> while the security argument is true The security argument is mostly orthogonal to the benefits of carrying cash. Obviously there is wisdom in having multiple

> while the security argument is true The security argument is mostly orthogonal to the benefits of carrying cash. Obviously there is wisdom in having multiple options for moving money, which will inevitably have different strengths and weaknesses. Cash is important to have because the other methods occasionally fail in very problematic ways[1], while the security (and bookkeeping) advantages of electronic payments become more attractive when the transactions size is large. [1] Cash works when the power/internet/banking-infrastructure isn't available. Cash also has inherently limited risk: you can only lose what you are carrying. Credit cards, debit, and any other method where someone else controls your access to the money carry a risk of losing access to the entire account if the controlling bank decides (possibly in error) to freeze your account.