There is no such thing as fair taxation. It's theft. Otherwise you would be cheerfully donating it.
The same is occurring on Facebook. Apparently a migration to another service called MeWe is underway. They have issued privacy and intellectual property ownership protection assurances and so far, I'm told they are growing.
Not completely because cash means anonymity. They want to change that and then get a cut on every exchange. Hide and watch.
"This is all nonsense. They want to move into cashless society so they can control you." ~ Marc Faber
There's a connection between negative interest and the push for a cashless society.
Well, it's clear to me. If you look at the world over the last 100 years, you have a group of people that want to have more and more control over you and me. They want to know where you are, what you do, what you're looking at. Basically, we're moving into an Orwellian society where they can check everything. And cash will still be one of the means where you could go somewhere and buy something and nobody would really know about it. Now they want to abolish it. Of course, if you have negative interest rates, you want to essentially prevent people from hoarding bank notes in their safes at no cost. So you want to deprive them of that privilege, of that freedom, so you introduce a cashless society. In my opinion, it will not work, and let me explain to you why.
Let's say you and I live in a small town of a thousand people and suddenly the government says, "No more cash." Say, I'm the baker and you're the butcher, and a friend of ours is the pharmacist. We can then barter among each other and effect the balances every month or every 3 months and so forth. Then, some kind of paper money comes back up. These are vouchers. So the war on cash would have the exact opposite effect. You will have a voucher system in every small city, and even in big cities, some smart people will develop the voucher system. So instead of having just one currency, paper currency, you'll have hundreds of paper currencies. Number two; if they want to really launch a cashless society, they would have to take your gold away. That, in some countries, will simply not fly. In other countries, a cashless society is simply not practical because 80% of the population doesn't have a bank account and doesn't have cash to start with. So in my view, this cashless business is going to fail very badly.
The argument is, of course, "Oh, we want to move into a cashless society because we want to prevent criminality." This is
You'll need to take that up with Ron Paul. It's his work. I thought that most would recognize it as such.
When I first read goldbug's message, the image of one of those huge tunnel boring machines came to mind. Perhaps something like that, adapted to the purpose, of course, will be the wave of the future. And like a great many other industries, labor costs would be slashed.
Somebody else has had to have had that idea, too, I'd wager. We're in the right place.
And it's a wonderful opportunity to polish one's rhetoric. Knowing the poor education kids are getting today, causing them to think, deduce and even formulate #$%$ responses is a plus for them, at least.
I don't think that he was indicating any particular state although the two you've cited are certainly candidates although California's political elite may not be behind that effort.Federal largess with all the strings attached will be the stumbling block; the states are addicted to it... another evil facet of the debt money system that the real founders warned about. Other states, however, have nullified federal laws, from pot to guns, a trend that offers to continue and expand stemming from the stand-off in Oregon.
The flash point will be when/if interpositioning occurs and whether sister states will either rally to the cause or even physically support it.
Again, ask your mommy how much those Sugar Pops have gone up in price while the package sized shrunk. Inflation is all around us, but if you teethe on the falsities promulgated by the self-defensive system, you're a damned fool.
inevitable correction that will present itself when the Fed runs out of easy money options. The Fed may try to cut interest rates again, maybe even going negative, or it will do more quantitative easing, but that won't work. Creating more money does not lead to economic growth and well-being. The more money the Federal Reserve creates, the more ordinary Americans will end up suffering.
Last week US stock markets tumbled yet again, leaving the Dow Jones index down almost 1500 points for the year. In fact, most major world markets are in negative territory this year. There are many Wall Street cheerleaders who are trying to say that this is just a technical correction, that the bottom is near, and that everything will be getting better soon. They are ignoring the real message the markets are trying to send: you cannot print your way to prosperity.
People throughout history have always sought to acquire wealth. Most of them understand that it takes hard work, sacrifice, savings, and investment. But many are always looking for that “get rich quick” scheme. Monetary cranks throughout history have thought that just printing more money would result in greater wealth and prosperity. Every time this was tried it resulted in failure. Huge economic booms would be followed by even larger busts. But no matter how many times the cranks were debunked both in theory and practice, the same failed ideas kept coming back.
The intellectual descendants of those monetary cranks are now leading the world's central banks, which is why the last decade has seen an explosion of money creation. And what do the central bankers have to show for it? Lackluster employment numbers that have not kept up with population growth, increasing economic inequality, a rising cost of living, and constant fear and uncertainty about what the future holds.
One would think that industries greatly impacted by the cost of finance would get a boost, car and home sales for example, perhaps even creating a new bubble.
I'm one that hates the idea of being in debt even though I have used that vehicle in the past. The idea of borrowing heavily, say even a line of credit on the house, to buy metals, while interesting to contemplate, is not something I'd be inclined to move on.