As
Greece moves closer to becoming a cashless society, it is clear that
the country’s attitude towards cash is reckless and dangerous. The
supposed convenience of switching to a cash-free system comes with a
great deal of risk, including needless overreach by the state.
by
Michael Nevradakis
Part
3 - Global powers jumping on cashless bandwagon
Nevertheless,
a host of other countries across Europe and worldwide have shunned
Germany’s example, instead siding with the IMF and Stiglitz. India,
one of the most cash-reliant countries on earth, recently eliminated
86 percent of its currency practically overnight, with the claimed
goal, of course, of targeting terrorism and the “black market.”
The real objective of this secretly planned measure, however, was to
starve the economy of cash and to drive citizens to electronic
payments by default.
Iceland, a
country that stands as an admirable example of standing up to the
IMF-global banking cartel in terms of its response to the country’s
financial meltdown of 2008, nevertheless has long embraced
cashlessness. Practically all transactions, even the most minute, are
conducted electronically, while “progressive” tourists extol the
benefits of not being inconvenienced by the many seconds it would
take to withdraw funds from an ATM or exchange currency upon arrival.
Oddly enough, Iceland was already largely cashless prior to its
financial collapse in 2008—proving that this move towards
“progress” did nothing to prevent an economic meltdown or to stop
its perpetrators: the very same banks being entrusted with nearly all
of the money supply.
Other
examples of cashlessness abound in Europe. Cash transactions in
Sweden represent just 3 percent of the national economy, and most
banks no longer hold banknotes. Similarly, many Norwegian banks no
longer issue cash, while the country’s largest bank, DNB, has
called upon the public to cease using cash. Denmark has announced a
goal of eliminating banknotes by 2030. Belgium has introduced a
3,000-euro limit on cash transactions and 93 percent of transactions
are cashless. In France, the respective percentage is 92 percent, and
cash transactions have been limited to 1,000 euros, just as in Spain.
Outside of Europe, cash is being eliminated even in countries such as
Somalia and Kenya, while South Korea—itself no stranger to IMF
intervention in its economy—has, similarly to Greece, implemented
preferential tax policies for consumers who make payments using
cards.
Aside from
policy changes, practical everyday examples also exist in abundance.
Just try to purchase an airline ticket with cash, for instance. It
remains possible—but is also said to raise red flags. In many
cases, renting an automobile or booking a hotel room with cash is
simply not possible. The aforementioned Department of Homeland
Security manual considers any payment with cash to be “suspicious
behavior”—as one clearly has something to hide if they do not
wish to be tracked via electronic payment methods. Ownership of gold
makes the list of suspicious activities as well.
Just as the
irony of Germany being a largely cash-based society while pushing
cashless policies in its Greek protectorate is lost on many Greeks,
what is lost on seemingly almost everyone is this: something that is
new doesn’t necessarily represent progress, nor does something
different. Something that is seemingly easier, or more convenient, is
not necessarily progress either. But for many, “technological
progress,” just like “scientific innovation” in all its forms
and without exception, has attained an aura of infallibility, revered
with religious-like fervor.
Combating
purported tax evasion is also treated with a religious-like fervor,
even while ordinary citizens—such as the two aforementioned
gentlemen in Greece—typically seek to minimize their outlays to the
tax offices. Moreover, while such measures essentially enact a
collective punishment regardless of guilt or innocence, corporations
and oligarchs who utilize tax loopholes and offshore havens go
unpunished and are wholly unaffected by a switch to a cashless
economy in the supposed battle against tax evasion.
This is
evident, for instance, in the case of “LuxLeaks,” which revealed
the names of dozens of corporations benefiting from favorable tax
rulings and tax avoidance schemes in Luxembourg, one of the original
founding members of the EU. European Commission President Jean-Claude
Juncker, formerly the prime minister of Luxembourg, has faced
repeated accusations of impeding EU investigations into corporate tax
avoidance scandals during his 18-year term as prime minister. Juncker
has defended Luxembourg’s tax arrangements as legal.
At the same
time, Juncker has shown no qualms in criticizing Apple’s tax
avoidance deal in Ireland as “illegal,” while having been accused
himself of helping large multinationals such as Amazon and Pepsi
avoid taxes. Moreover, he has openly claimed that Greece’s Ottoman
roots are responsible for modern-day tax evasion in the country. He
has not hesitated to unabashedly intervene in Greek electoral
contests, calling on Greeks to avoid the “wrong outcome” in the
January 2015 elections (where the supposedly anti-austerity SYRIZA,
which has since proven to be boldly pro-austerity, were elected).
He also
urged the Greek electorate to vote “yes” (in favor of more
EU-proposed austerity) in the July 2015 referendum—where the
overwhelming result in favor of “no” was itself overturned by
SYRIZA within a matter of days. In the European Union today, if
there’s something that can be counted on, it’s the blatant
hypocrisy of its leaders. Nevertheless, proving that old habits of
collaborationism die hard in Greece, the rector of the law school of
the state-owned Aristotle University in Thessaloniki awarded Juncker
with an honorary doctorate for his contribution to European political
and legal values.
Source,
links:
Comments
Post a Comment