4 ms·
The convenience of electronic payments is obvious. But cashless sounds more like a restriction, indeed inconvenience. Say, one lost a wallet and phone (robbed
by zoomablemind 7y ago
The convenience of electronic payments is obvious. But cashless sounds more like a restriction, indeed inconvenience.
Say, one lost a wallet and phone (robbed or just that, lost) and needs to get back home somehow. Public transportation requires an electronic ticket, cab needs card.
What's then?
Walk to your bank branch, explain to driver the story and pay later, hope a compelled passenger would pay for you?
Lending someone a dollar does not oblige one whether you trust the person on not. Paying for one directly is more involved. Surely people don't lend their cards to strangers, willfully.
- ryuukk_ 7y agoif you lost your wallet, you lost your paper money too
- digestiv3 7y agoHere is a radical idea: what if everyone paid their tickets through a public infrastructure tax. That way neither the person with cards or cash in their wallets has to worry about getting home. We don't even need to carry a wallet that could get lost in the first place!
- zoomablemind 7y agoIn many European cities transportation is on honor basis, that is you're assumed to have paid the ticket, unlike elsewhere to pay on entry. But this is paired with random control runs and stiff penalties. I would imagine one could just take a free ride, and prepare to tell the story if caught. Or maybe even go to police, report a loss, maybe get some means to get home. Well, it's like a society contract. Looks like it has some small font on it too :) This changes the notion of money, turning it more into rationning system. Cashless seems almost a step away from social credit system. You can get your "allocated share". What does it mean to be a run-away in Sweden? Is it walk-away, hide-away, certainly not cashless...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]