From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

A working paper by the International Monetary Fund suggests that cash may disappear from society entirely once central bank digital currencies become mainstream.

Digital currencies like CBDCs could make cash extinct, whether by design or through market preference, according to an IMF working paper.

With widespread digital currency adoption, cash may go the way of the dodo bird, and it would be “challenging and costly” to revive it if a society were to go fully cashless, according to the IMF working paper, Could Digital Currencies Lead to the Disappearance of Cash from the Market? by Marco Pani and Rodolfo Maino.

The disappearance of cash, according to the authors, could come about either through direct policy or as a natural part of innovation and digital currency adoption.

They say that “the introduction of a DC [Digital Currency] in a diverse payment ecosystem—comprising cash, traditional payment cards, and modern electronic money—where the use of physical cash has already declined significantly, could lead to the complete disappearance of cash, even if such an outcome were not an intentional policy objective.”

READ: Financial expert warns all-digital monetary system would enable ‘complete control’ of citizens

The authors looked at how merchants and customers use physical cash and cards, and simulated how the introduction of digital currencies could either complement cash and cards or wipe them out completely.

According to the report, the introduction of a new currency can alter the market equilibrium in several qualitatively different ways:

1. It may displace one of the exiting currencies (either cash or cards);
2. It may replace both currencies; or
3. It may continue to be used indefinitely alongside the other two currencies.

Programmable digital currencies like Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) cannot operate without pegging every user to a digital identity.

What’s more, these programmable digital currencies can be controlled remotely, so that taxes and fines could automatically be taken out of accounts, or so that restrictions could be placed on what you could buy, where you could buy it and when.

Last year, the IMF published a policy brief acknowledging that CBDCs could be used for state surveillance while posing risks to privacy and cybersecurity that could undermine trust in central bank money.

According to the November 2024 IMF brief, Central Bank Digital Currency: Progress And Further Considerations:

CBDC, as a digital form of central bank money, may allow for a ‘digital trail’—data—to be accessed, collected, processed and stored.

In contrast to cash, CBDC could be designed to potentially include a wealth of personal data encapsulating transaction histories, user demographics, and behavioral patterns.

Personal data could establish a link between counterparty identities and transactions.

While the IMF acknowledges the risks to privacy, the potential for government surveillance, and how public and private entities could leverage user data for nefarious means, it is still plowing ahead with a CBDC Handbook for central banks and governments to follow during their rollouts.

READ: International Monetary Fund ‘working hard’ on a global Central Bank Digital Currency platform

The IMF consistently says that digital currencies should be complementary to physical cash and to not replace it, but all signs point towards the erosion of cash over time, whether through convenience or coercion — carrot or stick.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Special Meeting on Global Collaboration, Growth and Energy Development last year, Central Bank of Bahrain governor Khalid Humaidan told the panel “Open Forum: The Digital Currencies’ Opportunity in the Middle East” that one of the goals of CBDC was to replace cash, at least in Bahrain, and to go “one hundred percent digital.”

"We're probably going to stop calling it central bank digital currency [CBDC]. It's going to be a digital form of cash, and at some point in time hopefully we will be able to be 100% digital": Central Bank of Bahrain Governor Khalid Humaidan to the WEF https://t.co/Pspr0M1Uuq pic.twitter.com/N5aOkCpzh1

— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) April 29, 2024

“If we think cash is the analogue and digital currency is the form of digital — CBDC is the digital form of cash — today, clearly we’re in a hybrid situation; we’re using both,” said Humaidan.

We know in the past when it comes to cash, central bankers were very much in control with all aspects of cash, and now we’re comfortable to the point where the private sector plays a big role in the printing of the cash, in the distribution of the cash, and with the private sector we use interest rates to manage the supply of cash.

The same thing is likely to happen with CBDC. Yes, the central bank will have a role, but at some point in time — the same way we don’t call it ‘central bank cash’ — we’re probably going to stop calling it central bank digital currency.

It’s going to be a digital form of the cash, and at some point in time hopefully we will be able to be one hundred percent digital.

"Is it [digital euro] going to be as private as cash? No. A digital currency will never be as anonymous and as protecting of privacy in many respects as cash, which is why cash will always be around": Christine Lagarde, BIS Innovation Summit, March 2023 #CBDC pic.twitter.com/BLMVOPax6a

— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) April 11, 2023

While the IMF advises to not eliminate cash altogether, central banks and governments are already moving in that direction.

Furthermore, a WEF Agenda blog post from September, 2017 lists the “gradual obsolescence of paper currency” as being “characteristic of a well-designed CBDC.”

If cash were to go extinct, the latest IMF working paper warns, “reintroducing cash in a non-cash system would be challenging and costly.”

