Getting rid of cash

easynote

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

And why would banks want to put themselves out of business, since the only way they turn a real profit is through loans?

They would still be able to as much business through loans, they don't usually give you cash when you take out a loan. Cash is barely ever involved in any bank loans.

phantom_lord

easynote wrote: »

I don't mind but am only interested in talking about signs of cash disappearing and becoming more expensive (I have to pay 3% on withdrawal in penalty on my credit card but purchases are free, why?)

They make about that much from retailers on your purchases, by you taking your credit as a cash advance they miss out on that money so they charge you instead.

phantom_lord

yekahs wrote: »

The international monetary market and money supply is a much more complex topic than whether or not the world is flat. I have a BComm and I have no shame in admitting I don't fully understand the ins and outs of it.

The best way to counter misinformation, is by providing the correct information, not simply dismissing it.

It's printing money though, it's a simple aspect of that tbf.

The whole premise is so ridiculous and only talked about in ct circles, no economics textbook/forum/or anyone with pertinent knowledge would mention it or have any time for it.

Now either cters have found something out about this area that no one who works or studies it knows about, or they just haven't a clue what their talking about and have just come up with some wild fantasies pretty much like that freeman nonsense.

Seriously this ct is just so absurd and illogical.

Anyway without getting into any of the ins and outs of it; to debunk it really simply and quickly take the extreme examples of governments turning on the printing press in the case of the weimar republic in the 20s and then zimbabwe in recent years. Both times this was done to PAY OFF debts. Now if printing money incurred debt, they wouldn't have gone down that route would they?

old_aussie

easynote wrote: »

I have started to get suspicious about the attempt in some countries to begin to wean people off using money in form of notes and coins....

Please tell me which countries

Mahatma coat

You Live in One

Mahatma coat

phantom_lord wrote: »

It's printing money though, it's a simple aspect of that tbf.

You still havent explained your point tho

The whole premise is so ridiculous and only talked about in ct circles, no economics textbook/forum/or anyone with pertinent knowledge would mention it or have any time for it.

And the Fundamentals of the Economy were Considered Sound in 2007 by these self same Economists Pertinent Knowledge.

Now either cters have found something out about this area that no one who works or studies it knows about, or they just haven't a clue what their talking about and have just come up with some wild fantasies pretty much like that freeman nonsense.

Have you Seen the Money Masters, What points do you disagree with????

Seriously this ct is just so absurd and illogical.

:rolleyes:

Anyway without getting into any of the ins and outs of it; to debunk it really simply and quickly take the extreme examples of governments turning on the printing press in the case of the weimar republic in the 20s and then zimbabwe in recent years. Both times this was down to PAY OFF debts. Now if printing money incurred debt, they wouldn't have gone down that route would they?

I Think that actually highlights the Point I was trying to make

phantom_lord

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I Think that actually highlights the Point I was trying to make

Well, you may think that but your point was printing money incurs debt. Which is pretty much the opposite of what the example I gave did.

And the Fundamentals of the Economy were Considered Sound in 2007 by these self same Economists Pertinent Knowledge.

Um, nope. But irrespective of that, that's not very relevant to the point in hand is it? Apples and oranges.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Have you Seen the Money Masters

Of course not. But if it's points are what you said earlier then I really don't need to waste my time on it.

easynote

phantom_lord wrote: »

They make about that much from retailers on your purchases, by you taking your credit as a cash advance they miss out on that money so they charge you instead.

No, they have a flat fee for every transaction, they are not charging the reatailers a percentage fee for every purchase amount...

In nordic countries this fee has recently been lowered, due to the fact that 'they' want us to use our cards as often as possible, and they don't want the retailers to have a minimum purchase amount set for card transactions.

I am talking about about mainly western countries, in some countries this practice of trying to get rid of the cash-use is more prevalent and noticable than in others.

You'd notice if you travel.

easynote

Is anyone here considering starting using cash more often and telling their friends why they should also do so?

MCMLXXXIII

phantom_lord wrote: »

huh? a government doesn't indebt itself by printing money.

