17 ms·

Reasons to fight cashless contagion

192 points by Gigamouse 3y ago

chasil 3y ago
All over my area, I am beginning to see discounts for paying with cash. Hopefully this is sufficient to discourage sufficient numbers from going fully cashless. There are situations where cash cannot be used; hopefully this changes in a way that is safe.
- NoboruWataya 3y ago
  I haven't seen any discounts yet. I have started to see some shops with signs saying that cash is preferred if possible. However, I still see far more shops advertising that they don't take cash at all. It's interesting that different businesses take different views on this. Some dislike the fees charged by card processors, others dislike the hassle of dealing with cash.
  - chasil 3y ago
    All my local restaurants are doing it, but not corporate chains.
  - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
    > However, I still see far more shops advertising that they don't take cash at all. Openly call such shops something like "denunciation shops" since they only offer a kind of transaction that leaks (denounces) data to the involved banks.
- donkeyd 3y ago
  I recently got a 'discount' for paying my car maintenance in cash. I got cash right next to the garage just to pay in cash. Of course this discount isn't because the owner likes cash, it's because he can just grab the cash and not pay taxes, which is why I got a discount in the first place. The paying in cash and not being traced part is directly connected to a criminal act. Wonder why governments aren't liking cash transactions.
  - chasil 3y ago
    There is also a fee from the credit providers, which I believe is 3% of the transaction. This fee is avoided with cash.
    - jrmg 3y ago
      Only if you’re keeping the cash and not banking it. Banks charge businesses handling fees for cash. [not to mention fees on the other end - a huge percentage on most ATM withdrawals].
    - donkeyd 3y ago
      In my country, pretty much everything is debit. A debit transaction costs maximum about €0,25 over here. This would've been about 0,1% of the total transaction. A bank transfer would've been free. Meanwhile, VAT would've been 21% and income tax probably close to 50%. So I doubt the transaction fee is relevant at all in my garage's consideration to offer me a 'discount'. This nearly doubles his net income and saves me 21% in VAT, just because it's off the books.
      - chasil 3y ago
        In the U.S., a separate credit card at a different institution is very wise. When using a debit card, holds placed for funds (i.e. hotel incidentals) impact real cash in your account. When using a credit card, these holds impact your credit line, not your actual funds. I avoid using my debit card whenever possible, because it protects my assets more securely.
        donkeyd 3y ago
        Debit is the standard in my country for pretty much everything... Holds aren't actually common and even most hotels ask you to pay the room in advance for short stays. It's a very different world and something like credit card debt isn't as prevalent here.
        3y ago
NickC25 3y ago
Completely agree. While there's nothing wrong with digital payments, a society without cash just terrifies me. I don't have much to hide, but I don't want every action I take with money to be traceable and that data of what I do with my money to be available to all sorts of private interests without my express written consent. No corporation should get to know if I tip my barber, waiter, uber driver, etc... in cash let alone if I decide to buy a bag of weed. I prefer to keep a bit of cash on me for many reasons, and I don't think it's appropriate for any organization to tell me 1. that I can't; and/or 2. that they have the right to know what I'm using it for (or that they have the ability to deny my ability to use my capital in whatever ways I desire). We're not China. As someone who worked with Chinese nationals, even some of them who were complete simps for The Party had no desire to have all their finances completely digitized and tracked. Modern economies have a need for cash, no matter what big banks or credit card companies or FinTech companies think.
- eastbound 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mfringel 3y ago
    [citation needed]
  - s_dev 3y ago
    I don't believe that but there is some truth or less exaggerated percentage of tax evasion that could be quoted. Cash is also necessary for buying illegal drugs for example which a lot of people do in all strata. Other factors that are rarely mentioned in these debates include that cash must be counted and is far more error prone than cashless transactions. Most people counting this cash are actually 19 year olds or people who just aren't enthused by their job, so plenty of mistakes mean cashless transactions have a significant advantage in retail.
    - NickC25 3y ago
      It's also necessary for when some states have a super low minimum wage for restaurant/bar/food workers (because the idea is that you'll make the difference up in tips) - in my state (FL) I believe it's something like $2.75 or $3 per hour. Tips are taxed, and you'd better believe the owner of the establishment takes a cut of those tips, too, if they are reported. You tip cash, all that goes straight to the workers, most of whom are probably not rolling in the dough. It goes quite a long way for those types of folks. The lower the rung you're on economically, the more use you have for cash.
SantalBlush 3y ago
>in this piece I’ll lay out 10 talking points that you can use to make even the most ardent card-tapper have second thoughts about a totally bank-dominated society. The writer is starting with the wrong premise: that people who prefer a cashless system don't understand these things. They do. They just don't care enough to do much about it. It's not about a lack of understanding, it's about convenience. A cashless system tends to be more convenient, and that's why people like it.
- NickC25 3y ago
  >It's not about a lack of understanding, it's about convenience. A cashless system tends to be more convenient, and that's why people like it. Cashless is definitely more convenient (I'll give you that all day, because it absolutely is), and it's great, but there are a bunch of economic actors that would prefer to be able to pay in cash or accept cash payments, and not all of those actors are illicit actors - there are plenty of legitimate businesses that would prefer to deal in cash whenever possible. Plenty of service people such as waiters, barbers, drivers, etc...benefit from cash. I think the lower on the economic rung you go, the more useful cash is. I'm a small biz owner myself, and I accept digital payments with no problem, but those same digital payment platforms take a nice cut of my margins. I can offer better prices if I don't have to fork over 2-5% to a 3rd party that provides little value outside of someone being able to pay me by tapping our phones together.
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    While you claim that there are a whole range of businesses keen on getting cash, this is region-specific. You can go to e.g. Sweden and find that those small businesses often refuse to take your cash no matter how much you plead. As soon as it becomes easy for every single person in an economy to take digital payments, even if they are just selling strawberries by the roadside or whatever, then even the people towards the bottom of the economic rung might go cashless.
dc3k 3y ago
I haven’t used cash in a very long time. I haven’t carried a wallet at all in almost 5 years because every business takes tap payments, so I can use my phone to pay. I don’t think cash should disappear, but I sure am glad there’s an alternative because I hate carrying it around.
- vfclists 3y ago
  I guess you've never lost your phone or your wallet?
  - lawlessone 3y ago
    I have. I've also lost cash.
  - dc3k 3y ago
    I’ve never lost either, no.
- iteria 3y ago
  This is how I feel. I keep cash in a safe at home for emergencies like natural disasters, but carrying cash is a burden. It's easily stolen and it's unwieldy to work with. The presence of cash immediately makes it more dangerous to exist. I don't want it to go away because power failure happens, but anyone who has ever lived in a sketchy area knows that having a lot cash on your person is not the best idea.
