Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck United States

Cash Might Be King, but They Don't Care (nytimes.com) 679

In Midtown and some other neighborhoods across New York City, cashless is fast on its way to becoming normal, The New York Times reports, sharing anecdotes where merchants have refused to accept bills from customers (the link may be paywalled). From the report: Cashless businesses were once an isolated phenomenon, but now, similarly jarring experiences can be had across the street at Sweetgreen, or two blocks up at Two Forks, or next door to Two Forks at Dos Toros, or over on 41st Street at Bluestone Lane coffee. In the future, when dollar bills are found only in museum display cases, we will look back on this moment of transition and confusion with the same head-shaking smile with which we regard customs on the Isle of Yap in Micronesia, where giant stone discs are still accepted as payment for particularly big-ticket items. Some people already live in this cashless future. They find nothing strange about paying for a pack of gum with a swipe of a card. If you are one of these people and you are still somehow reading this article, you may be thinking, "What on earth is the big deal?" At Two Forks on 40th Street, where the lunch offerings have cheery names like Squash Goals, Kristin Junco, a 34-year-old auditor for the state Education Department, said she had not used cash for about a week and much prefers a cashless establishment to its opposite. "We travel a lot for work," she said, gesturing to a colleague, "and if they don't take credit cards that makes things difficult." [...] Not surprisingly, the credit card companies, who make a commission on every credit card purchase, applaud the trend. Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice. A Visa executive described this practice to CNN as offering shoppers "freedom from carrying cash."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cash Might Be King, but They Don't Care

Comments Filter:
  • by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @10:26AM (#55809001)

    Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice.

    Clearly they are wielding monopoly power now against GOVERNMENT-BACKED legal tender. If bribing vendors to reject Bills and accept only Visa fake money that only those with good credit or a bank account can get isn't a threat to freedom, democracy, and capitalism, then I dunno what would be.

    • by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @10:38AM (#55809097)

      Clearly they are wielding monopoly power now against GOVERNMENT-BACKED legal tender.

      I know it seems that way, but it's actually quite legal. The Fed said basically there's no law compelling businesses to accept cash, so refusing to do so is not illegal. A lawyer said that as long as the business states up front you have to pay by credit card to get service and they don't take cash at all, that's also not illegal.

    • I'm not seeing a future where only bank transactions or credit cards are excepted, it would require faith in these financial institutions to be private, secure, and accurate in their accounting. The three places where they fail.

    • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

      Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice.

      Clearly they are wielding monopoly power now against GOVERNMENT-BACKED legal tender. If bribing vendors to reject Bills and accept only Visa fake money that only those with good credit or a bank account can get isn't a threat to freedom, democracy, and capitalism, then I dunno what would be.

      Why would this not sort itself out naturally? If many of the merchant's customers want to pay with cash and are alienated, the merchant loses valuable business. Merchants are in business to make profit and if cash customers are vital to that profit, they would never take such an incentive. However, if there are very few cash customers and they think the $10k is worth more than the lost cash business, they will do it. What's the problem here? It's a free market. No one is being forcefully coerced to do

      • by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @11:06AM (#55809377)

        However, if there are very few cash customers and they think the $10k is worth more than the lost cash business, they will do it.

        Exactly. In other words, Visa will have CORRUPTED the free market through this cheating tactic by paying off / colluding with / restricting the behavior of players who would otherwise act in their own best interests, and ELIMINATED government-backed cash as a competitor: Without the bribe, the markets would likely succeed and the merchants would still take cash --- because It is in their best interests to trade with everyone they can make a profitable trade with, but WITH the bribe, the free markets will fail perhaps, because in many venues there might not be quite $10k a year spent in CASH FORM, AND establishments that take in $20k or $30k in cash might go negotiate their own private deals with Visa to get a % point taken off their fees or something in addition to the $10k.

        Don't like the merchant's practice, shop somewhere else.

        That's not an adequate answer to address the corruption of the marketplace.
        Point 1. being "Shop somewhere else" is not an acceptable resolution -- this places far too much burden on the consumer and threatens the viability of these government-backed notes, which the public has not affirmatively agreed to.

