3 ms·

I'm sure Lazy Bear can come up with a coherent way to accept cash, as can all these other stores. Your argument is a bit lazy though, right? The point is that

I'm sure Lazy Bear can come up with a coherent way to accept cash, as can all these other stores. Your argument is a bit lazy though, right? The point is that cash itself says you have to accept it for "all debts public and private" and as an equitable society we have an incentive to make sure that is true. Out of hand dismissals of a coherent argument do not help us learn more; they only serve to make you feel good about being smarter than some other people.

codersarepeople 8y ago
If you go into a store, they can reject you for any reason (unless it's due to being a member of a protected class). Cash must be accepted to settle debts, but if I refuse to serve you, there is no debt. It's legal for stores to say "we don't accept $100 bills" and it's legal to say "we don't accept cash". However, if you eat dinner, THEN pay, you have a debt, and cash must be accepted.
- wbronitsky 8y ago
  Totally, and that is why I support a ban on cashless stores, to remedy this loophole
  - codersarepeople 8y ago
    Would you also support a ban on stores that don't accept $100 bills? What about stores that refuse to accept payment only in pennies? The issue is in those cases that $100 bills make them targets for robbery and therefore cause undue burden on those stores. In fact, the same could be said of cash in general over other forms of payment. From what I've heard, China's mostly cashless system is a dream for both consumers and stores.
    - wbronitsky 8y ago
      You make a lot of arguments here, most of which I won't touch (especially saying China is "a dream for both consumers and stores"). But to answer your question: no, we should not have 0 bounds on what is acceptable, and there should be some guardrails to make sure that the pedants in all of us don't take over, and that our economy doesn't end up running on pennies (not that they would, that argument is marginal at best). However, not accepting cash is a problem of a different magnitude than not accepting some annoying forms of cash. I support a ban on cashless stores, but, yes, like you pointed out, with some caveats on what they have to support and what they don't.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> cash itself says you have to accept it for "all debts public and private" and as an equitable society we have an incentive to make sure that is true Restaurants have to accept cash. When you order food you incur a debt. That's what "all debts" on cash means. Buying things in a store is different. No debt is incurred. Such bans are a cosmetic solution to poverty. They give the illusion of dealing with the problem. But they solve nothing. Prices will be a little higher for all San Franciscans (handling cash, even intermittently, is risky and expensive). Meanwhile, the poor will have no more income or opportunities. But hey, they will have the theoretical ability to buy a plush toy from an Amazon store. (Assuming such stores still make economic sense to deploy.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

codersarepeople 8y ago

If you go into a store, they can reject you for any reason (unless it's due to being a member of a protected class). Cash must be accepted to settle debts, but if I refuse to serve you, there is no debt. It's legal for stores to say "we don't accept $100 bills" and it's legal to say "we don't accept cash". However, if you eat dinner, THEN pay, you have a debt, and cash must be accepted.

wbronitsky 8y ago
Totally, and that is why I support a ban on cashless stores, to remedy this loophole
- codersarepeople 8y ago
  Would you also support a ban on stores that don't accept $100 bills? What about stores that refuse to accept payment only in pennies? The issue is in those cases that $100 bills make them targets for robbery and therefore cause undue burden on those stores. In fact, the same could be said of cash in general over other forms of payment. From what I've heard, China's mostly cashless system is a dream for both consumers and stores.
  - wbronitsky 8y ago
    You make a lot of arguments here, most of which I won't touch (especially saying China is "a dream for both consumers and stores"). But to answer your question: no, we should not have 0 bounds on what is acceptable, and there should be some guardrails to make sure that the pedants in all of us don't take over, and that our economy doesn't end up running on pennies (not that they would, that argument is marginal at best). However, not accepting cash is a problem of a different magnitude than not accepting some annoying forms of cash. I support a ban on cashless stores, but, yes, like you pointed out, with some caveats on what they have to support and what they don't.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> cash itself says you have to accept it for "all debts public and private" and as an equitable society we have an incentive to make sure that is true Restaurants have to accept cash. When you order food you incur a debt. That's what "all debts" on cash means. Buying things in a store is different. No debt is incurred. Such bans are a cosmetic solution to poverty. They give the illusion of dealing with the problem. But they solve nothing. Prices will be a little higher for all San Franciscans (handling cash, even intermittently, is risky and expensive). Meanwhile, the poor will have no more income or opportunities. But hey, they will have the theoretical ability to buy a plush toy from an Amazon store. (Assuming such stores still make economic sense to deploy.)

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]