"huh?" Of course it does. This goes back to when money was either backed by gold or other metals, or it was pegged to a currency backed by gold/metal. During this time, you could take the bank note to the government, and they would give you the proper amount of gold, etc. So each note was considered a debt to the public. Bank notes are considered property of the central bank, which is why it is technically a crime to deface or destroy them.

Now, money isn't tied to gold or any other metal anymore, which leads to the question:

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So Banknotes have ZERO Debt incurred in their creation??

Governments Dont Borrow the money into existence,they just Print Debt free Currency, is that what you're saying?????

You (obviously) can’t take bank notes and demand gold anymore because money is “backed by the full faith and credit” of the issuing central bank. However, when you get a loan from (example) Bank of Ireland, they consider it a debit to their account and therefore a liability of which they hope to eventually recover. It’s the same way with a central bank and a government. The central bank borrows money to commercial banks, and the central bank hopes to eventually be repaid. Even on a personal level it remains the same. If you borrow money from a bank to buy a house, the bank will take the house back if you do not make the payments. In places with property tax (like the US), if you do not pay the tax the government takes the land/house/etc. away from you. The problem, becomming apparent in the current recession, is that it would be hugely detrimental to socioety if a central bank called back all its loans from a commercial bank. This is why, I think, no one knows what to do or is too scared to do anything because it will (most likely) make everything even worse.

easynote wrote: »

They would still be able to as much business through loans, they don't usually give you cash when you take out a loan. Cash is barely ever involved in any bank loans.

Banks don’t give cash for loans because you (usually) need a good reason for taking out a loan, and it's (usually) a large sum of money. If I’m buying a house, I might need 200,000 euro, and that would be ridiculous to carry around. Plus, once I give the cash to the seller, all they are going to do is bring it back to the bank. To get back on point – credit cards were actually meant to replace cash. Well, credit cards were meant to replace checks, and checks were meant to replace cash. So, it seems what started out as a convenience became a runaway issue that banks and governments don’t necessarily want to stop, nor could they stop even if they tried.

easynote

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Banks don’t give cash for loans because you (usually) need a good reason for taking out a loan, and it's (usually) a large sum of money. If I’m buying a house, I might need 200,000 euro, and that would be ridiculous to carry around. Plus, once I give the cash to the seller, all they are going to do is bring it back to the bank. To get back on point – credit cards were actually meant to replace cash. Well, credit cards were meant to replace checks, and checks were meant to replace cash. So, it seems what started out as a convenience became a runaway issue that banks and governments don’t necessarily want to stop, nor could they stop even if they tried.

This is stating the obvious. I was answering your question that suggested banks would no longer do business in form of loans if cash was removed.

MCMLXXXIII

easynote wrote: »

This is stating the obvious. I was answering your question that suggested banks would no longer do business in form of loans if cash was removed.

I believe they would. Maybe because I'm thinking "too inside the box," but I can't imagine them doing anything else besides loans if cash was removed. How else would you get a loan for a house, etc.? Who would give you the money? ...and do you really think the banks would just "throw in the towel" that easily? The banks and government wouldn't (and couldn't) just let the entire banking industry disappear like that...

easynote

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Who would give you the money?

As been previously stated, you don't usually pay someone with cash when you get a bankloan to buy a house.

hugs to you- it is kind of a cute question...

MCMLXXXIII

easynote wrote: »

hugs to you- it is kind of a cute question...

Perhaps something just went over my head...

My arguement regarding this: banks would still exist, and would be used as an administrator of personal finance and wealth management based on the amount of credit received (electronically) from its respective central bank.

I think money, international currency, credit, tracking, etc. would substantially change, but I think commerce would remain the same.

easynote

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I think money, international currency, credit, tracking, etc. would substantially change, but I think commerce would remain the same.

ok so how would small scale trade at local level stay the same? *hugs*

MCMLXXXIII

easynote wrote: »

ok so how would small scale trade at local level stay the same? *hugs*

The bank of PayPal.

Seriously.

Either that, or some sort of direct-transfer option within your own commercial banks.

easynote

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

The bank of PayPal.

Seriously.

Either that, or some sort of direct-transfer option within your own commercial banks.

You're too cute.

The Recliner

easynote wrote: »

You're too cute.

Would you mind not cracking onto other users and either discuss the issue or drop it