7 ms·

Banning cash is such a monumentally bad idea its a miracle of modern propaganda that a single person is willing to even consider it. From negative interest rat

Banning cash is such a monumentally bad idea its a miracle of modern propaganda that a single person is willing to even consider it. From negative interest rates to ubiquitous tracking of your every move and purchase (by stores, banks, governments, and whoever else they choose to share the information with), to the total paralysis society would face from any sort of blackout or network disruption, to limitless technical vulnerability by hackers, eliminating cash is truly one of the worst ideas ever conceived. Its bad enough that the government enforces a legal monopoly on currency. Extending that monopoly to digital-only currency is a huge step in the wrong direction for business, commerce, and freedom.

ffggvv 10y ago
Isn't tracking a good thing? This way the government can fight tax-evasion and the black market...
- jcbrand 10y ago
  Depends on who is doing the tracking and for what purpose. I prefer societies that expect people to do the right thing and have measures in place to deal with anti-socials than societies that expect people to do the wrong thing and therefore try to control everybody for it.
  - geggam 10y ago
    I didn't realize people like you actually existed. I always assumed everyone understood how a tyranny of majority was created.
    - rplst8 10y ago
      The tyranny of the majority assumes that issues are always us vs. them, i.e. two choices. Often there are more than that and then no changes by government can be made. The two party system often masks this possibility.
  - ffggvv 10y ago
    You mean you want communism?
    - StavrosK 10y ago
      Oh no, not communism! Everyone knows that's the worst thing ever! The American demonization of communism is a bit tiresome. You can't use the word "communism" as a conversation-stopper, it's not an argument, it's a fallacy. It's like saying "so you're basically Hitler".
      - ffggvv 10y ago
        I think communism to be a very good thing, and would be a great economy. But nash equilibrium will never work with humans. We are too egoist (that isn't necessary a bad thing) for it to work. I want tracking by the government because I don't believe in humanity. With the caveat that the same spying that is done on citizens should be done (and more) on politicians.
        StavrosK 10y ago
        > I want tracking by the government because I don't believe in humanity. What do you think the government is comprised of? If you think communism is unworkable because of human nature, what makes you think that getting the people who make the rules to make rules against themselves will be any easier?
        barnacs 10y ago
        If you don't believe in humanity, you can't believe in any system. Communism is the purest form of ideals: it assumes people will recognize and do the right thing because it's in their best interest collectively. Capitalism abstracts over the ideals by offering money and property as incentives. By the nature of abstraction, a lot of the original value is lost and people mistake the incentives for the ideals. Statism goes further, and whether or not it incentivizes the ideals, it centrally enforces them. But it's so far detached from the original ideals that it's not even enforcing the right things anymore. So again, in the end, if humanity is incapable of communism then no system will save us.
- tl 10y ago
  It's a wonderful way to fight things governments don't approve of. For example, generating a list of every person who bought food / water / whatever at a protest.
  - ptero 10y ago
    Which can even mean fighting things a particular government official disapproves of.
- StanislavPetrov 10y ago
  No tracking is a terrible thing. Freedom is important. Concerns about taxes and black markets are meaningless if they eliminate freedom.
  - ffggvv 10y ago
    Freedom is important bla bla bla. Tell me the name of a single country where there's full freedom and people are happy.
    - ZoF 10y ago
      What a wonderful non-argument.
    - 93283098191 10y ago
      Your comments here are so stupid that I'm beginning to assume you're paid to disrupt this discussion.
      - ffggvv 10y ago