  - vfclists 3y ago
    How many times have something of yours been stolen, more specifically how many times has your cash stashed at home been stolen?
    - iteria 3y ago
      Never but cash on my person has and that's why I don't carry it
- 3y ago
kylebenzle 3y ago
I hate myself for trying to be "that guy" but I can't believe the author doesn't mention Bitcoin/Monero in an article about digital payments in 2023. The combination of XMR for saving and something like BCH for spending is such a dead simple solution to 99% of the world's money issues it boggles my mind that it's taken 10 years for us to get to where we are now, I thought it would have been 2-3 years at most. And still, 10 years in, a near perfect tract record, people are still unsure about Bitcoin. What's the issue exactly, people are just scared? I will never understand it. Ive said since 2012, I will either be proven to be the biggest idiot in the world if/when crypto get regulated or hacked and comes tumbling down, or people will be begging to know how I saw it coming when Bitcoin swallows up the worlds financial system black hole style. Either way, I'm enjoying the show immensely.
- chasil 3y ago
  Bitcoin has extreme scalability and privacy problems. Over the course of 20 minutes, the maximum number of people who can engage in transactions is somewhat under 50,000. This is obviously unworkable as a global currency; if the user base and transaction volumes rise, you might be waiting hours or days for a transaction to complete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_scalability_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_scalability_problem The blockchain also records details of your transactions forever, and unless you carefully obfuscate your activity, every bitcoin user will have the entire blockchain and your entire history on it. Forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_blockchain This certainly gives me pause.
  - sMarsIntruder 3y ago
    No, it doesn’t have scalability problem, neither privacy issues. I’m tired of saying always the same stuff. Do. Your. Own. Research. You already have did it, so that’s just bad faith.
    - chasil 3y ago
      Please enlighten us; how is this statement incorrect? "The maximum throughput is the maximum rate at which the blockchain can confirm transactions. Today, bitcoin's maximum throughput is 3.3–7 transactions/sec. This number is constrained by the maximum block size and the inter-block time."
lawlessone 3y ago
I agree with some of what the author says. Especially about how cashless means i can't just give a homeless person spare change. But having worked at a cash register at for a period in my life theres a lot of good reasons businesses do this. Stores dealing in cash need a float at the register. Where I was that was 500 euro. That's 500 euro in coins and lower value notes that has to be at every register so that anyone that pays in cash can be given the correct change. A large store near me has about 20 registers, that during very busy periods could all be open. So to guarantee they can accept cash on a busy day like that means having 10 grand to just park in these registers. That's 10k that's vulnerable to theft either from employees or robbers. Security vans have to be hired to take the days takings to a bank and bring lower denominations to the store to fill these floats. When someone finishes a shift they have to spend time what they have, that doesn't take long but it's another cost for the company. It also means insurance costs are higher. The guy only accepting card payments from his horsebox converted to a coffee shop doesn't worry about any of this. At least where i am *living cash is more expensive than electronic
- boomchinolo78 3y ago
  Card is a permanent %2+ tax, how does it compare?
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    See my sibling comment, but it is hard to quantify how much cash costs because a lot of the costs are indirect or infrequent capital costs. Things like employee time, and money handling equipment. It will also vary enormously based on the scale and nature of the business. A small coffee shop can get by with a $129 cash drawer hooked up to an iPad and a manager spending a few hours per week counting money and visiting the bank. A large store like Walmart can easily spend $100k+ on all of the equipment for cash handling in addition to having to contract with an armored car company.
    - jfengel 3y ago
      Note that "a few hours per week" for the manager costs perhaps $30/hour total compensation. That's more than the price of that drawer, every week. Over a year, it's perhaps 4 hours/week x $30/hour x 52 weeks/year, which comes to over $6,000. That's real money for a small coffee shop.
nerdbert 3y ago
I agree with almost all of his points, but it turns out I don't agree enough to forego the convenience of doing without cash. If bitcoin weren't so stupid I'd gladly use that instead of highly centralized corporate payment systems.
- fsflover 3y ago
  > If bitcoin weren't so stupid I'd gladly use that instead of highly centralized corporate payment systems. Did you consider Monero or Etherium?
  - xena 3y ago
    Name five restaurants that take either.
- boomchinolo78 3y ago
  In the US cash is more convenient for paying dinner. Instead of the awkward dance of check -> put card -> bring back -> tip. You just pay it with tip, can easily round up or down a bit...
  - kalupa 3y ago
    it still is wild that they take the card away from the table when tap payments exist so extensively, even in the USA. Here in Canada, the servers often will bring the card reader at the same time as they bring over the bill, because the assumption is you're likely paying with a card, either credit or debit, so why not save the extra trips entirely?
    - balderdash 3y ago
      I actually prefer it - I hate having the waiter hovering over me while i decide the tip + I can continue a conversation/finalize my bill at my leisure if my card is simply returned awaiting my signature.
      - 3y ago
crazygringo 3y ago
I just want cash cards. I don't want cash to disappear. I just want dumb grubby pieces of paper and heavy grimy coins to go the way of the dodo. With all of the logistical and security costs they entail. Just give me digital cash that can be stored on a card, that doesn't require a bank account and isn't tied to anyone's identity, and where any cell phone is capable of transferring value between cards (and between bank accounts and cards).
- tastyfreeze 3y ago
  The card industry has zero incentive to create a card like this. Card issuers collect 1.25-3.5% of every payment made with a card. A global sales tax paid to a small collection of companies. This is fantastically profitable. I suspect if a card was created that would mean less revenue for the card issuers it would be embraced then extinguished.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    Who said anything about a card industry? Digital cash needs to be implemented by the government with zero transaction fees. This needs to be something run by the government, in the same way the government runs printing physical cash. This has nothing whosoever to do with MC/Visa/etc.
    - coding_unit_1 3y ago
      This is already in progress, at least in the UK https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/the-digital-pound https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/the-digital-pound
      - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
        > This is already in progress, at least in the UK https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/the-digital-pound https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/the-digital-pound Does this enable completely anonymous payments, or is this another step towards more surveillance?
vfclists 3y ago
This should put the need for cash into perspective. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66354476.amp https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66354476.amp In fact is should put the need for centralized entities for controlling all transactions into perspective.
tkems 3y ago
