Slashdot Mirror
Swedes Turn Against Cashlessness (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: It is hard to argue that you cannot trust the government when the government isn't really all that bad. This is the problem facing the small but growing number of Swedes anxious about their country's rush to embrace a cash-free society. Most consumers already say they manage without cash altogether, while shops and cafes increasingly refuse to accept notes and coins because of the costs and risk involved. Until recently, however, it has been hard for critics to find a hearing. "The Swedish government is a rather nice one, we have been lucky enough to have mostly nice ones for the past 100 years," says Christian Engstrom, a former MEP for the Pirate Party and an early opponent of the cashless economy. "In other countries there is much more awareness that you cannot trust the government all the time. In Sweden it is hard to get people mobilized."
There are signs this might be changing. In February, the head of Sweden's central bank warned that Sweden could soon face a situation where all payments were controlled by private sector banks. The Riksbank governor, Stefan Ingves, called for new legislation to secure public control over the payments system, arguing that being able to make and receive payments is a "collective good" like defense, the courts, or public statistics. "Most citizens would feel uncomfortable to surrender these social functions to private companies," he said. "It should be obvious that Sweden's preparedness would be weakened if, in a serious crisis or war, we had not decided in advance how households and companies would pay for fuel, supplies and other necessities." The report mentions a recently-released opinion poll, which found that seven out of 10 Swedes wanted to keep the option to use cash, while just 25% wanted a completely cashless society.
There are signs this might be changing. In February, the head of Sweden's central bank warned that Sweden could soon face a situation where all payments were controlled by private sector banks. The Riksbank governor, Stefan Ingves, called for new legislation to secure public control over the payments system, arguing that being able to make and receive payments is a "collective good" like defense, the courts, or public statistics. "Most citizens would feel uncomfortable to surrender these social functions to private companies," he said. "It should be obvious that Sweden's preparedness would be weakened if, in a serious crisis or war, we had not decided in advance how households and companies would pay for fuel, supplies and other necessities." The report mentions a recently-released opinion poll, which found that seven out of 10 Swedes wanted to keep the option to use cash, while just 25% wanted a completely cashless society.
Why would you want a cashless society? Having the ability to pay in cash doesn't require you to do so yourself. I can't wrap my head around the fact that there are some people who actively want fewer choices even when the alternative options require nothing from them in terms of action or cost. Even from a business owner's perspective, there's nothing that says your business has to accept cash payments, unless there's some obscure Swedish laws of which I'm unaware.
If by "obvious" you mean "obviously stupid".
Because digitigal currency gives them easier control over the people. Cash is private. It's a good idea to use cash as much as possible. Unfortunately, stupid laws don't always make that possible, but for most purchases it certainly is.
No matter what anyone says, when power goes out and communications infrastructure goes to shit or gets attacked, regular hard currency will still work until the human race forgets how to add and subtract.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Cash doesn't have to be paper. An electronic unit with a battery that can hold an electronic counter can function perfectly as an electronic version of cash, without involving banks and going through bank transactions each time.
It seems this option is totally ignored by everyone though.
So who is going to buy me a smart phone, and pay for a data plan ? I don't have one and I don't want one. My simple dumb Trac phone with just text and phone service is cheap easy and my choice. I have a visa/debit card that I keep for emergency use only, and I have to remind myself to use it for an inquiry once every 90 days or the damn credit union suspends it. As a contractor I am paid by certified check thru my contracting office rather than by the current employer. I use and cash for almost everything except monthly bills which are paid out of my checking account via automatic withdrawal. Does my dope dealer have to pay square or some vendor to stay in business ? How do I give the 'vet' hanging out on the corner a couple of bucks for hamburger evey now and then. Uncle Sam is up in my grill enough with having every dollar I choose to spend analyzed by them.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
No, tax is something that we (society) agreed upon in exchange for other services. That is, we pooled some of our assets together to be able to build roads, hospitals and schools. Sure, some like this agreement more than others, and some, like you, don't like it at all. The mystery is why nutjobs like you don't move to some uninhabited corner of the world and live off the grid, only interacting with other nutjobs. Now let us, the rest of society, to be in peace, not needing to hear your tinfoil, paranoia-filled rants.
People don't go live off-grid because they're even more likely to get robbed there and even less likely to get anything in return for what's taken from them.
Giving someone something they didn't ask for after forcibly taking their money doesn't make it not theft. Even if it's something that they would have given money for voluntarily. The lack of choice is what makes it theft. By that standard, taxes are theft, because you don't get to decide that you would rather not have the services, and then get out of paying for them.
But that doesn't mean that we should immediately abolish all taxes and the government that depends on them, because in the absence of a government, another government would immediately spring up out of the power vacuum, and those are the worse kinds of governments: the kind made up of whoever is most powerful, who don't ask the governed for their opinion on anything and doesn't think they need to do anything to appease those governed.
