3 ms·

That's just a normal environment that most middle class people who use debit/credit cards are already used to.

CogitoCogito 7y ago
> That's just a normal environment that most middle class people who use debit/credit cards are already used to. No it is _not_ the normal environment. He said "you must secure permission" from a third party. This is not true for those who use debit/credit cards because they also have the choice to use cash as well. A side note: cash and cashless work great with one another. If your card stops working some reason, you are still able to use cash. If you don't want to carry cash one day, you can use a card. I find it very frustrating that they are constantly pitted against each other when they are in no way incompatible.
- nine_k 7y ago
  Not much choice if your employer transfers your wages to your bank account anyway. To get hold of the money, you need to use a debit card, a check, or the service of a bank teller. In all cased, a third party, or several, is involved. It's a bit like in ancient Sparta, where the currency was mandated to be iron, so that large cash transactions would become cumbersome, and would be very visible.
  - gruez 7y ago
    >Not much choice if your employer transfers your wages to your bank account anyway. I don't think gp was talking about not requiring permission ever. He was talking about not requiring permission on a per transaction basis.
jlokier 7y ago
Those middle class people are privileged, for now: The third party doesn't stop them getting their food and shelter. The unbanked, on the other hand, will be at greater risk of starvation when you need a bank account to obtain food. Everyone can get a basic bank account, you say? Well, it's the law in the UK already that some people are not allowed a bank account (you need to prove your right to a bank account in the UK, along with your right to rent shelter). They are still people, and they will still starve in a cashless economy. I know this, because I already know people who are getting by on half a meal a day, and that's today.
- themacguffinman 7y ago
  Obviously laws will have to be changed to support a cashless economy. You're attacking a strawman by assuming that a cashless economy must exclude people because of contradictory laws like the UK one you mentioned.
  - jlokier 7y ago
    I don't think it's a strawman, because I think laws like the UK one come from a motivation or principle which is not going away. That is: to make laws that sound appealing to enough of the population, which make life ruinously and cruelly as harsh as possible for a minority. The principle being "if we make life unbearable they will somehow find a way to leave, we don't care how as it's not our problem, and we don't care if it's so unbearable that the quality of life is significantly worse than the minimum our human rights principles theoretically guarantee". Essentially, they are already supposed to survive on magic or starve and die, even though no minister would admit that. (And some of them _are_ dying.) It seems clear that the government which instituted those laws does not seriously consider the wellbeing of that minority, as if they aren't people at all. Political statements like "making a country for the good of all" are meant to gloss over the fact that said minority is not part of the "all". I think it's this principle which is in play on an ongoing basis, not the laws of the day. So in a cashless economy, I think the principle of "as harsh as possible and we don't care about their wellbeing or basic human rights" will continue, and due to system side effects (rather than intentionally), the consequences will become progressively more severe for a minority. For people to not be excluded in a near-future cashless economy, the driving principle would have to actively change, to make sure everyone has some access to the cashless economy, and at the moment, I see no sign that popular governments would implement something like that.
  - CogitoCogito 7y ago
    I don't understand how people could morally support a push towards cashless without at least those laws being change _first_.

> That's just a normal environment that most middle class people who use debit/credit cards are already used to. No it is _not_ the normal environment. He said "you must secure permission" from a third party. This is not true for those who use debit/credit cards because they also have the choice to use cash as well. A side note: cash and cashless work great with one another. If your card stops working some reason, you are still able to use cash. If you don't want to carry cash one day, you can use a card. I find it very frustrating that they are constantly pitted against each other when they are in no way incompatible.

nine_k 7y ago
Not much choice if your employer transfers your wages to your bank account anyway. To get hold of the money, you need to use a debit card, a check, or the service of a bank teller. In all cased, a third party, or several, is involved. It's a bit like in ancient Sparta, where the currency was mandated to be iron, so that large cash transactions would become cumbersome, and would be very visible.
- gruez 7y ago
  >Not much choice if your employer transfers your wages to your bank account anyway. I don't think gp was talking about not requiring permission ever. He was talking about not requiring permission on a per transaction basis.

jlokier 7y ago

Those middle class people are privileged, for now: The third party doesn't stop them getting their food and shelter. The unbanked, on the other hand, will be at greater risk of starvation when you need a bank account to obtain food. Everyone can get a basic bank account, you say? Well, it's the law in the UK already that some people are not allowed a bank account (you need to prove your right to a bank account in the UK, along with your right to rent shelter). They are still people, and they will still starve in a cashless economy. I know this, because I already know people who are getting by on half a meal a day, and that's today.

themacguffinman 7y ago
Obviously laws will have to be changed to support a cashless economy. You're attacking a strawman by assuming that a cashless economy must exclude people because of contradictory laws like the UK one you mentioned.
- jlokier 7y ago
  I don't think it's a strawman, because I think laws like the UK one come from a motivation or principle which is not going away. That is: to make laws that sound appealing to enough of the population, which make life ruinously and cruelly as harsh as possible for a minority. The principle being "if we make life unbearable they will somehow find a way to leave, we don't care how as it's not our problem, and we don't care if it's so unbearable that the quality of life is significantly worse than the minimum our human rights principles theoretically guarantee". Essentially, they are already supposed to survive on magic or starve and die, even though no minister would admit that. (And some of them _are_ dying.) It seems clear that the government which instituted those laws does not seriously consider the wellbeing of that minority, as if they aren't people at all. Political statements like "making a country for the good of all" are meant to gloss over the fact that said minority is not part of the "all". I think it's this principle which is in play on an ongoing basis, not the laws of the day. So in a cashless economy, I think the principle of "as harsh as possible and we don't care about their wellbeing or basic human rights" will continue, and due to system side effects (rather than intentionally), the consequences will become progressively more severe for a minority. For people to not be excluded in a near-future cashless economy, the driving principle would have to actively change, to make sure everyone has some access to the cashless economy, and at the moment, I see no sign that popular governments would implement something like that.
- CogitoCogito 7y ago
  I don't understand how people could morally support a push towards cashless without at least those laws being change _first_.