I was all geared up to press "like" on this one, as the start of the essay is, as always, entertaining, witty, and fun.
Then you went a bit astray.
As someone who is indeed involved in the introduction of the digital Euro, I can assure you that "the coin" is NOT going to be abolished. Cash will continue to exist, even after we introduce the digital Euro. The digital Euro will be exactly like what we use now, only without the tyrrany of Visa and Mastercard. It will be immune to "too big to fail" bank failures, because it will indeed be fiat, and not subject to Deutsche Bank money laundering scandals or the like.
It'll be online and off. The same rules regarding AML/CFT and KYC as exist now will be in force. We'll simply be safer. Privacy concerns are LESS than with commercial banks, because we CAN regulate what the Central Bank does with the information. In fact, we've put privacy as paramount into the legislation. The ECB will NOT know what we're spending on, because they won't be allowed to view that information.
Thank you for your contribution, Aidas. It’s by far the longest comment that has ever been placed on anything I’ve written, and there is meaning to that, for you have touched now upon something that is of great importance: the meaning of life, and I have no tongue in my cheek. I’ll reveal what it is anon, but first allow me to thank you for the paucity with which you adorn articles with a “like”. It should mean that a like from you is not given lightly, but is earned, and this I applaud. Fellow writer Simon K. Jones posted on this very subject recently (https://simonkjones.substack.com/p/the-power-of-the-like-button) and here is my response:
"If a like means you like something, what does no like mean?
"My readership remains more or less constant. Not the number of subscribers, but the number of people who read what I write. I get a like "every now and then". Some, I know, are given out of politeness. But what about the non-likes?
"I believe that if you challenge the reader in a certain manner, by tapping them on the shoulder yourself, rather than blaring in their face, it is possible to touch a nerve that keeps them coming back but stops them liking what you write. Like a good Sunday-morning preacher.
"In a discussion on Notes recently, someone asked whether they can check whether their welcome e-mail gets read. Clearly, no one can check whether any e-mail gets read, and this seems to have escaped them (I advised them to let me know if they find out differently, and I would advise the FBI). In the past, you inserted an ad in a newspaper or put up a hoarding and waited to see whether your sales increased. If they did, you attributed it to the hoarding or the ad, because you had nothing else to attribute it to.
"But, in my own case, I get a feeling that it's the lack of likes that is the mark of success. I preach a lot. But to no one in particular."
So, you’ll be wondering: what’s the meaning of life? Well, Jesus knew what the meaning of life was and this passage from Luke is one of the few in the Bible that juxtaposes His view on the meaning of life and the diametrically opposite view. And, since Jesus walked the Earth, as also before his birth and since his death, the Earth has been bound in a tussle over these two schools of thought. Until now, because one of them is getting the upper hand and will likely win.
To Jesus, and to Mr Keaton in the film "Dead Poets Society", the meaning of life is to love. And to those who don’t subscribe to that, the meaning of life is tax. And tax is winning.
It's not money itself, because the ultra-rich, who want money, don't want to run a country; and without proper government, they don't want anarchy either. They want a government that will max their assets, not fall, not get invaded, and not crumble in anarchy, and so they do all they can to support taxes. Just they're not keen on paying them, but on getting them paid by others. And the government thanks them in return.
This sounds cynical and I hesitate to develop it in the context of a response to a comment, but tax is what our entire lives are about, from baptism to inheritance. And of the many factors that are making this clear, one can cite the loosening of religion in western societies (baptism having been used as a means to bind citizens into an obligation to the state as an established religion in the past) compared to the vehement upholding of established churches in Russia, Poland, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other nations where that is the case. One can trace the history of capital transfer taxes, the eminent social unfairness of value-added taxes, the trade-offs between top-rate income tax and share buy-backs, golden handshake reliefs and stock option plans. Top management in commerce is like the staff of an army: generals, colonels, and brigadiers. When a country says “Take that colony”, in go the admirals and take the colony. If they fail, they sink to the bottom of the sea. But if they succeed, they get an Earldom. The spoils of war are no different to the spoils of commerce, and just as grace and favours would be extended to Earls and Dukes, so they are extended to the sea captains of commerce. This was less evident when the gap between rich and poor was narrowing. But now it is widening again, palpably so, and the trickle-down theory is exposed for its falsity, or the fact it’s being abused.