I recently started seeing advertising related to products that I had purchased at a large US supermarket. I did some digging on the payment card networks and found that they are sent a lot more data that I realized. Level 3 data (the highest and most complete) sends product data about what you bought to the payment network (Visa, Mastercard, Amex, etc.). I have no idea what they do with this data and who they sell it to. I love the protection of using credit cards, but if merchants go cashless, privacy goes with it.
- balderdash 3y ago
  Could you expand more on this I didn’t realize card networks actually got itemized data (e.g. $12.35 at the gas station was for a pack of cigarettes or some windshield wiper fluid and and some beef jerky)
  - tkems 3y ago
    Sure! I found this documentation from Clover (a payment processor like Square): https://docs.clover.com/docs/understanding-level-3-data https://docs.clover.com/docs/understanding-level-3-data The Level 3 data isn't sent from all merchants, but I have a feeling that larger ones pass along the info. I also was incorrect above, only Mastercard and Visa support level 3 data. However, level 2 data is widely supported and can contain some purchase info (Clover lists the SKU of an item for example).
    - balderdash 3y ago
      This is terrifying
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    They don't get it as a rule, and they didn't get it at all for a long time - that is optional data for which there is a standard where the terminal can send it if it is configured to do so; and some merchants are now sending it - probably there's some agreement where they get some financial benefit for doing so.
- 3y ago
mattmaroon 3y ago
“I’ll lay out 10 talking points that you can use to make even the most ardent card-tapper have second thoughts about a totally bank-dominated society.” 0 of these points gave me second thoughts. As a merchant, cash sucks. It’s slow AF to make change. I have to trust my employees not to steal it in a way that I don’t with credit card. (They can just not ring something up and pocket the cash, that’s not a thing right credit.) I have to deal with handling it which in my line means sometimes even hiring private security and at least two trips to a bank. (None of the bankless or anti-financial stuff applies to legitimate businesses.) It’s well worth 2.5% of my sales to never have to handle it again. So I don’t, and at every big event I do, there are a small percentage of people mad about it and one guy who thinks I’m violating his constitutional rights and damnit he’s going to do something about it. (He never does.) As a consumer it’s fragile, easy to lose, easy to not have when I need it, and takes up a lot of pocket space. I’m so annoyed when I’m required to have cash for something and thank God for square and the raft of competitors it inspired for not making me do it ever again.
keiferski 3y ago
Cashless is simply too convenient to be beaten by "you shouldn't do this" arguments. Unfortunate but true. I am not an expert at this by any means, but one idea I've had is for smartphones / a "credit chip" to have preloaded cash on to it, which is then used to make purchases without sending that information back to your bank account. So, for example: you make a $100 deposit from your bank account to your smartphone. You can then make purchases from your smartphone, not from your card. The purchasing data stays local to your device.
- balderdash 3y ago
  This seems like it would need to be independent of the card networks as well?
  - keiferski 3y ago
    The data would need to stay local to your phone, otherwise this wouldn't prevent tracking from card networks, etc. You could add cash to your phone via a card, but the only record would be the raw amount, not what you're spending the money on. (In other words, exactly the same as taking cash from an ATM.)
    - ghaff 3y ago
      What happens if your phone breaks?
      - keiferski 3y ago
        It occurs to me now that what I'm proposing is not drastically different from how crypto works. In which case, there may be some way to back up the phone elsewhere, or maybe not – we don't have a backup for cash and if you lose it, too bad. Keep your transfer amounts small enough that it won't be a disaster if you lose the phone.
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  Tentatively, I would say that is 'easy'. Easy because the necessary smart card technology has existed for decades, and because almost every smartphone now retailing includes Near-Field Communication features and smart card chips already. Although early smart cards had some security flaws (as would be expected in the early days of widespread civilian encryption), these no longer apply to modern smart cards. I bought a day pass for the Brussels city transport system at a ticket machine last month, and the machine simply loaded and dispensed a smart card for me to use immediately on any bus, tram or train. This shows that smart cards are not only cheap, they can be literally disposable! Therefore I would say that is 100% a policy issue: all it would take is one country or large city to implement digital cash with the legal and functional constructs to ensure anonymous transactions and your dream would come true.
taeric 3y ago
These reasons are... dubious. If anything, many are reasons we should stop finding ways to charge for everything. Cash or otherwise. And some of these are, themselves, falling for the odd invisible nature of how expensive some things are. Take your bike. How much does it cost to keep the roadways maintained so that you can use said bike? That isn't a balance. That is you ignoring some costs. Data surveillance? Even if you are sending in checks for your ISP or using cash on delivery for items, they are still just as trackable. Modern computation is just too advanced to think going back to older payment styles will make a difference. Exclusion? You can look at our history to see that you fight exclusion by fighting exclusion. Luddite holding on to older technologies is almost certainly going to be weaponized more to exclude folks than moving to cards. Same for economic censorship. You fight that by building stronger protections for people. Not requiring older payment styles. I'm also not clear on how "cash" helps here. It can be confiscated just as easily. And nobody is going around with enough cash on hand that they can ignore literal government level sanctions. Resiliency has a bit of a point. Is amusing when a store can't let you buy things because the register is down. I'd love to see that explored more. The rest of the bullets seem to be the same. Advocating for old payment styles is largely less effective than advocating for stronger consumer protections. To the point that even things I agree are bad, I just don't see "cash" as a good answer there.
- openthc 3y ago
  In USA (for example) if we were cashless then then millions of tax dollars collected by state governments from cannabis sales would not have happened. This is because 100% of the electronic payment players currently block it; and they block it because the federal government blocks it. The only path to legalized cannabis there would have been at the federal level; it would have blocked 20+ states with their experiments.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Right, but my argument is that that blocking is the problem? And you'd be silly to think that any of the other concerns aren't still there for cash buyers. Hell, many of the pot shops are now scanning your ID. I should note that the only path to legalized cannabis is still, strictly speaking, at the federal level. It is a federally illegal thing. To pretend otherwise is a dangerous risk a lot of places are willing to take.
marssaxman 3y ago
As I have seen "we are a cash-free business" signs begin to proliferate, I have begun to carry and use more cash, because I don't want to get stuck in a cashless society.
kardianos 3y ago
I'm still curious if we could have the best of both worlds with something like Taler https://taler.net/en/index.html https://taler.net/en/index.html . I don't know if it could be a genuine replacement for cash. My concern about Taler grew when they demonstrated you could fit in purchases that were restricted, ostensibly to give a kid cash that prevented them from spending it on adult items. This restriction could theoretically be applied to adults who aren't "good enough" as well.