But governments that want to stick around for a long time eventually figure out that giving the governed some say in things, and giving them some things in return, will help that government stay in power longer. It's still ultimately a group of people exercising violence to control other people. It's still not in and of itself good. But if that moderate evil is the only thing keeping a much worse evil from springing up out of the power vacuum, then far better to play along with the moderate evil.
And if that moderate evil can slowly be made less and less evil while still keeping the greater evils at bay, eventually you get a stable anarchy. Anarchy is the limit (in the mathematical sense) of good governance: what better and better governance converges toward. Part of figuring out how to achieve that will involve figuring out how to fund it without demanding the funds from people on threat of violence, i.e. without taxes. But until we can figure that out, paying taxes to support a somewhat decent government is a better compromise than going out where the figurative wolves will figuratively eat you alive.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
That part of the submission confused me - if payment is offered and If it’s the coin of the realm, how can they legally decline it? It’s not like “cashless” transactions aren’t using the same currency.
#DeleteChrome
Normal swedes with the means are already emigrating.
A country once to envy, now, I'd be inclined to avoid most things they say and do. Total head in the sand people over there.
The government would know who used their classless card to buy what crypto.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Normally a superior solution (like a bank card) would out phase another, but what is happening here is that the banks are working hard to to make cashless "fashionable modern".
Swedish people hate to not be "modern" and embrace it without any second thought.
There are shops not accepting cash and this is considered a "Good Thing".
Most bank offices are "cashless"
I have heard swedes argue that we must remove the cash, because it costs to much.
Banks have done a good PR job.
There needs to be better regulation for protecting against this.
The problem with the various cashless options is that a lot of them are country or region specific, so when you have tourists visiting it's often difficult for them to make use of the local payment systems,especially since many such systems disallow registration from users outside of the country.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
The reason for the no go zones is that the government were too nice to the criminals in the area for about 30 years.
There is also the idiotic tolerance that foreigners aren't expected to live up to the standards ethnic swedes are held by and thus they get away with rape and other things because "they didn't understand that what they did was wrong".
" I got a check once. NEVER again. The amount of effort it took to actually convert that into money was incredible."
Go to bank, hand over check and card, wait for cashier to pay cheque into your account? Thats incredible effort is it? Jeez, another bone idle millenial no doubt.
"Yay tax avoidance. That's what you meant right?"
Obviously privacy issues are a bit beyond your comprehension. Here's an analogy your lonely braincell might understand - why do you have blinds or curtains on your windows, are you doing anything illegal inside? No. But you want them anyway right because privacy has a value? Perhaps now you get it.
We tried that in Sweden. It was even called "Cash", and was an added function on your credit/debit card. The banks forced all shops etc to replace their card terminals at great expense. Nobody understood what the point was, so it was completely ignored. Now it is gone and the embarrassment forgotten.
Many of us are aware and anxious about that. However, like with Facebook, Google etc, the convenience is just too compelling.
We use a credit/debit card in shops, and phone (via a system called "Swish") for transactions between people (and, increasingly, to shops). Even street beggars and children selling stuff for charity or their class trip accept Swish.
Some store chains have tried their own phone payment solutions, but they are - just as Apple pay and the likes - completely ignored.
How do I give the 'vet' hanging out on the corner a couple of bucks for hamburger evey now and then.
You use your phone to scan the QR-code on his phone, or if he doesn't have a phone, you scan the QR-code sticker on the corner of his "Please Help" sign.
You really have no idea. Most bums in China accept both WeChat and AliPay. Likewise, most Swedish bums likely take Swish (never been to Sweden (not into blondes)). Peer-to-peer payments are trivial.
Go to bank? That's a 40 mile round trip right there for me. Not a good start! I can post a cheque to my bank, but i must use special envelopes, and a special credit slip which must be correctly filled out. Then i have to pay for a stamp, and find a postbox (only a mile, yay). Finally, delay while the cheque gets to the bank, and more delay while it clears. No, thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Go to bank, hand over check and card, wait for cashier to pay cheque into your account?
You lost me at "go to bank". In the past 10 years I've set foot in a bank perhaps 3 times or so, to open a business account, to get a mortgage, and to discuss a business loan. I wouldn't want to have to go there every time I receive money from someone.
In the past I went more often: to cash checks, withdraw and deposit money, etc... Can't say I miss it.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Go to bank, hand over check and card, wait for cashier to pay cheque into your account? Thats incredible effort is it? Jeez, another bone idle millenial no doubt.
I don't know which country you are in but did you ever went to a bank?
Banks are typically open only during business hours, which seriously reduce your options if you have a regular job. The rare time where you can find a slot where the bank is opened and you are available, chances are that it is the same for everyone else and the lines are huge. Furthermore, low level bank employees (i.e. the ones you hand the check to) seem to be there only to tell you how to do things by yourself and getting yelled at for things that are beyond their control. There isn't much they can do that you can't do by yourself.
