Slashdot Mirror
'The Cashless Society is a Con -- and Big Finance is Behind It' (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes this opinion piece by former derivatives broker Brett Scott:
Banks are closing ATMs and branches in an attempt to 'nudge' users towards digital services -- and it's all for their own benefit... I recently got a letter from my bank telling me that they are shutting down local branches because "customers are turning to digital", and they are thus "responding to changing customer preferences". I am one of the customers they are referring to, but I never asked them to shut down the branches... I am much more likely to "choose" a digital option if the banks deliberately make it harder for me to choose a non-digital option. In behavioural economics this is referred to as "nudging". If a powerful institution wants to make people choose a certain thing, the best strategy is to make it difficult to choose the alternative...
Digital systems may be "convenient", but they often come with central points of failure. Cash, on the other hand, does not crash. It does not rely on external data centres, and is not subject to remote control or remote monitoring. The cash system allows for an unmonitored "off the grid" space. This is also the reason why financial institutions and financial technology companies want to get rid of it. Cash transactions are outside the net that such institutions cast to harvest fees and data.
A cashless society brings dangers. People without bank accounts will find themselves further marginalised, disenfranchised from the cash infrastructure that previously supported them. There are also poorly understood psychological implications about cash encouraging self-control while paying by card or a mobile phone can encourage spending. And a cashless society has major surveillance implications.
While a cashless society might make it cheaper to run a bank, "A cashless society is not in your interest..." argues the author.
"We must recognise every cash machine that is shut down as another step in financial institutions' campaign to nudge you into their digital enclosures."
Digital systems may be "convenient", but they often come with central points of failure. Cash, on the other hand, does not crash. It does not rely on external data centres, and is not subject to remote control or remote monitoring. The cash system allows for an unmonitored "off the grid" space. This is also the reason why financial institutions and financial technology companies want to get rid of it. Cash transactions are outside the net that such institutions cast to harvest fees and data.
A cashless society brings dangers. People without bank accounts will find themselves further marginalised, disenfranchised from the cash infrastructure that previously supported them. There are also poorly understood psychological implications about cash encouraging self-control while paying by card or a mobile phone can encourage spending. And a cashless society has major surveillance implications.
While a cashless society might make it cheaper to run a bank, "A cashless society is not in your interest..." argues the author.
"We must recognise every cash machine that is shut down as another step in financial institutions' campaign to nudge you into their digital enclosures."
If they're so insistent on taking cash away, take it one step further in the opposite direction and remember, in your neighborhood, you are surrounded by a ton of people with a ton of valuable skill sets. Barter where you can and cut both the bank and the government out of the equation entirely. I just traded some of my IT time and knowledge for a neighbors expertise in electrical and plumbing. We both came out ahead all the happier, with no bills, taxes, invoices etc. to tally up once the taxman arrives. Not every interaction has to revolve around money, and I managed to make a couple good friends as an added bonus.
I think they (banks, Visa, etc.) Want to skim every transaction.
That is true in America, but not everywhere. In China, WeChat and AliPay have zero transaction costs for either buyer or seller. The value of the data collected is enough, and competition keeps them from charging fees.
I recently pulled up to a drive through of a nationwide bank chain to find that it had closed just a week before; I had to go into the lobby and stand in line.
While in line, a "personal banker" approached and asked if she could help me with anything. I commented about having to get out of my car and walk across the parking lot to come inside while it was raining.She explained that the bank was removing DT tellers at most locations, because so many people use digital payments.with their phones, so no one was using the DTs anymore.
I explained that I know just how secure phones are, and that I would never trust financial stuff to a device that is so easily stolen. "If they get your phone, they can get just about anything else."
She assured me that that was not true, and even if it were, I would only have to use their APP to track what was going on, and to report the bogus transactions.
"You mean the APP on my stolen phone, where your website sends the confirmation text for your two-factor authentication?"
She didn't appreciate the irony...