9 ms·

The push to abolish cash isn't about its supposed archaic or primitive nature, it is all about power and nothing else. On the one hand the state would know abo

The push to abolish cash isn't about its supposed archaic or primitive nature, it is all about power and nothing else. On the one hand the state would know about every transaction made, on the other hand the state would hold immense power over its citizens by being able to flip a switch and shut certain persons out of this system. (by freezing their accounts) And then there's another aspect: In a cashless society only the ones that have jobs or can afford to incorporate a business could earn money. All the others would have to barter with smuggled cigarettes or vodka and even then they'd be unable to pay their electricity bill with whatever they've earned this way. In tough economic times there are many people that cannot get a regular job nor can afford to incorporate a business, and working illegally on construction sites or something like that has traditionally been a way for them and their families to survive and work themselves out of the gutter. If you take that away from them, they'll have to fully submit to the social system and I honestly doubt that this is a better way. Our western societies are slowly turning in a modern version of the Soviet Union, where the state has even more control over its population and its thoughts than the Soviet Union ever had. At least the Soviet Union had the decency to grant the masses that stayed clear of politics a safe life without a care in the world. Here in the West they are not even willing to give us that for giving our governments absolute control. The masses at the bottom have to struggle for mere survival.

guard-of-terra 11y ago
"the Soviet Union had the decency to grant the masses that stayed clear of politics a safe life" I have to note that it's only true about late Soviet Union (1955 onwards?), because earlier Soviet Union was explosively unsafe country where you could be shot "for being a spy to Japan", relocated to uninhabited island in Siberia during Winter to freeze there, or just starve in one of famines.
- DominikR 11y ago
  You are absolutely correct. The bolshevik takeover of the country resulted in a fierce civil war where they basically wiped out the previous intelligentsia and large parts of the church. And then there were external threats (causing paranoia) and massive mismanagement because they ran their economy according to utopian phantasies, similar to what the Chinese did. (which also resulted in tens of millions starving to death) Only after the second world war the continent was sufficiently stabilized for a few decades and that's when the masses lived a decent life compared to what they had before.
  - g8gggu89 11y ago
    Interesting spelling of 'phantasies'. I hadn't seen that before.
    - DominikR 11y ago
      Is it wrong in English or just unusual? I'm from a German speaking country and we use the word "Phantasie", so that's why I used "ph" instead of "f".
      - o_____________o 11y ago
        There are some clinical uses in psychology, but otherwise it's wrong.
      - g8gggu89 11y ago
        It's an archaic spelling, which is always cooler. :)
overpaidgoogler 11y ago
While I agree with most of your points, I think the informal economy mainly exists for tax avoidance, and not because very short term jobs involve an onorous amount of paperwork. If this is correct, then those jobs would still exist in a cashless society, it's just that they would have to pay tax.
- brandonmenc 11y ago
  > I think the informal economy mainly exists for tax avoidance Garage sales and lending your buddy five bucks are also part of that "informal" economy. Without cash, the government would be dipping its beak into those transactions as well.
  - Retric 11y ago
    The governent already ignores small electronic transactions as not worth the time to collect. I don't see how a cashless economy changes this.
    - brandonmenc 11y ago
      They ignore it now
    - tsotha 11y ago
      They used to ignore cash transactions for the same reason. The advance of technology makes everything cheaper, and sometimes that's bad.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    That's the real reason they want to get rid of cash. They want to make it impossible for any economic activity to occur without the government approving and getting a cut. I don't think it will actually work. Were the US to get rid of cash tax cheats and drug dealers would simply switch to GBPs, euros, or yen. Or drugs. The only people who will be absolutely locked into the system are cubicle dwellers, but that's already pretty much the case.
- 11y ago
beachstartup 11y ago
i think you may be overselling it a bit. the government didn't invent all these new payment methods. they're the ones who still mint and print currency. when they stop doing that, i'll start worrying. also, to date i have not been unable to spend cash anywhere or with anyone, that i can remember. this includes traveling to asia and europe and south america. in fact the global trend is that most people still prefer to be paid in cash. i know i sure do. when people ask me if i take venmo or paypal i just roll my eyes. it almost seems the more electronic methods pop up, the scarcer cash gets, the more cash is in demand. hmmm. didn't they teach us something about that in econ 1a...
- eropple 11y ago
  > didn't they teach us something about that in econ 1a... Cash is desired by some businesses because of lower transactional costs, though, not due to scarcity. It's a superior good (along some axes and for some people) and is valued as such.
  - beachstartup 11y ago
    strictly defined, electronic payments and cash payments of the same denomination are the same currency, since they are nominally equivalent, but i'm going to posit that they're diverging and will functionally become two different currencies as the proliferation of electronic payments and easy/cheap credit continues. i think when a good or service can be sold for different prices ("cash discount"), it's going in that direction.