I consider "going to the bank" incredible effort (and banks make sure it is). I won't do it unless I'm negotiating a mortgage or something like that. Thankfully, banks usually accept checks by mail, but that's still much more effort than most other transactions.
The problem on the technical side seems to be solved in Europe. (Not talking about the social side of using cashless)
I have both credit and debit cards. I use the credit card as a debit card as I pay full at the end of the month, so no interests.Both work identical with payments and I mix them up as I feel like it.
I also have a backup card that I must use once every 2 years or so, before it expires. I have another debit card that will never expire and I never use.
For small amounts I just swipe my card. For larger payments, I just put my card in the slot and type in my pin. Takes a few seconds. About the same time as waiting for change.
Next there is the part of security. The store will not keep the credit card number, so unless I have a store card, they will not be able to link sales to me (Yes, theoretically they could break the law and do it) The credit card company will see the store and know the store type, but will have no idea if you bought diapers or milk or whiskey in a supermarket. They will see you spend X amount at an airline, but will not know where you went to. On top of that, in Belgium it is not even allowed to analyze that data (yes, they could break the law. They don't. Not worth the risk)
Next there is money transfers. When I need to give money to a friend, I will transfer it to them via an app, a website or any other means. As soon as the amount is above 10.000EUR, the bank has to ask where the money came from. If they think it is fraudulent, they will inform the authorities. If not (e.g. just from one account to another) nobody cares.
As I have not bought drugs in a long time, I have no idea what the situation will be there. If I where to pay him cashless, I will not be in trouble as they do not really care about me smoking some joints.
As giving the vet some extra cash? I do not. There are plenty of places these people can go to in Belgium. Social security and all such things. I already pay them by paying taxes.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
As a Swede living in Sweden.
His perception hasn't even scratched the surface of the real change
The coming 10-30 years in Sweden will be a cautionary tale for everyone.
I always want to ask the Swedes this one question:
Why are you letting your country / culture die?
Sweden, the country, and Swede, the culture, are marching towards a certain country/culturalcide
Why are Swedes so willingly let their culture / country commit suicide?
while shops and cafes increasingly refuse to accept notes and coins because of the costs and risk involved.
Isn't notes and coins the LEAST costly, and by some extension, less risk involved than most other payments?
Aren't there transaction fees to most payment methods to begin with? What am I missing here?
I tend to rant.
It's important to differentiate the form of coinage from the backing medium. Coinage often has little or no intrinsic value. This is especially true of paper promissory notes, which cost a tiny fraction of their face value to produce and have few other possible uses (uncomfortable toilet paper, really tacky wallpaper, or a convenient object for arranging your cocaine in lines). Currencies are typically backed by some promise from an organisation to exchange them for something else. For example, the one Pound Sterling could originally be redeemed for one pound of sterling silver. Most modern currencies are established by fiat: a law requires that they can be used to settle any debt, including taxes, so their value is based on the number of people who have debts that can be settled by the currency.
A crypto currency simply provides an implementation mechanism that allows you to maintain a ledger recording transactions without a single central point of failure. This would address the concerns in TFA, where people are worried that if, for example, the Russians invaded they'd be able to shut down all commerce in a region by flipping a few config options in a computer.
Most crypto currencies have difficulties replacing real-world currency uses because they are entirely decoupled from any store of value in the real world. Ideally (gross oversimplifications follow), the monetary supply should reflect the economy. When more value is created in the economy, more money should be created to represent it. When value is removed from the economy, the money supply should contract by a corresponding amount. The money supply should expand slightly faster than the economy so that holding money is discouraged as a means of holding value (you want people to invest in things that improve productivity, not keep piles of cash under their bed).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The US government accepts US dollars and only US dollars in payment for taxes. Last year, the Federal government received $2.3 trillion in income taxes. Assuming that the economy stays broadly the same size, that means this year people in the US will require around $2.3 trillion to be able to pay their taxes. That's what backs the US Dollar. The amount of tax that's paid reflects the health of the economy, so indirectly the US Dollar is backed by the health of the US economy.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"I don't know which country you are in but did you ever went to a bank?"
I work about 300m from a branch of my bank so I'm there pretty often yes.
"Banks are typically open only during business hours, which seriously reduce your options if you have a regular job"
Depends on the bank. Mine is open saturdays along with most others in the UK.
I'm not sure where either you or the grandparent live, but in the UK you can at least avoid the interacting with a human step in most banks. You grab an envelope from a stand, fill in your account details on the back, put the cheques inside, and then drop it in a post box in the bank and they'll process it that day.
Apparently a bunch of US banks now provide a phone app that lets you take a photograph of a cheque to process it. This leads to some slightly surreal experiences where the fastest way for one person to hand money to another is to write a cheque, have the other photograph it, and then rip it up.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"That's a 40 mile round trip right there for me"
Its your choice to live in the middle of nowhere. I imagine other services are equally inconvenient for you.