waffletower 3y ago
While I think cash is important, and I think many of the threats posed by digital payments infrastructure to low income individuals are real, I believe that the fears of surveillance capitalism are exaggerated. Google hasn't been able to convincingly provide targeted ads that reflect my obvious demographic and interest profile, data they definitely have available, for years. Amazon is incredibly crude at this as well, and Alexa obviously can't recognize our consumer habits at all. Square never informs any advertising I am inflicted with, otherwise I would be inundated with hoagie ads. People love fear, but I think it would be better to focus on reality rather than speculation. I hear you about the cost of cash -- it is clearly very high -- so high that some major banks are simply closing large numbers of branches, and, more to the point, many ATM locations. This is happening even in dense urban areas. It is increasingly difficult for me to obtain cash, particularly without paying a bank fee for the "privilege". We can't simply wish that cost away without some government intervention -- and good luck with that in many countries.
couchdive 3y ago
all good points. But, we are forgetting the unbanked, underbanked, the day laborers and migrant farm workers paid cash, the LexisNexis tracking leading to unbanked. Check cashing places are slimming, buts that's more due to entry level jobs offering prepaid debit cards as payment of salary. Yum Brands I believe does this. But of course, prepaid debit cards cant be used everywhere. (Hotels, deposits, some gas pumps, etc)
msgilligan 3y ago
The article makes some great points, but it is surprising that the article doesn't mention Bitcoin, cryptocurrency, or even the theoretical possibility of a "digital cash" that mitigates some or all of the issues he identifies. I personally think that Bitcoin and the Lightning Network (with forthcoming and as-of-yet-undiscovered improvements) is our best long-term alternative to the "unbalanced cashless" society that he rightly fears. I admit I could be wrong about Bitcoin, but the larger point should be that we, as a society, need to allow for options other than what the "banking sector using big tech devices" is offering. Freedom and the market system are about giving people options. Cash, Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies should all be available to consumers. Our right to use cash should be protected and it makes sense for individuals to "vote with their [paper] dollars" to help preserve that option and that right. The same applies to Bitcoin and other "digital cash" systems.
dabbz 3y ago
My issue with cashless has nothing to do with privacy, but with card companies dictating what can and cannot be transacted by with their network.
robbywashere_ 3y ago
I have an idea. What if we could create something that has the privacy of cash, is uncensorable like cash but could also be digitally transmitted like electronic payments.
- aeternum 3y ago
  I think the problem with that idea is it leads to people believing that digital monkey drawings are worth millions.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
friend_and_foe 3y ago
I operate on an almost 100% cash basis. I use Amazon gift cards for Amazon (one of two big corporations I regularly do direct business with) and I have a prepaid debit card for online orders for the odd thing I have to get elsewhere. Both are reloaded using cash as needed. I switched to this system relatively recently, I had a bank account but the nearest branch was pretty far, and I used it primarily for online orders and worked with cash for local stuff, it became a pain to put cash in it when it ran low. I no longer have a bank account. Life is pretty easy. I've noticed something interesting though. Rural areas (like where I live) almost never have cashless storefronts, in fact often they have cash only storefronts. The merchants almost always have some indicator of conservative bent. Whereas in cities, you'll see cashless places all over, and it's often some business owned or staffed by people with an obvious left of center ideology, which IMO are the last people I'd expect to want a big finance company to get a piece of every person to person transaction they do.
gloosx 3y ago
Crypto is the new cash of the global world – it abolishes borders, it abolishes overwhelming grip of state actors and scam banks in the economics. You can move it around fast and peer-to-peer, without asking any authority. No one can take it from you without your error or consent. You can find a peer to exchange it to any cash currency in every part of the world. Most people who don't understand crypto don't understand any of this.
- 4gotunameagain 3y ago
  > No one can take it from you without your error or consent. You claim to understand crypto, yet this is blatantly false. With cash you are exposed only to your local crime, with crypto you are exposed to a global crime network, implementation bugs (both network & wallet/device)..
  - gloosx 3y ago
    Criminals were not born criminals, they were homeschooled by criminal state
    - 4gotunameagain 3y ago
      Is this trolling? Is this a joke? I don't understand. Selfish behaviour (criminality, when taken to the extreme) seems to be an inherent characteristic of humans, you cannot claim that "criminal state" creates that. And this has nothing to do with your initial claims, which I refuted.
      - gloosx 3y ago
        It is not a trolling nor a joke, this is my point you can't understand. Let me try to explain. Selfish behaviour is indeed a characteristic of all living beings, but I won't fully agree that it is always criminality when taken to extreme – in my opinion, there are multiple dimensions to that. This behaviour can be developed into a symbiotic one too, and the environment here is one of the drivers for evolution. Our current environment leads to selfishness turning into parasitic behaviour almost every time, and our current environment is the state, whatever you got lucky to get. Based on that I claim that state creates criminal, by creating the environment he needs, and by judging him in this same environment, no matter how disharmonic it is in the current point in time. Decentralised finance is a great example of the paradigm shift in the right direction. It is above the state and it lets people globally interact more harmonically, because you need rules universally interpretable by all parties in order to harmonise. I don't say it is a perfect tool, but it is far better than anything we could come up with for thousands of years, and it will eventually lead us into a bit more harmonic world. Tool is misused by the criminals, created by states around them over time, but I don't care as long as they play by the same rules as me.
janandonly 3y ago
Nobody seems to have brought up the solution of Chaumian ecash yet? This preserves privacy but lets you pay fully digitally.
euroderf 3y ago
Anecdata: before a visit to Berlin I got the standard advice that in Germany, cash is usually king. On the ground tho I found that a card worked almost everywhere that was not a humble corner shop. My largest no-card purchase was a 50€ lunch bill. Still tho, I had to prepare for the trip by withdrawing a wad of cash. This is not necessary in Scandinavia.
SergeAx 3y ago
In today's ubiquitos tracking reality the right to pay cash is a basic human right for privacy.
theandrewbailey 3y ago
Not mentioned: how rewards/cash back cards are a scheme to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. It happens not just from the fees charged to merchants, but also through interest being charged to people who can't or won't pay off their credit cards each month. Merchant fees are particularly insidious, since not many stores offer discounts for cash, or charge for using a card, so those fees are hidden in inflated prices that everyone pays, regardless of payment method.
_lvbh 3y ago
I was a fan of cashless up until yesterday when the suspension of my Revolut account led to starvation for 24 hours.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

