How would you feel about a cashless society?

Gbear

Wibbs wrote: »

Riiight, yet credit card fraud is up 62% since '09, even with pin numbers and other security measures. With any security technology the system will adapt and find ways around it. One could argue credit cards make stealing easier. I had 500 quid stolen from my credit card last year. Only showed up on my bill a month later. It had been taken in some small town in the US that I've never been to and have no reason to ever visit. They didn't need to stick a musket in my face and shout "stand and deliver!". Now this is a CC with chip and pin and all that stuff. I reported it and they apologised profusely and immediately credited my account with little pressure from me. When I asked was this a regular thing and how easy was it to do, cue embarrassed silence followed by hurried excuses and no explanation. Plus as computer power gets faster and faster password security gets weaker and weaker.

In practice, we're in a mostly cash free society anyway, if you think about it.
How many people actually keep large amounts of cash around?
As it is, most people take cash out only when they need it. When they don't, it only exists digitally.

What's the difference in security between what we have now and a completely cashless society? It's sitting in my account waiting for people to hack in and steal it as we speak. How will allowing me to skip the step of taking money out of the wall altogether make it less safe?

No system's perfect but because it's more convenient it's probably the way we're heading regardless.

Wibbs wrote: »

Dodgy enough to start with, but I guarantee that stuff wouldn't stop with people on the dole. Next it would be checks on purchases by everyone else, with no doubt the "it's for your health" excuse. No thanks.

There's a difference between spending your own money or the governments money.
It's not actually really all that relevant here. I shouldn't have brought it up.

Wibbs wrote: »

Unless the entire world went cashless overnight there's one major flaw in your argument. In the absence of local cash, people would just start using other currencies for such transactions. Barter on a small scale, but more like dollars/yen/whatever on a large scale. The former USSR a good example(and there are more), where the dollar was used as a secondary currency. They could even create a second CC system.

An interesting point.
Again, a practical difficulty, but it doesn't really matter when determining what form of money is better in principal.
First we decide if it's a good idea, then we can determine how best to implement it.:)

Wibbs wrote: »

It's highly debatable if it's safer, easier to regulate up to a point, but that brings it's own civil liberty issues and the technology to bring it fruition would run side by side with the technology to circumvent it. Actually the latter would likely be ahead. It usually is.

See above point.

Wibbs wrote: »

If people started a secondary currency market it would arguably make it easier to evade taxes. Making money disappear is even easier. As we speak criminals are making money disappear using the legal banking system and the instant wiring of money again makes it easier to launder money. It's harder in practical terms with cold hard cash.

The example was more about how there'd be a very obvious paper trail of junkies buying heroin off you and so forth but I take your point.



With the difficulties mentioned a "perfect" cashless system - one with infinite security and convenience, is unlikely. But I suspect we'll continue towards that kind of system and eventually be as near to cashless as makes no difference. Some convenience will be sacrificed for acceptable security.

femur61

I notiecd in Paris a few years ago someone in McDonalds paying for a burger and chips with card and someone buying milk in a small shop using a card. Thought strange but unusual. Apparantly, not so an Austrian friend says nobody uses cash on the continent. He is semie retired here and all his bank transactions here and his home country are via internet,phone or card.

stefanovich

C14N wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

However cash will never go away. For tipping, small purchases, and for where you want to be untraceable.

Not necessarily. I for one am pro-cashless society and I think problems like this are quite easy to solve. One way to do it would be to have two cards, one like the current Laser card for large transactions and one top up card which would basically replace cash and wouldn't require a pin code or any security, just a quick scan. I think that would actually be faster than cash, I have often found myself feelingly like I'm holding people behind me up when getting change out for small transactions or gathering change up to try and shove into the wallet after the transaction.

I think most of the mainstream world will someday switch to cashless transactions entirely, even if not in my life.

New BOI Visa debit cards have an RFID chip which allows purchases up to 15 euro by just touching the card against a sensor. No pin needed.

hyperborean

stefanovich wrote: »

New BOI Visa debit cards have an RFID chip which allows purchases up to 15 euro by just touching the card against a sensor. No pin needed.

great idea, wonder when the infrastructure will be in place for this to work....

donegal_road

what will the army do if Ireland becomes cashless?

sarkozy

Cash or money is a 'universal exchange commodity'. Money has a long history, but simply, it came to be because it simplified things a lot. Instead of every single trade taking place on an ad hoc basis between, say, a farmer exchanging a sheep for two goats one day, and two goats for a wheelbarrow the next - the going 'price' - it meant people could exchange things much more easily and establish more commonly understood 'prices'.

