7 ms·

Not really. Debit cards are debit cards, not cash. You are comparing CC to DC as far as I can tell, but they are completely different products. There is a huge

Not really. Debit cards are debit cards, not cash. You are comparing CC to DC as far as I can tell, but they are completely different products. There is a huge difference between having currency in your hand or use a medium to access money held by the private organization that can go bankrupt (and this happens much more often than, for example, governments with their currencies).

gehwartzen 9y ago
When paying with cash you are also only exposed to the risk of loosing what you have on hand. A debit card is a bit more akin to handing over the key to the vault with a contractual agreement as to how much can be taken.
- yxhuvud 9y ago
  If you think that is a problem with debit cards you should go get a better bank.
  - swimfar 9y ago
    Are there banks that provide credit card-like protections for debit cards? I thought you couldn't reverse debit card transactions. There are usually daily limits, though, which would limit how much you could lose.
  - gehwartzen 9y ago
    I haven't had this problem with my bank just pointing out the inherent differences. With a debit card you are relying on the cyber security and data retention policy of the store, the bank, and the electronic network provider. Now I realize that if your account is used without authorization most banks refund the money. This can take a certain amount of time and could lock up your remaining funds in the meantime.
    - yxhuvud 9y ago
      Less than a month ago my card details (the magnetic stripe) got swiped. However my bank noticed the funky payments, automatically detected the issues, temporarily froze the card. Then when I noticed it didn't work and called them they temporarily locked up the card for a single use, and then blocked it permanently and sent out a new card. I noticed it on Thursday, I had the new card and all unwanted transactions rolled back on Monday. This for a debit/Visa hybrid card, which acts as Visa out of country and on the Internet. Also, the bank requires me to temporarily unlock the card for 'unsafe' Internet purchases before usage, which basically is all purchases that don't involve 2FA.
  - herbst 9y ago
    If you think this. Or the dozen times credit card data have been stolen in mass from websites aren't a serious issue you should read more news. I know I can charge back. But then I need to waste time to check all the charges and go through the charge back process. Also depit cards. At least in Europe. AFAIK don't offer a easy charge back at all
    - bluGill 9y ago
      The laws on liability are very different in Europe and the US. In the US a stolen card is the bank's problem. In Europe it is the consumer's problem. This difference in laws is critical to this discussion, both sides are saying "you are wrong" when in fact both sides are right in their respective country and wrong in the other.
      - herbst 9y ago
        It's not in Europe. It's just a hustle when it happens
alextheparrot 9y ago
Both Germany and the US insure savings accounts for 6 figure amounts, meaning bankruptcy is not a major concern for most people.
- cabaalis 9y ago
  This may be so. I often wonder though if this "disaster recovery plan" has been tested with any bank of significant size. Maybe that's where the whole too-big-to-fail thing comes in.
  - mrec 9y ago
    Depends what you consider significant. The UK's Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which handles depositor protection, paid out over 26 billion pounds in the 2006-2011 period. At the same time, though, the govt did push Lloyds TSB to take over HBOS in 2008 rather than let the latter fail.
egeozcan 9y ago
There is a distinction only if you mean holding all your cash in your own safe, when you say "cash". You will need to get a bank account anyway as transactions of a certain kind and size (like getting your monthly wage and buying a car) need to go through a bank. There is zero practical difference if you withdraw from an ATM every other day or more often, so you can pay cash.
theEXTORTCIST 9y ago
Some relevant info: In the USA average consumers are protected by the FDIC for the balances of their deposits up to $250,000. A large number of banks have consumer liability limits in place for protection from fraudulent charges on their credit cards. https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/ https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/
- jhoechtl 9y ago
  In case of large defaulting companies history has shown that there are no 100% safety nets despite all claims. Those claims are made to increase trust and lower market interest rates for companies to borrow money but regularly failed once really needed.
coldtea 9y ago
>There is a huge difference between having currency in your hand or use a medium to access money held by the private organization that can go bankrupt (and this happens much more often than, for example, governments with their currencies) From some aspects, yes. From others (no interest in purchases, directly reducing one's account balance, etc) they are the same. >There is a huge difference between having currency in your hand or use a medium to access money held by the private organization that can go bankrupt (and this happens much more often than, for example, governments with their currencies). Still not often enough to matter, especially since the cash one has at hand will be a limited amount anyway. It's not like having $100 or $300 in your pocket to buy things (as opposed to using a debit card) really protects you from the "private organization that can go bankrupt", when the large majority of your money will be in some bank anyway. Except if you propose we keep all our money in cash at all times. This has other issues, not just a government going bankrupt, but inflation, theft -- and those things are much more common than a bank going bankrupt.

