4 ms·

Nobody is denying that total government control over money flows will make it more difficult to launder black money. Surely this is a benefit of abandoning cash

Nobody is denying that total government control over money flows will make it more difficult to launder black money. Surely this is a benefit of abandoning cash. But there are also drawbacks: - you are forced to pay fees for a bank account - in most countries, banks require you to be registered at a home address to open an account - not every government can be trusted with the control over your money. Think of Venezuela or Zimbabwe, for instance

cesarb 8y ago
> not every government can be trusted with the control over your money. Think of Venezuela or Zimbabwe, for instance Or Brazil, where the government suddenly froze everybody's bank accounts in the early 90s (Confisco da Poupança). An article about it (in Portuguese): http://radioagencianacional.ebc.com.br/geral/audio/2016-03/historia-hoje-confisco-da-poupanca-no-plano-collor-completa-aniversario http://radioagencianacional.ebc.com.br/geral/audio/2016-03/h... and on Wikipedia: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Collor_de_Mello#Confisco_das_poupan%C3%A7as https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Collor_de_Mello#Confi...
toss1 8y ago
The fees for a bank account are a good point. Yet, holding cash will similarly erode your value due to inflation, which is a designed-in feature of fiat currency and central banking. Also, fees generally go away with sizeable accounts and interest can be earned. Anonymity, however, is gone for sure with Know Your Customer laws
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Except there has been discussion relatively recently of negative interest. Charging you a percentage of your money to hold it. Having cash as an option acts as a hedge against this stupidity. You can't be so ridiculous that people would rather stuff it in a safe.
ams6110 8y ago
> not every government can be trusted with the control over your money. Think of Venezuela or Zimbabwe, for instance I don't know why you would have selected those countries. I would not trust any government with complete control over my money.
pjc50 8y ago
> you are forced to pay fees for a bank account Country-specific. Lots of countries have banking with no fee for having the account, either as part of a competitive system or through the post office "giro" system. > in most countries, banks require you to be registered at a home address to open an account This is possibly the most serious objection to requiring people go through the banking system - it enforces an ID, and is used as a form of immigration control. Some systems have circular requirements where it's basically impossible to move there/get a job/get a bank account/rent a flat without having a local "fix" one or more of those for you.
sho 8y ago
I know it's a faux pas to complain about downvotes but I did not intend to endorse this system. I simply stated it as inevitable, and it is. Australia has a long history of implementing the "trial run" for G20 et al initiatives due to its combination of small size and being fairly well-organised. Don't believe me? Go ask anyone in finance, especially AML. Of course it's inevitable. The end goal is the elimination of cash period. And all this outrage is misplaced anyway. In advanced countries high denomination bills are tracked. It is the simplest thing in the world for an ATM to record the serials that pass through it. If you take out a large stack of 50s to buy a $20k (or hell, $5k) car "off the grid" then the system knows exactly how much you paid Joe's Discount Auto when Joe trundles his sack of bills down to the bank and it includes the bills you took out an hour ago. The idea that by you taking out of a bank, handing it to Joe, and him banking it somehow renders you invisible has not been true for at least a decade. If you try to avoid this you are - surprise - money laundering! This is common knowledge and has even been used to nab bank robbers when they try to use the stolen bills. How do you think the bank knew which serials were taken and where they were spent? Think I'm wrong? Go take out $10k of the highest domination you can, then drive all around town breaking them into smaller bills all in the same few days. Then go home and chill. Give it 2-3 days and you're gonna make some new friends.

cesarb 8y ago

> not every government can be trusted with the control over your money. Think of Venezuela or Zimbabwe, for instance Or Brazil, where the government suddenly froze everybody's bank accounts in the early 90s (Confisco da Poupança). An article about it (in Portuguese): http://radioagencianacional.ebc.com.br/geral/audio/2016-03/historia-hoje-confisco-da-poupanca-no-plano-collor-completa-aniversario http://radioagencianacional.ebc.com.br/geral/audio/2016-03/h... and on Wikipedia: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Collor_de_Mello#Confisco_das_poupan%C3%A7as https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Collor_de_Mello#Confi...

toss1 8y ago

The fees for a bank account are a good point. Yet, holding cash will similarly erode your value due to inflation, which is a designed-in feature of fiat currency and central banking. Also, fees generally go away with sizeable accounts and interest can be earned. Anonymity, however, is gone for sure with Know Your Customer laws

michaelmrose 8y ago
Except there has been discussion relatively recently of negative interest. Charging you a percentage of your money to hold it. Having cash as an option acts as a hedge against this stupidity. You can't be so ridiculous that people would rather stuff it in a safe.

ams6110 8y ago

> not every government can be trusted with the control over your money. Think of Venezuela or Zimbabwe, for instance I don't know why you would have selected those countries. I would not trust any government with complete control over my money.

pjc50 8y ago

> you are forced to pay fees for a bank account Country-specific. Lots of countries have banking with no fee for having the account, either as part of a competitive system or through the post office "giro" system. > in most countries, banks require you to be registered at a home address to open an account This is possibly the most serious objection to requiring people go through the banking system - it enforces an ID, and is used as a form of immigration control. Some systems have circular requirements where it's basically impossible to move there/get a job/get a bank account/rent a flat without having a local "fix" one or more of those for you.

sho 8y ago

I know it's a faux pas to complain about downvotes but I did not intend to endorse this system. I simply stated it as inevitable, and it is. Australia has a long history of implementing the "trial run" for G20 et al initiatives due to its combination of small size and being fairly well-organised. Don't believe me? Go ask anyone in finance, especially AML. Of course it's inevitable. The end goal is the elimination of cash period. And all this outrage is misplaced anyway. In advanced countries high denomination bills are tracked. It is the simplest thing in the world for an ATM to record the serials that pass through it. If you take out a large stack of 50s to buy a $20k (or hell, $5k) car "off the grid" then the system knows exactly how much you paid Joe's Discount Auto when Joe trundles his sack of bills down to the bank and it includes the bills you took out an hour ago. The idea that by you taking out of a bank, handing it to Joe, and him banking it somehow renders you invisible has not been true for at least a decade. If you try to avoid this you are - surprise - money laundering! This is common knowledge and has even been used to nab bank robbers when they try to use the stolen bills. How do you think the bank knew which serials were taken and where they were spent? Think I'm wrong? Go take out $10k of the highest domination you can, then drive all around town breaking them into smaller bills all in the same few days. Then go home and chill. Give it 2-3 days and you're gonna make some new friends.