Elitist Economics

File Under: Totalitarianism 

A proposed new law in Denmark could be the first step towards an economic revolution that sees physical currencies and normal bank accounts abolished and gives governments futuristic new tools to fight the cycle of “boom and bust”.

The Danish proposal sounds innocuous enough on the surface – it would simply allow shops to refuse payments in cash and insist that customers use contactless debit cards or some other means of electronic payment.

Officially, 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.

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.

It’s a certain sign of the times when global elites openly advance totalitarianism as the solution to the instability created by the very systems that they created and control.  Elder Jim Leaviss informs us, ever so disingenuously, that physical cash and its usage is the cause of cyclical economic disruptions globally and must be abolished.

This article is amazing for several reasons:

(1) It demonstrates just how audacious elites are becoming with espousing notions that feature obvious totalitarian overtones. Even ten years ago, Big Brother Leaviss and his ilk would have had a fleeting thought of this kind here and there, and maybe would have gone as far as to haltingly voice their thoughts to a couple of sympathetic corporate comrades. Ultimately though, they would have kept their cards to their chests for the sake of maintaining plausible deniability, and would have kept pretending that they weren’t directly engaged in the willful destruction of the global economy. They certainly wouldn’t have trumpeted their intentions on a platform like the Telegraph. Now, they are comfortably placing their cards on the table and daring anyone to tell them that their shit hand won’t win the game.

(2) It demonstrates just how desirous elites are for the advent of the total “one world” state and for the concentration of power in their hands. It’s clear that the endgame here is one global currency. That aside, for all his talk of his plan as a means of “giving poor and rural sectors of an economy. . .a tool for easy participation in the economy” Leaviss must be aware that his proposal will have the opposite effect. It will have the effect direct effect of impoverishing vast swathes of the world’s residents, while solidifying power within the hands of the global oligarchy. He must further realize that his proposal necessitates the aggrandizement of an omnipotent state and the diminution of the individual. His plan requires the elimination of choice and the introduction of “confiscation” (his words). What he proposes is a heavily centralized global government running a completely centralized bank that are in turn run by “enlightened” Brahmins and bureaucrats. To precis black-hearted O’Brien: it’s all about power, kids.

No truer words were ever spoken.

(3) It demonstrates how comfortable elites are with fascism: the Leaviss scheme will effectively obliterate any meaningful public/private distinctions. In an environment like the one that Leaviss desires, the state will be absolutely free to control all aspects of the private sector through the manipulation of the currency. Government will be free to create controls, determine output, favor or disfavor corporations, determine investment strategies, etc. There will be no market such as we have now. Frankly, our Jim prefers it that way.

(4) It demonstrates how disingenuous elites are, especially those of the value transferrence set, in describing the true causes of economic disruption. Economic peaks and valleys are natural in any normally functioning economy. Nevertheless, notice the way in which O’Brien Leaviss implies that this is in some way “unnatural” or “bad,” and then maligns the “high cash usage in the economy” as the cause of perfectly natural and cyclical phenomena. Let’s ask the question: how is it that the market came to be so flush with cash in the first place? He’ll never tell. Rather, he informs us that the solution to economic instability is to abolish cash and hand over the reins to the central banks. Of course, as a former employee of the Bank of England and a present fund manager at M & G, it’s natural that he would have a hard-on for centralized banks and the type of government that would be iron fisted with the masses and open handed with the banking elite.

Could it be, Jim, that these cash flush times are a direct result of any of the following central bank policies: (1) fractional reserve banking? (2) Quantitative easing? (3) artificially low interests rates and the over extension of credit? Could it even be that government policies that work to artificially stimulate nonexistent demand for goods and services (ahem, housing bubble) or artificially stymie true demand for goods and services cause any sorts of disruption, especially when the government gets it wrong?

Could the move from laissez-faire economic model and towards a command economy model possibly have been catastrophic? Could the solution to this problem possibly be getting rid of central banks, or a return to full reserve banking even if that means higher depositor fees and slower (but more stable) rates of expansion, or even smaller government? Of course not. The answer is none of the above. Repeat after me: physical currency is the cause of allllll our economic disruptions. Ironically, this prescription is written for us by the same doctor who extolled the virtues higher levels of inflation back in 2014. What triggers inflation? An excess of currency in circulation. Which entities are in direct control of this? Governments and unaccountable central banks.

But let’s ignore all of that. If Scandinavia is on board, sign us all up!

Ed. 5/29/15: super smart people came to this same conclusion way before me.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s