gehwartzen 9y ago

When paying with cash you are also only exposed to the risk of loosing what you have on hand. A debit card is a bit more akin to handing over the key to the vault with a contractual agreement as to how much can be taken.

yxhuvud 9y ago
If you think that is a problem with debit cards you should go get a better bank.
- swimfar 9y ago
  Are there banks that provide credit card-like protections for debit cards? I thought you couldn't reverse debit card transactions. There are usually daily limits, though, which would limit how much you could lose.
- gehwartzen 9y ago
  I haven't had this problem with my bank just pointing out the inherent differences. With a debit card you are relying on the cyber security and data retention policy of the store, the bank, and the electronic network provider. Now I realize that if your account is used without authorization most banks refund the money. This can take a certain amount of time and could lock up your remaining funds in the meantime.
  - yxhuvud 9y ago
    Less than a month ago my card details (the magnetic stripe) got swiped. However my bank noticed the funky payments, automatically detected the issues, temporarily froze the card. Then when I noticed it didn't work and called them they temporarily locked up the card for a single use, and then blocked it permanently and sent out a new card. I noticed it on Thursday, I had the new card and all unwanted transactions rolled back on Monday. This for a debit/Visa hybrid card, which acts as Visa out of country and on the Internet. Also, the bank requires me to temporarily unlock the card for 'unsafe' Internet purchases before usage, which basically is all purchases that don't involve 2FA.
- herbst 9y ago
  If you think this. Or the dozen times credit card data have been stolen in mass from websites aren't a serious issue you should read more news. I know I can charge back. But then I need to waste time to check all the charges and go through the charge back process. Also depit cards. At least in Europe. AFAIK don't offer a easy charge back at all
  - bluGill 9y ago
    The laws on liability are very different in Europe and the US. In the US a stolen card is the bank's problem. In Europe it is the consumer's problem. This difference in laws is critical to this discussion, both sides are saying "you are wrong" when in fact both sides are right in their respective country and wrong in the other.
    - herbst 9y ago
      It's not in Europe. It's just a hustle when it happens

alextheparrot 9y ago

Both Germany and the US insure savings accounts for 6 figure amounts, meaning bankruptcy is not a major concern for most people.

cabaalis 9y ago
This may be so. I often wonder though if this "disaster recovery plan" has been tested with any bank of significant size. Maybe that's where the whole too-big-to-fail thing comes in.
- mrec 9y ago
  Depends what you consider significant. The UK's Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which handles depositor protection, paid out over 26 billion pounds in the 2006-2011 period. At the same time, though, the govt did push Lloyds TSB to take over HBOS in 2008 rather than let the latter fail.

egeozcan 9y ago

There is a distinction only if you mean holding all your cash in your own safe, when you say "cash". You will need to get a bank account anyway as transactions of a certain kind and size (like getting your monthly wage and buying a car) need to go through a bank. There is zero practical difference if you withdraw from an ATM every other day or more often, so you can pay cash.

theEXTORTCIST 9y ago

Some relevant info: In the USA average consumers are protected by the FDIC for the balances of their deposits up to $250,000. A large number of banks have consumer liability limits in place for protection from fraudulent charges on their credit cards. https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/ https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/

jhoechtl 9y ago
In case of large defaulting companies history has shown that there are no 100% safety nets despite all claims. Those claims are made to increase trust and lower market interest rates for companies to borrow money but regularly failed once really needed.

coldtea 9y ago

>There is a huge difference between having currency in your hand or use a medium to access money held by the private organization that can go bankrupt (and this happens much more often than, for example, governments with their currencies) From some aspects, yes. From others (no interest in purchases, directly reducing one's account balance, etc) they are the same. >There is a huge difference between having currency in your hand or use a medium to access money held by the private organization that can go bankrupt (and this happens much more often than, for example, governments with their currencies). Still not often enough to matter, especially since the cash one has at hand will be a limited amount anyway. It's not like having $100 or $300 in your pocket to buy things (as opposed to using a debit card) really protects you from the "private organization that can go bankrupt", when the large majority of your money will be in some bank anyway. Except if you propose we keep all our money in cash at all times. This has other issues, not just a government going bankrupt, but inflation, theft -- and those things are much more common than a bank going bankrupt.