In praise of cash • Hacker News Board

Re: In praise of cash

#251

Post by AnimalMuppet » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 12:31 AM UTC

jdeibele wrote: post #241

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had the pleasure (?) of going on vacation without notifying the card company. Because a hotel was late with a correction to their charge, that showed the card in use at two places at once, so they shut it down. While I was on vacation. That got... uncomfortable. Fortunately, they only shut down my card. My wife's still worked, and we were able to proceed. It made for a more stressful vacation, though...

My wife had her wallet stolen in Florence while we were traveling. It turned out that some banks will give different numbers to each card and other banks (Bank of America) will give the same number. We had to cancel the BofA card that I had. Fortunately our CapitalOne card used different numbers and we were able to keep traveling without a lot of hassle. For our next trip, we're going to make sure there's no number o…

There's card numbers, and then there's card numbers.

That is: My wife and I have cards that have the same number on the front. On the back, though, the three-digit... I forget what it's called, but there's this additional number that is not embossed into the face of the card. Her card has a different one of those than mine does. And the bank can tell the difference, can tell which card made the purchase, and can shut down one but not the other.

So it doesn't matter if the two cards share the same main number, as long as the bank can tell them apart.

Does BofA give different three-digit extra numbers to their cards? Do they give the same extra numbers? Do they give extra numbers at all?

Re: In praise of cash

#252

Post by yourthrowaway2 » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 12:45 AM UTC

oculusthrift wrote: post #192

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't negate either coldpie's or my points; if anything, having people use cash effectively helping to subsidize the "credit card tax" only adds more weight to the argument that it's an unreasonable arrangement that only serves to enrich the credit card companies.

yes it does. from a game theoretic perspective, it only would make sense for me to switch to cash if everyone else did so that the store wouldn't incorporate the extra fee into the price of their goods. However, one can't control others, they can only control their own behavior. So in a situation where there goods cost extra, because others are still using their cards and the owner has to markup prices, the only rati…

You forgot a rule of the "game".

You can negotiate price with cash.

Re: In praise of cash

#253

Post by alexbeloi » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 12:50 AM UTC

mikejmoffitt wrote: post #245

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cash handling is not free either. Large amounts require security or increased risk.

Risk doesn't cost money in the way payment processing costs money.

Risk is the expectation of incurring a cost, payment is the realization of a cost. So I think they're very interchangeable.

Re: In praise of cash

#254

Post by __jal » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 12:53 AM UTC

kolinko wrote: post #227

ericd wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much. I tried using my account from France, and now my account is locked, and there are a bunch of hoops to jump through to restore access. No thanks.

It's a matter of better governance though. Ideally, anti-trust government entities should monitor how companies like PayPal operate.

So, "ideally", we'd

1) ban cash, so that humans need permission to interact when an exchange of value is involved;

2) improve the oversight of the permission-givers, so that the permission-giver-watchers are less arbitrary and annoying, in order to fix the problem that never existed before point 1.

Other than lining the pockets of poor, underfed bankers and giving busy-bodies veto power over our interactions with others, what problem are we solving again?

Re: In praise of cash

#255

Post by CPLX » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 12:53 AM UTC

stupidcar wrote: post #225

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…

Uh, no. Paying with cash is exchanging a promise that someone else, usually the central bank, will pay the bearer on demand the value of the promissory note. Even if you could actually exchange the note for its equivalent in precious metals — which you can't — you're still just exchanging a token without intrinsic value. Its only value is conferred entirely by the monetary whims of the government. Governments can, an…

There is a fundamental difference between a medium of exchange whereby the government would have to devalue or interrupt everyone who holds the instrument in question (like by invalidating a series of bank notes) and one whereby someone can decide that you personally are no longer allowed to use the medium of exchange. Those things are not at all similar.

This long rant strikes me as having been written by someone who doesn't know anyone who has been summarily excluded from the banking system. If you're not viscerally aware of the power that one random faceless person at Chexsystems would have over your existence in a cashless world, you're missing the point.

Re: In praise of cash

#256

Post by wolfgke » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 1:03 AM UTC

mustacheemperor wrote: post #174

canadian_voter wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Don't we all hate Paypal?

Also don't forget that Peter Thiel got really rich by selling Paypal to eBay in 2002. After that in 2003 he founded Palantir Technologies - a company that produces surveillance software for the three letter agencies.

I often like to say that getting lots of money does not make you a bad person, but brings your true character traits to light.

Re: In praise of cash

#257

Post by lucio » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 1:03 AM UTC

huffmsa wrote: post #121

ghaff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can go weeks without touching cash these days. Nonetheless, I find the idea that I could be prevented from making a person-to-person financial transaction for even a modest amount without a paper trail pretty unsettling.

Paper trail? What are you hiding citizen? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

You miss the /s at the end. There are some literal people around here /s

Re: In praise of cash

#258

Post by beambot » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 1:05 AM UTC

overcast wrote: post #198

beambot wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So anyone who isn't creditworthy (ie. poor) pays additional tax in the form of higher-priced goods. But to heck with them for being poor, right, because you get the convenience and cash back?

To be fair, the poor shouldn't be racking up credit card bills. That's just adding fuel to the fire. A world existed before credit cards became commonplace.

You're talking about something entirely different. Let me take another crack at explaining. You're a grocery store. Some (large) fraction of your patrons use credit cards. Rather than charge just those patrons a 1-3% surcharge to cover Visa's fees, you simply raise your prices across the board by 1-3% so that you can make enough margin to survive.

A poor person, who can't (or shouldn't) use credit cards comes in to buy food. They now pay the full-price (already marked up 1-3%) -- essentially paying that as a "tax" that wealthier patrons, with good cash-back cards, get back later as a refund.

Re: In praise of cash

#259

Post by wolfgke » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 1:06 AM UTC

swiftisthebest wrote: post #230

canadian_voter wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Bitcoin, bro.

Bitcoin is (without further tricks) only pseudonymous, not anonymous.

Re: In praise of cash

#260

Post by beambot » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 1:08 AM UTC

jliptzin wrote: post #170

beambot wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So anyone who isn't creditworthy (ie. poor) pays additional tax in the form of higher-priced goods. But to heck with them for being poor, right, because you get the convenience and cash back?

I was just pointing out that the 1-3% isn't fully eaten by the credit card intermediaries. I do agree with you that it does pass on a tax to the consumer, and it would be better to just charge a 0.2% fee (or whatever the actual cost of credit card processing is) without the points, rather than take 2.5% from everyone and then give the bulk back to whomever you deem "creditworthy"

Amen to that!