3 ms·
I actually think this is fundamentally an attack on the right to transact anonymously. Trends towards the confiscation of large sums of cash, increasing restric
by cal5k 9y ago
I actually think this is fundamentally an attack on the right to transact anonymously. Trends towards the confiscation of large sums of cash, increasing restrictions on moving money relating to KYC/AML, and the further emphasis on digital forms of payment give governments and, more worryingly, banks the ability to exert incredible influence over the day-to-day lives of individuals.
Here's a good Canadian example - banks now refuse accounts to "high risk" businesses like money services (currency conversion etc.) under the guise that the KYC/AML requirements involved make it too risky for the bank to service them. And yet, our major banks have huge currency conversion businesses - so in essence these laws are being used to stifle competition.
For merchants, credit cards and debit were originally billed as items that would improve their sales - so who cares if interchange fees add up to a whopping 3% on transactions? But now with almost everyone demanding that stores accept credit/debit, merchants are hit with what is essentially a non-government tax on their revenues. Every "cash back" or "rewards" card is basically funded at the expense of merchants.
- ad_hominem 9y ago> banks now refuse accounts to "high risk" businesses We have/had that in the US too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point In this case the federal gov't (FDIC and DOJ) pressured the banks. They even attacked a Constitutionally-protected activity (firearms)
- cal5k 9y agoIt's simply not possible to carry on business without a bank account. For that reason I'd like to see legislation which makes it illegal to refuse customers on the basis of their business model, so long as it is legal.
- ad_hominem 9y agoYeah I'd also like to see that, especially with the number of banks continually shrinking (e.g. less than half as many exist as did in 1980), giving consumers fewer and fewer options to shop around. Then the other half of my brain is like "you're expecting the gov't that gave you Operation Chokepoint to do a 180 and suddenly be benevolent?" and "the reason banking is congealing into an oligopoly in the first place is because of the staggering amount of banking regulations churned out by the gov't every year, significantly raising barriers to entry" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- cal5k 9y agoYeah, I hear you. At least it's more robust there than it is in Canada... our Schedule I banks (there are 5 major ones) are protected by law from foreign competition. I don't see a move towards the type of deregulation that might lead to real competition, so the only plausible solution I see is more legislation. Hah. It makes my inner libertarian cry.
- ams6110 9y agoI'm familiar with a few local restaurants that take cash only. All Chinese food places for whatever reason. If your car ever gets towed away on a private-property parking violation, good luck getting it back paying in anything but cash. My barber takes cash only. It's not as uncommon as you might think.
- ams6110 9y agoIn the USA also, there is a not-small number of hard-core Christians that would view mandated digital payments as "the mark of the beast" and refuse on that basis.
- fjsolwmv 9y agoCash money also has the mark of this beast, and the number of those fringe wackos is small.