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

171–180 of 369 posts

Re: In praise of cash

#171

Post by oculusthrift »

coldpie wrote: post #169
oculusthrift wrote: post #158

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.

You're also sending a 3-5% tithe to the payment processor (credit card company, bank, electronic payment provider) with every transaction instead of giving that money directly to the service provider.

Maybe this is harsh, but why would I care? It sounds like a problem for the store. And many of the mom and pop shops around me require a minimum purchase or charge a 50 cent fee for using a card.

Re: In praise of cash

#172

Post by iopq »

cortesoft wrote: post #141
iopq wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin uses a system that doesn't rely on any single person's authority.

No, but it generates a perfect paper trail.

Not so perfect. Take, for example, using a tumbler - the prosecution can't prove that the coins going into the tumbler were yours, only that you got some coins from the tumbler and exchanged them for dollars.

Re: In praise of cash

#173

Post by asldkfjasfd7 »

scott_s wrote: post #131
dragonwriter wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In what societies have humans used barter? All of them, including (but not limited to, since barter predates money) all the ones that also have a money economy.

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.

It depends on some definitions, but I've read that's not the case. Jericho region is said to have been exclusively barter based until ~7,500 BC

And it depends on what you mean by "depended on". The central authorities of the day maybe preferred to rely on financial tools, but the people themselves performed a non-insignificant amount of commerce using barter.

"2 knicks on this clay tablet reminds me that I gave Tom two bushels of wheat, and Tom will return to me 2 pelts," contrived example to make the point aside, such scenarios as I understand it, were (and are) pretty common.

It depends on what context you're looking from. Bankers might say it's a ridiculous, outdated notion, and sell the idea it's never really existed. Poor people might say yeah well, it's all we really have.

Re: In praise of cash

#174

Post by mustacheemperor »

canadian_voter wrote: post #16
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…

Bingo, I think you nailed it. The cashless society – which more accurately should be called the bank-payments society... is a utopia where money cannot leave – or even exist – outside the banking system, but can only be transferred from bank to bank. Such a system replaces a relationship between two parties with relationships between those parties and the bank. If either party falls out of favour with the bank, they…

> If either party falls out of favour with the bank, they can't do business with each other.

For an immediately ready example, I present Paypal Seller/Buyer disputes on eBay.

I'm always a little tickled by tech people hyping the idea of a cashless society. Don't we all hate Paypal?

Re: In praise of cash

#175

Post by mamon »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #88
67726e wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could argue it's inherent in a right to privacy.

I'm just not sure you can construct a coherent argument around that though. Obviously a seller isn't obligated to accept cash; is there a suggestion that we should legally require sellers to do so?

>> a seller isn't obligated to accept cash

Isn't he? I don't know how it works in US, but at least in Poland every banknote has printed statement that it is "the legal payment method ". The law institutes a fine for any seller that refuses payment in cash.

Re: In praise of cash

#176

Post by asldkfjasfd7 »

M_Grey wrote: post #78
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…

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.

Lot's of comments below are uptight about the definition of "barter". Which is a very vaguely defined word: trade of goods/services without the use of money.

Old school accounting in many parts of the world did not rely on financial transactions. Central authorities preferred "proper" financial instruments, but for the commoner, bartering was a regular activity.

Knicks on clay tablets tracked debt, sure, but the repayment may not have been via money. 2 pelts to Bill now for a bushel of grain in return next month type agreements are all over history.

It's hard to determine how much activity like this there was, and a lot of the history focused on official financial systems because, well, it's easy to find data on.

Re: In praise of cash

#177

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

oculusthrift wrote: post #171
coldpie wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're also sending a 3-5% tithe to the payment processor (credit card company, bank, electronic payment provider) with every transaction instead of giving that money directly to the service provider.

Maybe this is harsh, but why would I care? It sounds like a problem for the store. And many of the mom and pop shops around me require a minimum purchase or charge a 50 cent fee for using a card.

>Maybe this is harsh, but why would I care? It sounds like a problem for the store.

The store passes the cost right back to you, the consumer, in the form of higher prices. You didn't just think they absorbed the cost out of the goodness of their hearts, did you?

Re: In praise of cash

#178

Post by thraway2016 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #114
nannal wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a bitcoin supporter (and user) for this among many other reasons.

I don't see how Bitcoin solves the anonymity problem cash does. If anything, banks and intelligence agencies would love a world where everyone transacts on a distributed ledger.

Cash isn't really anonymous either. Serial numbers make it traceable, albeit with large time granularity. All banks and many large retailers track deposits and payments by serial number. That plus CCTV and cell tower data will usually be enough to identify someone with a pattern of spending dirty money.

Re: In praise of cash

#179

Post by dredmorbius »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #163
r00fus wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://…

I thought detergent was used as a standard barter chip because it's easier to steal detergent than it is to steal cash.

It's not, of itself, incriminating.

And if you can't sell it, you've still got clean clothes.

Re: In praise of cash

#180

Post by morgante »

seibelj wrote: post #11

I would never support getting rid of cash, it's a basic right to spend money without being tracked.

It's a basic right to engage in economic transactions without being tracked, but I don't agree you necessarily have the right to "spend money" (as in government currency) without being tracked.

If you want to engage in transactions without being tracked in a cashless society, you always have the option of using alternative currencies.

Post reply on HN