The store will not keep the credit card number, so unless I have a store card, they will not be able to link sales to me
Note that they are not allowed to store the card number, but they are allowed to store a cryptographic hash of the card number and they are allowed to store the last few digits. A typical card number is about 53 bits, so storing a 256-bit hash means that the probability of a collision is so close to zero that they have an effectively unique identifier. Oh, and I think that they're also allowed to store the name on the card.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The US could literally print $20 trillion dollars in $100 bills and pay off their bond holders as they fall due. Of course, this would cause inflation to shoot up, but the debt would be paid.
Go to bank, hand over check and card, wait for cashier to pay cheque into your account?
Let's go through this shall we:
Go to the bank:
- 15min walk to the branch, get a ticket, stand in line for 15minutes.
Hand over check and card:
- Aside from the very confused looks I got last time I did this it then resulted in the teller getting paperwork out, opening the account, trying to upsell me on shit like a savings account, fill out the paperwork, check it, sign it.
Wait for cashier to pay cheque into your account.
- And wait I did. Some furious typing and several minutes later I was finally free of this drain on my existence along with a useless receipt. 40minutes of my time wasted.
Now let's look at the alternative shall we:
.
Done. I got a text message telling me I received income.
Obviously privacy issues are a bit beyond your comprehension.
No obviously privacy issues didn't make it through all that tin foil on your hat.
why do you have blinds or curtains on your windows
I don't to keep the light out when watching TV. I leave my curtains open at all other times including at night. So no, I don't get it. And neither does anyone else, because guess what: you're not as interesting as you think you are, and people aren't standing outside your window just dying to get a peak at your junk.
Most banks accomodate at least one day a week (and sometimes Saturdays, oh my gosh!) where they are open during extended hours so their customers with regular jobs don't need to worry.
I can't speak for your country's situation, but in Canada, if your bank doesn't have a similar setup, you're with the wrong institution and should consider switching if this actually poses a problem for you.
I tend to rant.
"It is hard to argue that you cannot trust the government when the government isn't really all that bad."
Genociding your own people isn't "all that bad"? You are mentally ill.
That's a major advantage. The only way cash can break is for the government backing it to fail completely. Electronic funds have many more points of failure, plus somebody is quietly taking a cut of every transaction.
I wonder if Sweden has any regional currencies?
When I lived in Brixton (an area of South London) they started the Brixton Pound: http://brixtonpound.org/ (which has paper notes, no coins and an SMS based mobile payment solution). The Americans I worked with at the time really couldn't understand how such a thing was possible, but the UK has a couple of them. I'm told there are are a couple of unofficial ones across Europe as a way to 'beat the Euro', but that's a slightly different proposition.
Lots of good points. (I also use a TracPhone and even the minimum 60 minutes every 3 months is far more than I need.)
But there's also one more, glaring aspect to this that many people just don't seem to get: Credit/debit payments involve an unnecessary fee to an unnecessary middleman. A debit card merely does cash transfer. The middleman bank, with it's fee to the vendor, is a completely unnecessary step. Square also charges fees. Millennial utopians don't seem to realize that, preferring to view cashless as "futuristic" when it's really just a parasitic banking trend.
My concern with cashless is that it enables a lot of totalitarian control without all the cost and bother of prisons and arrests. Just look at where China is going with their 'social credit' system. I read an SF novel once where a convicted criminal wasn't jailed or even arrested, but a consortium of big businesses just refused to do business with him. So he couldn't pay to use any services like taxis, even elevators. Had to walk down a thousand flights of stairs or something. Just look at China, only two payment systems, WeChat and Alipay, are around. And more and more places only accept these and will not take cash. Now what if you made some online post criticizing the government (or in the US, any statement disliked by the Internet lynch mob du jour). Bang, you are banned from these services and now can't even buy a cup of coffee anywhere. But there are no human rights abuses right? You are still free to move about and such. But you are effectively in exile.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
And how about the Dollar? Yes there have been times where the US Dollar was secured by the corresponding amount of gold. But now due to some wars it's nothing more worth than the paper of a dollar bill. Every currency is build on trust. That is the ultimate level of security.
Yes, trust is part of it. But the dollar is actually backed by two things: The faith and credit of the United States. We have already covered the "faith" part. That is the trust and agreement among everyone to use it as money. But what is "credit"? Credit is the ability to pay a debt. Because every dollar is loaned into existence, it must be paid back. And how do we make money to pay it back? We go to work! Well, most of us, anyway. So the US dollar is also backed by the fact that most of us go to work every day, and will continue to do so. Funny, eh?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
The remaining half a Swede could not be reached for comment.
Unlikely to default? Its completely unable to pay its bills, and only a fool would lend it more money.