192 points by Gigamouse 3y ago

All over my area, I am beginning to see discounts for paying with cash. Hopefully this is sufficient to discourage sufficient numbers from going fully cashless. There are situations where cash cannot be used; hopefully this changes in a way that is safe.

NoboruWataya 3y ago
I haven't seen any discounts yet. I have started to see some shops with signs saying that cash is preferred if possible. However, I still see far more shops advertising that they don't take cash at all. It's interesting that different businesses take different views on this. Some dislike the fees charged by card processors, others dislike the hassle of dealing with cash.
- chasil 3y ago
  All my local restaurants are doing it, but not corporate chains.
- aleph_minus_one 3y ago
  > However, I still see far more shops advertising that they don't take cash at all. Openly call such shops something like "denunciation shops" since they only offer a kind of transaction that leaks (denounces) data to the involved banks.
donkeyd 3y ago
I recently got a 'discount' for paying my car maintenance in cash. I got cash right next to the garage just to pay in cash. Of course this discount isn't because the owner likes cash, it's because he can just grab the cash and not pay taxes, which is why I got a discount in the first place. The paying in cash and not being traced part is directly connected to a criminal act. Wonder why governments aren't liking cash transactions.
- chasil 3y ago
  There is also a fee from the credit providers, which I believe is 3% of the transaction. This fee is avoided with cash.
  - jrmg 3y ago
    Only if you’re keeping the cash and not banking it. Banks charge businesses handling fees for cash. [not to mention fees on the other end - a huge percentage on most ATM withdrawals].
  - donkeyd 3y ago
    In my country, pretty much everything is debit. A debit transaction costs maximum about €0,25 over here. This would've been about 0,1% of the total transaction. A bank transfer would've been free. Meanwhile, VAT would've been 21% and income tax probably close to 50%. So I doubt the transaction fee is relevant at all in my garage's consideration to offer me a 'discount'. This nearly doubles his net income and saves me 21% in VAT, just because it's off the books.
    - chasil 3y ago
      In the U.S., a separate credit card at a different institution is very wise. When using a debit card, holds placed for funds (i.e. hotel incidentals) impact real cash in your account. When using a credit card, these holds impact your credit line, not your actual funds. I avoid using my debit card whenever possible, because it protects my assets more securely.
      - donkeyd 3y ago
        Debit is the standard in my country for pretty much everything... Holds aren't actually common and even most hotels ask you to pay the room in advance for short stays. It's a very different world and something like credit card debt isn't as prevalent here.
        3y ago

NickC25 3y ago

Completely agree. While there's nothing wrong with digital payments, a society without cash just terrifies me. I don't have much to hide, but I don't want every action I take with money to be traceable and that data of what I do with my money to be available to all sorts of private interests without my express written consent. No corporation should get to know if I tip my barber, waiter, uber driver, etc... in cash let alone if I decide to buy a bag of weed. I prefer to keep a bit of cash on me for many reasons, and I don't think it's appropriate for any organization to tell me 1. that I can't; and/or 2. that they have the right to know what I'm using it for (or that they have the ability to deny my ability to use my capital in whatever ways I desire). We're not China. As someone who worked with Chinese nationals, even some of them who were complete simps for The Party had no desire to have all their finances completely digitized and tracked. Modern economies have a need for cash, no matter what big banks or credit card companies or FinTech companies think.

eastbound 3y ago
[flagged]
- mfringel 3y ago
  [citation needed]
- s_dev 3y ago
  I don't believe that but there is some truth or less exaggerated percentage of tax evasion that could be quoted. Cash is also necessary for buying illegal drugs for example which a lot of people do in all strata. Other factors that are rarely mentioned in these debates include that cash must be counted and is far more error prone than cashless transactions. Most people counting this cash are actually 19 year olds or people who just aren't enthused by their job, so plenty of mistakes mean cashless transactions have a significant advantage in retail.
  - NickC25 3y ago
    It's also necessary for when some states have a super low minimum wage for restaurant/bar/food workers (because the idea is that you'll make the difference up in tips) - in my state (FL) I believe it's something like $2.75 or $3 per hour. Tips are taxed, and you'd better believe the owner of the establishment takes a cut of those tips, too, if they are reported. You tip cash, all that goes straight to the workers, most of whom are probably not rolling in the dough. It goes quite a long way for those types of folks. The lower the rung you're on economically, the more use you have for cash.

SantalBlush 3y ago

>in this piece I’ll lay out 10 talking points that you can use to make even the most ardent card-tapper have second thoughts about a totally bank-dominated society. The writer is starting with the wrong premise: that people who prefer a cashless system don't understand these things. They do. They just don't care enough to do much about it. It's not about a lack of understanding, it's about convenience. A cashless system tends to be more convenient, and that's why people like it.

NickC25 3y ago
>It's not about a lack of understanding, it's about convenience. A cashless system tends to be more convenient, and that's why people like it. Cashless is definitely more convenient (I'll give you that all day, because it absolutely is), and it's great, but there are a bunch of economic actors that would prefer to be able to pay in cash or accept cash payments, and not all of those actors are illicit actors - there are plenty of legitimate businesses that would prefer to deal in cash whenever possible. Plenty of service people such as waiters, barbers, drivers, etc...benefit from cash. I think the lower on the economic rung you go, the more useful cash is. I'm a small biz owner myself, and I accept digital payments with no problem, but those same digital payment platforms take a nice cut of my margins. I can offer better prices if I don't have to fork over 2-5% to a 3rd party that provides little value outside of someone being able to pay me by tapping our phones together.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  While you claim that there are a whole range of businesses keen on getting cash, this is region-specific. You can go to e.g. Sweden and find that those small businesses often refuse to take your cash no matter how much you plead. As soon as it becomes easy for every single person in an economy to take digital payments, even if they are just selling strawberries by the roadside or whatever, then even the people towards the bottom of the economic rung might go cashless.

dc3k 3y ago

I haven’t used cash in a very long time. I haven’t carried a wallet at all in almost 5 years because every business takes tap payments, so I can use my phone to pay. I don’t think cash should disappear, but I sure am glad there’s an alternative because I hate carrying it around.

