Why? Do you know any poor people who critically need and use 100 dollar bills? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! To make poor people poorer, you need to make their income less or increase their expenses. Which would the plan suggested in post 54 do? Or are you just posting non-sense? (Again, as you did in post 143.)
While looking for something else, I found my old thread from 2005 on the "No paper money" idea, but even it was not the first posted here. See: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=937774&postcount=1 It ran for only 34 posts.
Get real! What would make people with no income miss $100 bills if they were no longer in circulation?????????????????:bugeye:
Hmmmm. If that's the case, let me rephrase my question: What would make people with no income miss ANY denomination bill if they were no longer in circulation?????????????????
Well, maybe because it buys them food? Even if the money they get is donated, they need the money don´t they? A person with no income, would need to do stuff in order for people to give him money, like selling stuff on the street, or doing shows for money. All those possibilities would be lost.
Seems you're confusing "no income" with "no job." Big difference. NO income means just that - no income from ANYTHING. I don't know where you live but in the U.S. people with no income already don't need currency to get food. They get food stamps which they exchange for food at practically any store. And they only need to perform street shows if they are too lazy to go pick up their free food stamps. And what "stuff" would they sell on the streets? Things they stole? If it's things they made then they HAVE income.
I do not think they use 100 or 50 dollar bills much. Most I have had any contact with (in West Virgina's coal mining areas of my youth) were well ahead of US and my post 54 plan, in the sense that they were already not using any paper money more 50 years ago.- They had accounts at the company store and died in debt to it. Most never saw a even a dollar in their "pay" envelope - just a statement of how much they owe. (There was no rent to pay with dollars either as they lived in company's housing or shack they built of scrap lumber. My father was a "country doctor." - They paid him in jars of pickels, etc. The extremely poor in the rural areas already know how to get by without paper money, but begging in the cities may be a problem. Perhaps the urban poor will collect aluminum cans etc. and get credit diretly deposited to their account. It will be harder for them to steal, I admit, and sell the stolen goods to a fence as that, like bribes to congressmen, would leave a "paper trail" for the police. Under the fast schedule suggested in this thread (not the slow 20 year one suggested in the earlier thread) we have time to set in place the necessary "postal bank accounts," PBA, sort of like food stamps registrations, etc. for the very poor. (E.g. seller of Al cans shows his card with PBA number printed on it and recorded in the magnet strip. Buyer of cans swipes it like a "reverse credit card". - one way it could work.) Summary: You are at best saying that some minor mechanisms will be need to be set up during the 6 years to take care of special cases. PS above written before I read Read-Only's very good replies also. (I work my way forward from my last post, replying as I go- why had not read Read-Only's posts.) Thanks Read-only. You seem to "get it."
The more I think about it, the more easy the elimination of all paper money seems to be. I especially like the "Reverse Debit Card," RDC, concept. It is an extremely simple, essentially already nearly implimented concept. I.e. your employer, if you have one, has your RDC number and your credit card company / bank/ etc. knows the corresponding credit (or debit) card / account/ number(s). You do not need to mess with any pay check. - Everyone who works has direct deposit via the RDC. (Either to their bank as many do today, or for those who prefer to their credit card company, their mortgage company etc. as they specify.) Would you not like to have your mortgage paid automatically instead of mail it in each month? All so poor that they are without any bank account get their "food stamps" and "cash aid stamps" as today. But there is no "stamp" to be stolen from mail box. - only credits in their PBA (postal bank account - kept by US post office.) and only certain food store purchase reduce the "food sub account" - they can not spend food credits in the fancy restuarants etc. These extremely poor buy things with their PBA card, like you do with credit card. Everything needed to "go cashless" essentially already exist! (Except, perhaps a Congress ready to do away with bribes they currently receive.) Seem like many more advantages than previously named. - do you not agree?
You're welcome, Billy. And yes - I 'get it.' It would throw a major kink in the drug flow. The only problem that might surface is the smarter crooks setting up a front selling something legimate. But actually selling drugs while charging the "card" for something else, like 20 gals of gasoline or groceries (which they actually DO sell at the same store). Don't know if you're aware of it or not but one of the BIGGEST ways to turn 'dirty' money into clean cash is casinos and electronic game arcades - the latter which operate freely in any city anywhere. They can move any amount of money they wish because there's no paper trail back to some supplier of a product offered for sale.
Billy T, I don't know for certain if the system has been implimented nationwide, but in my state food stamps are no longer mailed out. The people in need of assistance recieve a card similar to a debit card. Each month a fixed amount of funds is placed in the account. They simply swipe the electronic card out checkout as anyone can do with their debit cards. It eliminates the theft of food stamps from mailboxes and makes it harder to exchange the funds for drugs. Drugs, of course, are at the root of most crime in my area, from shoplifting, burgulary, prostitution, gun violence, etc.