        Point 2 is.... the people who are cardless through no real fault of their own OR don't want to pay Visa an extra free for a prepaid cashcard of some sort don't even have a choice.

        Maybe I like unique food this restaurant has for sale. When the Civil Rights act passed; we as a society decided that places of public accommodation are important enough that some groups cannot be discriminatorily denied access "Cardless not welcome in our restaurant" simply should not fly.

      • by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @02:36PM (#55810999)

        Why would this not sort itself out naturally?

        Why on earth would it? I mean, processing rates haven't been subject to competitive pricing... ever.

        What's the problem here?

        The problems are several. First, it's exercising coercive power on customers. Second, people are bad at future costs. While it may be voluntary now, it may not be .later And if Visa/MC/Amex have a chokehold on commerce, they can jack up the rates and exercise huge control.

        It's a frog in boiling water situation. You speak up now while we have the freedom to choose another merchant, cause soon we may not be able to. See also, people who complained about Facebook before it became mandatory in some social groups.

    • by liquid_schwartz ( 530085 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @12:02PM (#55809855)
      A couple of points. First off the government doesn't really like us using cash as they want to monitor every single thing we do. Thus they prefer us using credit cards with all records being available to them. Second, banksters run the country and make ~2.5% per transaction this way so of course it will be preferred over cash.
  • eyeroll (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jbmartin6 ( 1232050 )

    Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice.

    This just sounds hysterical. What if the customer wants to pay with the mentioned stone discs? Is the business depriving them of yet another non-existent "right"?

    • Re:eyeroll (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @10:38AM (#55809081) Homepage Journal

      I agree. The "right" rests on a misunderstanding of "legal tender". It means it's valid for exchange, accepting it is not compulsory for a private business. The US Treasury has a page on the topic:

      https://www.treasury.gov/resou... [treasury.gov]

      "There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."

      This ignorance leads people to assume they can pay in buckets of pennies and they think they can legally force the receiver to accept it as payment.

      I'm not a fan of going cashless, I just don't think faulty arguments should be used to stop businesses.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Baron_Yam ( 643147 )

        I believe they must accept it as payment against a debt. The issue is that a debt doesn't exist unless the vendor hands over the product or delivers the service and invoices you.

        At a 'pay first' business, there is no debt at any point in the process.

      • Re:eyeroll (Score:5, Informative)

        by Khyber ( 864651 ) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @10:47AM (#55809191) Homepage Journal

        No, the misunderstanding is 'debt.' If you walk up to a register with an item, they can refuse the cash as no debt has incurred. At most sit-down restaurants you eat before paying, thus incurring a debt. They are obligated to accept that legal tender if presented, because there is an existing debt. If they do not accept the tender, their recourse would be to take it to court, where a judge most likely will wipe the debt and go "Why didn't you take the cash when presented?"

  • The poor still don't have free cards. They either have to pay for a credit card, usually via super high interest rates, or have to pay for a bank account.

    This is in addition to the issue of privacy, though their are apps like privacy.com (basically unlimited burner visa cards that pay for themselves by taking the 1% that credit cards usually offer as cashback) that offer enhanced privacy for cashless transactions.

    • The poor still don't have free cards. They either have to pay for a credit card, usually via super high interest rates, or have to pay for a bank account.

      The restaurants in the article are hipster restaurants in New York City, so the poor aren't going to be eating there any way. Now if this was something like McDonald's refusing to accept payment in anything but a credit card, that might be a problem for the poor.

      • Re:Poor (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Oligonicella ( 659917 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @02:03PM (#55810757)

        The restaurants in the article are hipster restaurants in New York City, so the poor aren't going to be eating there any way.

        Little bit of a hipster ourselves, aren't we?

        When I was younger and a single parent, my grandmother gave us $20. We dressed up and I took my daughter to a good restaurant. I paid with that cash.

        How pompous does one have to be to exclude someone visiting a nice establishment appropriately dressed just because they have a low income?

    • City of Philadelphia came up with a novel idea - their new transit pass (SEPTA Key) is also a Mastercard debit card.

