The points above mostly all make sense, given that:
- The police/SS seem obliged to deem cash business to be implicitly/potentially illegal, because you cannot trace the source of the money being used in the transaction to establish:
(a) proof/certainty as to whether it was used for bona fide legal/legitimate purposes (e.g., it might be operating an unlicensed casino), or
(b) whether the cash came from a "legitimate" or criminal source (e.g., as in money laundering).
- There seems to be a necessary drive by police/SS to exercise State control over all financial transactions so as to be able to "prove" them at the POS (Point Of Sale), as the police/SS are otherwise unable to effectively police various areas of crime engaged in money exchange/laundering.
Fans of the Breaking Bad
series will recall the problems with having all that illegally-obtained cash (millions) stashed away in the wall linings of your garage or wherever...@sword
may well be right though:
See, "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", by Lewis Carroll
(Which I thought was a very droll comment.)
But there is at least one other important aspect to this that I can think of - banking transaction "tollgate" fees - which are a huge
real/potential source of revenue.
We have witnessed that payments intermediaries/agents (e.g., PayPal, Visa, Mastercard) can pick and choose at their whim which of their commercial accounts can use their services - e.g., withdrawing access to their payments service and freezing accounts for "pirating" organisations frowned on by the **AA or by the State (e.g., Wikileaks).
There will undoubtedly be a financial benefit for this "self policing", probably in terms of some kind of a fee from the **AA or the State, and/or from the use-of money
interest by effectively sequestering the funds (assets) in any frozen or "unclaimed" or "unclaimable" accounts.
The precedent for this form of highly lucrative and legitimised piracy bonanza was set in the case of the thousands of secretive anonymous Swiss Bank accounts of wealthy Jews killed in the Holocaust, and of the hundreds (or more) of Nazi/SS generals who had squirrelled away their humungus stolen assets - the spoils of war. Sitting on that sea of "gifted wealth" after WW2 was what made the corrupt (QED) Swiss banks even more secretive (lest they be discovered and were asked to pay the legitimate account monies to the descendants/heirs of the "untraceable" account-holders) and is apparently the main reason for Switzerland's strong economy today and their pride of place in the respectable (ho, ho) banking community.
So that represents a view of the population providing lucrative revenue from the accounts that you have
as a banking/financial intermediary. But what about the accounts that you do not
have? They could be potentially very lucrative.
Well, every cash transaction is a missed tollgate fee, and there are likely to be billions of them, and once you have established your bank as the
financial intermediary for those accounts, you can collect a fee on every transaction. It's a tax levied by nominated financial barons, for an ephemeral service, and which is authorised by governments and their Agencies (which collectively are otherwise the authorised
tax-gatherers). The government cannot function without a well-subsidised banking system creating the magical "trust" money (debt) that government necessarily feeds upon for its projects. For example, to conduct its philanthropic "peace-making" wars on a global scale, or to conduct philanthropic global mass surveillance...
Some people (not me, you understand) might say that this issue (fees and commissions to feed the banks) - and not
crime - might be the main reason that cash transactions must
be discouraged in favour of EFT-POS (Electronic Funds Transfer at Point-Of-Sale), or similar - all operated by/through the banking system - but I couldn't possibly comment.
(By the way, this may indicate that Bitcoin or similar must be verboten.)