Now, these are all broad brushes and you can argue that the meaning of life is flying kites or beach holidays or getting drunk, but if we take a peek back in ancient time to the era of anarchy on Earth, in the sense that humans co-existed much more like our animal world does today, before tribal groups and nation states had formed, then we arrive at a chicken and egg point: was the nation state formed as a mode of defence, which needed funding? Or was the desire for funding the reason the nation state was formed and was defence then the quid pro quo?
Aside from some well-known examples that winter by collecting supplies, like squirrels or bears, no species on Earth harvests more than it needs, particularly in order to trade it. We do. We create huge amounts of things and pile up stores of them in order to encourage covetousness. And we pay for insurance because we know it works, and people want to steal stuff. And then we add the price of insurance into the price of the goods and make the honest coveter pay for the dishonest coveter's coveting.
Few of the commandments are more telling than the prohibition against coveting the possessions of others. To covet is not to steal and it is interesting that the two are separate sins; to covet is to desire; what is telling in the tenth commandment is that there is no corresponding commandment "thou shalt not tempt." Tempting is what the devil does, yet it is not a sin. The sin is yielding to temptation.
So, what do we covet? We basically covet freedom. Freedom is the ability to exist without chains, and its opposite is slavery. We have devised a means to attain freedom, and that is work. We sacrifice a part of our freedom in order to have the means to enjoy the portion that remains to us. But that means we cannot therefore devote time to creating the things we want, and so we trade our labour for things that we covet. And that gets us into a bind when it is misused, such as Henry Ford creating motor cars that could only be purchased by the use of instalment loans. He was one of the first to embark on the notion of mass production in order to create want.
So what has this got to do with tax? Everything. Commerce exists under the aegis of government, which, unlike Ford, produces NOTHING. But it wields huge power, to allow or forbid or control what people do. And it does that for one reason only: tax. Because tax is the means it has to encourage or discourage certain behaviours, certain forms of commerce and certain international relations. I’ve no doubt that Schuman had the misery of Europe’s peoples in mind when he proposed the European Coal & Steel Community. Of course he did. But, in the end, if coal and steel had not been subject to tax, nobody would have had the slightest interest in stabilising their market, regardless of how many people died in the war. The oceans are overfilled with refuse: because pouring refuse into the sea is not taxed. Mountaineers clamber over each other on Mount Everest, and drop like flies from it, because climbing it is taxed (it's collection of tax that encourages Nepal to issue too many climbing permits).
So, when the first trader who accumulated a field’s worth of wheat wanted a goat to provide milk, the goatherder and he bartered. Half a field of wheat for a goat. And the lord of the manor came and lined his army up alongside the two them and said, “Where’s my share?” So the farmer gives them a sheaf of wheat. And the goatherd has to kill a goat to give them a leg. And that’s why pennies were invented. So that goats could be taxed.
Most who make it to the echelons of government know what an offshore fund is, and likely have a couple. They know only too well that AML, which trumpets its holiness, is a smokescreen behind which they salt away fortunes. And they’re not so stupid that they don’t know even the little man is doing it.
So, it’s important for tax to remain the meaning of life, and so the tax base has to be upheld, and that’s best done by getting rid of cash altogether because electronic payments are a dream enforcement measure.
You say I go astray, but, Aidas, it is you who go astray. The bill will ask for cash to be preserved as a means of payment, because, as is known in some cultures, like Germany, cash is more easily manageable for those on low incomes. The coin, a revolution in its time, which aided commerce, it’s true, was coined, so to speak, in order to allow easy collection of tax; and the coin will be abolished, rest assured, for the exact same reason. The difference is that electronic payments didn’t exist in Rome of old.
The ECB may not know what you spend electronic euros on, but the government will know you received a payment from me even if they don't know it's for plumbing services, if I cannot give you an envelope filled with 20s.