Perhaps not entirely yet. I agree there are lots of ways to launder money, register sale of legal item while giving out drug etc TODAY. However, if the soft durgs were legal, as I suggest for the three reason stated earlier, then simply sell them, if you are that type of store (As is done in Holland, but I think there should be, and would be, some sort of licence required to sell soft drugs, if only to facilitate the FDA's job of keeping purity and quality under control.) Selling hard drugs would be impossible if they do not exist inside the US so no need to worry that the money from the sale would be recorded as if it were a sale of gasoline etc. The whole point of post 54 plan is to make hard drugs not exist inside the USA; not by the current failed effort to block the importation of these drugs, but by blocking the payment for them. Truck loads of coins going out of US are much easier to stop than suitcases of drugs coming in. Even if one out of 10 trucks of coins does out of US, it would still be a money losing business for the drug producers. Also the 9 truck loads of coins caught would more than pay for the cost of looking for the trucks. As it is now, when drugs coming in are caught, all that can be done is burn them. Even if not 100% successful, the post 54 plan is a great source of revenue, instead of only ashes from burnt drugs!)
Nice to learn that. What you are stating is that instead of being a problem for the poor as "Wisdom_Seeker" falsely suggested, post 54 plan is already providing benefits for the poor in your state. (I am assuming that many of these people getting food stamp credits (without any stamp) are essentially already in the "cashless" economy of post 54 plan. Certainly some are.)
Mmm, ok, maybe I did not express correctly what I really was trying to say. What I am saying is, even if you got that plan all figured out, there is always external factors you cannot consider unless you put this into action. The consequences can really be devastating if this is not put into exhaustive revision by specialysts. And even then, the drug dealers could figure ways out to hack this system easily. I am an IT guy, so I´m familiar with hackers very much, and so you really think multi-billionair drug dealers would not be able to hire the best hackers in the world to get pass this system? Yes they can, and would do this. Maybe they would even find a way to not need the drug business, and steal everyone´s money digitally. Automatization of processes can sometimes be a double-edged sword (=.
Possibly, that is why mints printing presses not sold until all is a success. Likewise, for first year of plan the $50 bills and all smaller are still available. Do you seriously think absence of 100 dollar bills is a danger? How often you you think they are used instead of a check or credit card? I would guess that purchases over 100 dollars are already 20 to 1 in favor of checks and credit cards. I.e. the first year of the plan is already 95% in effect. and has been for years! I have not noticed the danger you fear - can you explain why not? What is the nature of this danger? (or is this just the third, non-sense objection you have raised?) You must not be a very good one, or you would be very rich if what you state were true, or are you just stupid? (If the credit card system could be hacked to get payments from it don't you think it would have been already?) Thus I am forced to conclude this is just more non-sense (or perhaps, stupidity?)
Well, it is my career after all, (not hacker), sorry if I sound stupid to you man, maybe I am stupid, but there is no reason for you to get defensive. The thing is, the credit card system haven´t been hacked is because multi-billionairs don´t have a reason to do that in the current circumstances.
I would the reason is much more likely that it is not technically possible. I think think this even if what you say were true, which it in not, i.e. that multi-billionaires have no desire to become even richer or "trillionairs." Surely, at least, some smart young multi-millionaires would like to "hack the credit card system" and make themselves billions. I.e., once again you are being, at best, illogical. I do not think I am "getting defensive" but I am trying to defend an idea, which I honestly think has the potential to solve the US hard drug problem, while costing much less than the current failed attempt. It also conveys many other substantial benefits not the least of which are very significant reduction of the tax burden on honest people, reduced crime rates, more honest government without bribes, and greater freedom of choice (MJ joins alcohol, tobacco, under government control.) You are not even making a decent challenge to the idea yet. Please try a little more thoughtfully - constructive criticism would be helpful.
this is off subject. this thread is about legalization of drugs. not money (btw all money should be 'plastic' such as a debit card that takes directly out of a savings account. not a credit card mind u). so get back to the subject i used to support the legalization of marijuana until my big brother, who was my hero and role model, was sentenced 15 years in prison. hes still there. no matter what u say no matter how many facts u throw at me no matter how logical ur answer may be im never gonna support marijuana again. and if one of u assholes says he shouldnt have gotten caught u need to get a damn heart. thats all i have to say
Welcome to sciforms. I do not think we are off subject. Money and drugs are closely related. The merits of legalization, or not, depends on how successful you can be in making ilegal drugs not used. We have not succeeded very well, sadly as you know from personnal experience. To make something illegal that you cannot enforce (For example, anal intercourse by consenting persons in privacy of the bedrooms) is silly to make illegal. One might as well pass a law that it cannot rain on weekends. 15 years in US (not in Turkey etc.) jail seem a very long time for first offense, if it was just for the use of MJ. I do not mean to pry, but since I suspect that MJ was just the first step on a slippery slope to harder drugs that got him 15 years, I want to ask you: Would you still object to MJ being legal and him using it, as some responsibly use alcohol, IF NO HARD DRUGS WERE AVAILABLE for him to switch too, if use of hard drugs is actually what got him 15 years? I.e. If plan of post 54 had become law 40 years ago, when I first stated proposing it and as a result, No hard drugs existed in the US, only legal MJ, where do you think your brother would be now? Certainly he would not be in jail for use of a legal mild drug, which probably is less injurious to human body than alcohol. Please think about this and tell me if you still are against a plan that makes MJ legal and quality controlled as alcohol is so that hard drugs do not exist in US. Current programs do not make hard drugs absent from US; they only make them more expensive, and more deadly. (Both to ODing users and to people killed by addicts robbing to get funds for their "fix") Again, I am sorry about your brother. I do not use any drug but alcohol so what I am trying to do is help avoid some problems like I suspect happened with your brother (assuming it is a US, not Turkish, jail he is in. God help him if he is in Turkey, especially now that Turkey is beginning to come apart.)