- DominikR 11y ago
  Of course the government didn't invent these payment methods, businessmen like you and I did. I'm not against cashless payment, I'm using these services myself. I'm against the government having too much power and regulating every detail of life.
  - beachstartup 11y ago
    yes but it seems like in this case government is the only one providing the free alternative! an exclusivity provided by design of a sovereign state obviously, but ironic nonetheless. that's why i say when it stops, i'll worry.
lumberjack 11y ago
While that's all true I think this all started when credit card providers and businesses figured out how much valuable data they can extract out of one's purchase history. Of course once the data is all aggregated within the databases of the two or three credit card providers in the country, it's easy for the state to dip his fingers in.
legulere 11y ago
The view from the other side is that people can't get an unfair edge anymore by not paying taxes. Gang criminality can be fought of more easily simply because it will harder for them to earn money illegally. No more underpaid illegal workers in the building industry leading to cut wages for legitimate workers.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >The view from the other side is that people can't get an unfair edge anymore by not paying taxes. It's mostly rich people and corporations that are not paying taxes through legal holes, off shore accounts, special tax breaks from their pals in the gov etc, and they'll continue to do so, cash or not. Heck, they already do it with virtual money. And seeing as 10% of the population (or less) holds 80% of the money, it's those few that the big losses result from. >Gang criminality can be fought of more easily simply because it will harder for them to earn money illegally. There are lots of ways they can launder their virtual money. Mafia has tons of reputable establishments for example. A guy gets his drugs and in return has to buy X or Y overpriced good with a credit card.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> At least the Soviet Union had the decency to grant the masses that stayed clear of politics a safe life without a care in the world. Unless, of course, they lived in the same country as some people who didn't stay clear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  Actually, famines happened all over Soviet Union. You could live anywhere.
walshemj 11y ago
I recall recently the Norweigians suggestion when all cash Is electronic they could influence the economic situation by mandating -ve interest rates. And yes that is as Orwellian as it sounds
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  You can already mandate negative interest rates by creating inflation.
  - walshemj 11y ago
    True but this would be directly effecting citizens bank accounts
crististm 11y ago
It is as Orwellian as it sounds, but the population will probably turn to underground "banks", I-owe-yous and what-not. And barter too.
- batou 11y ago
  I big chunk of us operate on those side channels already.
  - tomcam 11y ago
    This is true. Why the downvotes?
    - batou 11y ago
      Very good question.
dreamfactory2 11y ago
An aspect of viewing every transaction is that it allows you locate anyone geographically. As long as you buy a train ticket, or gas for a car, or a sandwich, your location is recorded.
forgetsusername 11y ago
>nor can afford to incorporate a business You don't need to incorporate to be self-employed. The costs are essentially zero.
- DominikR 11y ago
  Depending on where you are living of course. I'm giving you here an example of Austria (EU): If you want to earn more than around 5000 dollars a year, you HAVE to incorporate. The cheapest setup will still cost you a few hundred dollars per year, but from start to incorporation it will take you at least 2-3 weeks. Many will need the services of a tax consultant to deal with the taxes, which also involves some costs. (If you are employed the company has to deal with the taxes for you) Then there are also liability issues depending on how you incorporated. Something similar to a LLC costs more to incorporate, but with the cheaper ones you are liable with your private property. (if you get sued by a customer they could take your house) Another issue is that you don't receive social services like unemployment benefits if it didn't work out for you. And then you also pay more for health services than normal employees. These are a lot of issues for someone just trying to make a few bucks because he/she has for some reason or another financial problems. It's not some insurmountable problem for entrepreneurs that have a reasonable plan and some money saved up, but we are talking about people that are trying to get through a tough year. In such a situation the additional risks when you are already at the bottom are for many not acceptable.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Maybe in your country. In my country to be self-employed you have to register and pay "freelancer" insurance cost to the state that add up to something equivalent to $800 per month (nominally $300-$400 in our economy).
- tsotha 11y ago
  In most US states you need a business license. People incorporate for a reason, though. If you don't your personal assets aren't protected if the business gets sued or becomes insolvent. There's a reason Donald Trump still has lots of money after having his businesses go bankrupt four times.
ci5er 11y ago
I wouldn't have wanted to be a farmer when Lysenko was still considered "the man".
irln 11y ago
One other point is in a cashless society it becomes easier to institute a negative interest rate policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate#Negative_interest_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate#Negative_interes...

