Why we should fear a cashless world • Hacker News Board

Re: Why we should fear a cashless world

#251

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 2:00 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #244

logfromblammo wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I avoid self-checkout because the entire machine is usually set up around the assumption that I will try to walk out of the store without paying for one or more items, or by futzing the bar codes so that I pay $1 for a $30 beef roast. The self-checkout technology will never improve as long as that assumption remains. If you can't trust the customer to not steal a pack of gum, you can't trust the customer to not steal…

If we put an RFID tag on every item and use an RFID gate then we would just have to walk past the gate which is capable of detecting every item without you having to take it out of your cart or bag. A turnstyle could then force you to pay and disable the RFID tags. Cost and transmission distance of passive RFID tags are the major obstacles, I believe.

How do you detect RFID tampering or the use of RFID-blocking shopping bags or pouches?

Remember, the store is more interested in protecting its operating margins than in providing more convenience for the customer. If the technology does not allow a store exec to believe that it can stop a $30 steak from walking out the door unpaid, it will never be installed.

Re: Why we should fear a cashless world

#252

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 2:08 PM UTC

newjersey wrote: post #250

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VAT is the usual way. The total tax ends up being 12% (or whatever), but it ends up being a much smaller percentage of the total price at each stage because it's collected throughout the supply chain. And then business customers want to make sure the tax is being collected because they can't deduct the already-paid tax when the item is resold if it wasn't reported by the seller.

How does vat work in other countries? Is it one rate across the country? Do provinces and local government get any of this money? Are they banned from imposing an additional sales tax? I'd think you don't want additional sales tax if you have vat but then you'd lose some revenue for local government.

The simplest way to do it would be to add e.g. 8% to the VAT and then give that part to the state where the buyer lives to use for whatever they like. But there is no inherent reason why states couldn't keep their existing sales tax instead. I mean you never want additional any tax, but the money has to come from somewhere.

Re: Why we should fear a cashless world

#253

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC

EdSharkey wrote: post #248

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And having welfare programs in today's America draws the poor from other countries. Not sure how what you're describing is any different, just a different scale. The difference is, as already mentioned, citizenship. The US is under no obligation to provide welfare benefits to foreign nationals or grant them citizenship. US states have no equivalent way to prevent low income US citizens from moving there and claimin…

I was just trying to allay your fears of invading hordes seeking the heavy train of benefit heavy states. Such migrations happen today, legal and not. A lot of business owners profit off of the illegals, whose presence is subsidized by government. Very wicked little underclass we maintain, not quite slavery in modern times, but still... Perhaps when the States have to administer their own welfare programs, it will no…

> Perhaps when the States have to administer their own welfare programs, it will no longer be profitable for the individual states to shoulder the burdens of hosting the underclasses when neighboring states will not.

That was kind of my point. It isn't profitable already. Increasing the magnitude would make it unsustainable. There just wouldn't be any states offering the same level of welfare programs as the federal government currently does.

> Sanity might return to the immigration debate, it could be a really good thing.

Federal universal basic income to all citizens as a replacement for existing welfare would do the same thing. Immigrants who cut the line wouldn't get it (and all the other welfare programs would be gone), which would make living here too hard to be worth breaking the law. Then we could correspondingly increase the number of legal immigrants we accept because we'll have more capacity to integrate new legal immigrants without the people who cut the line.

Re: Why we should fear a cashless world

#254

Post by EdSharkey » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #253

EdSharkey wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just trying to allay your fears of invading hordes seeking the heavy train of benefit heavy states. Such migrations happen today, legal and not. A lot of business owners profit off of the illegals, whose presence is subsidized by government. Very wicked little underclass we maintain, not quite slavery in modern times, but still... Perhaps when the States have to administer their own welfare programs, it will no…

> Perhaps when the States have to administer their own welfare programs, it will no longer be profitable for the individual states to shoulder the burdens of hosting the underclasses when neighboring states will not. That was kind of my point. It isn't profitable already. Increasing the magnitude would make it unsustainable . There just wouldn't be any states offering the same level of welfare programs as the federal…

> It isn't profitable already.

No? I'm glad you caught that. Illegal immigration IS profitable, that's why it continues to happen. The advocates seem to cross political lines too, everyone must be profiting from cheap labor.

I love unsustainable pants-on-fire arguments like this. Any country or state that is being overrun in a truly unsustainable way either ejects the invaders (or does worse to them) or ends up conquered.

> Federal universal basic income

It's fun to imagine how one would tinker with the system, but you're just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

Re: Why we should fear a cashless world

#255

Post by JoeAltmaier » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 8:54 PM UTC

xixi77 wrote: post #221

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. That's called infrastructure. Whenever America has 'subsidized' infrastructure, the nation has seen many fold return. Whether it was rural electrification, or secondary roads, or rural mail delivery, having it a given for everybody means anybody can assume a certain level of service. Commerce thrives on that.

I see the level of service argument. But, if an argument applies to roads or mail delivery, or landline phones, why does it not apply to fast internet service or cellular coverage or many other things, which have been doing just fine without centrally funded infrastructure? Also, shifting the cost of such roads to everyone encourages even more construction in remote areas, which doesn't seem like a good thing to prom…

Ah, cell towers seem to benefit from some govt protection. We live in the country. The cell companies have to find land to place their towers on. They make an argument that, for emergency services, they're required to build the towers. So its inevitable, and we've just got to decide where they go up. Not whether they go up.

And actually, here in the country, there are many cell networks that do very poorly. Houses still have land lines mostly because connectivity can be very spotty. A govt-mandated tower utility would help that.

Lastly, its not about subsidizing. E.g. REC was not subsidized, just a protected class of business that was mandated to provide service to everyone in their area. Subscribers pay the whole freight. Its like insurance; those near the generation plant are kind of subsidizing those far away, but everybody gets service.

Re: Why we should fear a cashless world

#256

Post by retrogradeorbit » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 1:21 AM UTC

txdv wrote: post #246

retrogradeorbit wrote: post #237

The whole "but criminals use it" is a complete straw man. Yet you can see most people fall for it, over and over again. If we had a totally cashless society, you would see a level of white collar financial and banking crime that would make 2008 seem like a picnic. Anyone who is not convinced that the banking elite are the top criminals needs to watch this very recent documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHgbR…

We should criminalize the usage of water. Criminals use it after all! Even the banking elite!

Just enforcing the rule of law would be enough.

Re: Why we should fear a cashless world

#257

Post by iolothebard » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #188

iolothebard wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gold is just another fiat currency, plus at a high value it's even more worthless as a currency since you'd need such minuscule amounts to trade for goods/services.

"Gold is just another fiat currency". Did you come up with that or did you read it somewhere? If you read it somewhere, I'd love to read that article.

All you have to do is think about it's actual uses. I have degrees in finance and economics.

All gold is IMO is a hedge against inflation by tying your monetary policy to the rate at which you can dig some shit out of the ground. Not remotely sane IMO.

It would be like basing the value of the dollar on corn. At least corn would have some real value though (fuel, food, etc.).