I was all geared up to press "like" on this one, as the start of the essay is, as always, entertaining, witty, and fun.
Then you went a bit astray.
As someone who is indeed involved in the introduction of the digital Euro, I can assure you that "the coin" is NOT going to be abolished. Cash will continue to exist, even after we introduce the digital Euro. The digital Euro will be exactly like what we use now, only without the tyrrany of Visa and Mastercard. It will be immune to "too big to fail" bank failures, because it will indeed be fiat, and not subject to Deutsche Bank money laundering scandals or the like.
It'll be online and off. The same rules regarding AML/CFT and KYC as exist now will be in force. We'll simply be safer. Privacy concerns are LESS than with commercial banks, because we CAN regulate what the Central Bank does with the information. In fact, we've put privacy as paramount into the legislation. The ECB will NOT know what we're spending on, because they won't be allowed to view that information.
Thank you for your contribution, Aidas. It’s by far the longest comment that has ever been placed on anything I’ve written, and there is meaning to that, for you have touched now upon something that is of great importance: the meaning of life, and I have no tongue in my cheek. I’ll reveal what it is anon, but first allow me to thank you for the paucity with which you adorn articles with a “like”. It should mean that a like from you is not given lightly, but is earned, and this I applaud. Fellow writer Simon K. Jones posted on this very subject recently (https://simonkjones.substack.com/p/the-power-of-the-like-button) and here is my response:
"If a like means you like something, what does no like mean?
"My readership remains more or less constant. Not the number of subscribers, but the number of people who read what I write. I get a like "every now and then". Some, I know, are given out of politeness. But what about the non-likes?
"I believe that if you challenge the reader in a certain manner, by tapping them on the shoulder yourself, rather than blaring in their face, it is possible to touch a nerve that keeps them coming back but stops them liking what you write. Like a good Sunday-morning preacher.
"In a discussion on Notes recently, someone asked whether they can check whether their welcome e-mail gets read. Clearly, no one can check whether any e-mail gets read, and this seems to have escaped them (I advised them to let me know if they find out differently, and I would advise the FBI). In the past, you inserted an ad in a newspaper or put up a hoarding and waited to see whether your sales increased. If they did, you attributed it to the hoarding or the ad, because you had nothing else to attribute it to.
"But, in my own case, I get a feeling that it's the lack of likes that is the mark of success. I preach a lot. But to no one in particular."
So, you’ll be wondering: what’s the meaning of life? Well, Jesus knew what the meaning of life was and this passage from Luke is one of the few in the Bible that juxtaposes His view on the meaning of life and the diametrically opposite view. And, since Jesus walked the Earth, as also before his birth and since his death, the Earth has been bound in a tussle over these two schools of thought. Until now, because one of them is getting the upper hand and will likely win.
To Jesus, and to Mr Keaton in the film "Dead Poets Society", the meaning of life is to love. And to those who don’t subscribe to that, the meaning of life is tax. And tax is winning.
It's not money itself, because the ultra-rich, who want money, don't want to run a country; and without proper government, they don't want anarchy either. They want a government that will max their assets, not fall, not get invaded, and not crumble in anarchy, and so they do all they can to support taxes. Just they're not keen on paying them, but on getting them paid by others. And the government thanks them in return.
This sounds cynical and I hesitate to develop it in the context of a response to a comment, but tax is what our entire lives are about, from baptism to inheritance. And of the many factors that are making this clear, one can cite the loosening of religion in western societies (baptism having been used as a means to bind citizens into an obligation to the state as an established religion in the past) compared to the vehement upholding of established churches in Russia, Poland, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other nations where that is the case. One can trace the history of capital transfer taxes, the eminent social unfairness of value-added taxes, the trade-offs between top-rate income tax and share buy-backs, golden handshake reliefs and stock option plans. Top management in commerce is like the staff of an army: generals, colonels, and brigadiers. When a country says “Take that colony”, in go the admirals and take the colony. If they fail, they sink to the bottom of the sea. But if they succeed, they get an Earldom. The spoils of war are no different to the spoils of commerce, and just as grace and favours would be extended to Earls and Dukes, so they are extended to the sea captains of commerce. This was less evident when the gap between rich and poor was narrowing. But now it is widening again, palpably so, and the trickle-down theory is exposed for its falsity, or the fact it’s being abused.
