a while but mostly I use cash because I don't have to worry about the bank fucking up, worrying if the machine will accept the card, wondering if I have enough money on the card, remembering passcodes, and signing my name all the time. With cash I just give them the money receive my change and I'm off. Better yet I'll know whatever I bought is paid for right there.

It's always nice to have options. Also about the crime, wouldn't people just target the cards then? Crime might go down a little bit but it's not like it'll solve the problem of people getting robbed. If anything it'll make thieves more desperate and they might end up knocking people out or even worse killing them just so they can get their credit/debit cards.

[zenkai]

Would get a rid a lot of crime, he isn't very smart for a Harvard boy is he?

[Kathandira]

Economist says getting rid of cash will get rid of a lot of crime and allow the government to boost the economy more easily.

Who uses hundred dollar bills? Mostly criminals. And there will be a record of every transaction of course.

Police are all for it.





http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...itter-business


Kenneth Rogoff has an interesting résumé: international grandmaster of chess, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, professor at Harvard University. And he is now—unofficially—the No. 1 enemy of cash.

"I'll admit, it's a very quirky topic," Rogoff said at a press lunch on Tuesday put together by the publisher of his new book, The Curse of Cash. But he insists that a country without most cash is an idea whose time has come.

Law-abiding citizens rarely have need for $100 bills, yet there are 34 of them in circulation for every woman, man, and child in the U.S. That suggests the bills are circulating mainly in the underground economy. If the biggest bill were worth $10, rather than $100, delivering someone a million bucks under the table would require a 220-pound chest rather than a 22-pound briefcase. Forcing people to use smaller bills, Rogoff argues, might make crime more conspicuous and less convenient.

Rogoff also contends that suppressing cash would make it easier for the Federal Reserve and other central banks to boost economic growth by pushing interest rates into negative territory. That's the strange world where you pay to keep money in the bank and get paid to borrow it. The theory is that negative rates will induce people to save less and spend more, which will revive growth. Savers won't tolerate negative interest rates on their savings as long as cash is an alternative. Why not simply withdraw stacks of $100 bills and keep the cash in a mattress or a safe?
Rogoff says he doesn't want to get rid of cash all at once. First, he would phase out 100s, then 50s, then 20s, leaving smaller bills in circulation for the foreseeable future. "I want to have a less-cash society, not a cashless society," he said.

Law enforcement officials are among Rogoff's biggest allies in the war on cash, he says, and some central bankers are also interested. The front of his book carries a blurb from former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who calls the book "fascinating and important" and the argument "compelling and wide-ranging." Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Citigroup Chief Economist Willem Buiter have also endorsed the idea, which Rogoff first broached in a scholarly paper in 1998.

Some conservatives, on the other hand, detest the idea, fearing that getting rid of cash will make it easier for government to monitor and control citizens' behavior. The anti-cash ideas of Rogoff and Buiter "are now the foundation for the new age of Economic Totalitarianism that confronts us," foreign-exchange analyst and blogger Martin Armstrong wrote last year.

Rogoff doesn't view totalitarianism as much of a threat. He does worry just a bit that getting rid of cash could make it harder for central banks to control prices because of an "extremely interesting and provocative conjecture" of economist Neil Wallace, who taught at the University of Minnesota and is now at Penn State. The details are complicated, but the concept is that monetary policy only works if bonds are different from cash, and if cash became electronic it would act just like bonds.

In his research, Rogoff decided that central banks can probably avoid the problem Wallace raised, but he admits to uncertainty on this point. He imagines someone telling him, "Oops! The Fed can't control prices anymore. That was a theory. Didn't you think about it?"

I would be all for the complete removal of currency all together.

[melodramocracy]

I would be all for the complete removal of currency all together.

Me too. I could quit my job and just stay in this house, awesome.

[Daelak]

I for one welcome this rationally constructed and motivated totalitarian system

I love how all the tough anti-PC and anti-SJWers like this one get triggered by the word totalitarian. There is no downside to reducing the circulation of physical money, just more of the same delusional, doomsday bullshit scenarios conservatives in the article and on this forum froth at the mouth hoping it come to fruition so they can finally see the shithole their utopian authoritarian state is in reality.

Your ideology would not exist if it were not for a free open society with a large, sophisticated, powerful central federal government. Enjoy your Sowell-addled delusions for generations to come.

[Deleted]

I love how all the tough anti-PC and anti-SJWers like this one get triggered by the word totalitarian.

we don't get triggered by the word, we get 'triggered' because this idea is motivated by the same rationalist approach that motivates progresivism and marxism. The totalitarian control state is the natural and necessary conclusion of those ideas once people refuse to be 'rational'.

Your ideology would not exist if it were not for a free open society with a large, sophisticated, powerful central federal government. Enjoy your Sowell-addled delusions for generations to come.

My ideology predates the large sophisticated powerful central government.
My ideology fucking predates your fucking country.

[Nathreim]

They tried this with the 1000 dollar bills and it didn't work.

[Noradin]

If we ever get past a cashless society, I'd think we'd cut the banking industry entirely and we entirely control our funds. I can dream >.>

The opposite would be the more likely outcome.

- - - Updated - - -

At this exact point, sure it isn't viable to rid of cash. But it is one of those things that is slowly creeping out of the system. I know it's anecdotal but more of my store transactions are coming through card swipes than cash, online shopping is only getting bigger, and there are other payment methods that might pickup speed like mobile RFCs.

