3 ms·

TBH I don't see why the market sellers should have to pay for that. Like I said, the solution is to offer a privacy/freedom/etc-preserving electronic payment sy

TBH I don't see why the market sellers should have to pay for that. Like I said, the solution is to offer a privacy/freedom/etc-preserving electronic payment system that is a real successor to cash, but still has the low costs that make businesses want to go cashless and the convenience that makes consumers want to.

xethos 2y ago
None of this solves the simple visual of "I'm running out of cash in my wallet, better slow spending down" I could log in to my bank online and check, I could keep a mental tally of "I spent this here and that much there, I should have this much...", but both of those are decidely more work. Furthermore, every time I switch back to cash (and my fiancee has independantly noticed), budgeting and saving gets easier. Once again, likely because of the visual and tactile nature of cash Most damning of all, guess how well credit and debit worked during the multi-day Rogers outage a few years ago. You say "That was a once in a lifetime fuck-up", I'll say "That's not the only reason or time stores haven't been able to process cards" I'm under 30, and I remember grocery stores around holiday time being unable to accept anything but cash. Electronic systems aren't actually a solution here. We have a solution, it's called cash; it does not rely on what is essentially a duopoly (Visa/MC), it does not rely on asking permission from a handful of gatekeepers (for-profit banks you'd like to transfer to/from) Credit unions aren't the solution to the latter either - you can use one, but anyone you're trying to pay is almost certainly with a bank.
- brainwad 2y ago
  Reading a number on my phone screen is a much easier way to measure how much money I have than staring into my wallet and counting up the notes and coins. It's literally a finger tap away. You are also eliding all the positive features of electronic payments, like being theft-proof, being much quicker to pay with, and being trackable for my own benefit. > for-profit banks The banks run their retail banking businesses as a loss leader for their savings accounts (the "deposit franchise"). If all the banks were mutualised transaction costs would probably go up, not down. Also, doesn't exactly the same argument apply to cash? Where do you think businesses get their cash floats from? They get them from banks.

xethos 2y ago

None of this solves the simple visual of "I'm running out of cash in my wallet, better slow spending down" I could log in to my bank online and check, I could keep a mental tally of "I spent this here and that much there, I should have this much...", but both of those are decidely more work. Furthermore, every time I switch back to cash (and my fiancee has independantly noticed), budgeting and saving gets easier. Once again, likely because of the visual and tactile nature of cash Most damning of all, guess how well credit and debit worked during the multi-day Rogers outage a few years ago. You say "That was a once in a lifetime fuck-up", I'll say "That's not the only reason or time stores haven't been able to process cards" I'm under 30, and I remember grocery stores around holiday time being unable to accept anything but cash. Electronic systems aren't actually a solution here. We have a solution, it's called cash; it does not rely on what is essentially a duopoly (Visa/MC), it does not rely on asking permission from a handful of gatekeepers (for-profit banks you'd like to transfer to/from) Credit unions aren't the solution to the latter either - you can use one, but anyone you're trying to pay is almost certainly with a bank.

brainwad 2y ago
Reading a number on my phone screen is a much easier way to measure how much money I have than staring into my wallet and counting up the notes and coins. It's literally a finger tap away. You are also eliding all the positive features of electronic payments, like being theft-proof, being much quicker to pay with, and being trackable for my own benefit. > for-profit banks The banks run their retail banking businesses as a loss leader for their savings accounts (the "deposit franchise"). If all the banks were mutualised transaction costs would probably go up, not down. Also, doesn't exactly the same argument apply to cash? Where do you think businesses get their cash floats from? They get them from banks.