Therefore, the authors conclude:

To safeguard the continued utilization of cash and to uphold the equilibrium of the payment system, the study advocates for a proactive policy approach and for the implementation of measures aimed at ensuring the sustained relevance of physical currency, especially in scenarios where the introduction of new digital currencies might inadvertently lead to the extinction of traditional cash.

The IMF working paper Could Digital Currencies Lead to the Disappearance of Cash from the Market? was published on the IMF website in March 2025; however, the paper was first published in the International Advances in Economic Research journal on February 19, 2024 under its original title, Could CBDCs Lead to Cash Extinction? Insights from a ‘Merchant-Customer’ Model.

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable. 

Note from LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac: This article is a must-read and view for all readers because of the profound personal impact a digital economy would have on every individual and every family.

The great Catherine Austin Fitts has strongly recommended that every citizen use cash as much as possible for purchases. She says that if millions did this, it would delay, if not stop, a forced digital economy. She should know. Fitts emphasizes, “In a highly leveraged financial system such as we have, a single individual counts for a lot.”

See her article, I Want to Stop CBDCs – What Can I Do

The increased use of credit and debit cards, including phone and other digital payment systems, is tempting because of their convenience. Still, it is also your cooperation in building your economic prison and total control of all that you say and do, where and when you travel, what you buy or subscribe to, and so on. We are facing a totalitarian control that has never before been experienced in human history. It is beyond frightening.

Carrying and using cash for purchases, and refusing to purchase anything from shops, restaurants or other services that do not accept cash or checks, is inconvenient and requires a little effort, commitment and some degree of courage.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

From telecom ownership limits to convoluted regulations, these hidden obstacles drive up prices, choke innovation, and shield domestic industries from global competition. Canada ranks among the worst offenders. If Ottawa is serious about free trade, it’s time to tackle the red tape, not just the tariffs.

Governments claim to support free trade, but use hidden rules to shut out foreign competition

Tariffs levied by governments on imports are a well-known impediment to trade. They raise costs for consumers and businesses alike. But tariffs are no longer the main obstacle to the elusive goal of “free and fair trade.” A more significant—and often overlooked—threat comes from non-tariff barriers: the behind-the-scenes rules, subsidies and restrictions that quietly block competition from foreign exporters.

These barriers can take many forms, including import licences, quotas, discriminatory regulations and state subsidies. The result is often higher prices, limited product choices and reduced innovation, since foreign competitors are effectively shut out of the market before they can enter.

This hidden protectionism harms both consumers and Canadian firms that rely on imported goods or global supply chains.

To understand the global scope of these barriers, a recent analysis by the Tholos Foundation sheds light on their prevalence and impact. Its 2023 Non-Tariff Barriers Index Report examined the policies, laws and trade practices of 88 countries, representing 96 per cent of the world’s population and GDP.

The results are surprising: the United States, with some of the lowest official tariffs, ranked 65th on non-tariff barriers. Canada, by contrast, ranked fourth.

These barriers are often formalized and tracked under the term “non-tariff measures” by international organizations such as the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the World Trade Organization.

UNCTAD notes that while some serve legitimate non-trade objectives like public health or environmental protection, they still raise trade costs through procedural hurdles that can disproportionately affect small exporters or developing nations.

Other barriers include embargoes, import deposits, subsidies to favoured companies, state procurement preferences, technical standards designed to exclude foreign goods, restrictions on foreign investment, discriminatory taxes and forced technology transfers.

Many of these are detailed in a study by the Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.

Sanctions and politically motivated trade restrictions also fall under this umbrella, complicating efforts to build reliable global trade networks.

Among the most opaque forms of trade distortion is currency manipulation. Countries like Japan have historically used ultra-low interest rates to stimulate growth, which also weakens their currencies.

Others may unintentionally devalue their currency through excessive, debt-financed spending. Regardless of motive, the effect is often the same: foreign goods become more expensive, and domestic exports become artificially competitive.

Canada is no stranger to non-tariff barriers. Labelling laws, technical standards and foreign ownership restrictions, particularly in telecommunications and digital media, are clear examples. Longstanding rules prevent foreign companies from owning Canadian telecom providers, limiting competition in an industry where Canadians already pay among the highest cellphone bills in the world. Similar restrictions on investment in broadcasting and interactive digital media also curtail innovation and investment.

Other nations use these barriers just as liberally. The U.S. has expanded its use of the “national security” exemption to justify restrictions in nearly any industry it sees as threatened. The European Union employs a wide range of non-tariff measures that affect sectors from agriculture to digital services. So while China is frequently criticized for abusing trade rules, it is far from the only offender.

If governments are serious about pursuing freer, fairer global trade, they must confront these less visible but more potent barriers. Tariffs may be declining, but protectionism is alive and well, just hidden behind layers of red tape.

For Canada to remain competitive and protect consumers, we must look beyond tariffs and scrutinize the subtler ways the federal government is restricting trade.

Ian Madsen is a senior policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.