Banks, gangsters and the strange resurgence of cash • Hacker News Board

Re: Banks, gangsters and the strange resurgence of cash

#141

Post by ClumsyPilot » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 8:58 AM UTC

inopinatus wrote: post #60

rsj_hn wrote: post #6

There is a lot of rumor and speculation about very benign things. 1. Precautionary savings. In a low interest rate environment, there is not the same penalty for holding cash as getting interest in a savings account. A lot of people find it prudent to have a buffer of cash, say enough to cover 1 month of expenses. So cash withdrawn from an ATM but put into a piggybank or under the mattress will appear here as "missin…

> There is a lot of rumor and speculation about very benign things. There is certainly misrepresentation and rumour-mongering in these comments, but not in the article, and there's nothing benign about international money laundering, or more precisely, nothing benign about the people it enables. > $50 Billion in cash is basically nothing. It's like 2% of currency in circulation. This is very far from the numbers quot…

"one-half of all Euros apparently circulating outside the eurozone."

Its common for wealthy (upper middle class, not oligarch) folks in Russia to have proper safe at home, and to keep thousands of Euros in cash there.

They often use Euro's because Ruble devalues a lot. Additionally, they have justified distrust in the ability of the government to run the economy and banking system, and it is their stash in case either collapses.

So cash does not mean Crime, it could also mean you don't want to be left out in the cold.

Re: Banks, gangsters and the strange resurgence of cash

#142

Post by fogihujy » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 9:15 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #74

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hyperinflation and concerning political instability worth relocating over can happen without quite reaching the level of a zombie apocalypse.

But is this what preppers are really prepping for? Maybe I'm just too far into the conspiracy theorists and what not, but my personal experience with preppers are way way way futher than fears of social unrest.

Preppers aren't just a bunch of American right-wingers locked up in remote cabins with large stockpiles of food and valuables (although those people certainly exist).

Most of us prepare for short-term disruptions that are far more likely than hordes of undead roaming the streets. If widespread societal collapse should actually happen, then having a strong local community, and knowing how to co-operate and communicate with one's neighbours is far more important than having enough canned tuna to last to Ragnarok and back. That being said, having survival skills and basic supplies can come in handy in a wide range of situations.

Personally, I'm preparing for more basic things like long power outages, extreme weather and supply chain disruptions. Sure, we got food, fuel and supplies for a few months at home, and it's been very handy during the pandemic, while being snowed in for a week a few winters ago, and when being without power for two days last summer -- I could keep working like any other day, and didn't lose any income.

Yes, that includes some cash. It's been handy a few times when the card terminals at the store wasn't working. Storing large piles of it seems an unnecessary risk, though.

Re: Banks, gangsters and the strange resurgence of cash

#143

Post by bigger_inside » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 9:16 AM UTC

inopinatus wrote: post #60

rsj_hn wrote: post #6

There is a lot of rumor and speculation about very benign things. 1. Precautionary savings. In a low interest rate environment, there is not the same penalty for holding cash as getting interest in a savings account. A lot of people find it prudent to have a buffer of cash, say enough to cover 1 month of expenses. So cash withdrawn from an ATM but put into a piggybank or under the mattress will appear here as "missin…

> There is a lot of rumor and speculation about very benign things. There is certainly misrepresentation and rumour-mongering in these comments, but not in the article, and there's nothing benign about international money laundering, or more precisely, nothing benign about the people it enables. > $50 Billion in cash is basically nothing. It's like 2% of currency in circulation. This is very far from the numbers quot…

"Money Laundering" is the narrative that always drives monetary controls, and by inference, when they're successful, everything that's not under digital surveillance is under suspicion of money-laundering. In practice, AML laws don't protect from large sums being washed by nefarious billionaires at all - as we well know, the existing banking systems with their tax and reporting havens are well able to handle large amounts of official money officially, and still out of sight. In practice, AML is a narrative that serves to legitimize controls on quite lower levels - in the 1000s. 2% of cash unaccounted for is nothing, and - I mean, preaching to the choir here - to try to hinder surveillance regimes (in the sociological sense, not the dictatorship sense) is absolutely legitimate for every normal person.

Also, western privilege: western banks rarely close their doors and leave you without access to your digital money, and rarely hyperinflate it away without any recourse (though they also have, historically). While cash doesn't protect against the second danger, it well protects against the first -within- western countries. Now, in other places hoarding Euros and Dollars, it protects against both.

Anit-Money-Laundering (AML) laws, in practice, do not protect us from greedy billionaires. They protect surveillance and hyperinflation states from citizens trying to protect themselves against them.

