Live data from Hacker News

Cash Amnesia

gsb.stanford.edu

161–166 of 166 posts

Re: Cash Amnesia

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I first moved to North America, the idea that a credit card company was allowed to give people cash back, offer insurance, etc. for using their cards seemed like some bizarroworld "how is this legal" concept. Having lived here for decades, it still is. It's like an alcohol shop rewarding its most alcoholic customers by giving them free booze. And then if you sign up for a new card, or you cancel a card, some ran…

I straight use credit cards as insurance, especially against scams. I specifically dont use a debit card at all and dont carry it. I only have it to pull money out and it stays locked in a safe at home. CC's allow me to ensure things like Amazon sellers arent scamming you, or worse, random websites with awful return policies. With a CC merchant that have a motivation to work on your behalf (ie: to get you to pay them…

The problem here is the banks not being required to do at least as good a job as the credit card companies (who are often also banks). They punish people who prefer not to use credit.

Re: Cash Amnesia

#162

I've always thought the opposite. When I pay for something with cash I remember it far more strongly than when I pay with card. I pay with a card all the time and the action is the same no matter the price. I tap it and move on. With cash I remember having to go get the cash, counting out the right amount at the register, and physically handing it over. And then I notice its absence since now I gave up all the cash I…

I'll say this, spending cash is harder in the moment . There's a real visceral feeling of loss when handing over actual cash vs card. However, when it comes to tracking long term? Cash always seemed to just ...evaporate, out of my wallet where as I can look back and see my credit card purchases and go 'why did I spend that much on that?!' In my experience, there are two types of people when it comes to money. There a…

This is literally me. I am a spendthrift with cash, even though most of my purchases would be cheap consumables and perishables - but still I hyper-analyze deciding whether to buy or not.

On the other hand, when I pay by card, I don't analyze the buying decision much, even though it's likely a big purchase.

Lose-lose either way. I had to put a personal limit on the amount of cash and accessible money on cards I hold on my person because of this.

Re: Cash Amnesia

#163
post #160
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, sweet summer child. The problem cases almost always agree to manage finances together and be reasonable! The money still disappears. No records just makes it easier to be gaslit, or blamed by the actual perpetrator in a court of law. At least when it’s recorded by a third party it’s harder to bullshit about. Two separate friends of mine had their spouses (when under stress) nearly bankrupt both of them using cred…

sure, but those are cases of outright deception, where, with a bit more energy by the deceiver, tracking expenses through the bank may not have helped. and i am sorry for what you had to go through. your experience makes me think of a discussion just a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36767454 i don't know how one can protect against that. the only thing i can think of is to prevent anyone in the fa…

Unfortunately, any of the protective actions one could take would be legitimately abusive and controlling against someone who ISN'T one of those messed up people. So if someone feels like they need it, either they really shouldn't be getting married to that person (but are in denial), OR they're probably a legit abusive spouse. And really shouldn't be marrying anyone.

And in most places, if you're married, legally you can't stop the partner from entering the 'community' into debt like that, or encumbering community property. So to your point, yeah it couldn't be stopped even with bank tracking. But it is harder to do that way.

The most you could do is make the responsible party take on the debt entirely on their own later when the divorce settles, but anyone likely to do this kind of BS will make that a multi-year living hell. It's rarely worth the attempt, as legal fees will often far outweigh any money recovered.

There is a reason that 99% of family law attorneys will tell men to just not get married. For guys, 99% of them will also tell them to just not let women live with them (due to various ways THAT is often used against men), etc. Pre-nups are important and can reduce the damage, but are not bullet proof.

For women, the system does generally favor them - but they can and will be drug through hell if they end up with a problem spouse too. And can end up with life altering debt (problem gamblers being a common pattern), abusive partners they can't get rid of, etc. They're more likely to be murdered in a bad situation too, by a long shot.

If someone has an actual reasonable spouse (and is actually reasonable) but want to get divorced, then it's actually not that big a deal and it can be resolved relatively quickly. And that does happen. But for the most part, most of those people don't end up needing the system anyway - as both people are actually reasonable.

And people who aren't from backgrounds that result in them being blind to signs of real problem behaviors usually see and avoid the really dangerous people anyway before they can get their hooks in.

The best prevention frankly is having two loving, stable parents who raised someone well, to have not been abused as a child, and to be nurtured, etc.. So that someone knows what 'good' feels like, has reasonable role models that cover the common gender setups and models healthy behaviors, etc. It's far from foolproof though, and those situations are actually quite rare. What is common is setups that LOOK like that, but are actually deeply screwed up when you're inside - but in ways the participants can't or won't see.

Folks with NPD, ASPD, and other Cluster B personalities in particular are powerfully manipulative and destructive, and can pretend to be really amazing and wonderful until you're already 'stuck'. Co-dependent behavior is rampant. Etc.

Re: Cash Amnesia

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, you are begging the moral question in assuming that credit cards are obviously like "drugs". For me, a credit card and a debit card are just different accounting systems for the same thing. Either one has zero interest when I manage my expenditures properly and do not carry a debt. Either one could trigger penalties and/or interest if I outspend my budget. I still prefer the credit card because of the frequently…

Except this isn't about you. There are plenty of folks who can responsible take drugs, too, doesn't make trying to keep folks hooked any less destructive and predatory. All you're being is an outlier in the highly lucrative debt trap that credit cards offer the average credit card owner. Congrats on not falling for it; for you, a thousand people who do.

I agree, you haven't convincingly made the case that credit is more akin to drugs than a restaurant or a bra store (the 1:1000 statistic in particular is suspect), and it seems your entire point depends on that case being true.

Restaurants and bra stores, for example, also want to keep customers hooked. Does that make restaurants & bra stores predatory? Neither they nor credit card companies are forcing their customers to spend more than they can afford.

Re: Cash Amnesia

#165
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, I need to have it the other way around. Regular withdrawals of similar amounts on my bank statement tell me nothing about how I spent my money a month from now. When paying with card, I leave a paper trail for myself to review later. I can also look at my banking app anytime I want to check how much is left. I actually do that before most purchases that go beyond a few bucks.

While I could make the same reply to almost every comment in this thread I have chosen yours at random. I believe you are conflating the goal of "spending less" (which is hard) with a simpler goal "knowing more about how I spent my money" (which is easy). You claim to review your paper trail to gain insights, but again, even if you truly did this consistently (and knowing human nature, I doubt that you do) this in no…

You are right, I left out an important part of my budgeting setup: Every month, after income, everything above a set amount is transferred automatically into a savings account. So at the beginning of each month, I have the same amount of money in my checking account.

Still, even just the number going down tells me exactly how much money I have spent this month – like looking into my wallet would. But I have the added benefit of knowing what I spent it on even long after the purchase.

I don't always review the paper trail, only if my spending is higher than what I expected it to be. But I always check the balance before any bigger purchase. In both cases, I know to spend less in advance and can make an informed decision.

* I am translating from German here using some quick Google searches. I hope these account types make sense for a US reader.

Re: Cash Amnesia

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most banks have zero liability policies even though the law doesn't mandate it how is that "not really"? That's "yeah, because"

Saying "banks are shit here because they have zero liability policies" isn't too sensical. Saying "banks are not really shit here because they have zero liability policies" makes decent sense.

banks are shit here because they are not required by law to have liability policies. Just because the laws aren't in place doesn't magically make the banks fine, it makes them shit, while being legally compliant.
Post reply on HN