I have commented on the same theme, of course, recently, but Gillian takes the argument further, noting that in addition to the obvious advantage that taking cash out of the economy has in restricting the opportunity for crime it also helps enforce the negative interest rates that are almost bound to be a feature of the worldwide economy in coming years. She has a point, although I can still see a role for small denomination cash.
Nothing screams fascism more than the State only allowing us a bit of pocket money to spend without their vigilance, does it?
Quite apart from the fact that they’re getting this horribly wrong. They start from the true position that we have fiat currencies now. State created out of the aether. They then assume that if the state limited that currency then we’d all do whatever the state told us to. Which is entirely wrong: we use those fiat currencies because they’re useful to use. If they’re restricted then they will become less useful and we will go off an use something else. That fiat currencies exist is absolutely true, but the vast majority of human history did not contain them. And in their absence we’d all start using something else.
Whatever, gold, paintings, bags of heroin, mutual promises, reputation even.
It’s typical statism in fact. The thought that because we are using what the state makes then the state can direct, limit, what we use, even to the point that if the state does not provide then we will do without. We won’t. Money is simply too useful to us all for us to put up with the absence of it, we’ll just reinvent it.