4 ms·

Nur Bar ist wahr! I’m in Denmark now and don’t carry any cash with me. In Germany, I could forget about getting lunch with that attitude.

by f6v 5y ago

dgellow 5y ago
That changed a lot since 2020. I regularly pay small things, like franzbrötchen, with my Apple Watch (that was not always possible before). At least in Hamburg it is now possible to use a card/contact-less payment almost everywhere. I only use cash for public transports.
Merem 5y ago
"Nur Bares ist Wahres"...and it's true. With cash you have full control of the money while with some CC or phone you rely on third parties. Not to mention the privacy and data issues. It's always "funny" when people whine about that or how their CC got compromised, despite it being their choice.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >"Nur Bares ist Wahres"...and it's true. With cash you have full control of the money Well nobody said cash payments should be banned, but it sucks when cash is the only way to pay in some places, meaning I always have to carry a bulky wallet filled with banknotes and coins just in case the bar, restaurant, shop, cafe, deli, parking meter or whatever, does not accept digital payments. I also used cash for buying greens since that's not yet legalized, but for everything else that's been legal for over 100 years already, please accept digital payments.
- hvgk 5y ago
  Cash is far less secure. There’s no transaction history, it’s easy to lose, easy to damage and difficult to exchange. People forget the only thing that is important is the exchange not the material used to do so. It’s all promises at the end of the day.
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    Exactly Whoever thinks getting paid in cash is "free" is going to be outcompeted really quickly. But even (some) old people seem to prefer paying with card today, so change is slow.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    It is more secure against remote hacking and imposition of a serious negative interest. In a purely cashless society, the central bank could force a -10 per cent interest on all savings, thus forcing people to spend even if they don't want to. (This was, for example, discussed on the IMF blog pages: https://blogs.imf.org/2019/02/05/cashing-in-how-to-make-negative-interest-rates-work/ https://blogs.imf.org/2019/02/05/cashing-in-how-to-make-nega...) This is harder to do in economies where people can take their money out of the bank as cash. There, the lower limit for interest seems to be around -1 per cent.
    - hvgk 5y ago
      That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of sensible economics. Cash is a facilitating fluid which should be channeled into diverse investments which are not based on monetary value such as property and resources, not stashed in large piles. Holding any cash in any quantity is a risk. Doesn’t matter if it’s magic numbers in a computer or bits of paper in a mattress. As for cash only society, sorry but fuck that.
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        "Holding any cash in any quantity is a risk." As usual, some people want to undergo this risk in order to balance out other risks. For example, your bank account can be frozen under a variety of scenarios, even unjustly so. In such situation, it is better to have emergency cash at hand. Diverse investments are good, but some liquidity is good as well. If you e.g. need to escape a starting civil war, things that can be carried on a person and have near universal acceptance are more valuable than a roll of blue chip stocks or a nice house that you cannot take with you. I have met people who escaped the siege of Sarajevo; cash and gold went a long way helping them out. "As for cash only society, sorry but fuck that. " That isn't something I proposed.
- DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
  you're getting downvotes which is puzzling because a sibling thread laments the all too common overreach of law enforcement citing the "zwiebelfreunde/CCC" raid. It's perfectly consistent to be suspicious about paying by cash and also wanting to avoid leaking information to advertisers or taking care about security. Rejecting FinTech or traditional banking in a high tax country even as a law abiding citizens is not being a Luddite. It's good data hygiene for when they eventually come knocking and demand you explain yourself.
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    >you're getting downvotes which is puzzling because a sibling thread laments the all too common overreach of law enforcement citing the "zwiebelfreunde/CCC" raid Because just because people want CC/contactless payments to be accepted everywhere, doesn't mean they want cash to be banned, if you wish to stay anonymous. So why should you deprive everyone of contactless payments if you wish to stay anonymous, when you can acomodate both. My beef is a lot of places only take cash.
    - the8472 5y ago
      Once traceable transactions become widespread there's a push to limit cash payments - see reporting requirements for paying more than 10000€ in cash, the amount des not get inflation-adjusted, see other countries with higher percentages of cashless transactions. So the people who want to pay cashless enable a power-grab by law enforcement. Not intentionally, but through their own convenience. So while their preferences taken on their own are not harmful if you combine them with known dynamics they are in conflict with the preferences of those who want to pay cash. And I think simple convenience (not having to carry a slightly heavier wallet) does not quite weigh (heh) the same as privacy. So until we get the ratchet of increasing surveillance solved it is entirely reasonable to push back on cashless transactions.
      - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
        >see reporting requirements for paying more than 10000€ in cash Why is that a problem? The bank is doing the reporting, not you and it's not like the government is stopping you from transferring over 10000€, electronically or in cash. You are free to do that. I transferred over 50k without any issues. And you can still use cash to buy weed if anonymity is what you wish, or use cash to pay some handyman to fix stuff around your house or piano lessons for your kids, without paying taxes. The issue is with large cash sums, as believe it or not, money laundering and tax fraud is a real thing, and large cash transactions make this a breeze. So, knowing how much tax money the taxpayers are loosing every year thanks to cash driven tax fraud, I'm all in favor of more scrutiny on large cash transactions and moving to more transparent wire transitions.
- leokennis 5y ago
  This feels to me a bit like saying "wheelbarrows trump cars" because you're way less likely to get into a life threatening incident while operating one. You're highlighting one small convenience of cash and ignoring its many real disadvantages.
dorgo 5y ago
Cash is untraceable. Nothing else has this feature (yet?). So I use cash wherever I can.

