Published on 8 Apr 2017Here’s the link that goes with the video: http://bit.ly/2pffRMe
By Lisa Haven
What you are about to see in the video below is the latest working paper from the IMF on how to enslave nations, steal our sovereignty and force a cashless society across the globe.
While all eyes are on WWIII events, the IMF has seized the opportunity to look into the aftermath of war and how to bring about their Orwellian bondage cashless society. Here is just a ‘sliver’ of information that I will expose from the 26-page document they have prepared titled, “The Macroeconomics of De-Cashing.”
“Although some countries most likely will de-cash in a few years, going completely cashless should be phased in steps. The de-cashing process could build on the initial and largely uncontested steps, such as the phasing out of large denomination bills, the placement of ceilings on cash transactions, and the reporting of cash moves across the borders. Further steps could include creating economic incentives to reduce the use of cash in transactions, simplifying the opening and use of transferabledeposits, and further computerizing the financial system.
“The private sector led de-cashing seems preferable to the public sector led de-cashing. The former seems almost entirely benign (e.g., more use of mobile phones to pay for coffee), but still needs policy adaptation. The latter seems more questionable, and people may have valid objections to it. De-cashing of either kind leaves both individuals and states more vulnerable to disruptions, ranging from power outages to hacks to cyber warfare. In any case, the tempting attempts to impose de-cashing by a decree should be avoided, given the popular personal attachment to cash. A targeted outreach program is needed to alleviate suspicions related to de-cashing; in particular, that by de-cashing the authorities are trying to control all aspects of peoples’ lives, including their use of money, or push personal savings into banks. The de-cashing process would acquire more traction if it were based on individual consumer choice and cost-benefits considerations.”
Here’s more on this CRITICAL report…