Earlier quoted context omitted.
Small payments using BitPay require one confirmation, and that typically only takes a minute or so. Their fee (1%, I think) covers reversal risk.
Now imagine being lined up at the equivalent of a cash register with every single person in front of you taking "a minute or so" beyond what a transaction currently requires. Nobody's hiring additional cashiers (or whatever they'd call them) or self-checkout kiosk supervisors (to go along with the extra kiosks) if there isn't any extra money to be had.
Why we should fear a cashless world
31–40 of 257 posts
Re: Why we should fear a cashless world
#32Cash, on the other hand, empowers its users. And convenient electronic payments doesn't in anyway empower users? Also, if people are unbanked and below the poverty line I would expect they would be more concerned with getting by than "Orwellian levels of surveillance."
If people are below the poverty line then extra fees associated with transaction-handling, cost of technology for access etc are a big deal. Cash is closer to free to use. If you buy something used, a PC, fridge, whatever, because you can't afford new, do you want a transaction fee in addition? It may only be 1% or $1 (not accounting for the price of a smart phone and network costs) but that is still $1 more than you…
A lot of these comments mention that cash gives the government less control, however try visiting India or China or Greece and ask people the real reason they use cash. It's to evade taxes and launder money! Same with cash tipping in the US. So in some ways electronic is better to help catch the cheaters, but if it's not transparent it could pose a problem if the wrong people get in charge.
Re: Why we should fear a cashless world
#33Re: Why we should fear a cashless world
#34The average person is not a financial expert and so there are very lucrative opportunities for those who know the system well to make a lot of money at the expense of those who do not. Payday loan companies and high interest credit cards come to mind as extreme examples, but every time you put money in a savings account at your bank they are making a lot more on it than they are paying you in interest, and every time you use an on-line payment service or swipe your card in a store you're giving a significant cut to the payment services involved, not the person you thought you were paying. This is before we even get into the privacy implications and so on.
The average person is also not a technical expert and so there are analogous opportunities to take advantage of them, but we are becoming so dependent on technology that if anything the opportunities here are even more one-sided and certainly much greater in number. Day-to-day functionality and communications increasingly rely on isolated, closed ecosystems, run by commercial operators that have every incentive to lock people in and then exploit them, yet which are typically not subject to regulation as essential public services the way that traditional phone and mail systems typically have been. The "war on general purpose computing" is well underway, again with even basic things like the software you can run on your own devices locked up through a combination of proprietary repositories or app stores, cloud integrations, DRM and similar technologies, and legalised anticompetitive behaviour thanks to ever-increasing distortions of IP laws.
Much of this comes down to the same recurring themes with new technologies: as well as providing useful new capabilities, they can also become a threat to privacy, to ownership, and ultimately to the freedom of smaller businesses or private individuals to create and use technologies and data as they wish rather than as the controlling mega-businesses and governments dictate.
This does not seem healthy to me at all. However, since most of it is predicated on the average user of these technologies not understanding the full implications and often not having any meaningful choice apart from giving up on a technology altogether anyway, there is only so much the little guy can do.
We should fear a cashless world, but we should fear more the kind of world that cashless transactions exemplify.
Re: Why we should fear a cashless world
#35A good conversation of "why we should fear a cashless world" should at least mention the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel in The Bible. It would be negligent to omit them from discussion like this.
I assume that you're referring to Revelation 13:17: > And [the Beast] causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Like most of Revelations, I think this need…
How else would you describe 21st century RFID using 1st century vocabulary? Revelation was written 2,000 years ago, and is supposed to be about things in its future, after all.
Re: Why we should fear a cashless world
#36I've been "cash only" for 8 months now and I love it. Of course I need a credit card if I buy something on Amazon or a one-off web store, but the point is to move as many transactions offline as possible. There are so many privacy benefits to using cash, but one that really resonates with me is the physical nature of it. When you pay for something with cash, you can feel the transaction of money exchanging hands and…
I like to use cash a lot too. And the privacy benefits are true sometimes, but more and more places want your information when you purchase anything. I bought a weed wacker the other day and they wanted my address and phone and email. I never say no, but instead reply with, "555 Fake Street" which is obnoxious, but its like you don't need my damn address to sell me lawn equipment. Amazingly, most people dont understand why anyone would give false information to a random business.
Re: Why we should fear a cashless world
#37> We already live in a world that is, as far as the > distribution of wealth is concerned, about as unequal > as it gets. It may even be as unequal as it’s ever been. Sure, if by "a world" you mean "a hyper-prosperous nation like the US or the UK"... and if by "unequal as it's ever been" you mean that third-world countries are taking our jobs and becoming much more prosperous, hitting our middle income brackets - the…
> If you really mean globally, then inequality is in fact falling. No. Inequality is decreasing between nations as the developing world catches up with the west. But inequality within nations -- even developing nations -- is increasing. It's possible for inequality to increase as the the developing world catches up to the west; in fact, that's exactly what's happening. So the old geographical distributions are very s…
See https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fi... - p35 is particularly relevant in this conversation.
Re: Why we should fear a cashless world
#38My problem is that I usually do things online and plus I'm always feel much more secure knowing my Amex would be fully protected vs cash. Day to day I'm not worried I'll get robbed, but in the off chance I'm somewhere where I might I'm much happier carrying no cash and just my Amex.
Re: Why we should fear a cashless world
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now imagine being lined up at the equivalent of a cash register with every single person in front of you taking "a minute or so" beyond what a transaction currently requires. Nobody's hiring additional cashiers (or whatever they'd call them) or self-checkout kiosk supervisors (to go along with the extra kiosks) if there isn't any extra money to be had.
You fire one cashier and install 100 self checkout machines. Problem solved!
Re: Why we should fear a cashless world
#40Cash, on the other hand, empowers its users. And convenient electronic payments doesn't in anyway empower users? Also, if people are unbanked and below the poverty line I would expect they would be more concerned with getting by than "Orwellian levels of surveillance."
If people are below the poverty line then extra fees associated with transaction-handling, cost of technology for access etc are a big deal. Cash is closer to free to use. If you buy something used, a PC, fridge, whatever, because you can't afford new, do you want a transaction fee in addition? It may only be 1% or $1 (not accounting for the price of a smart phone and network costs) but that is still $1 more than you…