    • by mark-t ( 151149 )
      The rich don't have free cards either. There are still yearly or monthly fees involved, just as with a bank account.
      • Re:Poor (Score:4, Interesting)

        by EndlessNameless ( 673105 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @11:04AM (#55809361)

        The rich don't have free cards either. There are still yearly or monthly fees involved, just as with a bank account.

        I very much doubt that. I am by no means wealthy, and none of my credit cards carry an annual fee.

        Obviously, I'd pay interest if I carried a balance from month to month, but that is true of any debt. As long as I pay my bill on time, I don't pay a penny more than what I would have paid in cash.

        • Re:Poor (Score:5, Informative)

          by olsmeister ( 1488789 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @11:08AM (#55809407)
          Some merchants do offer a cash discount.

          When there is no cash discount, the extra cost of the credit card purchase is 'baked in' to the price that everyone pays, including the people using cash. Which is a whole separate issue, since in that case why are the people who pay cash subsidizing those who are paying with credit?

          I know for me, I pay my CC bill in full every month (often every week). Not only do I not pay any interest, but I get cash back on all the money I spend, which incentivizes me to put as much stuff on the card as I can. This is also being subsidized by the people who use cash to pay for purchases by higher cost for goods and services across the board.
    • The poor still don't have free cards. They either have to pay for a credit card, usually via super high interest rates

      I can't remember offhand if it was made illegal to charge interest until after the next bill's due date. I know my credit cards have been that way for something like 15 years.

      or have to pay for a bank account.

      As far as I know, most credit unions don't charge any fees for regular savings and checking accounts, and the minimum balance is usually somewhere in the $5-25 range.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • cash costs money (Score:4, Insightful)

    by known_coward_69 ( 4151743 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @10:29AM (#55809019)

    accepting cash isn't free. Employees steal. You have to do the paperwork to keep track of it and account for all the receipts. Unless you run to the bank daily, you have to pay an armored car to pick it up and deposit it for you.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by robkeeney ( 1061032 )

      Exactly this. If I had a retail business, I would very strongly consider making it card only. No cash on site to be stolen in a robbery or skimmed by dishonest employees. No need to go to the bank to make deposits. No need to keep an appropriate amount of cash and coins on hand for making change, and no chance for screwing up making change. It would be so very much simpler to manage and reduce costs.

      • by Khyber ( 864651 )

        Man you know nothing of retail business. Many people pay cash-only because they don't want their spouses to know what they're doing. Try working the retail side of the porno industry some time.

        • Don't some porno shops have it set to stuff like ZXY entertainment group and not Jay's Adult Shop?

        • It would be a cold day in hell that I worked in the porn industry.

          Besides, there are pre-paid debit cards available at businesses that do accept cash which they can use to shield their illicit activities from their spouses.

      • Re:cash costs money (Score:5, Informative)

        by HornWumpus ( 783565 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @11:05AM (#55809371)

        If your employing thieves in retail, they will just take inventory. It's not like the tape doesn't already tell you the till is short.

        They are morons, coming up with consistent short tills makes it easy to identify exactly who's dishonest, vs. inventory shrinkage.

      • by omfglearntoplay ( 1163771 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @11:08AM (#55809399)

        Exactly the mentality of some small business owners I know, but the opposite of others. I see the dichotomy as such:

        1. Do you hate paying taxes, but are OK with paying 2% to a bank for every single thing you do?

        2. Do you trust big companies with skimming off the top, or do you trust your employees that you hand pick?

        3. Do you feel OK when the rich get richer, but get pissed off when the small guy gets a bonus 1% higher than he got the year before?

        Basically, I feel you should either be a Scrooge and hate losing money in any case, letting the actual measured bottom dollar make the decision (including future change)... or you should cater to your local workers and your own employees. Bigger and bigger businesses breed monopolies that eventually screw everybody if you let them. Credit cards are designed to steal from the moderately rich, middle class, and poor alike to make the richer even more so. I use them, but locally I use cash more and more to try to keep prices down.