You really don't understand how the US monetary system works, do you? The US government has literally infinite money. It is completely able to pay its bills.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I was paid by check one time and stopped next door at the bank from which the check was written. They wanted to charge me a $7 fee because I did not have an account at that bank. Insanity! Instead I took a photo and deposited it into my own back via the app. I had to wait a day for it clear, but there was no way I was paying a fee for a bank to cash their own check.
In Belgium that is a no-no. The information they have is the transaction information. That they will give to the company that handles their tranasctions (mostl likely World Online) and those will then see who is the company behind the card (most likely some bank)
Yes, I am very well aware thatit is technically possible to do a lot of things. That does not make it legal and the fines will be pretty high and could cost the company their license to do business. Much cheaper to lure the cutomers with loyalty cards. That will not only give them a legal ability to analyze the data. It gives them the ability to send marketing stuff as well as do customer binding. People with a loyalty card are much more brand loyal than those without one.
People will gladly pay 10EUR more, just so they can get 0.10EUR in bonus points. Yes, I do have experience in the field on a professional level.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Note to self: Ignore people who are incapable of responding without an insult.
and should consider switching if this actually poses a problem for you.
I think the GP's point was that it doesn't pose a problem to him because in modern countries you don't go to the bank, ever. It's where grandma's hang out with their account books because they don't have internet.
Me, I last went to the bank 3 years ago and that's only because I needed to show ID when transferring my homeloan to another bank (incidentally I've never been to the new bank, the application of the homeloan was done online). I wouldn't even know where the nearest branch is.
That's a fair point.
Personally I'd rather deal with people face to face when it comes to big loans, like a mortgage for example. There's probably no difference from what you get in the end in both scenarios, but it is simple preference.
I go to my bank once every two weeks to get my cash spending money (cafeteria at work doesn't take anything else and the ATM gouges you), and I've recently got a CC with tap functionality (holy it's convenient...) as it was recommended by the mortgage broker I spoke with so I could build up some credit, as I didn't have much in terms of loans at the time. Plus it gives me a little back, so hey, why not.
Physical branches are dwindling every year though, so surely I'll be forced to adapt sooner than later.
I tend to rant.
The money supply should expand slightly faster than the economy so that holding money is discouraged as a means of holding value (you want people to invest in things that improve productivity, not keep piles of cash under their bed).
I know that this is what economic books teach us, but my question is why? To be clear, I know the reason "to stimulate economy", just I am not familiar with any historical evidence to support it. Isn't it that there were economically stable times when currency had an intrinsic value, and quite to contrary - most big financial collapses happened under "modern" economy rules, and lastly isn't it the right of a human being to be rewarded for their work with something of intrinsic value and keep it under their bed if they chose so?
Cards with electronic cash that need no central bank have existed since the 90s.
Handle it like cash, no central control, so it's equal to cash. It's in a real currency, not a pretend one.
By using strong PKI, provable software and tamper-proof electronics, such systems are more secure than Blockchain and don't have the latency.
They aren't used much because the 90s was a time when crypto was under attack and nobody trusted new gizmos.
However, this approach eliminates the need for credit card companies, central control and physical cash.
What's more, thus style of system is in Neuromancer and we all know the final system is one predicted in a sci-fi novel.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There is definitely a cost burden to using electronic forms of payment. However there is also costs associated with accepting cash. We are usually oblivious to that cost simply because it has traditionally always been the baseline. Checks, Credit, and Debit have been viewed as add-ons. Now however they can be used as a baseline alternative. So which form of payments a vendor supports comes down purely to what their customers are willing to use and which is affordable for the vendor.
The costs of using cash that I can think of are:
Time, making deposits.
Time, withdraws for change.
Time, to process transaction (this can vary depending on technology).
Time, to process end of day activities like counting out tills.
Money, employee theft.
Exposure to robberies, and associated risk of violence.
Now I'm not saying that the real costs of accepting cash out weighs that of other forms of payment in all situations. I would wager though that depending on circumstances taking only electronic payments could work out to be cheaper, and quite likely safer. The fees associated with electronic payments are not pure profit for a middleman as they pay for fraud protection and such.
Because cash is a pita for both client and shop. You need change, you need to secure it (you can be robbed either as shop or client), if stolen you cant secure it : it is gone, you need to withdraw cash so you lose time going to an atm and during long week end money can be absent etc... i was a cash believer but as i got older i found cash to become a nuisance.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
To be clear, I know the reason "to stimulate economy", just I am not familiar with any historical evidence to support it.
Take a look at what happened when economies abandoned gold or silver standards. In several cases it was because their economies started to grow faster than their money supply, which led to recessions.
Isn't it that there were economically stable times when currency had an intrinsic value, and quite to contrary - most big financial collapses happened under "modern" economy rules
The Great Depression happened when most countries were on the gold standard.
lastly isn't it the right of a human being to be rewarded for their work with something of intrinsic value and keep it under their bed if they chose so?