vfclists 3y ago
I guess you've never lost your phone or your wallet?
- lawlessone 3y ago
  I have. I've also lost cash.
- dc3k 3y ago
  I’ve never lost either, no.
iteria 3y ago
This is how I feel. I keep cash in a safe at home for emergencies like natural disasters, but carrying cash is a burden. It's easily stolen and it's unwieldy to work with. The presence of cash immediately makes it more dangerous to exist. I don't want it to go away because power failure happens, but anyone who has ever lived in a sketchy area knows that having a lot cash on your person is not the best idea.
- vfclists 3y ago
  How many times have something of yours been stolen, more specifically how many times has your cash stashed at home been stolen?
  - iteria 3y ago
    Never but cash on my person has and that's why I don't carry it
3y ago

kylebenzle 3y ago

I hate myself for trying to be "that guy" but I can't believe the author doesn't mention Bitcoin/Monero in an article about digital payments in 2023. The combination of XMR for saving and something like BCH for spending is such a dead simple solution to 99% of the world's money issues it boggles my mind that it's taken 10 years for us to get to where we are now, I thought it would have been 2-3 years at most. And still, 10 years in, a near perfect tract record, people are still unsure about Bitcoin. What's the issue exactly, people are just scared? I will never understand it. Ive said since 2012, I will either be proven to be the biggest idiot in the world if/when crypto get regulated or hacked and comes tumbling down, or people will be begging to know how I saw it coming when Bitcoin swallows up the worlds financial system black hole style. Either way, I'm enjoying the show immensely.

chasil 3y ago
Bitcoin has extreme scalability and privacy problems. Over the course of 20 minutes, the maximum number of people who can engage in transactions is somewhat under 50,000. This is obviously unworkable as a global currency; if the user base and transaction volumes rise, you might be waiting hours or days for a transaction to complete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_scalability_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_scalability_problem The blockchain also records details of your transactions forever, and unless you carefully obfuscate your activity, every bitcoin user will have the entire blockchain and your entire history on it. Forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_blockchain This certainly gives me pause.
- sMarsIntruder 3y ago
  No, it doesn’t have scalability problem, neither privacy issues. I’m tired of saying always the same stuff. Do. Your. Own. Research. You already have did it, so that’s just bad faith.
  - chasil 3y ago
    Please enlighten us; how is this statement incorrect? "The maximum throughput is the maximum rate at which the blockchain can confirm transactions. Today, bitcoin's maximum throughput is 3.3–7 transactions/sec. This number is constrained by the maximum block size and the inter-block time."

lawlessone 3y ago

I agree with some of what the author says. Especially about how cashless means i can't just give a homeless person spare change. But having worked at a cash register at for a period in my life theres a lot of good reasons businesses do this. Stores dealing in cash need a float at the register. Where I was that was 500 euro. That's 500 euro in coins and lower value notes that has to be at every register so that anyone that pays in cash can be given the correct change. A large store near me has about 20 registers, that during very busy periods could all be open. So to guarantee they can accept cash on a busy day like that means having 10 grand to just park in these registers. That's 10k that's vulnerable to theft either from employees or robbers. Security vans have to be hired to take the days takings to a bank and bring lower denominations to the store to fill these floats. When someone finishes a shift they have to spend time what they have, that doesn't take long but it's another cost for the company. It also means insurance costs are higher. The guy only accepting card payments from his horsebox converted to a coffee shop doesn't worry about any of this. At least where i am *living cash is more expensive than electronic

boomchinolo78 3y ago
Card is a permanent %2+ tax, how does it compare?
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  See my sibling comment, but it is hard to quantify how much cash costs because a lot of the costs are indirect or infrequent capital costs. Things like employee time, and money handling equipment. It will also vary enormously based on the scale and nature of the business. A small coffee shop can get by with a $129 cash drawer hooked up to an iPad and a manager spending a few hours per week counting money and visiting the bank. A large store like Walmart can easily spend $100k+ on all of the equipment for cash handling in addition to having to contract with an armored car company.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    Note that "a few hours per week" for the manager costs perhaps $30/hour total compensation. That's more than the price of that drawer, every week. Over a year, it's perhaps 4 hours/week x $30/hour x 52 weeks/year, which comes to over $6,000. That's real money for a small coffee shop.

nerdbert 3y ago

I agree with almost all of his points, but it turns out I don't agree enough to forego the convenience of doing without cash. If bitcoin weren't so stupid I'd gladly use that instead of highly centralized corporate payment systems.

fsflover 3y ago
> If bitcoin weren't so stupid I'd gladly use that instead of highly centralized corporate payment systems. Did you consider Monero or Etherium?
- xena 3y ago
  Name five restaurants that take either.
boomchinolo78 3y ago
In the US cash is more convenient for paying dinner. Instead of the awkward dance of check -> put card -> bring back -> tip. You just pay it with tip, can easily round up or down a bit...
- kalupa 3y ago
  it still is wild that they take the card away from the table when tap payments exist so extensively, even in the USA. Here in Canada, the servers often will bring the card reader at the same time as they bring over the bill, because the assumption is you're likely paying with a card, either credit or debit, so why not save the extra trips entirely?
  - balderdash 3y ago
    I actually prefer it - I hate having the waiter hovering over me while i decide the tip + I can continue a conversation/finalize my bill at my leisure if my card is simply returned awaiting my signature.
    - 3y ago

crazygringo 3y ago

I just want cash cards. I don't want cash to disappear. I just want dumb grubby pieces of paper and heavy grimy coins to go the way of the dodo. With all of the logistical and security costs they entail. Just give me digital cash that can be stored on a card, that doesn't require a bank account and isn't tied to anyone's identity, and where any cell phone is capable of transferring value between cards (and between bank accounts and cards).

tastyfreeze 3y ago
The card industry has zero incentive to create a card like this. Card issuers collect 1.25-3.5% of every payment made with a card. A global sales tax paid to a small collection of companies. This is fantastically profitable. I suspect if a card was created that would mean less revenue for the card issuers it would be embraced then extinguished.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Who said anything about a card industry? Digital cash needs to be implemented by the government with zero transaction fees. This needs to be something run by the government, in the same way the government runs printing physical cash. This has nothing whosoever to do with MC/Visa/etc.
  - coding_unit_1 3y ago
    This is already in progress, at least in the UK https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/the-digital-pound https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/the-digital-pound
    - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
      > This is already in progress, at least in the UK https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/the-digital-pound https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/the-digital-pound Does this enable completely anonymous payments, or is this another step towards more surveillance?

vfclists 3y ago

This should put the need for cash into perspective. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66354476.amp https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66354476.amp In fact is should put the need for centralized entities for controlling all transactions into perspective.