      • by j-beda ( 85386 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @12:42PM (#55810143) Homepage

        I have heard that Mountain Equipment Co-op ( http://www.mec.ca/ [www.mec.ca] ) used to give a cash discount to reflect the perceived lower costs associated with cash over plastic, until they did a closer accounting of the actual costs and realized that the cash costs were comparable to the plastic costs. Paying employees for count, sort, deposit, and otherwise handle the cash are real, unavoidable costs. Errors, accidents, and thefts impose additional costs that can be minimized by increased error checking and security procedures, but those procedures impose further direct costs. Non-cash transactions also have various costs (including errors, and thefts) associated with them beyond the transaction fees paid to the processor, but they are often so much smaller than cash handling costs that they can almost be ignored when making a comparison.

        Of course, the devil is in the details. Different businesses have different characteristics such that the balance between the the two can not be covered by blanket statements. And none of this addresses the psychology of the customer experience. It might be worthwhile taking a loss on the single pack of gum sales in order to maintain customer loyalty for more typical large purchases, or it might not.

        Some possible customer results: "I just want some gum, but they have a $5 minimum CC purchase, so I won't go in at all." "I know they have $5 minimum, so I will buy some milk and bread along with the gum." "They don't have a $5 minimum, but now that I'm here I might as well pickup some milk and the paper too." "Oh, their sign explains their fee structure, without demanding minimums, that is nice, so I'll pay using the format that costs them the least to process."

      • If I thought like you I wouldn't even get out of bed in the morning. My shop did about 970K in sales this year and 98% of it was cash and I had no problems counting out the money and taking it to the bank, and keep track on receipts and sales. You know stuff you do when you run a business and no my time doesn't cost me anything since I'm being paid to do it and it is my shop and my time.

    • Cards cost significantly more than cash. Cards cost 3%. Cash handling isn't nearly that expensive.
    • by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @11:40AM (#55809699) Journal

      accepting cash isn't free. Employees steal. You have to do the paperwork to keep track of it and account for all the receipts. Unless you run to the bank daily, you have to pay an armored car to pick it up and deposit it for you.

      Er, neither is accepting cards free. There's a significant fee on every transaction, so much so that in some places (where it is allowed) businesses will offer a lower price to those who pay cash. .

      (I'll grant you that a lot of the risk is offloaded to other entities when cards are used, and that therefore you might think the fees worthwhile in that respect. However, the customer and public are pissed at you, Spatula Warehouse, for having your systems compromised and their accounts hit with fraudulent charges, they are not pissed at Visa or BigBank.)

      But in any case, accepting cards isn't free either.

    • Re:cash costs money (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PPH ( 736903 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @12:35PM (#55810089)

      Unless you run to the bank daily,

      This is a major issue.

      I have a fiend who used to run a primarily cash business. He could easily do $10K or $15K of sales a day. And he didn't like having that much cash on hand. So he'd send the store manager to the bank a couple times a day with a $5K deposit. Until some federal agents paid him a visit. Multiple daily deposits under the reporting limit triggered a "money laundering" investigation. Never mind that he had a legitimate business, documented his receipts and he didn't really care if the bank made the requisite reports based on his daily total receipts. It was cash and an excuse to hassle a business into cutting back on cash.

      Cash has gone from legal tender to probable cause of criminal activity in this country. And in some cases, just having too much cash is a crime in and of itself. No more 'innocent until proven guilty'. The feds will just make your life hell if you look 'wrong'.

  • by hipsterdufus ( 42989 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @10:32AM (#55809035)

    I don't think my bank or credit card company needs to know where I eat lunch every day. Sure, I use plastic to avoid dealing with a cashier (gas stations and parking) and of course for online shopping where you can't use cash. I find cash convenient for me and faster than a lot of transactions I see when people have to use a card, wait for it to authorize, some then fire up a printer, then they sign it. Dunno. My bank probably thinks I'm a drug dealer. My cash machine is only a few minutes away from the office, so it's easy to get more. Lots of point-of-sale machines at small shops get malware on them as well. We've had a few instances at work where a lot of people suddenly saw unexpected charges on their cards. In both cases, a nearby lunch place had their point-of-sale system infected and it stole their information. So, it does happen.

    Get off my lawn...I suppose?