guard-of-terra 11y ago

"the Soviet Union had the decency to grant the masses that stayed clear of politics a safe life" I have to note that it's only true about late Soviet Union (1955 onwards?), because earlier Soviet Union was explosively unsafe country where you could be shot "for being a spy to Japan", relocated to uninhabited island in Siberia during Winter to freeze there, or just starve in one of famines.

DominikR 11y ago
You are absolutely correct. The bolshevik takeover of the country resulted in a fierce civil war where they basically wiped out the previous intelligentsia and large parts of the church. And then there were external threats (causing paranoia) and massive mismanagement because they ran their economy according to utopian phantasies, similar to what the Chinese did. (which also resulted in tens of millions starving to death) Only after the second world war the continent was sufficiently stabilized for a few decades and that's when the masses lived a decent life compared to what they had before.
- g8gggu89 11y ago
  Interesting spelling of 'phantasies'. I hadn't seen that before.
  - DominikR 11y ago
    Is it wrong in English or just unusual? I'm from a German speaking country and we use the word "Phantasie", so that's why I used "ph" instead of "f".
    - o_____________o 11y ago
      There are some clinical uses in psychology, but otherwise it's wrong.
    - g8gggu89 11y ago
      It's an archaic spelling, which is always cooler. :)

overpaidgoogler 11y ago

While I agree with most of your points, I think the informal economy mainly exists for tax avoidance, and not because very short term jobs involve an onorous amount of paperwork. If this is correct, then those jobs would still exist in a cashless society, it's just that they would have to pay tax.

brandonmenc 11y ago
> I think the informal economy mainly exists for tax avoidance Garage sales and lending your buddy five bucks are also part of that "informal" economy. Without cash, the government would be dipping its beak into those transactions as well.
- Retric 11y ago
  The governent already ignores small electronic transactions as not worth the time to collect. I don't see how a cashless economy changes this.
  - brandonmenc 11y ago
    They ignore it now
  - tsotha 11y ago
    They used to ignore cash transactions for the same reason. The advance of technology makes everything cheaper, and sometimes that's bad.
- tsotha 11y ago
  That's the real reason they want to get rid of cash. They want to make it impossible for any economic activity to occur without the government approving and getting a cut. I don't think it will actually work. Were the US to get rid of cash tax cheats and drug dealers would simply switch to GBPs, euros, or yen. Or drugs. The only people who will be absolutely locked into the system are cubicle dwellers, but that's already pretty much the case.
11y ago

beachstartup 11y ago

i think you may be overselling it a bit. the government didn't invent all these new payment methods. they're the ones who still mint and print currency. when they stop doing that, i'll start worrying. also, to date i have not been unable to spend cash anywhere or with anyone, that i can remember. this includes traveling to asia and europe and south america. in fact the global trend is that most people still prefer to be paid in cash. i know i sure do. when people ask me if i take venmo or paypal i just roll my eyes. it almost seems the more electronic methods pop up, the scarcer cash gets, the more cash is in demand. hmmm. didn't they teach us something about that in econ 1a...

eropple 11y ago
> didn't they teach us something about that in econ 1a... Cash is desired by some businesses because of lower transactional costs, though, not due to scarcity. It's a superior good (along some axes and for some people) and is valued as such.
- beachstartup 11y ago
  strictly defined, electronic payments and cash payments of the same denomination are the same currency, since they are nominally equivalent, but i'm going to posit that they're diverging and will functionally become two different currencies as the proliferation of electronic payments and easy/cheap credit continues. i think when a good or service can be sold for different prices ("cash discount"), it's going in that direction.
DominikR 11y ago
Of course the government didn't invent these payment methods, businessmen like you and I did. I'm not against cashless payment, I'm using these services myself. I'm against the government having too much power and regulating every detail of life.
- beachstartup 11y ago
  yes but it seems like in this case government is the only one providing the free alternative! an exclusivity provided by design of a sovereign state obviously, but ironic nonetheless. that's why i say when it stops, i'll worry.