        Everyone here seems to be paid to say how bad tracking is, then on other thread you see people say they love Apple, windows 10, gmail reading their email. I vote my government and they do what I ask for (this democracy after all) and I think payment tracking is a good thing especially for tax-evasion. Nobody votes for those corporations and still there's people that love to have their privacy violated. (I'm not putting too much effort in these comments because HN is a big bubble where tracking is bad, encryption is good and the same people advocating for privacy use proprietary software meh...)
        rplst8 10y ago
        Using a specific company's technology is a choice. Participating in government is not. I'll always take a company I choose to track me over a government that does it by default.
- ZoF 10y ago
  Like most things it's a matter of opinion. My opinion is: Anyone thinking the government being able to track every transaction could possibly be a net good thing is delusional. It seems freedom and autonomy matters less and less these days.
  - tdkl 10y ago
    They don't need to, they just need a special peeping hole to the ones who already do.
    - ZoF 10y ago
      Yes. Those nonexistent people who already spy on every cash transaction. That's literally impossible. I'm with the cypherpunks regarding nsa/etc passive collection though (which I assume you're referencing) Passive collection of digital data has nothing to do with cash transactions though. Which is the entire premise of this comment chain. So either you've misunderstood what we're talking about or you're schizophrenic and think all cash transactions can be tracked. Care to elaborate? Please explain; How is a dollar I found on the ground yesterday and placed in a random mailbox today tracked?
      - tdkl 10y ago
        > So either you've misunderstood what we're talking about or you're schizophrenic and think all cash transactions can be tracked. Oh cash, my comment was about electronic transactions, I'm in huge favour of cash. Sorry, my bad.
- ptero 10y ago
  In addition to other bad things already mentioned, any government enforcement usually comes with "prosecutorial discretion" -- freedom to choose whom to prosecute and whom to ignore. Tracking all money spent would give a huge additional opportunity to many government agencies to harass those they find obnoxious. I have little doubt it would get misused very soon.
  - SubiculumCode 10y ago
    This. Prosecutorial Discretion + Opticon State = Totalitarianism
    - eternalban 10y ago
      s/opticon/panopticon
- branchless 10y ago
  If they wanted to tax rich people they would tax land and not income.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  Yes and no, and it all depends on what the black market consists of, if the laws are actually in line with the will of the vast majority of folks' morals (including those that aren't part of the majority), and things like that. Do you want to have to report that you gave that teenager down the street $20 to mow your lawn, for example? That can make you an accomplice in tax evasion if the teen doesn't report that $20, and might make you run afoul of labor laws (after all, they probably couldn't work for a landscaping company because of dangerous equipment). You are unwittingly taking part in a black market at that point. Now, if the data is used to make laws that are actually followable and allows for normal things such as the above to take place (which would make for a great deal of changes, including drug laws), maybe it would be a good thing. It would also need to be open enough for citizens to also track government spending and other things - otherwise, it would just be totalitarian.
  - nradov 10y ago
    The IRS doesn't require reporting annual payments under $600 to independent contractors, or under $2000 to household employees.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > tax-evasion The meme that banning cash is a useful way to fight tax evasion is hilarious propaganda. Unreported cash transactions are tiny compared to the tax avoidance and evasion done by businesses and the rich. Banning cash doesn't make big business pay a real tax rate, nor does it prevent profits from being hidden in overseas accounts. Blaming low tax revenue on cash is a convenient distraction. When everyone is focused on their fear that the average citizen might get away paying less taxes, nobody notices the people cooking the (non-cash) books and/o buying legislation.
eternalban 10y ago