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      I find cash to be taking a lot longer in modern days. It's very rare I still have to wait for a slip of paper to sign, any purchase under $50 doesn't require it anymore and most systems now come with on-screen signing. I can just swipe the card before the cashier is even done scanning. With cash I have to count money, find change, wait for the cashier to punch it in, then wait for them to count change and then hope I don't lose the change somewhere or drop it on the floor.

    • by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @11:21AM (#55809531)

      I pay with cash because I don't to end up living in a world where the government has 100% visibility on all of my financial transactions. Not because I do anything fishy with them, but because once everything is electronic, confiscation will also become a trivial measure. At least with cash they'll have to go door to door.

      Not to mention negative interest rates. The only thing that keeps interest rates in check now is the threat of people withdrawing all of their money at once. Once that threat is gone, there will be no limit on negative interest rate as well.

    • I don't think my bank or credit card company needs to know where I eat lunch every day.

      I find that leaving a trail of where I have been to be useful. People often think of only the negative aspects of someone being able to tell where you were. However, a couple key tracking elements, like " I ate at this restaurant at this time as evidenced by my credit card payment, you can observe me entering the restaurant at this time as evidenced by the parking lot security cam, and further verified by the nearby cell phone tower logs, you can make a personless alibi supported by data. I've been having

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @10:34AM (#55809047)

    We have a big problem with cashless businesses. Where I live you can't go swimming or take the bus with cash.

    I think it's a shame. You should be careful to preserve the cash option. First of all it's good for kids to learn the value of money, you don't get the same sense of spending if you don't lose something physical. Second of all, if your bank screws up you're supposed to be able to take out your money and walk out of the bank. If you can't use the cash you take out the banks' power increases a lot.

    • by Rick Zeman ( 15628 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @11:03AM (#55809353)

      We have a big problem with cashless businesses. Where I live you can't go swimming or take the bus with cash.

      I think it's a shame. You should be careful to preserve the cash option. First of all it's good for kids to learn the value of money, you don't get the same sense of spending if you don't lose something physical. Second of all, if your bank screws up you're supposed to be able to take out your money and walk out of the bank. If you can't use the cash you take out the banks' power increases a lot.

      I've been wondering how much the Salvation Army bell ringers have been hurting since less and less people carry cash with them.

  • Oh, please... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by magusxxx ( 751600 ) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `0002_xxxsugam'> on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @10:36AM (#55809069)

    ...they're doing it because they think they'll have less chance of being robbed.

  • dine and dash if you cash only = legal?

    What if are in the place where you just have cash or only have and a card they don't take?? Can they call the cops on you? Do they have to a big sign + the sever saying up front that we do not take cash?

    In an criminal court some fine print may not stand up.

    • dine and dash if you cash only = legal?

      No. Businesses have no federal obligation to accept cash.

      What if are in the place where you just have cash or only have and a card they don't take?? Can they call the cops on you? Do they have to a big sign + the sever saying up front that we do not take cash?

      Then you're up shit creek.

    • by mark-t ( 151149 )

      Do they have to a big sign + the sever saying up front that we do not take cash?

      Yes, in fact they do...

      However, I'm still not sure that it would stand up if push came to shove... because in the end, payment for a meal after having received it is a *DEBT*, and cash is still always a legal offer of payment for debts.

  • Are the obstacles towards going cashless technological or political?

    Just supposing the technology did exist to have cards that held a representation of value. Let's say that these cards were backed by the government (i.e. so that you could transfer money to an individual or organisation without anyone having to pay charges on the transfer). Lastly let's also say that such technology was anonymous (i.e. so that if I stole your card with whatever 'money' was on it, I could use it without anyone asking me whet

  • small shops want you to buy more then a pack of gum to be able to use a card!

  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @10:49AM (#55809217)

    Of course, NYC assumes their experience is typical. But where I'm at, EVERYONE still uses cash. It actually annoys me, because it takes time to make change. I'm actually surprised when I see someone else (like myself) paying with a debit card. Cash is still king here.

    At least it's not as bad as it was in the 1980's in Miami, though. Back then, with all the drug smugglers, *everything* in that city ran on cash. People bought cars and mansions with suitcases full of cash (and banks, realtors, and car dealerships never asked where it came from, of course). It was a very strange place to be.

  • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @10:52AM (#55809241)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by p51d007 ( 656414 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @11:09AM (#55809421)
    Government wants a cashless world. It's about control. When you no longer have any tangible assets, they can take whatever money they want (ask Greece). Or, they can control/monitor your purchases. Outlaw cash...then make a law about healthcare tied to what you spend. Go into a fast food establishment...order a cheeseburger, fries and a coke....BZZZZZZZ sorry, your last healthcare checkup says your BMI is too high. Try to buy a sports car...BZZZZZZZ...sorry, your driving record shows too many speeding tickets. DON'T think it can't happen!
  • by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @11:25AM (#55809565)

    >"A Visa executive described this practice to CNN as offering shoppers "freedom from carrying cash.""

    This needs to be stopped. That is NOT "freedom", it is the exact opposite. Cash should *ALWAYS* be accepted at merchants. I see nothing wrong with cash-only, or offering both cash and credit/debit, but there are huge potential issues with credit/debit only, not the least of which is privacy and tracking. Also- emergencies and technology failures.

  • As a retailer... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @11:36AM (#55809677)
    ... cards are *expensive*. They're about 3%. It doesn't take 3% of our gross revenue to handle cash. Nowhere close to that.

    These businesses who can afford to throw away 3% of their gross right off the top are doing so because either:
    - Their products are severely overpriced, and they don't mind giving 3% to Visa/MC
    - They're being run by very inept people.

    I use cash everywhere possible. It's easy. It's cheap. It's anonymous.
  • by Wowsers ( 1151731 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @01:14PM (#55810391) Journal

    A lot of people use cards for payment because they don't have to have a pile of cash, it's sort of quick (so long as the bank network doesn't go down), you can track payments, but there are very serious downsides that these people who are pushing the so called cashless society do not want to consider and definitely do now want to tell people about.

    1. You can track all payments. Fine if you're dopey person parroting the state's "Nothing to hide nothing to fear" nonsense, but that means they will know everything about you, what newspaper you buy, did you buy a sex toy, did you give your grandchildren a bit of birthday money.
    2. You lose all control of your wealth. What I mean is, instead of having an ability to buy what you want with cash, the moment it's all electronic, the government can stop you existing by freezing your access to electronic "money". Good luck to eating / paying bills without money. This can be extended so you vote the right way in elections nothing happens, and raid your account as punishment if you voted "the wrong way".
    3. With no cash, at a moment's notice, the government can decide it will raid all your bank / savings accounts for x%, just like the European Central Bank did to Cyprus - they called that state crime a "bail-in". Noticed how the US economy is $19Trillion+ in debt, reduce it by raiding your accounts one day, you won't have a say in it.
    4. With electronic "money", there is NOTHING to stop the banks and card providers suddenly increasing their transaction fees. Want to protest about it? Too late, you have no alternate way of paying for anything,.
    5. Much is made of the ability to track transactions, with the claim you can stop money laundering. This is false. If a drug dealer for example has a suitcase of $20 bills, it's going to weigh a lot, and attract a lot of attention. But in the electronic world, at a press of a button, that same amount of money can be sent around the world any number of times, cleaning it. Nobody does it? Just ask HSBC (and other banks) who where caught doing just that, laundering money for drug cartels.
    6. Cash funds crimes and terrorism? It's far easier to move electronic "money" around to fund terrorism, just ask governments and banks and stock exchanges, they do it daily.

    So before people think what a great idea going cashless is, you better be prepared to sign your life away to being totally controlled, and not cry about it when it is.

  • The Down Side (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LeftCoastThinker ( 4697521 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @01:59PM (#55810713)

    Cashless is great, convenient etc. until it isn't. Wait until the next hurricane, earthquake or N Korea shoots an EMP attack and the power is out for days or weeks. Then the people with no cash will be stuck with no ways to buy food and water or other necessities... There is a reason that hard currency is still around even when credit cards have been around for decades.

    The other problem with going cashless is the invasion of privacy that is routine by big businesses and the government. If you are fine with both knowing every intimate detail of your life, go for it, but if not, you may want to make some purchases with untraceable cash.

Basic is a high level languish. APL is a high level anguish.

Working...