tkems 3y ago

I recently started seeing advertising related to products that I had purchased at a large US supermarket. I did some digging on the payment card networks and found that they are sent a lot more data that I realized. Level 3 data (the highest and most complete) sends product data about what you bought to the payment network (Visa, Mastercard, Amex, etc.). I have no idea what they do with this data and who they sell it to. I love the protection of using credit cards, but if merchants go cashless, privacy goes with it.

balderdash 3y ago
Could you expand more on this I didn’t realize card networks actually got itemized data (e.g. $12.35 at the gas station was for a pack of cigarettes or some windshield wiper fluid and and some beef jerky)
- tkems 3y ago
  Sure! I found this documentation from Clover (a payment processor like Square): https://docs.clover.com/docs/understanding-level-3-data https://docs.clover.com/docs/understanding-level-3-data The Level 3 data isn't sent from all merchants, but I have a feeling that larger ones pass along the info. I also was incorrect above, only Mastercard and Visa support level 3 data. However, level 2 data is widely supported and can contain some purchase info (Clover lists the SKU of an item for example).
  - balderdash 3y ago
    This is terrifying
- PeterisP 3y ago
  They don't get it as a rule, and they didn't get it at all for a long time - that is optional data for which there is a standard where the terminal can send it if it is configured to do so; and some merchants are now sending it - probably there's some agreement where they get some financial benefit for doing so.
3y ago

mattmaroon 3y ago

“I’ll lay out 10 talking points that you can use to make even the most ardent card-tapper have second thoughts about a totally bank-dominated society.” 0 of these points gave me second thoughts. As a merchant, cash sucks. It’s slow AF to make change. I have to trust my employees not to steal it in a way that I don’t with credit card. (They can just not ring something up and pocket the cash, that’s not a thing right credit.) I have to deal with handling it which in my line means sometimes even hiring private security and at least two trips to a bank. (None of the bankless or anti-financial stuff applies to legitimate businesses.) It’s well worth 2.5% of my sales to never have to handle it again. So I don’t, and at every big event I do, there are a small percentage of people mad about it and one guy who thinks I’m violating his constitutional rights and damnit he’s going to do something about it. (He never does.) As a consumer it’s fragile, easy to lose, easy to not have when I need it, and takes up a lot of pocket space. I’m so annoyed when I’m required to have cash for something and thank God for square and the raft of competitors it inspired for not making me do it ever again.

keiferski 3y ago

Cashless is simply too convenient to be beaten by "you shouldn't do this" arguments. Unfortunate but true. I am not an expert at this by any means, but one idea I've had is for smartphones / a "credit chip" to have preloaded cash on to it, which is then used to make purchases without sending that information back to your bank account. So, for example: you make a $100 deposit from your bank account to your smartphone. You can then make purchases from your smartphone, not from your card. The purchasing data stays local to your device.

balderdash 3y ago
This seems like it would need to be independent of the card networks as well?
- keiferski 3y ago
  The data would need to stay local to your phone, otherwise this wouldn't prevent tracking from card networks, etc. You could add cash to your phone via a card, but the only record would be the raw amount, not what you're spending the money on. (In other words, exactly the same as taking cash from an ATM.)
  - ghaff 3y ago
    What happens if your phone breaks?
    - keiferski 3y ago
      It occurs to me now that what I'm proposing is not drastically different from how crypto works. In which case, there may be some way to back up the phone elsewhere, or maybe not – we don't have a backup for cash and if you lose it, too bad. Keep your transfer amounts small enough that it won't be a disaster if you lose the phone.
seabass-labrax 3y ago
Tentatively, I would say that is 'easy'. Easy because the necessary smart card technology has existed for decades, and because almost every smartphone now retailing includes Near-Field Communication features and smart card chips already. Although early smart cards had some security flaws (as would be expected in the early days of widespread civilian encryption), these no longer apply to modern smart cards. I bought a day pass for the Brussels city transport system at a ticket machine last month, and the machine simply loaded and dispensed a smart card for me to use immediately on any bus, tram or train. This shows that smart cards are not only cheap, they can be literally disposable! Therefore I would say that is 100% a policy issue: all it would take is one country or large city to implement digital cash with the legal and functional constructs to ensure anonymous transactions and your dream would come true.

taeric 3y ago

These reasons are... dubious. If anything, many are reasons we should stop finding ways to charge for everything. Cash or otherwise. And some of these are, themselves, falling for the odd invisible nature of how expensive some things are. Take your bike. How much does it cost to keep the roadways maintained so that you can use said bike? That isn't a balance. That is you ignoring some costs. Data surveillance? Even if you are sending in checks for your ISP or using cash on delivery for items, they are still just as trackable. Modern computation is just too advanced to think going back to older payment styles will make a difference. Exclusion? You can look at our history to see that you fight exclusion by fighting exclusion. Luddite holding on to older technologies is almost certainly going to be weaponized more to exclude folks than moving to cards. Same for economic censorship. You fight that by building stronger protections for people. Not requiring older payment styles. I'm also not clear on how "cash" helps here. It can be confiscated just as easily. And nobody is going around with enough cash on hand that they can ignore literal government level sanctions. Resiliency has a bit of a point. Is amusing when a store can't let you buy things because the register is down. I'd love to see that explored more. The rest of the bullets seem to be the same. Advocating for old payment styles is largely less effective than advocating for stronger consumer protections. To the point that even things I agree are bad, I just don't see "cash" as a good answer there.

openthc 3y ago
In USA (for example) if we were cashless then then millions of tax dollars collected by state governments from cannabis sales would not have happened. This is because 100% of the electronic payment players currently block it; and they block it because the federal government blocks it. The only path to legalized cannabis there would have been at the federal level; it would have blocked 20+ states with their experiments.
- taeric 3y ago
  Right, but my argument is that that blocking is the problem? And you'd be silly to think that any of the other concerns aren't still there for cash buyers. Hell, many of the pot shops are now scanning your ID. I should note that the only path to legalized cannabis is still, strictly speaking, at the federal level. It is a federally illegal thing. To pretend otherwise is a dangerous risk a lot of places are willing to take.

marssaxman 3y ago

As I have seen "we are a cash-free business" signs begin to proliferate, I have begun to carry and use more cash, because I don't want to get stuck in a cashless society.

kardianos 3y ago

I'm still curious if we could have the best of both worlds with something like Taler https://taler.net/en/index.html https://taler.net/en/index.html . I don't know if it could be a genuine replacement for cash. My concern about Taler grew when they demonstrated you could fit in purchases that were restricted, ostensibly to give a kid cash that prevented them from spending it on adult items. This restriction could theoretically be applied to adults who aren't "good enough" as well.

