A society without cash is a society in which every person has no choice but to get the permission of someone they don’t know and will never meet each and every time they seek to obtain food, water, shelter, or transportation, and that permission can be revoked instantly, silently, and invisibly at any time.
This is now before the city council in NYC, as the article points out, so the topic has come up in conversation more recently (and it’s noticeable, my office is in the area profiled in the story) and it’s amazing how many people just haven’t considered the basic dynamics of that.
> that permission can be revoked instantly, silently, and invisibly at any time
This can happen with cash too, as 99% of Indians found out to their utter dismay on 8 November 2016!! [1].
Granted that this is a Black Swan event [2] and the revocation was done publicly. However, as someone who lived through this and experienced it first hand, I stopped trusting cash from that day onwards. I carry just enough with me to get by for couple of days.
I don't know of any other single event that sent shockwave through 1300+ million humans literally overnight.
My bank locked me out of my account because they didn't approve of the way I was using it (crypto whitdrawal). All fully legal, from an exchange account I hold in my name. They now give me the runarround asking me to prove with paper documents that I own the money (interesting reversal to physical interaction). No calls, no case person I can talk to, just an impersonal postage address, and if I contact the branch all I get is 'you need to send the documents'. I did, more than two weeks ago, I dropped them in this very branch. Sorry, we can't help you because "an investigation is ongoing". So I am guilty and without money until proven otherwise.
Bottom line, cashless without a citizen right to unreversible banking is a form of bondage. It creates a paralel, private justice system, where you have no rights and your are judged by the value you have as a customer of the bank. A small customer is worthless and rightless.
Can't you just bring the traditional justice system back into it, for instance, by suing them in small claims court demanding the release of your money? The judiciary supersedes whatever internal mechanisms the bank has; if the court tells the bank to give back your money corrected for inflation plus moral damages, they have no choice but to comply.
> My bank locked me out of my account because they didn't approve of the way I was using it (crypto whitdrawal).
How much did you withdraw? You may have hit an anti-money laundering trigger. Nobody cares if you withdraw small sums of money, but anything over $10k usually sends alarm bells ringing.
I've traveled to developing countries (not Africa).
Reality is mobile money is big - it basically lets the poor / unbanked have kind of a virtual wallet it seemed. I never signed up (westerner with a Visa card and USD) but didn't feel like it was locking people out. Folks using these wallets could transfer funds internationally to relatives surprisingly easily it seemed (I'm used to western union) as well.
Be interesting if something like these non-bank mobile wallets ever come to US (in overseas countries you can load your wallet with cash on street everywhere so you don't have to have a visa / debit card to do so).
As a counterfactual the other hand everyone in China appears to pay by mobile phone without problems using WeChat Pay and Alipay and no one seems to be locked out. Almost no one I know carries cash - it's just for the tourists who can't access that system. In Africa, mobile payments seems to have driven financial inclusion rather than the reverse.
The cashless economy certainly drives de-anonymization, but very little evidence of "locking out poor" exists where this has actually happened
Only about 60% of all Chinese even have a smartphone. [1] "Everyone" you saw was probably a relatively well-off member of the middle class in a first-tier city. As a tourist, you obviously won't see anyone who can't afford visiting a touristy area. Try looking for a place more than an hour from any public transport and check again whether the people there all use cashless payment.
China is not a cashless society, and as long as you have the option to use cash the effects are minimal (as described in the article).
A cashless economy will not only crush the poor, but also hit the middle class: it allows for a negative interest rate (can't withdraw your savings). I also suspect that it could enable many subtle ways to coerce consumers into certain behaviour: All your money is now just the number you see in your bank's app, giving the bank's marketing department a lot of power how you see and interact with and ultimately use that money.
In those society, most people are more poor than we are. So what you think are the poors are not. To be poor means there is such a difference in lifestyle from the majority of people in your country that you can't afford the basic things that they can. What is a basic things change from place to place.
So what's poor in Africa or China is way more miserable that you think it is. And those persons, instead of being excluded like in our society, are either cast slaves (india), dead (africa) or in camps/prison (china).
You don't see no cash affecting them because there is no opportunity for them to be.
> everyone in China appears to pay by mobile phone without problems using WeChat Pay and Alipay and no one seems to be locked out.
That is not true. I met people who don't have Alipay/WeChat on weekly basis. China's central bank beat those who refuse to accept cash payment with a big stick - Alibaba's Freshhema is a high profile target the central bank recently picked, there was actually a news article on that yesterday.
For me, I am more concerned about the fact that people's life could be dramatically affected if both Alipay/WeChat ban their accounts, say due to some business disputes. There is so far no regulation on this whatsoever.
And controlled remotely. It gives massive power in the hands of those who control the tech. It's downright dystopian. I mean... the tech itself is great... but combined with what we know of human nature, it's a recipe for high-tech feudalism.
Another side-effect is for donations. In London it's possible to live without any cash. Even markets are accepting cards now.
