Either way is criminal, because if you blow a housing bubble you are lending to marginal borrowers. Lending to marginal borrowers is criminal according to new Dodd-Frank regulations, at least for the banks the Fed has control over, and the FIRREA Act back in the 1980's was passed to allow for civil penalties against those who loaned money to marginal buyers. It was a law that George W. Bush just ignored.
And keeping one from having cash is criminal as well. There is a totalitarian aspect to being forced to keep your money in a bank. If the bank makes a mistake with its investments, it can turn your money into capital to save itself. Those who choose not to partake in this straitjacket have no choice.
If you deposit money into a bank it is a loan to the bank. If it is a loan to the bank, and you cannot withdraw that loan in the form of cash, then you are being forced to lend to the bank. It becomes the banks' money while it is in the bank!
This is totalitarian thinking. And it is no better than blowing bubbles by lending, which is the other criminal means by which the economy grows.
If you are subject to the banks in any form, you are a slave to an international cartel. People tell us that digital currency like Bitcoin or other schemes is a way out but it is not. The cartel will ultimately rule these digital currencies and there will be nothing that the owner of those currencies can do about it.
As it stands, bitcoin is more a speculative investment vehicle, but it may settle down one day and act like a currency instead of like a ponzi scheme. But you can count on it one day being regulated.
I don't agree with those libertarians who say the government should not be able to produce money. Our constitution allows for that. But of course that is not what we have now as we have a private Fed issuing money while the government does not really issue money, only debt.
But digital currency as the only currency should make everyone feel very uncomfortable. There is a possibility of the central bank clearing being hacked, so says a PHD from Oxford University. Joseph P. Farrell believes a cashless society is a massively bad idea.
And I can guarantee you that people will plough into commodities like gold, making the metal a bubble-ish monstrosity. People will seek to find value outside the monetary system. One mistake, one bank run, one hack, and this cashless party will be over. People have killed for less although I absolutely do not advocate that solution.
Besides, how are you going to help the poor begging on the street? Are you going to equip them with a cell phone? Are you going to want a data trail for when you purchase a gift for your wife?
The most important terror of a cashless society is to bring in an international cartel that bypasses the nation states, and destroy sovereignty.
If you think that NSA is bad now, wait until all currency is digital. I am as opposed to offshore hiding of income illegally and against the use of currency for crime as anyone. But if the international cabal's totalitarianism is a bigger crime than the crime we have now, what is gained? All is lost!
Ask yourselves why do all governments, Obama and Romney have Eugenics advisors? John Holdren is a eugenics monster, or so his writings have revealed he has monster thoughts. Could it be that this control of mankind could even include eugenics?
While many find that farfetched, we know that the Vatican has come out with a plan a couple of years ago that calls for a world bank. The article is entitled: "Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Authority.
We know that the World Bank said in 1984 (and the date is not lost on many):
"Population policy has a long lead time; other development policies must adapt in the meantime. Inaction today forecloses options tomorrow, in overall development strategy and in future population policy. Worst of all, inaction today could mean that more drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom, will seem necessary tomorrow to slow population growth.”You wonder if the Federal Reserve's slow growth policy anticipates this decline in population over time. It is becoming expensive and difficult to have children and mature nations are seeing massive population decreases over time. This observation adds to the understanding that the population kept poor tends to have fewer children if given the opportunity to have fewer children.
So then, there is a connection between slow growth, a regime that has been put into place through derivatives and the need to feed big finance rather than the rest of society, and eugenics which seeks to slow population growth.
The connection of those to a cashless society is simply that the international banking cabal will one day have the power to roll over the constitution of the United States, and other democratic institutions simply by crashing the system. Total control may seem benign, and for most transactions it will be benign, but placed into the hands of the wrong people with the wrong motives, and a cashless society will be destructive to political freedom in a way never seen before.
Business Insider ran an article looking down on a New York state official's attempts to regulate Bitcoin. Bernanke said he likes the idea of Bitcoin. I am telling you that the agenda is that we come to accept a worldwide digital currency, and then only the international banking cartel will have the power to regulate it.
Larry Summers is a company man, and he wants international finance to control the world. The fact that he could be a staunch Zionist makes him doubly dangerous. For more information on the exposure of that political doctrine read my ebook on Amazon entitled, Anglo American Empire, Regime Change, and the Ambition of Israel.