> wrong direction That depends on your perspective. Our overlords have lost the war for hearts and minds of the 10% [1]. So the classic problem here is how to "drain the swamp". And this is a perfectly correct solution. In this very forum a few months ago someone posted how they were afraid to search for Adhan -- the Muslim call to prayer -- because they didn't want to end up on a list. This approach works. It works silently, efficiently, and there is no paper trail to have to respond to in a future (one hopes) crimes against humanity tribunal. [1]: Just a round number. The 10%(™) signifies the significant cross cutting core subset of society that the tip of the power structure, and the captive civilization, critically depends on.
whack 10y ago
I don't think anyone is considering banning cash. More likely, you'll one day find that merchants may refuse to accept cash, or provide change, the same way that many merchants today refuse to accept credit cards. And honestly, that is their right. As someone who's had to collect rent from roommates, I refused to accept cash from them. It's too much of a hassle/liability for me to deal with. I think that a law requiring all merchants to accept cash is government-overreach frankly. Regarding negative interest rates - this is something that sounds really scary, but actually isn't. We aren't talking about a hard asset like gold - we're talking about fiat currencies. Every time your government expands the money supply and triggers inflation, you're losing money. If you try to prevent governments from setting negative interest rates, they will just pump up the money supply and make you lose money through inflation instead. There's little point in banning negative interest rates, unless you're willing to ban monetary-supply-expansion as well. And unless you're a hardcore Ron Paul libertarian, I bet you've never protested governments promoting moderate inflation. Regarding anonymous monetary transactions, I agree that there is value in this. This can also be accomplished through cashless transactions. All you need is an aggregated prepaid debit card service. You buy the prepaid debit-card using your regular bank account, and then use that prepaid debit card to conduct anonymous transactions. The one upside of cash is minimal transaction fees. It always annoys me that Visa takes a 1-2% cut from every single transaction. It effectively makes us all 1-2% poorer in the process. But this is a market-solvable problem if the government took adequate steps to foster competition, and ban anti-competitive tactics. We've already seen many attempts recently, such as Apple Pay, to undercut the credit card companies fees, while still allowing cashless transactions. Overall, cash is a pain to deal with. If I never had to touch cash again, I'd be a perfectly happy man. I don't think the government should take steps to discourage/ban the use of cash, but if private merchants and individuals decide to abandon cash, the government certainly shouldn't interfere with that decision. The current benefits of using cash can certainly be replicated and had, even in a cashless society.
- mindslight 10y ago
  FWIW, the patents on blinded signatures have come and gone. E-cash based on blinded signatures has the critical property of untraceability that Bitcoin lacks. However, the system must be run by a real-world institution ("bank"). It's quite clear that the existing power structure "wants" to hinder anonymity, whether deliberately for more control via Orwellian crimes like "money laundering", or just emergently where no party wants to get stuck holding the bag in our defective soft-money banking system. Cash is basically what we've got in the medium term. I've personally gone back to using cash for groceries and other various sundry purchases, because pushing back against the government+corporate surveillance panopticon is the right thing to do. This idea of anonymous e-payments is completely hypothetical until eg a proper replacement for Bitcoin arises that has untracability and can withstand nation-state attacks. I'm under no illusions about its anonymity though - every note has a serial number right on it. It would be prudent to assume that banks record the serials of bills that are withdrawn and deposited. I don't actually think this is happening at the consumer level just yet, but I'm sure the diktat has been drawn up and is just waiting for the right 24 hour tragedy.