Now, these are all broad brushes and you can argue that the meaning of life is flying kites or beach holidays or getting drunk, but if we take a peek back in ancient time to the era of anarchy on Earth, in the sense that humans co-existed much more like our animal world does today, before tribal groups and nation states had formed, then we arrive at a chicken and egg point: was the nation state formed as a mode of defence, which needed funding? Or was the desire for funding the reason the nation state was formed and was defence then the quid pro quo?
Aside from some well-known examples that winter by collecting supplies, like squirrels or bears, no species on Earth harvests more than it needs, particularly in order to trade it. We do. We create huge amounts of things and pile up stores of them in order to encourage covetousness. And we pay for insurance because we know it works, and people want to steal stuff. And then we add the price of insurance into the price of the goods and make the honest coveter pay for the dishonest coveter's coveting.
Few of the commandments are more telling than the prohibition against coveting the possessions of others. To covet is not to steal and it is interesting that the two are separate sins; to covet is to desire; what is telling in the tenth commandment is that there is no corresponding commandment "thou shalt not tempt." Tempting is what the devil does, yet it is not a sin. The sin is yielding to temptation.
So, what do we covet? We basically covet freedom. Freedom is the ability to exist without chains, and its opposite is slavery. We have devised a means to attain freedom, and that is work. We sacrifice a part of our freedom in order to have the means to enjoy the portion that remains to us. But that means we cannot therefore devote time to creating the things we want, and so we trade our labour for things that we covet. And that gets us into a bind when it is misused, such as Henry Ford creating motor cars that could only be purchased by the use of instalment loans. He was one of the first to embark on the notion of mass production in order to create want.
So what has this got to do with tax? Everything. Commerce exists under the aegis of government, which, unlike Ford, produces NOTHING. But it wields huge power, to allow or forbid or control what people do. And it does that for one reason only: tax. Because tax is the means it has to encourage or discourage certain behaviours, certain forms of commerce and certain international relations. I’ve no doubt that Schuman had the misery of Europe’s peoples in mind when he proposed the European Coal & Steel Community. Of course he did. But, in the end, if coal and steel had not been subject to tax, nobody would have had the slightest interest in stabilising their market, regardless of how many people died in the war. The oceans are overfilled with refuse: because pouring refuse into the sea is not taxed. Mountaineers clamber over each other on Mount Everest, and drop like flies from it, because climbing it is taxed (it's collection of tax that encourages Nepal to issue too many climbing permits).
So, when the first trader who accumulated a field’s worth of wheat wanted a goat to provide milk, the goatherder and he bartered. Half a field of wheat for a goat. And the lord of the manor came and lined his army up alongside the two them and said, “Where’s my share?” So the farmer gives them a sheaf of wheat. And the goatherd has to kill a goat to give them a leg. And that’s why pennies were invented. So that goats could be taxed.
Most who make it to the echelons of government know what an offshore fund is, and likely have a couple. They know only too well that AML, which trumpets its holiness, is a smokescreen behind which they salt away fortunes. And they’re not so stupid that they don’t know even the little man is doing it.
So, it’s important for tax to remain the meaning of life, and so the tax base has to be upheld, and that’s best done by getting rid of cash altogether because electronic payments are a dream enforcement measure.
You say I go astray, but, Aidas, it is you who go astray. The bill will ask for cash to be preserved as a means of payment, because, as is known in some cultures, like Germany, cash is more easily manageable for those on low incomes. The coin, a revolution in its time, which aided commerce, it’s true, was coined, so to speak, in order to allow easy collection of tax; and the coin will be abolished, rest assured, for the exact same reason. The difference is that electronic payments didn’t exist in Rome of old.
The ECB may not know what you spend electronic euros on, but the government will know you received a payment from me even if they don't know it's for plumbing services, if I cannot give you an envelope filled with 20s.