That's an interesting philosophical question. Part of the problem is defining what such a thing should be. Let's say that we use gold. Now if I do some work but there's no gold available, what happens?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
USA.
My bank is open Saturdays. I have never seen more than three people in line (this ignoring the zero to five people already talking to one of the four to five tellers), and have never had to wait more than five minutes to get to a teller.
That said, I go to a bank fewer than ten times a year. Fewer than six most years....
Your bank, as they used to say, doth well and truly sucketh. I'd suggest switching to one that actually wants your business....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Paper currency is for delivering the cocaine to your nose; it's plastic cards that arrange it into convenient lines.
-DwS
By the time something so catastrophal happen the chance you find a shop filled with goods are nil. They will be looted ir sold out and not reshelved. If infrastructure is gone then your cash is also worthless.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Hmm, isn't the point of the newer cellulose / plastic 'paper' money to combine the two uses into a simple tool?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Pretty obvious
Yes, it is.
Now, what problem is it a solution to? That's the mystery.
You have a pretty high opinion of yourself. I've never had anyone vendor or otherwise biatch or at least had the nerve to biatch to my face about a transaction. Here in Yuma most of the gas stations still offer two prices, one for credit, and a cheaper more preferred price for cash.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Backed how? They will buy it? No.
Isn't it that there were economically stable times when currency had an intrinsic value, and quite to contrary - most big financial collapses happened under "modern" economy rules,
No, that's not true. There were some pretty brutal problems before fiat currency. Specie currency is particularly bad. First because the economy grinds to a halt when there aren't enough coins in circulation to mediate barter (this is one factor in the collapse of the Roman Empire - trade deficits mean you run out of currency). Second because the government waters down the currency by coining less pure coins, which makes day-to-day commerce a real pain in the ass. When e.g. a shilling coin has no specific value, but each specific coin must be bartered as to the amount of silver it may or may not contain, well, shopping won't be fast or convenient.
And of course the Great Depression and the previous US economic bubbles (railway, canal) all happened with gold-backed currency.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Because decrease the value of the dollar to half and the government would care so much if it got twice the amount of dollars instead.
The paper bills are used to buy the cocaine and to make it easier to get it into your nose.
Now credit cards those are for ordering digital currency and to line up the coke.
Personally I'd rather deal with people face to face when it comes to big loans, like a mortgage for example. There's probably no difference from what you get in the end in both scenarios, but it is simple preference.
This may be localised but in the country where I got my homeloan you don't go to the bank, ever. Mortgage brokers almost universally get you a far better rate. When I got my first home loan I even went to the bank I was at since I was a child and they still gave me a worse rate than through the mortgage broker, same bank, same situation, but I almost felt like I was being punished for being a long term customer. Anyway another bank came in cheaper yet again and then my original bank was genuinely confused as to why I closed my accounts and moved money elsewhere. The teller had a serious case of foot in mouth when he asked why I was moving after being "loyal" for so long and I told him that I could only take so much punishment. :-)
and the ATM gouges you
Another locality difference. I'm currently in the Netherlands (well technically I spend more time in Germany) but by law they can't charge me at an ATM, and by extension my bank doesn't charge anywhere within the EU. I not so fondly remember doing the dance back in Australia looking for an ATM with my bank logo on it to avoid a $2 fee.
Physical branches are dwindling every year though
Just for shits and giggles I looked up where my nearest branch is. The website I got said that my nearest one was formerly 2km away from home. ... Key word: Formerly. Apparently it closed late last year and now I would need to go downtown for the next one. It was replaced with a pharmacy, far more useful :)
Everything fluctuates. And while the Federal Reserve Note is unlikely to become worthless overnight, it can and has suffered huge shocks, and when nobody trusts the U.S. government to be solvent direct inflation if inevitable. The U.S. government is staring down a massive unfunded liability problem, and no individual congress-person has any incentive to fix it.
lastly isn't it the right of a human being to be rewarded for their work with something of intrinsic value and keep it under their bed if they chose so?
Others have addressed your other points so I will focus on this one. The answer is No. Not to the intent of your question but due to the answers it would give to secondary questions which would be wrong
Every human should have the right to ask something in return for their time & effort. They also have the right to secure it how they see fit. However they do not have the right to have that "something" keep its value over time nor have others recognize that same value.
One has the right to ask for 50 jellybeans for 1 hour of labor. If accepted, they should get their 50 jellybeans, and be able to keep them secure. However they have no right to assume that others will labor for 1 hr for those same 50 jellybeans.
Even currency, people have no right to its original value. However, the social recognition of it and it's semi-stability is a collective bargain. A bargain that is more stable and better served with a widget whose production value & availability are negiligable completed to its transactional utility.
I like having a cache of money to use in case of emergencies. What do you do in a power outage and merchants can't take electronic payment? What do you do if your phone's battery dies or if your phone gets stolen? What do you do when you want to make a purchase you don't want tracked?
