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

Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 717 posts

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#101

Post by BiteCode_dev »

danpalmer wrote: post #89
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #67

Even if it weren't a terrible, awful idea from a democratic point of view, it's just silly from a logistic point of view. This means you create a single point of failure for your entire society: electricity provision. Got a power shot down? Suddenly nobody can buy anything. Got a war on your territory? Your trade routes will get destroyed 4 times faster. Want to be a reserve currency? Guess what, now you have to do l…

Most stores aren't going to be able to sell you anything with no power, regardless of taking card or cash, because sales need to go into a database via a register, update inventory, etc. Sure a few small family run businesses, maybe restaurants, might be able to take cash, but almost no chains will be able to run and that's most stores in most places.

First days, you don't need all stores, a few is enough.

After a few days, I guarantee even the big ones will manage the inventory with pen and paper, with the blessing of the boss and the gov.

But even without all that, having the ability to have a black market in a time of crisis is priceless.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#102

Post by DANmode »

itake wrote: post #81
kredd wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is still depended on some sort of payment rails though, no? Bank, government or whoever can decline transactions to that “cash” action.

I think what is different though is they don't know what you're buying (I think).

It's more expensive to know.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#103

Post by mistrial9 »

AmenBreak wrote: post #98
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could a website function with cash payments at all?

How did businesses manage payments before the Internet and credit cards etc?

checks and similar

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#104

Post by kevin_nisbet »

itake wrote: post #81
kredd wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is still depended on some sort of payment rails though, no? Bank, government or whoever can decline transactions to that “cash” action.

I think what is different though is they don't know what you're buying (I think).

Or it's accessible for those who operate without banks. I think there is a term for it, "unbanked" or something like that... there's some decent chunk of the population that doesn't have a bank account / can't get a credit card / etc.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#105

Post by RulerOf »

feyes wrote: post #28
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it mostly crime related shenanigans? Not having to carry a wallet anymore. Never going to the ATM. No need to pocket loose change. Quicker checkout times.

Points or rebates too.

I'd prefer not to spend 5% to get 2% back.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#106

Post by [deleted] »

b800h wrote: post #70
medler wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the only argument against getting rid of cash is that it would make it harder to commit crimes, that sounds like a good reason to get rid of cash. I like cash because I like my privacy but cash making it easier to do crime is an unfortunate side effect, not an end in itself.

Disagree with any laws?

[deleted]

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#107

Post by powera »

arcticbull wrote: post #94
Seattle3503 wrote: post #13

My concerns about a cashless society are the power it hands to a few oligopolistic credit card processors. Look at what happened to Pornhub. Regardless of whether you think Pornhub was in the wrong, it is striking that a business was cut off from global financial system by a small number of credit card companies. This was done without due process and under no countries laws. That should scare us at least a little.

I'll take this opportunity to advocate for 'payment network neutrality' - given their importance in the economy, I agree payment processors should be required to process all lawful transactions, by law. We should require this of any national payments processor in the US at the federal level - or state, I'm looking at you, CA and NY.

Any proposal that requires companies to ignore signs of fraud is Dead-On-Arrival.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#109

Post by Groxx »

itake wrote: post #81
kredd wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is still depended on some sort of payment rails though, no? Bank, government or whoever can decline transactions to that “cash” action.

I think what is different though is they don't know what you're buying (I think).

Not sure why that would be any different than credit card payments, which don't itemize every purchase either - they still know how much and to what seller, tracking a seller and banning them seems just as easy.

What they don't get is the buyer's information.

...except for the time and place, with a device that almost certainly has cameras for theft deterrence. Which might be fine now, but seems pretty law-enforcement-capturable.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#110

Post by arcticbull »

powera wrote: post #107
arcticbull wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take this opportunity to advocate for 'payment network neutrality' - given their importance in the economy, I agree payment processors should be required to process all lawful transactions, by law. We should require this of any national payments processor in the US at the federal level - or state, I'm looking at you, CA and NY.

Any proposal that requires companies to ignore signs of fraud is Dead-On-Arrival.

I literally said 'lawful' transactions. Fraud is not lawful.
Post reply on HN