lumberjack 11y ago

While that's all true I think this all started when credit card providers and businesses figured out how much valuable data they can extract out of one's purchase history. Of course once the data is all aggregated within the databases of the two or three credit card providers in the country, it's easy for the state to dip his fingers in.

legulere 11y ago

The view from the other side is that people can't get an unfair edge anymore by not paying taxes. Gang criminality can be fought of more easily simply because it will harder for them to earn money illegally. No more underpaid illegal workers in the building industry leading to cut wages for legitimate workers.

coldtea 11y ago
>The view from the other side is that people can't get an unfair edge anymore by not paying taxes. It's mostly rich people and corporations that are not paying taxes through legal holes, off shore accounts, special tax breaks from their pals in the gov etc, and they'll continue to do so, cash or not. Heck, they already do it with virtual money. And seeing as 10% of the population (or less) holds 80% of the money, it's those few that the big losses result from. >Gang criminality can be fought of more easily simply because it will harder for them to earn money illegally. There are lots of ways they can launder their virtual money. Mafia has tons of reputable establishments for example. A guy gets his drugs and in return has to buy X or Y overpriced good with a credit card.

thaumasiotes 11y ago

> At least the Soviet Union had the decency to grant the masses that stayed clear of politics a safe life without a care in the world. Unless, of course, they lived in the same country as some people who didn't stay clear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

guard-of-terra 11y ago
Actually, famines happened all over Soviet Union. You could live anywhere.

walshemj 11y ago

I recall recently the Norweigians suggestion when all cash Is electronic they could influence the economic situation by mandating -ve interest rates. And yes that is as Orwellian as it sounds

thaumasiotes 11y ago
You can already mandate negative interest rates by creating inflation.
- walshemj 11y ago
  True but this would be directly effecting citizens bank accounts

crististm 11y ago

It is as Orwellian as it sounds, but the population will probably turn to underground "banks", I-owe-yous and what-not. And barter too.

batou 11y ago
I big chunk of us operate on those side channels already.
- tomcam 11y ago
  This is true. Why the downvotes?
  - batou 11y ago
    Very good question.

dreamfactory2 11y ago

An aspect of viewing every transaction is that it allows you locate anyone geographically. As long as you buy a train ticket, or gas for a car, or a sandwich, your location is recorded.

forgetsusername 11y ago

>nor can afford to incorporate a business You don't need to incorporate to be self-employed. The costs are essentially zero.

DominikR 11y ago
Depending on where you are living of course. I'm giving you here an example of Austria (EU): If you want to earn more than around 5000 dollars a year, you HAVE to incorporate. The cheapest setup will still cost you a few hundred dollars per year, but from start to incorporation it will take you at least 2-3 weeks. Many will need the services of a tax consultant to deal with the taxes, which also involves some costs. (If you are employed the company has to deal with the taxes for you) Then there are also liability issues depending on how you incorporated. Something similar to a LLC costs more to incorporate, but with the cheaper ones you are liable with your private property. (if you get sued by a customer they could take your house) Another issue is that you don't receive social services like unemployment benefits if it didn't work out for you. And then you also pay more for health services than normal employees. These are a lot of issues for someone just trying to make a few bucks because he/she has for some reason or another financial problems. It's not some insurmountable problem for entrepreneurs that have a reasonable plan and some money saved up, but we are talking about people that are trying to get through a tough year. In such a situation the additional risks when you are already at the bottom are for many not acceptable.
coldtea 11y ago
Maybe in your country. In my country to be self-employed you have to register and pay "freelancer" insurance cost to the state that add up to something equivalent to $800 per month (nominally $300-$400 in our economy).
tsotha 11y ago
In most US states you need a business license. People incorporate for a reason, though. If you don't your personal assets aren't protected if the business gets sued or becomes insolvent. There's a reason Donald Trump still has lots of money after having his businesses go bankrupt four times.

ci5er 11y ago

I wouldn't have wanted to be a farmer when Lysenko was still considered "the man".

irln 11y ago

One other point is in a cashless society it becomes easier to institute a negative interest rate policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate#Negative_interest_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate#Negative_interes...