10 ms·

> Incorrect, the battle is partly won... Not in the slightest. You can mandate that people accept cash, but you can't force people to pay with it. The writing

> Incorrect, the battle is partly won... Not in the slightest. You can mandate that people accept cash, but you can't force people to pay with it. The writing is on the wall; barring some sort of major social upheaval, cashless will be more dominant in the future. It's just too convenient. So let's figure out what kind of benign future we actually can build. "Everyone decides to use cash again" just isn't going to happen.

bradwood 5y ago
Yeah. Plus 2 states in one country is definitely not 'partly won"
- walterbell 5y ago
  There are a dozen EU countries whose population is smaller than the cash-mandatory population of New York City (not state).
onion2k 5y ago
The writing is on the wall; barring some sort of major social upheaval, cashless will be more dominant in the future. That doesn't matter. If laws mandate that services must take cash then a cashless society is impossible, so people who choose not to go cashless can't be forced to give up cash. Hence the war on cash has been won, and cashless lost.
raxxorrax 5y ago
It can be more dominant. I pay most of my stuff cashless, but really, really love cash. I would always recommend to keep some on you for emergencies and as we have seen that government is quick to freeze accounts, it seems like a very good idea.
walterbell 5y ago
We don't need "everyone" to use cash for "everything", just some people to use cash for some transactions. It is legal in most jurisdictions to give discounts when paying with cash. That is enough motivation to use cash for larger purchases, since it saves costs for both the merchant and the customer. The only loser is the now-redundant payment processor.
- rektide 5y ago
  The problem as stated by the topic is that those who are cashless (which is a vast & growing amount of people) are subject to having their digital assets frozen on a moment notice. These proposals that we need to focus more on cash-ed people are mishearted & distracting from the core topic. Sure, a more cash-ready society is better able to help someone who has to rebuild their life, forced into a cash-carrying state. But it does nothing to prevent or remedy having your assets stripped from you by the whim of some megacorporation trying to improve their PR spin on a hot-topic. People need assistance before being thrown to rock bottom by the corporation, not just after.
  - walterbell 5y ago
    As stated in [1], we need to fight this battle on both fronts: cash-equivalents and cashless-regulation. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30435574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30435574
- thfuran 5y ago
  Unless it actually ends up costing the merchant more money because they need to store and transport large amounts of cash and doing that isn't free.
  - walterbell 5y ago
    Some merchants have influence over both revenue and cost. Some merchants understand the economic value of transaction data ("data about money is more valuable than money") and prefer to utilize their transaction data directly, instead of blindly surrendering it to random observers in the payment supply chain. Some customers, when given a choice, prefer those merchants.
pessimizer 5y ago
This is simply not true. Not only is cashless not at all more convenient than cash for minor purchases, and not only are 10% of the US population unbanked, but in addition the access of third parties to purchase records just alarms people. In my circles, I often see people withdrawing out pocket money on a regular basis for small purchases, and using cash for large peer-to-peer purchases that they're unsure of the tax implications of. Cashless is largely reserved for restaurants and grocery stores. With government reporting regulations hitting paypal and other fake banks, I bet this pattern will become more widespread. Just let somebody have to fill out an extra form on their taxes because of excessive bill-splitting; they'll change their habits instantly.
- decafninja 5y ago
  I pay with my credit card even for <$1 purchases. It is much more convenient than pulling out a dollar bill and waiting to get change in coins (which I despise carrying). In the case where they don't accept credit, and I can't be bothered to go make the purchase somewhere else, I'll just tell them to take the dollar bill and keep the change. Not having to deal with loose coins is worth it. How is carrying, paying with, and managing cash in your wallet more convenient than tapping a credit card or your phone?
  - leppr 5y ago
    To paraphrase the message you're replying to: The inconvenience of credit cards manifests itself after making the payment: when you're filling taxes, or when whatever information derived from your payments is used against you. You're trading immediate versus delayed inconvenience. At least that was the argument. I won't argue that most people will never feel these second order inconveniences.
    - decafninja 5y ago
      Not sure I understand. Do you mean from the point of view of the merchant? From the point of view of the consumer, I don't think I've ever done anything differently in regards to tax paperwork with regards to differences in method of payment. Even from the merchant's point of view, I would imagine credit card payments are easier to keep track of for documenting purposes. Unless, of course, your intention is tax evasion, which I know quite a few merchants (including family) do with cash.
jerf 5y ago
Part of that "more convenience" is that people think it is all benefit and no cost. If a lot of people come to the conclusion that cashlessness is risky due to the easy with which the powers that be can flip a switch and steal it from them, the cost/benefit analysis changes. That is not to say everyone everywhere will suddenly and uniformly hate it. It just changes. The more people get hit by capricious actions, the more people will find their cost/benefits analysis changing. The CBDCs are inevitably going to fail for the exact same reasons the central banks want them. The more control the central banks have, the more the CDBCs become merely 21st century company scrip and not currency. The more the central banks can arbitrarily reward and penalize you for political reasons, for social reasons, for economic engineering reasons, the more their "currency" fails to be currency on the most fundamental level of being a reliable store of value. People will realize they don't want them and they are too dangerous to hold. But ye gods will they damage the world on the way to realizing this is too much control, because the once the elites think they have this, they aren't going to give this power up. They'll do everything they can to "ban" any other attempts at having ways of storing or conveying value until the whole system breaks, and they won't care, because even a failing system that they're still in charge of will be better than a system they aren't in charge of.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mortenjorck 5y ago
> The writing is on the wall; barring some sort of major social upheaval, cashless will be more dominant in the future. It's just too convenient. In classic HN fashion, everyone disagreeing with this is focused on their own solipsistic perception of the relative merits, technical and otherwise, of cash versus electronic payments. But convenience always wins. The not-yet-evenly-distributed future is represented by Apple Pay on the Apple Watch. You literally wave your wrist over a point-of-sale terminal and confirm on the screen. Once this experience is cloned and brought downmarket by a combination of Android, Fitbit, and no-name Chinese manufacturers on Amazon, very few will go back even to pulling out credit cards, much less enduring the complications of cash. We need better legal protections for electronic payments and banking. Cash, for better or worse, is on the way out.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  > But convenience always wins. It's very inconvenient if you can't buy food or pay your bills. >We need better legal protections for electronic payments and banking. Cash, for better or worse, is on the way out. if a person loses access to their account by government or banking ruling then they cannot take part in electronic payments. What is your solution to this? I mean obviously the solution is that governments and banks cannot just turn off access to your account, but that is not an answer, you need to explain all of the processes that will need to support this possibility, because obviously banks and governments do need to turn off access to accounts at times. But if we allow cash as a fallback, then we already have a system that works. All the various rules and processes about cash have been worked out long ago, over generations! replacing the security that cash provides for people not to starve or freeze because of any number of possible problems would be an incredibly expensive and error prone process.
  - Cederfjard 5y ago
    You’re not really engaging with the argument of the person you’re responding to, namely that REGARDLESS of other merits, people will abandon cash because cashless will be too convenient. You can’t sustain cash as a form of payment if only a tiny fringe care enough to use it. And thus the issues that you (quite rightfully) bring up will have to be dealt with in other ways. What do you think about that?
dopidopHN 5y ago
Fun fact : a least one city in the country has a large percentage of bar being cash only. ( New Orleans ) It’s clearly to have difficult to trace accounting. It’s a blip, but still, that exists and I don’t see that changing any time soon for those particular places.