If it doubles the money supply, then every dollar is worth half as much. Do that even once, and anything else starts to look pretty attractive, the demand for FRN's drop, reducing value even more. Also a lot of the liabilities are tied to inflation. so they'd have to print even more next month to send out the SS checks.
"The economy" is just the decisions of individual actors. It can and has changed as so many currencies have proven time and again. Bad economic policies and government debt can and have driven many official currencies towards almost zero.
No cryptocoin is yet a currency, indeed you need to see more people buying if for later exchange for consumer goods then buying it hoping to exchange if for a currency later. But I think the tech is pretty promising, though a pure PoW system is probably fataly flawed in terms of getting a true circulation going.
Taxes are at least paid quarterly, (and corps get to set their own fiscal year) so as long as the government is spending taxes through the year, you don't need nearly so much.
This is all great... once weÃ(TM)re cashless youÃ(TM)ll love the convenience of negative interest rates or addition transaction taxes or fees.
I respect the fact that some of you like to run your posts through word or librewrite before you post. I do the same thing on some of my longer posts. But when you do post, please make sure you copy and paste as pure ascii text. Slashdot isn't smart enough to figure out smart quotes and other shit word and writer will stick in there.
Thank you, drive through.....
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Most of the great depression for the U.S at least happened after private ownership of gold was outlawed, and gold redemption clauses in contracts became unenforceable. A federal fractional reserve system had already been in place for a good while.
There were prior notable "panics though, a big example being 1876" cause in part due to inflationary silver minting from newly discovered deposits in the western states, the solution being to limit the coinage of silver, to the point rarity brought value back into line with official rates (more of a gold note printed on silver, rather than a silver coin on it's own). A bi-metallic standard definitely has disadvantages.
A government-backed paper standard would be just fine, if you could expect such government to carefully play by the rules and not manipulate the situation for their benefit. No government as of yet has proven trustworthy, the best that can be said is the smarter ones have limited their manipulation so that effects are slow enough that voters aren't outraged in the moment (diffuse and hide the costs, concentrate and advertise the benefits)
I just had this great idea for a fabulous new technology! I'm calling it CASH. Here are some of its features:
Might makes right irrelevant.
You'd have to pay such a huge premium to buy crypto in a reversible transaction, that offers very large quantities. (Remember the vendor is stuck with the cost of CC fruad)
We had that in Sweden, only without battery. A "cash card" which you charged with cash or from a bank account, and then used for payments. It could be completely anonymous, if you wanted it to be.
It failed completely. Nobody used it, or wanted it.
It is completely able to pay its bills.
There are exceptional situations where this is not true.
1. If can choose not to pay its bills. For example if austerity measures are necessary the government can refuse to pay interest on some debts. Now creditors will have difficulty selling such a debt. Buying and selling debt is a thing, and terms for borrowing money depend a lot on how you are rated with your current debts. The US is far away from being so poorly rated that they can't borrow money anymore, so it's probably not a realistic scenario.
2. The government could collapse due to war, civil unrest or overthrow. Usually the new country won't honor debts of the prior regime. The Confederacy had a lot of issues borrowing money in the last two years of the War. The first half of the war the CSA was so successful at raising money that the US was a bit unprepared as some assumed the rebellion couldn't last under to finance costly military action.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Most Swedes do not want to use cash as it requires you to carry around something of value to a mugger.
Why are Swedes getting mugged? It is not San Francisco.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Every nation in the world will eventually require citizens to provide identification on demand in order to travel or purchase anything. I don't think there is any way to but the brakes on that.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The US is merely the headquarters of the world plutocracy but there are many vassal states that bow to our corporate masters.
All of Western Europe orbits around the US. And rather than trying to throw off the shackles of oppression they are vying to claim the crown as capital nation of plutocracy.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The value is in the trust the general populace holds in the dollar. Same for other currencies. When trust is lost in some currencies then this can lead to massive inflation, something we've rarely seen in the USD. Cryptocurrencies have so extremely few users that I would so that the general populace trusts them.
Trust means more than "I trust that no one can steal my currency". It also means you can expect a reasonable level of stability in price, you can expect to be able to use it easily in your daily life, you don't have to convince a second party that your currency is good before you start a trade, and so forth. And cryptocurrencies are lacking in these. You can't walk down to the store and buy a loaf of bread with cryptocurrencies.
It is better that the dollar is not tied to the corresponding amount of gold, the economy greatly improved after these were untied from each other. The value is strengthened because we have a diverse economy with a very large population. This is similar to diversifying investments, a US state with a poor economy and one with a great economy all use the same dollar.
My credit union is 150 miles away. I just mail the few checks I receive to them along with a deposit slip. There are several post boxes on my daily route, but the post office is only 6 blocks away (~1.5 miles). I used to pay my rent with a check, but these days it's all ACH transactions, cash and credit.
Some banks here allow you to deposit a check by taking a picture of it using a smartphone application.
