What happens to gold and silver prices when world goes to a cashless society?

[sixgun]

No - the Federal Reserve Bank, Federal Reserve System and Federal Reserve Banks all mean the same thing. 

[Oldun]

 

Some observers mistakenly consider the Federal Reserve to be a private entity because the Reserve Banks are organized similarly to private corporations. For instance, each of the 12 Reserve Banks operates within its own particular geographic area, or District, of the United States, and each is separately incorporated and has its own board of directors. Commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System hold stock in their District's Reserve Bank. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. In fact, the Reserve Banks are required by law to transfer net earnings to the U.S. Treasury, after providing for all necessary expenses of the Reserve Banks, legally required dividend payments, and maintaining a limited balance in a surplus fund.

 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

 

Feel free to call them and dispute this with them. I can wait.

[sovereignsteve]

9 hours ago, SteveDavies said:

Depend what you want to buy, if you find somebody selling boats, caravans or other large thing you may want to buy, then you can go through the lit of for ale items and ask if the sellers want to trade

why would anyone take your gold in payment when all they could buy with it is another large ticket item off record? at some point in this selling chain someone would want to cash the gold in to buy something else, food for example.

[HawkHybrid]

gold should facilitate trade between those too far to

barter for goods and services. like it did for centuries

before.

 

HH

[sixgun]

@Oldun what do you think this paragraph is saying?

It starts off by saying it is a mistake to consider the Federal Reserve to be a private entity. i was taught to deal with complaints by starting out by saying, we are sorry to hear you felt it necessary to complain. The reader presumes 'we' were sorry for whatever it was they were complaining about - but we weren't, we were sorry they were causing us hassle by complaining.

In the paragraph you quote they say it is a mistake to consider the Federal Reserve to be a private entity. So the reader might jump to the conclusion the Federal Reserve is a public (government) entity. Now that would be a mistake, a mistake you are encouraged to make.

They do not say the Fed is a government central bank. The Fed is either owned by the American government or it is not. Does it say the Fed is owned by the American government? It does not. It uses the typical smoke and mirrors deceptive language you will find when the elite are on the take but don't want to appear to be at it. They are lying to by stealth.

The Fed came into being by an Act of Congress in 1913. That Congress sanctioned the establishment of the Federal Reserve System does not mean the government owns it. Congress had no power to sanction the establishment of the Fed but it did. The Board of the Fed is appointment by government but the board and committees of the Fed do not answer to the President nor does it mean the government owns the Fed.

Alan Greenspan was asked what the proper relationship is between a President and the Fed Chair. Proper is a deliberate word here, he is being asked does the president have authority over the Fed chair.

Alan Greenspan says the Fed is an independent agency. Agency is a deliberate word set to confuse. Agency could be a modelling agency but he uses the word agency in his next sentence and almost make a slip. He says there is no other agency of government that can overrule action the Fed takes. He almost forgot to slip in the word 'other'. This was there to invite the listener to assume the Fed is a government agency but we see the St Louis Federal Reserve Banks state "The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government" so the Fed is not a government agency despite Alan Greenspan inviting the listener to believe it is. 

https://www.stlouisfed.org/in-plain-english/who-owns-the-federal-reserve-banks

Greenspan says the Fed is beyond the control of government and what the relationship with the President or anyone else in government doesn't matter (b/c the Fed is outside the control of government). Evidenced by the fact the Fed has never been properly audited. Congress cannot attend any of its meetings. It does not answer questions it does not want to. Congress does not know nor does it have any right to know the results and decisions of any of the meetings of the various (secretive) committees.

The paragraph says there are 12 Reserve Banks distributed through the country. Each is separately incorporated. The Federal Reserve System is owned  by the 12 Reserve Banks.

Each Reserve bank is owned by commercial banks, such as JP Morgan, Citi, Goldmans and so on. The Fed is therefore owned by commercial banks but it is not a normal corporation, it is effectively above government. That owning stock in the Fed is not like owning is stock in any private company is a meaningless sentence. Of course owning stock in the Fed is different to any other private company, other private companies do not have the right to create the world reserve currency. When these people write every sentence should be considered in isolation they do not necessary follow on from each other in their sense and content. You are invited to believe they do but this is a mistake. It is like on a page anything in a box is legally counted as being on a different and completely independent piece of paper. 

The Fed is run by the international banking cartel masquerading as a pseudo government entity. The very fact this question keeps surfacing should tell the Fed is as Federal and Federal Express.

[Oldun]

I have seen all those videos way before....

 

I have encountered intransigent types before. Have it your way mate. Good luck.

[Moi]

As an aside, considering gold is more interwoven with currency would silver automatically rise if there is a big sea change in the way money is backed. Why should it?.

[MIP]

Many years ago I read an article in cashless societies, that stood this interesting point: when there is no cash, society creates their own cash means.

Call it cigarettes (war zones), food (natural disasters), gold, silver (geopolitical turbulences)...

Will the story repeat again?

[STONE]

A cashless society will never happen. A simple power outage will kill that idea...

[JohnA]

None of the money we spend is made with precious metals now, right? Only collector coins, proofs, etc. I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but no one uses a silver Eagle to buy lunch in the US  So even in a cashless society they would still make collector coins, I think. And old numismatic coins will always retain value. The Roman Empire crashed, but those coins are worth a lot now.

[KDave]

Cashless society does not necessarily produce any effect on gold prices. Society views gold as a commodity, jewellery and investment and not as a means of exchange. It is the same story as before - cash whether physical or digital is the mechanism for exchange and not the store of value. A transition from cash to cashless, or hypothetically the other way around in the future (Sweden?), does not mean a thing for gold. To see an increased demand for gold under a cashless society would require the same conditions as under a society that still uses physical cash. Primarily, a loss of confidence in the currency in question. 

It is about confidence. Interest rates are an important factor to influence confidence, specifically the effect of negative interest rates. If you look at parts of the world that have seen negative interest rates, demand for physical cash rises, as does demand for physical investments including gold and silver. In a cashless society, gold and silver would in theory be a much larger benefactor than in one that shares the physical space with cash. The rise of the crypto-currency has added another place for people to turn in such situations, but it is not much different to buying a different national currency via digital means. When you break down the technology and the ideas that follow, it is still about confidence, nothing more.

I would not worry about a cashless world any time soon. Demand for circulating currency has been rising in the west with low interest rates and will continue to do so for as long as zero rate policy is continued, which could be for some time. The exception is Sweden which is a singular case. The rest of Europe has seen demand increases massively for cash. Under zero interest rate policy in the UK, compared side by side demand for physical cash has ironically outstripped growth in the economy. Perhaps the central bankers will get it right one day.

[shortstack]

I effectively live in a cashless society 

I never physically carry cash and use my card for all transactions 

i think a lot of people I know are similar in fact I've never seen or handled the new £10 and only saw a £5 note my daughter showed me

personally I see no currency need for the 1p, 2p or 5p at all and I wonder how much the uk government could save by scrapping them totally?

in a teotwawki scenario pm will be less valuable to barter for than bottled water medicines and alcohol

however if others like me like the shiny metals you may be in a strong position especially setting up a new community and monitary system moving forward

just my opinion of course 

viva la revolutione 

[Xander]

There will be no need to worry in a cashless society as long as the bank has your name and dumber...or, maybe just your number would suffice.