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

D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–508 of 508 posts

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#501

Post by farzinadil »

bsder wrote: post #500
farzinadil wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a high end retailer like Gucci decided to stop accepting cash, who exactly would that harm?

Nobody. Nobody cares whether Gucci accepts cash. Cash laws are about interacting with your grocery, your gas station, your local government, etc. However, I'm not going to be particularly worried that Gucci has to accept cash transactions to make sure that Walgreen's also has to accept cash. Somehow, I bet Gucci will be just fine.

Businesses understand their clientele. In a free market, businesses like Gucci might elect to go cashless, while grocery stores, gas stations, and local government will continue to take cash without being forced to since it is in their economic interest to do so.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#502

Post by delackner »

throwaway9870 wrote: post #281
jdietrich wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>From an operational and strategic security POV, cash is a vastly superior technology. It doesn't need electricity, a network of cables, satellites and routers. If the power goes out, I can't get any cash. I don't keep any meaningful amount cash on hand and neither does anyone I know, including my elderly relatives. Most of the stores I shop at won't actually be able to sell me anything, because none of the products…

Have you never walked into a store and they said you can't use a CC because their reader is down? It is nice to have a few dollars in your pocket for times like that.

Fun anecdote: I walked into a Capital One (BANK) where they have a Café, and the gimmick is that if you pay with your Capital One card, you get a reduced price.

They said their payment terminals were down so they could not take credit cards. I said oh... I don't have any cash, oh well no coffee for me. They said well... we can comp you one drink per person if you don't have cash.

Neither I nor they considered the option of me walking over to the nearby bank ATM and withdrawing cash.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#503

Post by cycrutchfield »

noduerme wrote: post #473
cycrutchfield wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a lot of words built on top of a rather flimsy assertion that using cash is a civil rights issue, which I don’t think any court has actually ruled on. It seems like a right that people have invented from thin air. The answer to people being unbanked is to make banking easier and less discriminatory. Not to force everybody to accept cash.

Classes covered under Title IX aren't necessarily covered by the Constitution, but our democracy has recognized that they need protection. Civil rights are rights outlined in law and reinforced by the courts. They're not pulled from thin air. If you believe that there is no right to spend your income without first depositing it into a third party for-profit bank for safekeeping, then make that case.

You can claim that anything is a civil rights issue by selectively distorting statistics in your favor. Let’s wait until courts weigh in on this.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#504

Post by cycrutchfield »

noduerme wrote: post #463
cycrutchfield wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be using the wrong banks.

Are there retail banks in America which aren't run for profit? I wasn't aware. Should citizens be forced to keep their money with privately run institutions, which decide when and how and if they can access their money, in order to transact on the most basic level, in order to buy food? If so, the government effectively renounces its exclusive control of the currency. Why do countries print currency? For the settleme…

This is like complaining that you need to buy a wallet or pants with pockets in order to carry cash, therefore the government has relinquished exclusive control over currency. No, they have not.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#505

Post by komali2 »

robertlagrant wrote: post #481
komali2 wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a solution to a very specific problem: cashless shops. Why should the government be responsible for building out an incredible infrastructure project so that some businesses don't have to worry about handling cash? Cash is not a new concept, we've been using it since the inception of the nation. Suddenly some businesses find a way to save a buck by not handling it, but this also happens to segregate a portion…

> Why should the government be responsible for building out an incredible infrastructure project so that some businesses don't have to worry about handling cash? Your post is pretty poor tone-wise, but I'll address this. It's the exact opposite of what you're saying. If the government wants something, it should pay for it. Business is not imposing anything on the government. Business pays the government money it earn…

I was replicating your tone, because the question seems silly: businesses have to do what governments say because governments aren't businesses, they're representations of the people's will and protectors of the people's wellbeing.

Businesses are profit generating algorithms with singular purpose. They have no other concerns. Without governments, businesses would seek profit through horrifying means.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#506

Post by robertlagrant »

komali2 wrote: post #505
robertlagrant wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should the government be responsible for building out an incredible infrastructure project so that some businesses don't have to worry about handling cash? Your post is pretty poor tone-wise, but I'll address this. It's the exact opposite of what you're saying. If the government wants something, it should pay for it. Business is not imposing anything on the government. Business pays the government money it earn…

I was replicating your tone, because the question seems silly: businesses have to do what governments say because governments aren't businesses, they're representations of the people's will and protectors of the people's wellbeing. Businesses are profit generating algorithms with singular purpose. They have no other concerns. Without governments, businesses would seek profit through horrifying means.

These stereotypes are far too simple. Governments are the things that declare wars and send people to their deaths. They can strangle their own populations to death via socialism, or kill races through genocides. They aren't just protectors of the people's wellbeing.

Humans make up businesses and governments. Governments can overreach very easily, as they have all the power. It is totally valid to point out when a government misuses that power against businesses, because businesses are just people, and people in governments shouldn't abuse other people with bad policies.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#507

Post by komali2 »

robertlagrant wrote: post #506
komali2 wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was replicating your tone, because the question seems silly: businesses have to do what governments say because governments aren't businesses, they're representations of the people's will and protectors of the people's wellbeing. Businesses are profit generating algorithms with singular purpose. They have no other concerns. Without governments, businesses would seek profit through horrifying means.

These stereotypes are far too simple. Governments are the things that declare wars and send people to their deaths. They can strangle their own populations to death via socialism, or kill races through genocides. They aren't just protectors of the people's wellbeing. Humans make up businesses and governments. Governments can overreach very easily, as they have all the power. It is totally valid to point out when a go…

As you say, however the measure of a successful business is simply profit, while the measure of a good government is far more nuanced but usually something along the lines of "how well the people in the nation are faring."

Therefore, it makes sense that we order our society such that businesses are subservient to governments, and governments priorities are first and foremost the needs of people, regardless of any additional cost to businesses.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#508

Post by SuperNinKenDo »

farzinadil wrote: post #496
SuperNinKenDo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because the state has limited ability to compel business relationships, thank God, and taking card effectively means enforcing a business relationship with a duopoly.

If the state can compel businesses into taking cash, the state can compel businesses into accepting cards. For the record I don't support either and believe it's up to every business to decide what form of payments to accept.

Not necessarily. The State can compel cash because it is the state mandated and controlled medium of exchange. Cards are not controlled by the state and thereby compel a business relationship with a private company. Probably if the state controlled cards, then it would have a mandate to, uh, mandate them.

I realise it begs the question a little, the state can mandate cash because it's the state's mandated and controlled medium of exchange, but state power often begs the question.

Post reply on HN