No need to ban cash for arbitrarily negative rates to work. Simply introduce an exchange rate between physical currency and deposits.

Simply introduce an exchange rate between the dollar and it's physical representation.

Barriers are largely people's lack of understanding of how this works and how huge the benefits would be for society.

> Maybe if you think government and society are the same thing.

No, I just think that neutral monetary policy which leads to full employment (defined as natural employment under given tax/regulatory regime) is good for society.

Also good for govt's ability to manage budget, but that's secondary.

> how huge the benefits would be for society

Maybe if you think government and society are the same thing.

But if you ban cash, you for the same reason also have to ban gold (even jewelry), collectible coins, non-perishable food, and anything else that can be bought and stored as a store of value. Good luck with all that.

Can one buy futures on Honey Buns?

http://gawker.com/5729214/honey-buns-are-the-new-prison-curr...

I don't see how that would fly in the US. Off the top, it would seem to violate at least the 1st and 4th amendments to the US Constitution.

I'd like to see an argument for that.

Argument for what?

Someone would need to propose a specific law. A law that says 'you may only contract with [insert privileged electronic currency here]" or something similar.

If the enforcement is through confiscation of other currencies it will likely violate 4th amendment protections on personal effects.

If certain contracts are banned (instead of, or in addition to, confiscation) it would violate speech protections. Exchanging money (in any form) is speech, as are your contractual dealings.

> Argument for what?

An argument as to how restricting the use of cash (or eliminating the use of cash entirely) inherently conflicts with the first or fourth amendments.

> A law that says 'you may only contract with [insert privileged electronic currency here]" or something similar.

The usual method would be more like "All damages, including -- but not limited to -- those for breach of contracts specifying payment in some other currency, shall be awarded and assessed in [privileged currency] as of the date the debt became due and payable."

> If the enforcement is through confiscation of other currencies it will likely violate 4th amendment protections on personal effects.

That's a creative argument, but, no, Fourth Amendment search and seizure protections do not prohibit confiscation of contraband.

> If certain contracts are banned (instead of, or in addition to, confiscation) it would violate speech protections.

Contracts that are contrary to public policy -- such as those whose fulfillment requires an act prohibited by law -- are generally void for that reason; this is a well-settled principal of law and is not contrary to the First Amendment. The idea that the First Amendment means any contract obligation, without restriction, is immune from prohibition is, well, silly in the extreme.

Read article I section 8.

Congress may make money, collect taxes, and do other things, yes. What is the relevance?

It gives congress the power to regulate the value of cash.

Hmm, I don't remember seeing that. Which clause are you referring to?

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof"