In short, the government cannot use the pretext of clamping down on an industry which is presently illegal by claiming the cash transactions facilitates the existence and growth of it when it is the government’s own criminalisation policy which brought it into existence.
So, despite the government’s incessant pressure for recipients [of welfare programs] to work, people either remain unemployed on welfare, or work and have their payments severely cut or ended. Recipients can escape this by working in the cash economy and not declaring their earnings.
Other problems abound if the government were to abolish high-denomination bank notes and restrict cash payments above a specified amount, such as $1,000.
One is privacy. By forcing the public to use electronic payments, their activities and whereabouts can be tracked. Given the growth of the surveillance state and intelligence-industrial complex, this is a real infringement upon freedom and privacy if the authorities access this bank data.
This policy is also designed to generate inefficiency by forcing dependence on the banking and financial system. Where previously transactions may have been efficiently conducted in cash, the public are forced to use electronic payments, inserting a third party into the transactions: banks – to their benefit.
Worse, this move against cash makes it easier for the RBA to implement negative interest rates in a significant economic downturn to bail out the banking system. It would become almost impossible for the public to take their savings and other liquid assets out of the banking system as cash to protect themselves from being charged for having savings.
This is precisely why our Persona-based commsec training matrix (a resource for trainers) lists "Use cash" as a top suggestion, often overlooked by digital security trainers.
#cash #privacy #economy #banks