Re: Banks, gangsters and the strange resurgence of cash

#144

Post by knownjorbist » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 9:20 AM UTC

hunterb123 wrote: post #110

anm89 wrote: post #27

I remember reading a while back that at some point at the beginning of our time in Afghanistan, at some point we shipped multiple pallets of bundled $100 dollar bills and we had no idea where any of it went https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

We have a habit of doing that: https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-...

This isn't the same at all, other than it's a lot of money going somewhere in the middle east.

It was their own money being returned to them and not pallets earmarked for development disappearing into the night.

Re: Banks, gangsters and the strange resurgence of cash

#145

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 9:22 AM UTC

lazide wrote: post #124

garmaine wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so if a cop pulls you over you can prove it is documented/part of a ‘legal’ source Which the cop will promptly ignore and take the money anyway.

Which if you have a dashcam, paperwork, and lawyers could put him in jail or get you shot. You do have enough lawyers right?

Also do you have your dashcam automatically backing up into the cloud as it records? Or at least, paperwork proving you had a dashcam in your car?

I really want to believe things are not that bad in the US.

Re: Banks, gangsters and the strange resurgence of cash

#146

Post by nivenkos » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 9:22 AM UTC

I hope to see the day we ban cash. Here in Sweden, it's almost there.

It's pretty much only used by tax dodgers and criminals here now.

Re: Banks, gangsters and the strange resurgence of cash

#147

Post by chrononaut » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 9:23 AM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #131

bserge wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always have cash because the bank, at any point, can decide to freeze my account until I show up in person with some arbitrary ID/documents and beg on my knees. That's the reality for most people and they don't even realize it. I guess once you have enough money it's different, but for an average non-millionaire chump, it's best not to trust anyone too much.

That's why i personally have a few bank accounts in different banks, with cards on different networks. The risk of a banking/network error is significantly lower that way.

> The risk of a banking/network error is significantly lower that way.

The risk of a banking/network error is significantly higher that way, although the risk that it affects all deposited funds is significantly lower.

Re: Banks, gangsters and the strange resurgence of cash

#148

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 9:23 AM UTC

anonporridge wrote: post #79

vl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banks close first, for emergency supplies safe deposit boxes are basically useless.

Depends on the scenario. If it's a societal event, then yes, you can't rely on safe deposit boxes, just like you can't rely on your bank account. You're better off shoving cash under your mattress and stacking brass and lead. But if it's an individual event, then your home itself might be a target, and safe deposit boxes might mitigate your risk. It's all about tradeoffs.

So you really want to do a little bit of all. A month's worth of cash safely hidden in your home. Another in an easy-to-access account at your bank. Another in a deposit box at a different bank.

Reminds me of 1-2-3 rule for backups.

Re: Banks, gangsters and the strange resurgence of cash

#149

Post by walterbell » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 9:23 AM UTC

hungryforcodes wrote: post #138

walterbell wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, articles like this one can become inadvertent advertisements for the benefits of cash.

What's wrong with cash?

Cash is good. Anti-cash articles sometimes have the opposite effect.

Re: Banks, gangsters and the strange resurgence of cash

#150

Post by southerntofu » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 9:25 AM UTC

rsj_hn wrote: post #6

There is a lot of rumor and speculation about very benign things. 1. Precautionary savings. In a low interest rate environment, there is not the same penalty for holding cash as getting interest in a savings account. A lot of people find it prudent to have a buffer of cash, say enough to cover 1 month of expenses. So cash withdrawn from an ATM but put into a piggybank or under the mattress will appear here as "missin…

> A lot of people find it prudent to have a buffer of cash

Cash is always more trustworthy than a bank, if you can ensure its safety. Many people during the greek "crisis" (eg. when the Greek government took money from the people to distribute to the foreign Troïka under the pretext of a misrepresented "debt") wish they had not stored their money in banks.

> 2. Crime. Sure, crime is conducted in cash

I don't have stats, but i think you'd be surprised how much of crime does not use cash. I mean sure, drug trafficking probably involves cash at all levels, but the most serious crimes committed by people in power don't. These people bank-wire funds to remote accounts, as exemplified in the Pandora (and previous) leaks.

Also worth pointing out, cash is the money of the poor. Even when you're too poor/indebted for banks to open an account for you, you can still handle cash daily to survive. Even when you have a bank account, you can usually withdraw your cash before being seized, because money seizures usually take at least a day. So, say your corrupt government/justice has indebted you to a boss/landowner for incredible sums: even if you earn your wage via bank transfer, keeping it in cash is your only option to avoid feeding the insanely-rich and eating dirt yourself.