There are often charities that are asking for money at the entrances of the tube. The UK is depending quite heavily on charities for people in need. This year it looks like they started equipping themselves with contact-less payment systems. It would be interesting to be able to see the numbers behind the scene.
What is quite sad is that beggars are not able to equip themselves with contact-less payment systems. I assume that they necessarily will become dependent on the charities to be able to survive.
> What is quite sad is that beggars are not able to equip themselves with contact-less payment systems
In Sweden I've seen a beggar with a "Swish" number displayed. (Swish is the domestic cashless person-to-person payment system, all you need to use it is a cell phone and a bank account). So it's not impossible for beggars to be cashless.
There is an important point to be discussed, that happens mainly in violent/poor countries: the frequent robbery (and it's consequences, like murders).
A cashless economy will help solve this problem that affects everyone, especially the poor (paradoxically).
They just need to work in pairs; they'll demand your card/phone and PIN, then hold you while they buy something with it. It's well known that criminals use unofficial currencies when they can't use cash.
A cashless society requires computers to work flawlessly to function. It requires those controlling the network to make decisions with the public's best interest foremost.
If the problem is that some people don't have a checking account, wouldn't it better to provide them with a cheap/free checking account?
Even if all local shops accept cash, there's still tons of stuff you can't do without a checking account.
On the topic of cash-free living: I only use cash for 3 things these days: to buy cheese, to pay my cleaning lady, and for my son's weekly allowance. Even the babysitters accept online payment these days.
1) What is more secure - Venmo behind face ID on an apple phone or a checking account that literally anyone who has the numbers (which you give when you write a check) can take money out of, either by creating a versa check or doing an ACH debit so all your money disappears? You are a poor person - are you in a good position to see dispute resolution through?
2) Garnishment orders - can the state or other collectors garnish the checking account - so all your money disappears?
3) Will the bank allow the account to go negative, charging major fees, then blacklisting you with checksystems?
4) How controllable is saving money in these accounts? Some folks "save" money by not cashing their checks, then going to a check cashing place when they need the money.
Is it possible that a few % of population have medical debt, tax debt or other support orders that make using a normal checking account difficult? Past experience with fraud or being ripped off in a checking account?
> wouldn't it better to provide them with a cheap/free checking account?
I don't know about everywhere in the world, but aren't most 'checking' (most people don't use checks any more) or current accounts already free? They make money off investing your deposit. How much are people paying for their current accounts?
Forcing people that are struggling to live day-to-day to use bank accounts just makes life worse for them.
The first thing that happens when they're in debt is that their bank account gets frozen to pay the debts leaving them with nothing.
Forcing all transactions to be electronic takes away the margins they live in. It's no longer possible for them to pay 1/2 their rent with a promise to pay the rest in a couple of days when they get paid so that they can feed their children during that period. The rent comes out of their account on time and their children go hungry until payday.
Instead of stopping business from doing what is best for them, why don't we help the poor by providing them with the tools necessary to take part on the economy? Is it possible to help those less fortunate to have access to the right tools?
Why are businesses in large cities going cashless? Are there any sinister reasons for doing this? The article seems too harsh. I thought going cashless was mainly to speed things up during check out.
[+] [-] CPLX|7 years ago|reply
This is now before the city council in NYC, as the article points out, so the topic has come up in conversation more recently (and it’s noticeable, my office is in the area profiled in the story) and it’s amazing how many people just haven’t considered the basic dynamics of that.
[+] [-] vishnugupta|7 years ago|reply
> that permission can be revoked instantly, silently, and invisibly at any time
This can happen with cash too, as 99% of Indians found out to their utter dismay on 8 November 2016!! [1].
Granted that this is a Black Swan event [2] and the revocation was done publicly. However, as someone who lived through this and experienced it first hand, I stopped trusting cash from that day onwards. I carry just enough with me to get by for couple of days.
I don't know of any other single event that sent shockwave through 1300+ million humans literally overnight.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Indian_banknote_demonetis...
[2] I sincerely hope so. Though it's been carried out a few times in India, thankfully not within the same generation.
[+] [-] jopsen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ganzuul|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yholio|7 years ago|reply
Bottom line, cashless without a citizen right to unreversible banking is a form of bondage. It creates a paralel, private justice system, where you have no rights and your are judged by the value you have as a customer of the bank. A small customer is worthless and rightless.
[+] [-] cesarb|7 years ago|reply
Can't you just bring the traditional justice system back into it, for instance, by suing them in small claims court demanding the release of your money? The judiciary supersedes whatever internal mechanisms the bank has; if the court tells the bank to give back your money corrected for inflation plus moral damages, they have no choice but to comply.
[+] [-] jbob2000|7 years ago|reply
How much did you withdraw? You may have hit an anti-money laundering trigger. Nobody cares if you withdraw small sums of money, but anything over $10k usually sends alarm bells ringing.
