3 ms·

I think the point is even with cash in your wallet it is already a society where you have to obtain permission from unknown people to "obtain food, water, shelt

I think the point is even with cash in your wallet it is already a society where you have to obtain permission from unknown people to "obtain food, water, shelter, or transportation" because all of these things are delivered to you after many rounds of market exchanges which require clearing houses, escrows, the Fed, SWIFT, etc. Society has been essentially cashless for ages.

michaelmrose 8y ago
Whats the bar for declaring foo illegal vs keeping foo from effectively keeping people from doing foo by making it impossible to pay for foo. This would be abused in the US in very short order. How it works for the swedes should be interesting.
intertextuality 8y ago
Then a cashless society requires permission from multiple entities- the government, the financial providers, and the entity you want to transact with. Not at all like cash, which just requires the entity to accept it as legal tender.
- pishpash 8y ago
  Unless the entity you're transacting with is also interested in operating in a completely cash-based economy, they will need to deposit your cash with a private bank and enter into the electronic money market. They will then worry about the source of your money by profiling you in case the risk accrues to them. Stores already do this if you pay for something with a large amount of cash and stand out as a target. That's my point that society is already essentially cashless. You're only talking about the margins of exchanges on the last hop that may be conducted in cash. Within one hop of conventional transactions it's almost certainly electronic. So I'm not sure that's a real distinction.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    You are talking about an edge case which just isn't true. It is entirely possible to live your entire life, paying with only cash, in the United States. The hardest part would likely be paying rent, but even that isn't unheard up to pay with using cash. Society is not cashless. The edge cases you are talking about rarely ever come up. If it is possible to only pay with cash, then the last hop is all that matters for you as an individual.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

michaelmrose 8y ago

Whats the bar for declaring foo illegal vs keeping foo from effectively keeping people from doing foo by making it impossible to pay for foo. This would be abused in the US in very short order. How it works for the swedes should be interesting.

intertextuality 8y ago

Then a cashless society requires permission from multiple entities- the government, the financial providers, and the entity you want to transact with. Not at all like cash, which just requires the entity to accept it as legal tender.

pishpash 8y ago
Unless the entity you're transacting with is also interested in operating in a completely cash-based economy, they will need to deposit your cash with a private bank and enter into the electronic money market. They will then worry about the source of your money by profiling you in case the risk accrues to them. Stores already do this if you pay for something with a large amount of cash and stand out as a target. That's my point that society is already essentially cashless. You're only talking about the margins of exchanges on the last hop that may be conducted in cash. Within one hop of conventional transactions it's almost certainly electronic. So I'm not sure that's a real distinction.
- stale2002 8y ago
  You are talking about an edge case which just isn't true. It is entirely possible to live your entire life, paying with only cash, in the United States. The hardest part would likely be paying rent, but even that isn't unheard up to pay with using cash. Society is not cashless. The edge cases you are talking about rarely ever come up. If it is possible to only pay with cash, then the last hop is all that matters for you as an individual.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]