Well, the real stuff at least. Unlike the groups of pixels on your mobile banking app, cash is a concrete representation of what you have earned while wasting your life in some banal profession you actually hate. It can be smelt, dealt, and stored anonymously and securely.
The problem, you ask? The banks aren't making a single dime off that wad of cash stuffed in the mattress.
NPR's Robert Siegel has called for a ban on paper bills in his new book, The Curse of Cash. Citing it as a criminal threat to the sanctity of the most honorable Internal Revenue Service, Siegel suggests that cash should exist in no larger denominations than the ten-dollar bill.
The immediate and overwhelming conclusion: bills of twenty-dollars and larger are exclusively used for tax evasion and crime.
The solution? Give low-income citizens free bank accounts to facilitate traceable electronic transfers while begrudgingly keeping currency smaller than ten-dollars for small transactions.
The argument of reducing tax evasion is merely a smokescreen to try and convince the population that they need a debit or credit card to responsibly function in society.
Meanwhile, the federal government happily throws away billions of dollars in tax revenue per year as it incentivizes tax loopholes, offshore accounts, shell companies, and production outsourcing.
When reality is taken into consideration, criminal exploits utilizing tangible items will always exist. Uncut diamonds, drugs, oil, cars, military hardware, you name it. Abolishing the Benjamin will never change this.
Ironically, this idea of solely relying on electronic purchases amidst rampant hacking by foreign state actors seems like a very insecure proposition. If your bank is hacked, the databases wiped clean, and your mobile app suddenly reads $0 how does one function and who foots that bill? The bank, the FDIC, or you?
Aside from criminal activity, a rational reason as to why the majority circulation happens to be the $100 bill can be explained simply as devaluation and inflation.
One U.S. dollar today could purchase over thirteen dollars worth of goods at the end of WWII in 1945. Therefore, to buy anything meaningful with cash in today's money, you're likely going to want those larger denominations of twenties and hundreds.
The truth is that this change in monetary policy is to benefit the banks, not the citizen.
Bill Clinton's repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 ensures that banks can gamble citizen's savings at their own discretion. This federally authorized forcing of bank accounts would systematically increase the loan capital that financial institutions can use to make themselves rich.
The citizen is rewarded by historically low and entirely insignificant interest rates coupled with a federally mandated maximum number of allowable electronic account transfers for their time and trust.
But hey, at least you have a debit card.
Furthermore, the other alternative to the citizen would simply mean an increase in credit card usage by an already severely indebted and poor populace.
Since the banks own the credit card companies, they make trillions either way. A surge in credit card dependence would further erode an already battered middle class into a state of poverty and servitude.
The other truth? The government wants to watch you.
This movement graduating to implemented policy would be an attempt to circumnavigate the 4th Amendment. Forcing a populace to almost exclusively use traceable bank cards means there is now a record of every single item an American has purchased in their life.
This can be used as evidence against you, or to search or detain you on grounds of suspicion.
Two decades ago this motive would be refuted as nonsensical conspiracy. However, the revelations of the Snowden leaks regarding PRISM have proved the government is indeed very interested in everything its citizenry does.
The well-documented $600,000 speeches to Goldman-Sachs and legalized bribery known as lobbying ensures the financial institutions have their bases covered in politically legitimizing these proposals in the future.