[+] [-] privateSFacct|7 years ago|reply
Reality is mobile money is big - it basically lets the poor / unbanked have kind of a virtual wallet it seemed. I never signed up (westerner with a Visa card and USD) but didn't feel like it was locking people out. Folks using these wallets could transfer funds internationally to relatives surprisingly easily it seemed (I'm used to western union) as well.
Be interesting if something like these non-bank mobile wallets ever come to US (in overseas countries you can load your wallet with cash on street everywhere so you don't have to have a visa / debit card to do so).
[+] [-] sfifs|7 years ago|reply
The cashless economy certainly drives de-anonymization, but very little evidence of "locking out poor" exists where this has actually happened
[+] [-] yorwba|7 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/257045/smartphone-user-p...
[+] [-] UweSchmidt|7 years ago|reply
A cashless economy will not only crush the poor, but also hit the middle class: it allows for a negative interest rate (can't withdraw your savings). I also suspect that it could enable many subtle ways to coerce consumers into certain behaviour: All your money is now just the number you see in your bank's app, giving the bank's marketing department a lot of power how you see and interact with and ultimately use that money.
[+] [-] sametmax|7 years ago|reply
So what's poor in Africa or China is way more miserable that you think it is. And those persons, instead of being excluded like in our society, are either cast slaves (india), dead (africa) or in camps/prison (china).
You don't see no cash affecting them because there is no opportunity for them to be.
[+] [-] dis-sys|7 years ago|reply
That is not true. I met people who don't have Alipay/WeChat on weekly basis. China's central bank beat those who refuse to accept cash payment with a big stick - Alibaba's Freshhema is a high profile target the central bank recently picked, there was actually a news article on that yesterday.
For me, I am more concerned about the fact that people's life could be dramatically affected if both Alipay/WeChat ban their accounts, say due to some business disputes. There is so far no regulation on this whatsoever.
[+] [-] Rainymood|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Santosh83|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zimbatm|7 years ago|reply
There are often charities that are asking for money at the entrances of the tube. The UK is depending quite heavily on charities for people in need. This year it looks like they started equipping themselves with contact-less payment systems. It would be interesting to be able to see the numbers behind the scene.
What is quite sad is that beggars are not able to equip themselves with contact-less payment systems. I assume that they necessarily will become dependent on the charities to be able to survive.
[+] [-] kalleboo|7 years ago|reply
In Sweden I've seen a beggar with a "Swish" number displayed. (Swish is the domestic cashless person-to-person payment system, all you need to use it is a cell phone and a bank account). So it's not impossible for beggars to be cashless.
[+] [-] clort|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KrishnaAnaril|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] romanovcode|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] i_know_nothing|7 years ago|reply
A cashless economy will help solve this problem that affects everyone, especially the poor (paradoxically).
[+] [-] icebraining|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foolfoolz|7 years ago|reply
they going to make you open your phone. send your money away to them. then steal your phone.
[+] [-] CapitalistCartr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mcv|7 years ago|reply
Even if all local shops accept cash, there's still tons of stuff you can't do without a checking account.
On the topic of cash-free living: I only use cash for 3 things these days: to buy cheese, to pay my cleaning lady, and for my son's weekly allowance. Even the babysitters accept online payment these days.
[+] [-] privateSFacct|7 years ago|reply
2) Garnishment orders - can the state or other collectors garnish the checking account - so all your money disappears?
3) Will the bank allow the account to go negative, charging major fees, then blacklisting you with checksystems?
4) How controllable is saving money in these accounts? Some folks "save" money by not cashing their checks, then going to a check cashing place when they need the money.
Is it possible that a few % of population have medical debt, tax debt or other support orders that make using a normal checking account difficult? Past experience with fraud or being ripped off in a checking account?
[+] [-] chrisseaton|7 years ago|reply
I don't know about everywhere in the world, but aren't most 'checking' (most people don't use checks any more) or current accounts already free? They make money off investing your deposit. How much are people paying for their current accounts?
[+] [-] ilovetux|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msh|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GraemeL|7 years ago|reply
The first thing that happens when they're in debt is that their bank account gets frozen to pay the debts leaving them with nothing.
Forcing all transactions to be electronic takes away the margins they live in. It's no longer possible for them to pay 1/2 their rent with a promise to pay the rest in a couple of days when they get paid so that they can feed their children during that period. The rent comes out of their account on time and their children go hungry until payday.
[+] [-] thefounder|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plgonzalezrx8|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|7 years ago|reply
Having a cash option available benefits society and just giving poor people electronic banking would not confer the same benifits.
[+] [-] sxp62000|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|7 years ago|reply
They must have hit a tipping point where the faff of cash drawers, trips to the bank and so on were not worth it.
[+] [-] ganzuul|7 years ago|reply
Might not be a thing in the land of hipster-ish coffee shops.
[+] [-] IshKebab|7 years ago|reply