ffggvv 10y ago

Isn't tracking a good thing? This way the government can fight tax-evasion and the black market...

jcbrand 10y ago
Depends on who is doing the tracking and for what purpose. I prefer societies that expect people to do the right thing and have measures in place to deal with anti-socials than societies that expect people to do the wrong thing and therefore try to control everybody for it.
- geggam 10y ago
  I didn't realize people like you actually existed. I always assumed everyone understood how a tyranny of majority was created.
  - rplst8 10y ago
    The tyranny of the majority assumes that issues are always us vs. them, i.e. two choices. Often there are more than that and then no changes by government can be made. The two party system often masks this possibility.
- ffggvv 10y ago
  You mean you want communism?
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    Oh no, not communism! Everyone knows that's the worst thing ever! The American demonization of communism is a bit tiresome. You can't use the word "communism" as a conversation-stopper, it's not an argument, it's a fallacy. It's like saying "so you're basically Hitler".
    - ffggvv 10y ago
      I think communism to be a very good thing, and would be a great economy. But nash equilibrium will never work with humans. We are too egoist (that isn't necessary a bad thing) for it to work. I want tracking by the government because I don't believe in humanity. With the caveat that the same spying that is done on citizens should be done (and more) on politicians.
      - StavrosK 10y ago
        > I want tracking by the government because I don't believe in humanity. What do you think the government is comprised of? If you think communism is unworkable because of human nature, what makes you think that getting the people who make the rules to make rules against themselves will be any easier?
      - barnacs 10y ago
        If you don't believe in humanity, you can't believe in any system. Communism is the purest form of ideals: it assumes people will recognize and do the right thing because it's in their best interest collectively. Capitalism abstracts over the ideals by offering money and property as incentives. By the nature of abstraction, a lot of the original value is lost and people mistake the incentives for the ideals. Statism goes further, and whether or not it incentivizes the ideals, it centrally enforces them. But it's so far detached from the original ideals that it's not even enforcing the right things anymore. So again, in the end, if humanity is incapable of communism then no system will save us.
tl 10y ago
It's a wonderful way to fight things governments don't approve of. For example, generating a list of every person who bought food / water / whatever at a protest.
- ptero 10y ago
  Which can even mean fighting things a particular government official disapproves of.
StanislavPetrov 10y ago
No tracking is a terrible thing. Freedom is important. Concerns about taxes and black markets are meaningless if they eliminate freedom.
- ffggvv 10y ago
  Freedom is important bla bla bla. Tell me the name of a single country where there's full freedom and people are happy.
  - ZoF 10y ago
    What a wonderful non-argument.
  - 93283098191 10y ago
    Your comments here are so stupid that I'm beginning to assume you're paid to disrupt this discussion.
    - ffggvv 10y ago
      Everyone here seems to be paid to say how bad tracking is, then on other thread you see people say they love Apple, windows 10, gmail reading their email. I vote my government and they do what I ask for (this democracy after all) and I think payment tracking is a good thing especially for tax-evasion. Nobody votes for those corporations and still there's people that love to have their privacy violated. (I'm not putting too much effort in these comments because HN is a big bubble where tracking is bad, encryption is good and the same people advocating for privacy use proprietary software meh...)
      - rplst8 10y ago
        Using a specific company's technology is a choice. Participating in government is not. I'll always take a company I choose to track me over a government that does it by default.
ZoF 10y ago
Like most things it's a matter of opinion. My opinion is: Anyone thinking the government being able to track every transaction could possibly be a net good thing is delusional. It seems freedom and autonomy matters less and less these days.
- tdkl 10y ago
  They don't need to, they just need a special peeping hole to the ones who already do.
  - ZoF 10y ago
    Yes. Those nonexistent people who already spy on every cash transaction. That's literally impossible. I'm with the cypherpunks regarding nsa/etc passive collection though (which I assume you're referencing) Passive collection of digital data has nothing to do with cash transactions though. Which is the entire premise of this comment chain. So either you've misunderstood what we're talking about or you're schizophrenic and think all cash transactions can be tracked. Care to elaborate? Please explain; How is a dollar I found on the ground yesterday and placed in a random mailbox today tracked?
    - tdkl 10y ago
      > So either you've misunderstood what we're talking about or you're schizophrenic and think all cash transactions can be tracked. Oh cash, my comment was about electronic transactions, I'm in huge favour of cash. Sorry, my bad.
ptero 10y ago
In addition to other bad things already mentioned, any government enforcement usually comes with "prosecutorial discretion" -- freedom to choose whom to prosecute and whom to ignore. Tracking all money spent would give a huge additional opportunity to many government agencies to harass those they find obnoxious. I have little doubt it would get misused very soon.
- SubiculumCode 10y ago
  This. Prosecutorial Discretion + Opticon State = Totalitarianism
  - eternalban 10y ago
    s/opticon/panopticon
branchless 10y ago
If they wanted to tax rich people they would tax land and not income.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
Yes and no, and it all depends on what the black market consists of, if the laws are actually in line with the will of the vast majority of folks' morals (including those that aren't part of the majority), and things like that. Do you want to have to report that you gave that teenager down the street $20 to mow your lawn, for example? That can make you an accomplice in tax evasion if the teen doesn't report that $20, and might make you run afoul of labor laws (after all, they probably couldn't work for a landscaping company because of dangerous equipment). You are unwittingly taking part in a black market at that point. Now, if the data is used to make laws that are actually followable and allows for normal things such as the above to take place (which would make for a great deal of changes, including drug laws), maybe it would be a good thing. It would also need to be open enough for citizens to also track government spending and other things - otherwise, it would just be totalitarian.
- nradov 10y ago
  The IRS doesn't require reporting annual payments under $600 to independent contractors, or under $2000 to household employees.
pdkl95 10y ago
> tax-evasion The meme that banning cash is a useful way to fight tax evasion is hilarious propaganda. Unreported cash transactions are tiny compared to the tax avoidance and evasion done by businesses and the rich. Banning cash doesn't make big business pay a real tax rate, nor does it prevent profits from being hidden in overseas accounts. Blaming low tax revenue on cash is a convenient distraction. When everyone is focused on their fear that the average citizen might get away paying less taxes, nobody notices the people cooking the (non-cash) books and/o buying legislation.

