Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In praise of cash

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 369 posts

Re: In praise of cash

#151

Post by jonknee »

ghaff wrote: post #138
jonknee wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't wait for contactless payments at most gas stations. Seems like the perfect spot for it, you're already going to get your phone out to kill the pumping time anyway.

You'll see signs about cellphone use around a lot of gas pumps. (Though, according to Mythbusters a number of years back, the issue is static electricity, not the cell phone.) It's possible laws might need to change to use a phone payment at the gas pump.

They exist already, just aren't super common. Chevron is probably the most widespread in the US:

http://www.chevronwithtechron.com/findastation.aspx

(There is a filter for "Mobile Pay" at the bottom)

Re: In praise of cash

#152

Post by problems »

schoen wrote: post #52
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must admit that I don't understand the details of bitcoin. But if I understand correctly, can't a majority of owners block your transaction?

It's very complicated to articulate exactly who can block Bitcoin transactions. The traditional simple answer is that "a majority of mining power" can block an individual transaction by refusing to include it in blocks. However, they have to be pretty committed to this, because if someone outside of the group does eventually mine a block that contains the censored transaction, the group members also have to be willin…

Yeah, there's a very high risk of a fork if a significant number of miners decided to censor such a transaction.

Look at the Ethereum Classic debacle - and remember that many Bitcoin users tend to hold those views stronger than many Ethereum users.

Re: In praise of cash

#153

Post by jonknee »

vwcx wrote: post #139
jonknee wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't wait for contactless payments at most gas stations. Seems like the perfect spot for it, you're already going to get your phone out to kill the pumping time anyway.

You mean, you're already going to get your phone out to kill yourself while pumping anyway. Static fires are real.

Yes and static fires don't have anything to do with cell phones. If it was a real concern they would be really strict about stopping people from using phones around gas pumps.

Re: In praise of cash

#154

Post by ghaff »

protomyth wrote: post #132
pdkl95 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> still much more of a hassle That's when everything works correctly. What about when the power goes out and the card reading device stops working? What about transaction denials due to bank mistakes (or predatory policies)? Having the option to pay with credit/etc is nice, but the failure modes can be nasty.

I was buying gas at 2AM in Grand Forks, ND on my way back to my parents home. I had stopped at that same station multiple times, but Citibank denied the authorization (plenty of money, and I only used that card for gas). I foolishly was about $5 short on cash[1], had to call Citibank and yell. Had to walk to the across the street that had an ATM that would work with my bank card (gas station ATM didn't have the netwo…

The declines can really be out of left field sometimes. As I mentioned elsewhere,I now make a point of always having a backup.

I've had a card that routinely has very large travel expenses in multiple countries turned down for a $20 gas purchase when traveling domestically.

Re: In praise of cash

#155

Post by creaghpatr »

marcosdumay wrote: post #112
mamcx wrote: post #25

Do people remember when companies in the past provide his own currency to control people them own? Because he have your money, he own you.

Well, governments stepped on it, and moved the point of control a notch above. What is unsettling is that governments could create a digital payments system that didn't depend on any single authority. This would be convenient enough that I can't imagine it not gaining the entire market (even from cash), and making this move much more palatable. This would be a much easier way for govs to get their so desired universa…

Because the government needs to print cash to pay off debt, that's why the Federal Reserve exists.

Re: In praise of cash

#156

Post by scott_s »

dragonwriter wrote: post #143
scott_s wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The book "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" ( https://www.mhpbooks.com/books/debt/ ) makes a compelling case that no societies on record have depended on a barter economy. The author also argues that debt even predates state sponsored currency.

Debt obviously predates states sponsored currency. Heck, money economies (that is, ones in which there is a generally accepted medium of exchange and unit of account for debt) predate state sponsored currency (or even states). I've never even heard of that being an active argument. And the question was about using barter, not depending on barter exclusively; every society has used barter. And, in any case, debt and b…

The comment that got this whole subthread started was that we would "return to barter." That implies that there was a time where economies were primarily barter based, and that the question "In what societies have humans used barter?" likely meant primarily barter. So my understanding of the question was not using, but primarily barter.

Re: In praise of cash

#157

Post by NotreDev »

allemagne wrote: post #98
CPLX wrote: post #9

The core concept to remember I think is that there are two ways to pay for things: * Ways that involve cash or cash equivalents * Ways where a purchase requires the permission of someone else Just think of the word authorization, which is a required element of essentially all non-cash transactions. It has the word authority embedded right in it. If you're OK with that concept, you are necessarily OK with the idea tha…

I am okay with acknowledging this and using both cash and non-cash systems when they fit my needs. While cashless systems are gaining traction, is there any actual attempt for them to replace cash wholesale?

Yes. See India in Q4'16 https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/03/01/2185261/indias-cash-c...

Re: In praise of cash

#158

Post by oculusthrift »

I've never used cash regularly in my life. I hate carrying extra stuff around, so just have one of those card holders attached to my phone. I feel like older people are ingrained with cash, but it hasn't come into my life at all. College kids these days even use Venmo to buy drugs.

Of course I know I'm subjecting myself to tracking which is somewhat scary but I guess the convenience has outweighed that for me.

Re: In praise of cash

#159

Post by marcosdumay »

creaghpatr wrote: post #155
marcosdumay wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, governments stepped on it, and moved the point of control a notch above. What is unsettling is that governments could create a digital payments system that didn't depend on any single authority. This would be convenient enough that I can't imagine it not gaining the entire market (even from cash), and making this move much more palatable. This would be a much easier way for govs to get their so desired universa…

Because the government needs to print cash to pay off debt, that's why the Federal Reserve exists.

I'm not talking about Bitcoin. I'm talking about the government issuing digital money.

To make it clear, I don't think it's an entirely good thing, but it would be a much easier path to the kind of surveillance they want to create.

Re: In praise of cash

#160

Post by anigbrowl »

r00fus wrote: post #115
M_Grey wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A cashless society would be an attempt to create a society that lacks basic economic freedom, but it would also fail. People will simply return to barter, and the use of whatever precious metals/stones/etc are hot that year.

I question the assumption that this would fail outright. It would likely result in a hybrid visible/invisible transactions. Look at how the underground economy of drugs uses commodities like detergent [1]. This would just take that economy to the next level. Clearly to prevent currency from failing outright, going cashless would likely result in the ban (effective or not) of cryptocurrencies and the like. [1] http://…

There's an important point here that's often overlooked. Drugs themselves can serve as currency, but just like salt in Rome, such currencies are consumer goods as well as fungible commodities. Their consumability as well as their growth/collection time form a natural barrier against inflation.

Of course such currencies are economically inefficient. But I think too much monetary efficiency is bad, because it encourages financialization and excess risk. for generations now we have been borrowing from our descendants to pay for things in the present, seeming to come out ahead on paper but more often than not running up a hideous and poorly-accounted-for environmental bill while establishing a consumption-based economy that promotes waste. I've long wondered if we shouldn't treat oil as a de facto currency rather than only as a commodity.

Post reply on HN