5 ms·

Why the sarcasm? Here in Ireland a major bank was down for several days because contractor of bank located in India screwed up a production deployment or someth

by fenk85 7y ago

Why the sarcasm? Here in Ireland a major bank was down for several days because contractor of bank located in India screwed up a production deployment or something, resulting in hundreds of thousands of transactions having to be manually reconciled. In that time people had no access to their money, no tap and pay, chip and pin etc, nothing. That was quite a lesson in importance of cash, another lesson was about a dozen years ago when all the banks here went to the wall and had to be nationalised in order prevent bank runs.

huffmsa 7y ago
OP thinks only luddites use cash. PS OP, in the 1700s you'd probably issue a writ of payment and the shopkeeper would add the purchase to your tab, which you'd pay off in full at a later date. Unless you were a total stranger to that establishment, then you'd probably be paying at the time of purchase. Let's get our jokes historical accurate.
- Kaibeezy 7y ago
  1640 and, yes, a total stranger, to be precise. I leveraged someone else's research.
Kaibeezy 7y ago
Sarcasm, nah, just ordinary common-or-garden comedy. Also a literary reference. Anyone? All seriousness aside, if a business wants to be cashless, that’s a business decision, not religion. If the system goes down, they can dogmatically refuse to function, or they can place a large can on the counter and get on with it.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Ireland famously survived a six month lock out by nearly every bank in the seventies, with no harm to the economy. Pubs were local guides to credit worthiness, larger shops cashed cheques so businesses could pay staff (an era when many were still paid in cash), so cash could go round the system again, and cheques were countersigned and passed on dozens and dozens of times -- effectively becoming variable size bank notes. It's a fascinating story, and quite remarkable how little effect no banking had.
- frereubu 7y ago
  I'd never heard of this - fascinating. For others who are interested, there's a decent, referenced, account from the Bank of England's blog here: https://bankunderground.co.uk/2016/01/20/the-cheque-republic-money-in-a-modern-economy-with-no-banks/ https://bankunderground.co.uk/2016/01/20/the-cheque-republic... Doesn't sound like there was "no harm to the economy" though, except in the broader sense. A quote from an Irish building contractor cited in the article: "I employ only 10 people. If it hadn’t been for the bank strike I’d be hiring 30. I’d say I’ve lost up to £20,000 over it ... One of my problems is finding the money to pay the wages. I run round from Wednesday to Friday to scrape them up, and in that time I can do no other work."
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Oh sure, I've no doubt there were individuals and some businesses quite badly affected, but look back at the overall growth, national and regional statistics and the periods with strikes or lock-outs are simply undetectable if not highlighted for you. Sales and growth figures weren't noticeably harmed. No doubt if you were new to an area, didn't yet have a local or just weren't a pub goer, you might have had more trouble than most. The article also notes the steady stream of people going down to the local department store and other larger shops once a week, to cash their wages, or a wages cheque to pay their factory workers. Pubs were accumulating cashed cheques from regulars and some making smaller loans. The real surprise for me is how smoothly they coped, and how little fall out there seemed to be when banks reopened. Though of course there were some of the millions of cheques doing the rounds that did bounce. I've seen far less about knock on effects after reopening like that, but it's usually described in a way that makes it seem "far less than you would expect".
whb07 7y ago
Just means you need a better banking institution. By the way this highlights the need for something like Bitcoin.

by fenk85 7y ago

huffmsa 7y ago

OP thinks only luddites use cash. PS OP, in the 1700s you'd probably issue a writ of payment and the shopkeeper would add the purchase to your tab, which you'd pay off in full at a later date. Unless you were a total stranger to that establishment, then you'd probably be paying at the time of purchase. Let's get our jokes historical accurate.

Kaibeezy 7y ago
1640 and, yes, a total stranger, to be precise. I leveraged someone else's research.

Kaibeezy 7y ago

Sarcasm, nah, just ordinary common-or-garden comedy. Also a literary reference. Anyone? All seriousness aside, if a business wants to be cashless, that’s a business decision, not religion. If the system goes down, they can dogmatically refuse to function, or they can place a large can on the counter and get on with it.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Ireland famously survived a six month lock out by nearly every bank in the seventies, with no harm to the economy. Pubs were local guides to credit worthiness, larger shops cashed cheques so businesses could pay staff (an era when many were still paid in cash), so cash could go round the system again, and cheques were countersigned and passed on dozens and dozens of times -- effectively becoming variable size bank notes. It's a fascinating story, and quite remarkable how little effect no banking had.

frereubu 7y ago
I'd never heard of this - fascinating. For others who are interested, there's a decent, referenced, account from the Bank of England's blog here: https://bankunderground.co.uk/2016/01/20/the-cheque-republic-money-in-a-modern-economy-with-no-banks/ https://bankunderground.co.uk/2016/01/20/the-cheque-republic... Doesn't sound like there was "no harm to the economy" though, except in the broader sense. A quote from an Irish building contractor cited in the article: "I employ only 10 people. If it hadn’t been for the bank strike I’d be hiring 30. I’d say I’ve lost up to £20,000 over it ... One of my problems is finding the money to pay the wages. I run round from Wednesday to Friday to scrape them up, and in that time I can do no other work."
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Oh sure, I've no doubt there were individuals and some businesses quite badly affected, but look back at the overall growth, national and regional statistics and the periods with strikes or lock-outs are simply undetectable if not highlighted for you. Sales and growth figures weren't noticeably harmed. No doubt if you were new to an area, didn't yet have a local or just weren't a pub goer, you might have had more trouble than most. The article also notes the steady stream of people going down to the local department store and other larger shops once a week, to cash their wages, or a wages cheque to pay their factory workers. Pubs were accumulating cashed cheques from regulars and some making smaller loans. The real surprise for me is how smoothly they coped, and how little fall out there seemed to be when banks reopened. Though of course there were some of the millions of cheques doing the rounds that did bounce. I've seen far less about knock on effects after reopening like that, but it's usually described in a way that makes it seem "far less than you would expect".

whb07 7y ago

Just means you need a better banking institution. By the way this highlights the need for something like Bitcoin.