Home button ? It doesn't have a home button, the wonderful LG vn-251s does not have a touch screen or a reader or have QR support. In fact it just has a slide out keyboard and makes phone calls. But even if it did I don't want auto payment, I don't want my anonymous phone associated with my bank account or debit card or anything to do with Apple. Just like I don't want cashless transactions that leave a trail a nose less dog could follow. I like the anonymity of using cash. I don't even use my debit card except when I can't possibly avoid it. The convenience is not worth the sacrifice in my opinion. As for what I can comprehend, I understand you are a pretentious ass with an inflated view of your self and your assumption that what you want is what everyone wants shows your ignorance.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
On the contrary, most small business that I see starting up are going cashless. This includes restaurants, a cheese shop, and a bakery. The hassle of storing, protecting, counting, and depositing cash are worth less than the potential lost sales. Almost everyone uses plastic now, and even the rare person who prefers cash usually has plastic to fall back on. Stores don't have to do much other than sell product and have the money deposited automatically into their accounts. The data feeds into accounting software automatically, further reducing their workload.
Network outages still occur, but are less of a factor as networks improve. It's been a long time since I've seen a down network in any of my travels. In those times, stores have to make a choice if the customer has been consumed the product, like at a restaurant. I imagine many of them will just ask people to pay the next time, trusting them to do so. Not all will, but enough will that the hit won't be too bad. They can also stop taking orders if they know that the network will be down for a while. Most stores can take a couple of hours of downtime, and those that can't weren't just on the cusp of making enough money to survive.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Some banks can be a giant PITA about it. A few years ago, I got a check for an account at Wells Fargo and, because I needed the money right then and didn't have the same amount of cash in my account, I went to cash it at the local Wells Fargo. They wanted ID (of course), but they also wanted thumbprints and a $5 service charge for cashing the check drawn on an account at their bank. Because I needed the cash, I did it, but it was one of a long string of issues that made me despise them.
Now, I just use the app on my phone to deposit most checks I get. It's kind of tedious, but it's not horrible. If I know I'm going to be near my bank, I'll deposit them there just so they're not laying around my office for a couple of weeks while I make sure the deposit goes through.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Not quite. The can either have one secure file encrypted with AES where they store all card numbers (with possibility of having last 4 digits in separate not-encrypted file) OR store unique tokens generated with SALTED card number (last 4 digits are in that case forbidden). You can't have both. And salting the hashes gives you full benefit of 256-bit entropy.
Name is indeed allowed, but considered bad business practice, as most customers find it creepy. Most companies responsible for terminal software don't use that option for this reason.
What is best in life? Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper.
"Not peer to peer digital payments. I even transfer money to my wife this way."
Why, has she left you so you can't just give her cash?
"Just another clueless boooomer that thinks his way was the best possible way ever."
Soryr, wrong generation, try again. Not everyone under the age of 40 is in love with tech for its own sake.
It is hard to argue that you cannot trust the government when the government isn't really all that bad
Basically, a bunch of dipshit so-called anarchists like to whine about the government and having to follow laws. They never consider that people like me exist who would kill them for being rude, annoying, and stupid.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
"Theft" is not a useful word here. In a democracy, taxes are voluntarily imposed by the people of the country, so it's us enforcing our own rules on ourselves. If you don't like them, you're free to campaign against them. You don't actually have to pay taxes, but apparently you think it worthwhile to live in something like mainstream society and accept the benefits thereof.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Credit is just a measure of trust to pay debts. It's still all faith.
It's not "voluntary" when some people make decisions for other people. The People collectively are not a person who can makes unitary decisions about only himself that can rightly be called voluntary.
As for moving somewhere else to not pay taxes, you seem to have missed the whole point of my post, which was that you can't. States tend to spring up wherever there are no states, and those states tend to tax. Even somewhere you might say has "no government" like Somalia, has a lot of small governments: every warlord was established his own little state, because warlords are the primitive form of states, and you bet your ass they tax their subjects, because that's what warlords do. The only choice anyone has is whether to live under that kind of state and accept the taxes they impose in exchange for nothing, or to live under this kind of state and accept the taxes that they at least use to buy gifts for their subjects (and even ask them what they want, how nice!) to appease them. The latter is clearly better than the former, but a choice between a brutal thief and a gentle thief still leaves no option but to get robbed.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Since US dollar is Petrocurrency, inflation will be shifted to Oil importing nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Casteism
You can be robbed "off grid" by whoever is more powerful than you, just like you can be robbed "on grid" by the more-powerful state. For almost everyone, anywhere they go there will be someone more powerful than them, and people who hold power over others almost always use that to steal from others, unless another power stops them, but then that power will be doing the stealing. It's virtually impossible to get away from theft, or violence in general, but some violent thieving overlords will be gentler than others, and if they're also keeping the more vicious ones away by their presence, they're the best option for most people.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."