Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2015 10:17:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Capital Controls (Criminalizing non-criminal action through economics)
With Bilderberg meeting ongoing, capital controls on the rest of us will surely be on the agenda, and with charges against former House Speaker Hastert for violation of these types of laws, the central regime has demonstrated willingness to prosecute people for withdrawing their own money and lying about the reason for withdrawal. These capital controls are also driving ideas behind "cashless societies". Without cash, central authorities are able to ensure that they receive their "fair share". Capital controls are designed to limit a person"s access to their own money, current limits are $10,000 per transaction and has never been inflation adjusted. Any person should be able to withdraw or deposit any amount of money without banks reporting transactions.
The stated targets of these laws were drug dealers and money launderers, but the real target is anyone that wants to have cash in their control.
Hastert"s charges are for violating capital control, thus withdrawing his own money, not for sexual abuse. Another victim of these types of laws is Elliott Spitzer, his banking active led to his political downfall for engaging in temporary voluntary sexual relationships for monetary compensation. My take away from Hastert and Spitzer is when withdrawing an amount of money that requires reporting the reason should be "wine, sexual partners, and song". That is the ultimate reason for all expenditures, regardless of the earlier stages of investment.
What reason do/will you give when withdrawing an amount that requires justification? (The "it is my money" answer is not enough)
A free market anti-capitalist
If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.