waffletower 3y ago

While I think cash is important, and I think many of the threats posed by digital payments infrastructure to low income individuals are real, I believe that the fears of surveillance capitalism are exaggerated. Google hasn't been able to convincingly provide targeted ads that reflect my obvious demographic and interest profile, data they definitely have available, for years. Amazon is incredibly crude at this as well, and Alexa obviously can't recognize our consumer habits at all. Square never informs any advertising I am inflicted with, otherwise I would be inundated with hoagie ads. People love fear, but I think it would be better to focus on reality rather than speculation. I hear you about the cost of cash -- it is clearly very high -- so high that some major banks are simply closing large numbers of branches, and, more to the point, many ATM locations. This is happening even in dense urban areas. It is increasingly difficult for me to obtain cash, particularly without paying a bank fee for the "privilege". We can't simply wish that cost away without some government intervention -- and good luck with that in many countries.

couchdive 3y ago

all good points. But, we are forgetting the unbanked, underbanked, the day laborers and migrant farm workers paid cash, the LexisNexis tracking leading to unbanked. Check cashing places are slimming, buts that's more due to entry level jobs offering prepaid debit cards as payment of salary. Yum Brands I believe does this. But of course, prepaid debit cards cant be used everywhere. (Hotels, deposits, some gas pumps, etc)

msgilligan 3y ago

The article makes some great points, but it is surprising that the article doesn't mention Bitcoin, cryptocurrency, or even the theoretical possibility of a "digital cash" that mitigates some or all of the issues he identifies. I personally think that Bitcoin and the Lightning Network (with forthcoming and as-of-yet-undiscovered improvements) is our best long-term alternative to the "unbalanced cashless" society that he rightly fears. I admit I could be wrong about Bitcoin, but the larger point should be that we, as a society, need to allow for options other than what the "banking sector using big tech devices" is offering. Freedom and the market system are about giving people options. Cash, Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies should all be available to consumers. Our right to use cash should be protected and it makes sense for individuals to "vote with their [paper] dollars" to help preserve that option and that right. The same applies to Bitcoin and other "digital cash" systems.

dabbz 3y ago

My issue with cashless has nothing to do with privacy, but with card companies dictating what can and cannot be transacted by with their network.

robbywashere_ 3y ago

I have an idea. What if we could create something that has the privacy of cash, is uncensorable like cash but could also be digitally transmitted like electronic payments.

aeternum 3y ago
I think the problem with that idea is it leads to people believing that digital monkey drawings are worth millions.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

friend_and_foe 3y ago

I operate on an almost 100% cash basis. I use Amazon gift cards for Amazon (one of two big corporations I regularly do direct business with) and I have a prepaid debit card for online orders for the odd thing I have to get elsewhere. Both are reloaded using cash as needed. I switched to this system relatively recently, I had a bank account but the nearest branch was pretty far, and I used it primarily for online orders and worked with cash for local stuff, it became a pain to put cash in it when it ran low. I no longer have a bank account. Life is pretty easy. I've noticed something interesting though. Rural areas (like where I live) almost never have cashless storefronts, in fact often they have cash only storefronts. The merchants almost always have some indicator of conservative bent. Whereas in cities, you'll see cashless places all over, and it's often some business owned or staffed by people with an obvious left of center ideology, which IMO are the last people I'd expect to want a big finance company to get a piece of every person to person transaction they do.

gloosx 3y ago

Crypto is the new cash of the global world – it abolishes borders, it abolishes overwhelming grip of state actors and scam banks in the economics. You can move it around fast and peer-to-peer, without asking any authority. No one can take it from you without your error or consent. You can find a peer to exchange it to any cash currency in every part of the world. Most people who don't understand crypto don't understand any of this.

4gotunameagain 3y ago
> No one can take it from you without your error or consent. You claim to understand crypto, yet this is blatantly false. With cash you are exposed only to your local crime, with crypto you are exposed to a global crime network, implementation bugs (both network & wallet/device)..
- gloosx 3y ago
  Criminals were not born criminals, they were homeschooled by criminal state
  - 4gotunameagain 3y ago
    Is this trolling? Is this a joke? I don't understand. Selfish behaviour (criminality, when taken to the extreme) seems to be an inherent characteristic of humans, you cannot claim that "criminal state" creates that. And this has nothing to do with your initial claims, which I refuted.
    - gloosx 3y ago
      It is not a trolling nor a joke, this is my point you can't understand. Let me try to explain. Selfish behaviour is indeed a characteristic of all living beings, but I won't fully agree that it is always criminality when taken to extreme – in my opinion, there are multiple dimensions to that. This behaviour can be developed into a symbiotic one too, and the environment here is one of the drivers for evolution. Our current environment leads to selfishness turning into parasitic behaviour almost every time, and our current environment is the state, whatever you got lucky to get. Based on that I claim that state creates criminal, by creating the environment he needs, and by judging him in this same environment, no matter how disharmonic it is in the current point in time. Decentralised finance is a great example of the paradigm shift in the right direction. It is above the state and it lets people globally interact more harmonically, because you need rules universally interpretable by all parties in order to harmonise. I don't say it is a perfect tool, but it is far better than anything we could come up with for thousands of years, and it will eventually lead us into a bit more harmonic world. Tool is misused by the criminals, created by states around them over time, but I don't care as long as they play by the same rules as me.

janandonly 3y ago

Nobody seems to have brought up the solution of Chaumian ecash yet? This preserves privacy but lets you pay fully digitally.

euroderf 3y ago

Anecdata: before a visit to Berlin I got the standard advice that in Germany, cash is usually king. On the ground tho I found that a card worked almost everywhere that was not a humble corner shop. My largest no-card purchase was a 50€ lunch bill. Still tho, I had to prepare for the trip by withdrawing a wad of cash. This is not necessary in Scandinavia.

SergeAx 3y ago

In today's ubiquitos tracking reality the right to pay cash is a basic human right for privacy.

theandrewbailey 3y ago

Not mentioned: how rewards/cash back cards are a scheme to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. It happens not just from the fees charged to merchants, but also through interest being charged to people who can't or won't pay off their credit cards each month. Merchant fees are particularly insidious, since not many stores offer discounts for cash, or charge for using a card, so those fees are hidden in inflated prices that everyone pays, regardless of payment method.

_lvbh 3y ago

I was a fan of cashless up until yesterday when the suspension of my Revolut account led to starvation for 24 hours.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]