bradwood 5y ago

Yeah. Plus 2 states in one country is definitely not 'partly won"

walterbell 5y ago
There are a dozen EU countries whose population is smaller than the cash-mandatory population of New York City (not state).

onion2k 5y ago

The writing is on the wall; barring some sort of major social upheaval, cashless will be more dominant in the future. That doesn't matter. If laws mandate that services must take cash then a cashless society is impossible, so people who choose not to go cashless can't be forced to give up cash. Hence the war on cash has been won, and cashless lost.

raxxorrax 5y ago

It can be more dominant. I pay most of my stuff cashless, but really, really love cash. I would always recommend to keep some on you for emergencies and as we have seen that government is quick to freeze accounts, it seems like a very good idea.

walterbell 5y ago

We don't need "everyone" to use cash for "everything", just some people to use cash for some transactions. It is legal in most jurisdictions to give discounts when paying with cash. That is enough motivation to use cash for larger purchases, since it saves costs for both the merchant and the customer. The only loser is the now-redundant payment processor.

rektide 5y ago
The problem as stated by the topic is that those who are cashless (which is a vast & growing amount of people) are subject to having their digital assets frozen on a moment notice. These proposals that we need to focus more on cash-ed people are mishearted & distracting from the core topic. Sure, a more cash-ready society is better able to help someone who has to rebuild their life, forced into a cash-carrying state. But it does nothing to prevent or remedy having your assets stripped from you by the whim of some megacorporation trying to improve their PR spin on a hot-topic. People need assistance before being thrown to rock bottom by the corporation, not just after.
- walterbell 5y ago
  As stated in [1], we need to fight this battle on both fronts: cash-equivalents and cashless-regulation. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30435574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30435574
thfuran 5y ago
Unless it actually ends up costing the merchant more money because they need to store and transport large amounts of cash and doing that isn't free.
- walterbell 5y ago
  Some merchants have influence over both revenue and cost. Some merchants understand the economic value of transaction data ("data about money is more valuable than money") and prefer to utilize their transaction data directly, instead of blindly surrendering it to random observers in the payment supply chain. Some customers, when given a choice, prefer those merchants.

