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

641–650 of 717 posts

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

#641

Post by seanmcdirmid »

lisasays wrote: post #544
shortcake27 wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And when we inevitably leave our card somewhere and we need to get home? How is this different to cash? I also have Apple pay on my phone and watch. > Or it's blocked for some random reason I have a couple cards. Also, I've been cashless for 10 years across three countries and this has never happened. > Nevermind the services that just don't take cash Assume you mean card. Not a problem in many countries including…

How is this different to cash? Of course there's no difference in regard to the risk of getting physically lost. I was referring risk of carrying a single value store (independent of type). I also have Apple pay on my phone and watch. Not sure how that's less cognitive overhead than a physical wallet, but as you like. From a business point of view, cash-only makes zero sense. Why would a business turn away people who…

Cash only places probably turn away more customers than card only places these days. People just like the convenience, and cash is on its way out.

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

#642

Post by propogandist »

rsaesha wrote: post #270
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.

There is an option: a direct payment system provided by the Central Bank to the general public. In Brazil it is called PIX, and was implemented in 2020. Last month it has processed more than 3 million operations. Works 24/7, 0 fees to end users, low cost for business. IMO, going cashless is not an "if", it is a "when". https://www.bcb.gov.br/en/financialstability/pix_en

CBDC is being evaluated by pretty much every countries central bank. Governments are eager to roll out Central Bank Digital Currency as it will be the ultimate form of control on citizens.

CBDC will allow govts, at their discretion, connect your money to your ‘good citizen score’ (much like China’s Social Credit Score) and lock you out of society.

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

#643

Post by SirMaster »

colinsane wrote: post #329
onionisafruit wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go further and remove the "lawful" from that. If you pay me $50 it shouldn't matter to the payment processor whether I gave you a painting or a blow job in return.

if the payment processor knew the transaction was for a contract killing but processed it anyway, would they not be facilitating a crime (“aiding and abetting”)? are you saying we should specifically exempt payment processors from being held responsible for crimes that the rest of us — or any other business — could be found guilty of when performing the same functions? or are you suggesting something more broad: that…

I mean, we don't even charge the weapon maker or the weapon seller in this case, so why would we charge the money processor?

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

#644

Post by gloryjulio »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #615
gloryjulio wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I am typing in the phone browser and it's not convenient? What's the problem with that? U haven't seen abbreviations before? U think toddlers type like this?

That was not a good excuse even for numeric keypad phones, thanks to widespread T9 (predictive text), and is an even worse excuse today with qwerty (albeit non-physical) keyboards with much smarter prediction.

Ok. So how is that related to ur post? Did u just switch the account to change the topic? So u just commented again completely avoiding the questions. Did u forget to switch back?;)

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

#645

Post by onionisafruit »

bilbo0s wrote: post #608
pyuser583 wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a telephone company knowingly serviced a contract killer, they would be fine. Same with postal service, etc.

Same with postal service, etc. Uh, guys, this is not true. This is not how any of this works. Don't let these people on HN mislead you. Even the postal service cannot knowingly deliver a bomb to a target and claim immunity. It doesn't work like that. If you know they are committing a crime, then you have to stop them. Or at a minimum try to stop them.

I agree that a postal carrier would be criminally liable for knowingly delivering a live bomb, but I think you’re wrong on the end part. There is no legal obligation to try to stop crimes you know about. In most cases there isn’t even an obligation to report them.

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

#646

Post by refurb »

kelnos wrote: post #607
refurb wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then remove all liability for payment processors. There are numerous examples of companies doing something legal, that later blows up and they become the scapegoat for letting it happen. As long as that happens, payment processors are going to protect themselves by avoiding certain industries.

Sort of like a Section 230 for payment processors -- fine by me.

The problem is that the government loves cracking down on crime through the financial system - terrorism, drugs, IP issues, firearms, etc, etc. It's the one tool they've used again and again...because it works.

So they'll never give financial institution carte blanche immunity, because they rely on them to choke off the money for illegal activities. And even if they did give immunity, you know they'll turn around a say "well, we didn't mean you could just ignore blatantly illegal activity" and the banks will fall into line.

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

#647

Post by TehShrike »

AmenBreak wrote: post #114
raverbashing wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I swear money handling cost will be reduced by one simple thing that some countries like Canada and Ireland have done (and can be improved): ditch the smaller coin denominations (and maybe add higher denomination coins like $2 like EU and UK have) Anything under 10 cents gets rounded down/up accordingly It doesn't matter. Minting and transporting it, even in your pocket costs more than you'll ever get in dealing a mo…

That's an awful idea. Especially the "down/up" part.

This already happens with cents. Your tax frequently comes out to a fraction of a cent, and it gets rounded to the nearest cent.

The US used to have a half-penny coin. It stopped being minted in 1857.

The purchasing power of the half-penny at the time was about as much as a quarter has today.

It wouldn't be crazy to get rid of all coins worth less than 25¢ and round all purchases to the nearest quarter.

Obligatory CGP Grey: https://youtu.be/y5UT04p5f7U

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

#648

Post by csense »

The government should be increasing the size of bills to keep up with inflation.

In 1934 gold was $35 per ounce, and a $100 bill could buy 2.86 ounces of gold.

In 2023 you'd need about $5000 for 2.86 ounces of gold. There "should" be a $5000 bill to match the status quo of 1934 but the government has never created bills larger than $100.

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

#649

Post by onionisafruit »

YmiYugy wrote: post #628
onionisafruit wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go further and remove the "lawful" from that. If you pay me $50 it shouldn't matter to the payment processor whether I gave you a painting or a blow job in return.

Limiting access and monitoring financial services is one of the most powerful tools against organized crime, terror and corruption, tax evasion etc. So yeah, I think the lawful part is crucial. There is of course lot's of room for discussions about what should be legal.

I didn’t mean to say that a court shouldn’t be able to order a payment processor to not service a customer or a particular transaction. What I meant was that the payment processor shouldn’t be the one identifying the crimes.

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

#650

Post by lisasays »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #641
lisasays wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this different to cash? Of course there's no difference in regard to the risk of getting physically lost. I was referring risk of carrying a single value store (independent of type). I also have Apple pay on my phone and watch. Not sure how that's less cognitive overhead than a physical wallet, but as you like. From a business point of view, cash-only makes zero sense. Why would a business turn away people who…

Cash only places probably turn away more customers than card only places these days. People just like the convenience, and cash is on its way out.

Whether cash is on it's way "out" (as opposed to contracting a bit and settling to a certain niche level) is -- as the article indicates -- far from an obvious, final matter. And in my view quite doubtful in fact.

Either way - do as you like, and nice chatting.

Post reply on HN