5 ms·

"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 p

by 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.
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    > and imposition of a serious negative interest It's called inflation and it doesn't care if your money was securely left in your mattress
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      I am a bit influenced by the situation in Europe. Countries like Italy cannot inflate their way out of debt anymore. ECB, at least officially, is trying to keep inflation low. But negative interest rates would help the heavily indebted countries to ease their debt service burden. (If such constellation of parameters is sustainable, IDK, but that debt isn't going anywhere.)
      - nybble41 5y ago
- Merem 5y ago
  There being no transaction history is good (less data/more privacy). Not sure how it's easy to lose. At least I have never lost my cash. And if you lose your wallet for some reason, you also lose your CCs. There is "often" fraud with CCs, with cash that rarely happens, unless it's counterfeit money. Also not sure what you would do with the money that you would damage it. Usually, it's in your wallet or somewhere stored. Promises that the money will be worth it the next day, sure. But at least I have my cash in my hand (and some stored where I live), so access to it can't just be denied.
  - BurningPenguin 5y ago
    If you lose your cash, it's gone. If you lose your CC, all it takes is one call (or a few mouse clicks) to lock it and get a new one in a few days.
    - Merem 5y ago
      Depends on where you lose it. If it's in/at some place where you can buy something, people usually bring it there and you can get it back as soon as you notice. If it's the whole wallet, it's even easier (would be true for CCs then as well). But yeah, if you don't get it back, then it's gone. But to be honest, if I lose like 100-150€ once in 80 years because of that, then I can take it. I never have more than that in my wallet, unless I intend to buy something. (And that's also another benefit. Cash prevents against impulse buying and you spend your money better (you visually see how it's shrinking etc)).
- DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
  cash is antifragile
  - hvgk 5y ago
    It’s isn’t really. Look at Zimbabwe hyperinflation. I have a trillion dollar note here. Cash is only worth what someone else agrees it is worth.
    - DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
      antifragile doesn't mean no shocks no sacrifices. it's regular shocks and sacrifices to reduce chances of black swan events. Zimbawe is a (predictable) white swan event not a black swan.
    - midasuni 5y ago
      You can burn cash for heating
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.

by Merem 5y ago

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.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  > and imposition of a serious negative interest It's called inflation and it doesn't care if your money was securely left in your mattress
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    I am a bit influenced by the situation in Europe. Countries like Italy cannot inflate their way out of debt anymore. ECB, at least officially, is trying to keep inflation low. But negative interest rates would help the heavily indebted countries to ease their debt service burden. (If such constellation of parameters is sustainable, IDK, but that debt isn't going anywhere.)
    - nybble41 5y ago
Merem 5y ago
There being no transaction history is good (less data/more privacy). Not sure how it's easy to lose. At least I have never lost my cash. And if you lose your wallet for some reason, you also lose your CCs. There is "often" fraud with CCs, with cash that rarely happens, unless it's counterfeit money. Also not sure what you would do with the money that you would damage it. Usually, it's in your wallet or somewhere stored. Promises that the money will be worth it the next day, sure. But at least I have my cash in my hand (and some stored where I live), so access to it can't just be denied.
- BurningPenguin 5y ago
  If you lose your cash, it's gone. If you lose your CC, all it takes is one call (or a few mouse clicks) to lock it and get a new one in a few days.
  - Merem 5y ago
    Depends on where you lose it. If it's in/at some place where you can buy something, people usually bring it there and you can get it back as soon as you notice. If it's the whole wallet, it's even easier (would be true for CCs then as well). But yeah, if you don't get it back, then it's gone. But to be honest, if I lose like 100-150€ once in 80 years because of that, then I can take it. I never have more than that in my wallet, unless I intend to buy something. (And that's also another benefit. Cash prevents against impulse buying and you spend your money better (you visually see how it's shrinking etc)).
DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
cash is antifragile
- hvgk 5y ago
  It’s isn’t really. Look at Zimbabwe hyperinflation. I have a trillion dollar note here. Cash is only worth what someone else agrees it is worth.
  - DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
    antifragile doesn't mean no shocks no sacrifices. it's regular shocks and sacrifices to reduce chances of black swan events. Zimbawe is a (predictable) white swan event not a black swan.
  - midasuni 5y ago
    You can burn cash for heating

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.