Nur Bar ist wahr! I’m in Denmark now and don’t carry any cash with me. In Germany, I could forget about getting lunch with that attitude.

by f6v 5y ago

Nur Bar ist wahr! I’m in Denmark now and don’t carry any cash with me. In Germany, I could forget about getting lunch with that attitude.

dgellow 5y ago

That changed a lot since 2020. I regularly pay small things, like franzbrötchen, with my Apple Watch (that was not always possible before). At least in Hamburg it is now possible to use a card/contact-less payment almost everywhere. I only use cash for public transports.

Merem 5y ago

"Nur Bares ist Wahres"...and it's true. With cash you have full control of the money while with some CC or phone you rely on third parties. Not to mention the privacy and data issues. It's always "funny" when people whine about that or how their CC got compromised, despite it being their choice.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>"Nur Bares ist Wahres"...and it's true. With cash you have full control of the money Well nobody said cash payments should be banned, but it sucks when cash is the only way to pay in some places, meaning I always have to carry a bulky wallet filled with banknotes and coins just in case the bar, restaurant, shop, cafe, deli, parking meter or whatever, does not accept digital payments. I also used cash for buying greens since that's not yet legalized, but for everything else that's been legal for over 100 years already, please accept digital payments.
hvgk 5y ago
Cash is far less secure. There’s no transaction history, it’s easy to lose, easy to damage and difficult to exchange. People forget the only thing that is important is the exchange not the material used to do so. It’s all promises at the end of the day.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  Exactly Whoever thinks getting paid in cash is "free" is going to be outcompeted really quickly. But even (some) old people seem to prefer paying with card today, so change is slow.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  It is more secure against remote hacking and imposition of a serious negative interest. In a purely cashless society, the central bank could force a -10 per cent interest on all savings, thus forcing people to spend even if they don't want to. (This was, for example, discussed on the IMF blog pages: https://blogs.imf.org/2019/02/05/cashing-in-how-to-make-negative-interest-rates-work/ https://blogs.imf.org/2019/02/05/cashing-in-how-to-make-nega...) This is harder to do in economies where people can take their money out of the bank as cash. There, the lower limit for interest seems to be around -1 per cent.
  - hvgk 5y ago
    That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of sensible economics. Cash is a facilitating fluid which should be channeled into diverse investments which are not based on monetary value such as property and resources, not stashed in large piles. Holding any cash in any quantity is a risk. Doesn’t matter if it’s magic numbers in a computer or bits of paper in a mattress. As for cash only society, sorry but fuck that.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      "Holding any cash in any quantity is a risk." As usual, some people want to undergo this risk in order to balance out other risks. For example, your bank account can be frozen under a variety of scenarios, even unjustly so. In such situation, it is better to have emergency cash at hand. Diverse investments are good, but some liquidity is good as well. If you e.g. need to escape a starting civil war, things that can be carried on a person and have near universal acceptance are more valuable than a roll of blue chip stocks or a nice house that you cannot take with you. I have met people who escaped the siege of Sarajevo; cash and gold went a long way helping them out. "As for cash only society, sorry but fuck that. " That isn't something I proposed.
DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
you're getting downvotes which is puzzling because a sibling thread laments the all too common overreach of law enforcement citing the "zwiebelfreunde/CCC" raid. It's perfectly consistent to be suspicious about paying by cash and also wanting to avoid leaking information to advertisers or taking care about security. Rejecting FinTech or traditional banking in a high tax country even as a law abiding citizens is not being a Luddite. It's good data hygiene for when they eventually come knocking and demand you explain yourself.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >you're getting downvotes which is puzzling because a sibling thread laments the all too common overreach of law enforcement citing the "zwiebelfreunde/CCC" raid Because just because people want CC/contactless payments to be accepted everywhere, doesn't mean they want cash to be banned, if you wish to stay anonymous. So why should you deprive everyone of contactless payments if you wish to stay anonymous, when you can acomodate both. My beef is a lot of places only take cash.
  - the8472 5y ago
    Once traceable transactions become widespread there's a push to limit cash payments - see reporting requirements for paying more than 10000€ in cash, the amount des not get inflation-adjusted, see other countries with higher percentages of cashless transactions. So the people who want to pay cashless enable a power-grab by law enforcement. Not intentionally, but through their own convenience. So while their preferences taken on their own are not harmful if you combine them with known dynamics they are in conflict with the preferences of those who want to pay cash. And I think simple convenience (not having to carry a slightly heavier wallet) does not quite weigh (heh) the same as privacy. So until we get the ratchet of increasing surveillance solved it is entirely reasonable to push back on cashless transactions.
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      >see reporting requirements for paying more than 10000€ in cash Why is that a problem? The bank is doing the reporting, not you and it's not like the government is stopping you from transferring over 10000€, electronically or in cash. You are free to do that. I transferred over 50k without any issues. And you can still use cash to buy weed if anonymity is what you wish, or use cash to pay some handyman to fix stuff around your house or piano lessons for your kids, without paying taxes. The issue is with large cash sums, as believe it or not, money laundering and tax fraud is a real thing, and large cash transactions make this a breeze. So, knowing how much tax money the taxpayers are loosing every year thanks to cash driven tax fraud, I'm all in favor of more scrutiny on large cash transactions and moving to more transparent wire transitions.
leokennis 5y ago
This feels to me a bit like saying "wheelbarrows trump cars" because you're way less likely to get into a life threatening incident while operating one. You're highlighting one small convenience of cash and ignoring its many real disadvantages.

dorgo 5y ago

Cash is untraceable. Nothing else has this feature (yet?). So I use cash wherever I can.