pessimizer 5y ago

This is simply not true. Not only is cashless not at all more convenient than cash for minor purchases, and not only are 10% of the US population unbanked, but in addition the access of third parties to purchase records just alarms people. In my circles, I often see people withdrawing out pocket money on a regular basis for small purchases, and using cash for large peer-to-peer purchases that they're unsure of the tax implications of. Cashless is largely reserved for restaurants and grocery stores. With government reporting regulations hitting paypal and other fake banks, I bet this pattern will become more widespread. Just let somebody have to fill out an extra form on their taxes because of excessive bill-splitting; they'll change their habits instantly.

decafninja 5y ago
I pay with my credit card even for <$1 purchases. It is much more convenient than pulling out a dollar bill and waiting to get change in coins (which I despise carrying). In the case where they don't accept credit, and I can't be bothered to go make the purchase somewhere else, I'll just tell them to take the dollar bill and keep the change. Not having to deal with loose coins is worth it. How is carrying, paying with, and managing cash in your wallet more convenient than tapping a credit card or your phone?
- leppr 5y ago
  To paraphrase the message you're replying to: The inconvenience of credit cards manifests itself after making the payment: when you're filling taxes, or when whatever information derived from your payments is used against you. You're trading immediate versus delayed inconvenience. At least that was the argument. I won't argue that most people will never feel these second order inconveniences.
  - decafninja 5y ago
    Not sure I understand. Do you mean from the point of view of the merchant? From the point of view of the consumer, I don't think I've ever done anything differently in regards to tax paperwork with regards to differences in method of payment. Even from the merchant's point of view, I would imagine credit card payments are easier to keep track of for documenting purposes. Unless, of course, your intention is tax evasion, which I know quite a few merchants (including family) do with cash.

jerf 5y ago

Part of that "more convenience" is that people think it is all benefit and no cost. If a lot of people come to the conclusion that cashlessness is risky due to the easy with which the powers that be can flip a switch and steal it from them, the cost/benefit analysis changes. That is not to say everyone everywhere will suddenly and uniformly hate it. It just changes. The more people get hit by capricious actions, the more people will find their cost/benefits analysis changing. The CBDCs are inevitably going to fail for the exact same reasons the central banks want them. The more control the central banks have, the more the CDBCs become merely 21st century company scrip and not currency. The more the central banks can arbitrarily reward and penalize you for political reasons, for social reasons, for economic engineering reasons, the more their "currency" fails to be currency on the most fundamental level of being a reliable store of value. People will realize they don't want them and they are too dangerous to hold. But ye gods will they damage the world on the way to realizing this is too much control, because the once the elites think they have this, they aren't going to give this power up. They'll do everything they can to "ban" any other attempts at having ways of storing or conveying value until the whole system breaks, and they won't care, because even a failing system that they're still in charge of will be better than a system they aren't in charge of.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mortenjorck 5y ago

> The writing is on the wall; barring some sort of major social upheaval, cashless will be more dominant in the future. It's just too convenient. In classic HN fashion, everyone disagreeing with this is focused on their own solipsistic perception of the relative merits, technical and otherwise, of cash versus electronic payments. But convenience always wins. The not-yet-evenly-distributed future is represented by Apple Pay on the Apple Watch. You literally wave your wrist over a point-of-sale terminal and confirm on the screen. Once this experience is cloned and brought downmarket by a combination of Android, Fitbit, and no-name Chinese manufacturers on Amazon, very few will go back even to pulling out credit cards, much less enduring the complications of cash. We need better legal protections for electronic payments and banking. Cash, for better or worse, is on the way out.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
> But convenience always wins. It's very inconvenient if you can't buy food or pay your bills. >We need better legal protections for electronic payments and banking. Cash, for better or worse, is on the way out. if a person loses access to their account by government or banking ruling then they cannot take part in electronic payments. What is your solution to this? I mean obviously the solution is that governments and banks cannot just turn off access to your account, but that is not an answer, you need to explain all of the processes that will need to support this possibility, because obviously banks and governments do need to turn off access to accounts at times. But if we allow cash as a fallback, then we already have a system that works. All the various rules and processes about cash have been worked out long ago, over generations! replacing the security that cash provides for people not to starve or freeze because of any number of possible problems would be an incredibly expensive and error prone process.
- Cederfjard 5y ago
  You’re not really engaging with the argument of the person you’re responding to, namely that REGARDLESS of other merits, people will abandon cash because cashless will be too convenient. You can’t sustain cash as a form of payment if only a tiny fringe care enough to use it. And thus the issues that you (quite rightfully) bring up will have to be dealt with in other ways. What do you think about that?

dopidopHN 5y ago

Fun fact : a least one city in the country has a large percentage of bar being cash only. ( New Orleans ) It’s clearly to have difficult to trace accounting. It’s a blip, but still, that exists and I don’t see that changing any time soon for those particular places.