Paying in cash has many benefits such as making you more aware of what you spend and avoiding the temptation to waste your money. Cash allows you to bargain when paying for something on the high street. It allows you to bargain and ask for discounts in some shops and by using it you avoid paying for certain administrative fees charged by cards.
Cash can be better managed because having it physically, touching it and spending it makes you more aware of your spending so you don’t overspend, control your spending and avoid having your card cloned.
Spending cash is anonymous because you spend it secretly from the banks. When you pay using a card, they control you because they know what you buy, where you buy it, on what day and at what time, so they do market research. In conclusion they rule you in secret and if one day the bank feels like freezing your savings you will not have access to the money you have in your account.
When you hand over the power of your money to the banks they will look for ways to extract it all with a thousand tricks. They will offer you discounts all over the place but in the end you will pay the same or more.
When you don’t use cash you can spend more than necessary because you lose track of what you are spending, with the feeling that you have a lot of money in your account.
When you use cash you can ask for discounts in certain shops, whereas with a card it is not so easy. Never allow cash to be eliminated, that day you will be controlled and enslaved. Avoid using cards too much and try to pay in cash as much as possible.
Cash is freedom, it is anonymity, while digital is control and that is exactly what the tyrants want, a cashless world to end what little freedom human beings have left and turn everyone into slaves of the bankers whose only intention is profit.
When you use a card to pay for everything, hundreds of small transactions are generated in your account that increase the time spent reviewing your bank statements.
When you pay with cash the transaction is between two people, whereas when you pay with a credit or debit card you still have a third party in a two-person transaction and that is more dangerous. Someday soon, if your bank account is frozen for some suspicious matter, you will want to go back to using cash. The day the bankers succeed in eliminating cash, they will charge everyone for breathing natural air.
If full digitalisation of money is adopted, we will be entering a system of surveillance that should alarm us. Electronic money depends on electricity and electronic communication services and if these fail the system will stop working, whereas cash does not need any of these, it is a system that always works.
Cash is a guarantee of survival. Let us not allow it to run out. In countries such as developing countries, paying digitally increases transaction costs because banks tend to charge, so it is not the same to pay with cash than digitally, everything has its pros and cons but people should always have the option to pay the way they like.
Imagine if one day the banks report problems and our bank accounts disappear from the system, then we will wish we had never entered that system. Electronic payments have one disadvantage and that is that they make you traceable, plus if by any chance your card is cloned or your account frozen you are finished.
It is necessary to have different payment options but everything is shaping up to use a single global currency, which will be electronic.
Another risk when making electronic payments is that sometimes you will be charged for products or services that you did not purchase and you will have to spend time on clarifications. Those who win in the end are the ones who invented the method. When you pay using a card there are times when you are charged more than once and you don’t find out until hours or days later. Then you will have to spend time checking your account, a practice you will have to repeat every so often to make sure you don’t get charged twice or more.
What do young people think? Unfortunately they love technology and innovation and are dazzled by anything that involves minimal effort. They rarely think about transcendence, they happily go for total control, they live in the moment and don’t visualise how vulnerable they are. There are always mistakes in our system and one day they could lose everything.
A serious proposal would be not to end the use of cash for small transactions, but to require digital payment for large transactions in order to control the origin of people’s resources, as long as the security of the systems is guaranteed.
Little by little they are taking control of us and for these reasons the future is frightening. As the Freemason Zbigniew Brzezinski said, the techno-electronic era means the gradual emergence of a more controlled society. Such a society will be called by an elite unconstrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to impose constant surveillance on every citizen and to keep complete archives with up-to-date data on their most personal activities.
In a cashless society it raises many questions, people who are not convenient for the government could be financially eliminated, political pressure could be applied to us.
With the elimination of the use of cash the banks will have unimaginable power in the world, no one will be able to compete with them. Just by being able to digitise, banks can make amounts or figures appear and disappear at will. They would charge you for everything, for every movement in your account, they would own the best businesses which is already noticeable today.
In a cashless world, governments will be able to automatically collect tax revenues and taxes, and worse still, if you don’t behave according to their demands, they could freeze our bank accounts without warning. Who will benefit from the elimination of cash? The bankers, the same as always, who will tell you that it is for your safety, because being among the oldest thieves, they will rob you.
Banks want profits without effort and investment and governments want more taxes. A world without cash would be a horror scenario, cash has no one to protect it even though it is arguably a kind of public good.
Cash has no one to protect it, no official advocate and no marketing department. It’s a pretty unfair fight. In a world without cash, customers would not be able to withdraw anything from the bank because the money would only exist electronically, the banks would have enormous power and if an emergency occurred, nothing would work, everything would collapse. In the case of a bank failure, assets would probably disappear. Who benefits when we can only pay digitally? Only those who are in the race for total control of humanity.
In Sweden they are close to a cashless society, and there are sites on the Internet where you can see what your neighbours and colleagues earn, most people are curious and take a look.
At the moment you can still pay with cash, but what if in the future cash ceases to exist and the digital payment system collapses? How would we pay then? How would we continue to pay for our everyday things? Food, petrol and so on, which are the necessities of our daily lives.
In the event of a collapse, hacker attacks, how would we keep our money safe in the future? Who gives us the guarantee? If we look into the future in 10 or 15 years we will see that we will hardly be able to use cash. If things continue as they are going, we will have a totally controlled society where everything will be in plain sight, people will try to behave in a way that is not too far from the norm and without attracting too much attention.
It is not yet clear where we are going. Only one thing is certain, a cashless world carries enormous risks.
The main problems of a cashless society are:
A lot more surveillance, a kind of financial surveillance state is created, it is limited to people who do not have access to digital payment systems and there are many more risks of data theft. There is less security. Digital payment systems can fail whereas cash is not vulnerable in that sense and also in a cashless society people who are not convenient for the state could be financially eliminated.