luiscleto

6 ms·

1. 31.▲
   by luiscleto 8y ago

   They shouldn't unless it becomes an economic advantage to do so. That's the point of the free market. I don't think it's the government's place to force it in either direction.
2. 32.▲
   by luiscleto 8y ago

   Adding costs doesn't mean it is more expensive to you specifically. Just for the economy in general. There are advantages to having cashless payments only. One that comes to mind would be for places in dangerous neighborhoods (which af
3. 33.▲
   by luiscleto 8y ago

   I also take issue with the third party in the middle. But in the end, if everyone wants to go that way, and you're adding extra costs by not doing so, why should everyone else have to pay for it? Ultimately there could be less cash-acc
4. 34.▲
   by luiscleto 8y ago

   > With energy transition it's obvious Is it obvious though? I find it's more ideological than an actual well thought out plan: https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-th... Whic
5. 35.▲
   by luiscleto 8y ago

   > Places should be forced to accept cash until everyone can go cashless But if places are forced to accept cash, people who haven't adhered to cashless forms of payments have no incentive to swap. If it is a significant part of the
6. 36.▲
   by luiscleto 8y ago

   That sounds incredibly utopic. Anyone at any time can have a completely new disability which renders any product unusable to them. It is not reasonable to expect companies to have a moral obligation to accommodate every single human being o