Cash is going the same way as printed news, cable tv, and the taxi service.

I dare you to visit some German speaking country.
I visited Berlin some weeks back and everwhere they used cash.

[Deleted]

No thanks.

[Deleted]

I dare you to visit some German speaking country.
I visited Berlin some weeks back and everwhere they used cash.

Wonder why there is a 500 Euro bill and no 500 dollar bill?

[Deleted]

Wonder why there is a 500 Euro bill and no 500 dollar bill?

Like these? Well, I know these aren't issued since 1940s but they are still legal tender and very rarely can be encountered in trade.

[Sierra85]

Gotta keep cash. Need it for anonymity and freedom etc.

Also in 8 years we will want to put president trump on the 100 for recognition of a job well done.

[Deleted]

Gotta keep cash. Need it for anonymity and freedom etc.

Also in 8 years we will want to put president trump on the 100 for recognition of a job well done.

Are you suggesting he will be dead in 8 years? (In case you don't know no living person can be depicted on US currency)

[Muzjhath]

My ideology predates the large sophisticated powerful central government.
My ideology fucking predates your fucking country.

So, just what ideology do you hold to?
Since the large sophisticated powerful central government goes back to Diocletian's reforms which Constantine continued and strengthened, at least.
Central Government was in very unsophisticated ways already there during the Republic ear, it was just weak as it only appointed regional governments (that were, in themselves, fairly weak).

Hell, our first record of writing is in the form of governmental writing to keep track of how much grain is being farmed.

So, which super ancient ideology do you align with again?

[Kathandira]

Me too. I could quit my job and just stay in this house, awesome.

lol, i'm not talking about people being able to not contribute to the progression or sustainability of the world.

If currency was abolished, work would be mandatory.

[Masark]

So, which super ancient ideology do you align with again?

Probably kakistocracy.

[Deleted]

Are you suggesting he will be dead in 8 years? (In case you don't know no living person can be depicted on US currency)

They will make an exception for god emperor trump.

- - - Updated - - -

So, just what ideology do you hold to?

I'm a conservative.

Since the large sophisticated powerful central government goes back to Diocletian's reforms which Constantine continued and strengthened, at least.

yeah, large, sophisticated and powerful by what measure?

[Muzjhath]

- - - Updated - - -[/COLOR]
I'm a conservative.
yeah, large, sophisticated and powerful by what measure?

Full control of the military, centralized tax system with bureaucrats collecting the taxes, lots of internal levels in the bureaucracy, covering the Roman Empire when it was around it's peak size-wise (-Dacia where few Roman people ever lived).
Infrastructure, welfare, religious influence, military (as mentioned above), with government officials arguably being the most powerful people in the Roman Empire. Collecting first that into four separate hubs of absolute power (Diocletian) and later one (Constantine).

You should also note that Diocletian is generally also called conservative, and he expanded and centralized the Roman Government like no one before (and it was a needed thing for the Empire). Even if the "ism" of conservatism and the ideology is far younger than the practice.
(As another funny side note, the first "Totalitarian" government Rome knew after it threw out the kings and became a republic was a guy from the Conservative faction, even if it might not be what you see that word as).

So, by the measure of largest and most sophisticated and most powerful known to history outside of China at that time and for ages after his time. (Can't comment on China much at all since I'm not well read there at all).
So no, your ideology doesn't predate central government. Since ideology as an idea is a new thing. Your stances might predate them. Even if the thing a conservative stands for changes from place and era as the only thing they have in common is a resistance to change and being for the status-quo (often, but not always, in the name of stability). Which is a stance as old as politics, but so is being for welfare programs and supporting the poor citizens.

As for OT. As I said before. Seldom use cash. While I see uses for cash, the bigger denominations are very seldom what I ever see used. The Swedish 1000 SEK bill (in our old system, not our new bills) I practically only saw when someone gave someone a cash gift, and you had to actively ask for one. Which is the equivalent of 115-120 USD. Largest in common circulation is the 500 SEK, roughly analogue in value to your 50.
Removing those two and only having 100 and 200 SEK bills wouldn't cause any issues at all even for people who always use cash. Unless you want to buy your house with cash. Which would annoy the fuck out of your bank I bet.
(Since the article doesn't actually argue remove all cash).

[Daelak]

we don't get triggered by the word, we get 'triggered' because this idea is motivated by the same rationalist approach that motivates progresivism and marxism. The totalitarian control state is the natural and necessary conclusion of those ideas once people refuse to be 'rational'.
My ideology predates the large sophisticated powerful central government.
My ideology fucking predates your fucking country.

You definitely do, as with the reactionaries cited in the article, because without the standard conservative hyperbole, your ideology is meaningless, literally hindering progress and economic, technological, and cultural advancement because of fear. It's an empty ideology melded by interests that make millions off of your irrational fears.

[Deleted]

You definitely do, as with the reactionaries cited in the article, because without the standard conservative hyperbole, your ideology is meaningless, literally hindering progress and economic, technological, and cultural advancement because of fear. It's an empty ideology melded by interests that make millions off of your irrational fears.

Is a state with no crime a progressive country?
Where is culture advancing towards?
Its progressive that is an empty ideology - It literally is just a 'direction'.