6 ms·

My biggest concern is the frightening fact that all of these cashless systems are powered by private, for-profit banks. I'd be more fine with a move to cashless

by 013a 10y ago

My biggest concern is the frightening fact that all of these cashless systems are powered by private, for-profit banks. I'd be more fine with a move to cashless if the fundamental system which powered it were operated by the Fed (for free, as a public service), not Visa or Mastercard.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
I go the other way. If Visa decides they don't like me, Mastercard or American Express may still do business with me. If the Fed decides they don't like me, my only option is to leave the country.
- rvense 10y ago
  If the people who run the Fed decide you shouldn't spend or receive money, they'll make sure it goes that way regardless. And I'd much rather be taxed by my government than by the shareholders of my bank.
logfromblammo 10y ago
...as though the Fed is chartered entirely for public benefit? The structure of the 12 Fed district banks are very similar to private corporations. The whole system is run for the benefit of the US Treasury and (secondarily) the private member banks that hold stock in the district banks. It's there to keep the system solvent and stable. And it may be required to remit all profits to the treasury, but the Fed is not there to protect the general public, and if Hollywood has taught us anything, it is that the meaning of "profit" can be blurred with clever accounting. I would only be fine with cashless if the power inherent in the system were diffused, such that no single entity could exercise significant control over it, and if it were supported by laws, such that attempting a 51% attack (perhaps by merger or secret collusion) would get those responsible thrown in PMitA prison for their dire felonies. You let the Fed control it, and they'll just use it to print money, much like they do now with paper money and bank deposits. For some, that may be a beneficial feature, but I think the power to control the size of the money supply is simply too dangerous for any one group to wield it unchecked. And I think the Fed's ongoing policy of targeting a positive rate of inflation has harmed the whole US-dollar economy to a greater extent than the problems that are hypothesized to have been avoided by it. You put one nexus of control on the whole money supply, and that's where all the crooks will go to get their scores. Bitcoin had the right idea in trying to solve the Byzantine Generals problem, because I don't trust any big financial institution to handle money alone, but I do trust them all to distrust one another enough to gang up against anyone that tries to pull off a coup.

by 013a 10y ago

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

I go the other way. If Visa decides they don't like me, Mastercard or American Express may still do business with me. If the Fed decides they don't like me, my only option is to leave the country.

rvense 10y ago
If the people who run the Fed decide you shouldn't spend or receive money, they'll make sure it goes that way regardless. And I'd much rather be taxed by my government than by the shareholders of my bank.

logfromblammo 10y ago

...as though the Fed is chartered entirely for public benefit? The structure of the 12 Fed district banks are very similar to private corporations. The whole system is run for the benefit of the US Treasury and (secondarily) the private member banks that hold stock in the district banks. It's there to keep the system solvent and stable. And it may be required to remit all profits to the treasury, but the Fed is not there to protect the general public, and if Hollywood has taught us anything, it is that the meaning of "profit" can be blurred with clever accounting. I would only be fine with cashless if the power inherent in the system were diffused, such that no single entity could exercise significant control over it, and if it were supported by laws, such that attempting a 51% attack (perhaps by merger or secret collusion) would get those responsible thrown in PMitA prison for their dire felonies. You let the Fed control it, and they'll just use it to print money, much like they do now with paper money and bank deposits. For some, that may be a beneficial feature, but I think the power to control the size of the money supply is simply too dangerous for any one group to wield it unchecked. And I think the Fed's ongoing policy of targeting a positive rate of inflation has harmed the whole US-dollar economy to a greater extent than the problems that are hypothesized to have been avoided by it. You put one nexus of control on the whole money supply, and that's where all the crooks will go to get their scores. Bitcoin had the right idea in trying to solve the Byzantine Generals problem, because I don't trust any big financial institution to handle money alone, but I do trust them all to distrust one another enough to gang up against anyone that tries to pull off a coup.