eternalban 10y ago

> wrong direction That depends on your perspective. Our overlords have lost the war for hearts and minds of the 10% [1]. So the classic problem here is how to "drain the swamp". And this is a perfectly correct solution. In this very forum a few months ago someone posted how they were afraid to search for Adhan -- the Muslim call to prayer -- because they didn't want to end up on a list. This approach works. It works silently, efficiently, and there is no paper trail to have to respond to in a future (one hopes) crimes against humanity tribunal. [1]: Just a round number. The 10%(™) signifies the significant cross cutting core subset of society that the tip of the power structure, and the captive civilization, critically depends on.

whack 10y ago

I don't think anyone is considering banning cash. More likely, you'll one day find that merchants may refuse to accept cash, or provide change, the same way that many merchants today refuse to accept credit cards. And honestly, that is their right. As someone who's had to collect rent from roommates, I refused to accept cash from them. It's too much of a hassle/liability for me to deal with. I think that a law requiring all merchants to accept cash is government-overreach frankly. Regarding negative interest rates - this is something that sounds really scary, but actually isn't. We aren't talking about a hard asset like gold - we're talking about fiat currencies. Every time your government expands the money supply and triggers inflation, you're losing money. If you try to prevent governments from setting negative interest rates, they will just pump up the money supply and make you lose money through inflation instead. There's little point in banning negative interest rates, unless you're willing to ban monetary-supply-expansion as well. And unless you're a hardcore Ron Paul libertarian, I bet you've never protested governments promoting moderate inflation. Regarding anonymous monetary transactions, I agree that there is value in this. This can also be accomplished through cashless transactions. All you need is an aggregated prepaid debit card service. You buy the prepaid debit-card using your regular bank account, and then use that prepaid debit card to conduct anonymous transactions. The one upside of cash is minimal transaction fees. It always annoys me that Visa takes a 1-2% cut from every single transaction. It effectively makes us all 1-2% poorer in the process. But this is a market-solvable problem if the government took adequate steps to foster competition, and ban anti-competitive tactics. We've already seen many attempts recently, such as Apple Pay, to undercut the credit card companies fees, while still allowing cashless transactions. Overall, cash is a pain to deal with. If I never had to touch cash again, I'd be a perfectly happy man. I don't think the government should take steps to discourage/ban the use of cash, but if private merchants and individuals decide to abandon cash, the government certainly shouldn't interfere with that decision. The current benefits of using cash can certainly be replicated and had, even in a cashless society.

mindslight 10y ago
FWIW, the patents on blinded signatures have come and gone. E-cash based on blinded signatures has the critical property of untraceability that Bitcoin lacks. However, the system must be run by a real-world institution ("bank"). It's quite clear that the existing power structure "wants" to hinder anonymity, whether deliberately for more control via Orwellian crimes like "money laundering", or just emergently where no party wants to get stuck holding the bag in our defective soft-money banking system. Cash is basically what we've got in the medium term. I've personally gone back to using cash for groceries and other various sundry purchases, because pushing back against the government+corporate surveillance panopticon is the right thing to do. This idea of anonymous e-payments is completely hypothetical until eg a proper replacement for Bitcoin arises that has untracability and can withstand nation-state attacks. I'm under no illusions about its anonymity though - every note has a serial number right on it. It would be prudent to assume that banks record the serials of bills that are withdrawn and deposited. I don't actually think this is happening at the consumer level just yet, but I'm sure the diktat has been drawn up and is just waiting for the right 24 hour tragedy.