So, money is, theoretically a goat or a sheep or a wheelbarrow, but the power complex (be it a state or a local community) has established this money or cash as the commonly understood commodity for exchanging all kinds of things.

And this made all kinds of things possible.

I'm very much in favour of alternative money systems because it's clear from this and previous global crises that the debt-based money system we toil under isn't working.

This links to the observation that money collapses certain various forms of 'value' into one - like regular commodities. One is the value of work gone into it - with all monies, someone had to work to make it by mining metals, etc. Another value is its use value - money is useful because it more smoothly facilitates trade between people (a wheelbarrow is useful to people in different ways, too, e.g. for transporting garden rubbish that's hard to carry, or drunken people who are hard to carry). Finally the exchange value is the value that is agreed between two people in a specific time and place and at which they will trade it for something else.

Will we move to a cashless society? I'd like to see the money system change towards something more 'voucher' based. But I'd also like to see 'money' exist alongside other forms of exchange (like various gift economies or barter systems) and even to experiment in parallel money systems. There are lots of interesting experiments happening, in Ireland as some have mentioned. Some Feasta books explain some of these in detail.

C14N

gaffer91 wrote: »

Why so?

C14N wrote: »

One way to do it would be to have two cards, one like the current Laser card for large transactions and one top up card which would basically replace cash and wouldn't require a pin code or any security, just a quick scan. I think that would actually be faster than cash, I have often found myself feelingly like I'm holding people behind me up when getting change out for small transactions or gathering change up to try and shove into the wallet after the transaction.

As others have pointed out there are already some systems in place that solve this problem even better than the way I suggested.

hyperborean wrote: »

The reduction of use is fine and dandy, efficient even but there are too many barriers to complete removel of physical legal tender. Power outages for one.

Do power outages not prevent most transactions now anyway since cash registers won't work and therefore won't be able to keep track of accounts?

sweeney1971

Read the Bible. The start of the 'Mark of the Beast'

Fromthetrees

I think a completely cashless society is an absolutely crazy idea. It's just simply not taking really basic factors into account about the practicality of all of it.


A couple of really basic 'real world' examples,

When I'm in the car and there is the fela selling the paper on the road, I role down the window, hand him 2 euro, take the paper and drive off basically without even having to stop the car fully, couldn't be any easier.

Farmers markets and market stalls are getting more and more common (and rightly so), is the lady who knits woolly hats in her spare time and tries to flog a few on a Saturday morning expected to invest in electronic chip and pin technology, same goes for the man trying to sell a few apples, it just doesn't make sense.


With weather getting more and more unpredictable around the world then we would be literally at the mercy of it at all times, a 24 hour power failure could literally cause chaos as people suddenly realise they have no way to feed themselves or even fill their car with petrol, it would be madness.


We will always need a tangible currency of some kind and if the government decided to abandon it then I can guarantee you one would rise up in it's place (whether it be deemed legal or not).

I can only speak for myself but I am simply not afraid of getting mugged in person, maybe if I was a 90 year old woman I might be, but I'm just simply not.
I am afraid that anyone on the planet with the wherewithal could 'hack' my debit card or my electronic banking details though.


Privacy and trust are the main reasons that we cannot move completely towards a cashless society. I (like many people) simply don't trust banks or corporations. What's to stop banks raising their transaction fees every year, the answer is nothing in a cashless society.The digital world is meant to supplement the physical world, not replace it.


Google 'paypal freeze'.

Gbear

Fromthetrees wrote: »

When I'm in the car and there is the fela selling the paper on the road, I role down the window, hand him 2 euro, take the paper and drive off basically without even having to stop the car fully, couldn't be any easier.

He has a little wireless dongle. You swipe your card against it (or even better, a chip embedded in your finger). Transaction complete.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Farmers markets and market stalls are getting more and more common (and rightly so), is the lady who knits woolly hats in her spare time and tries to flog a few on a Saturday morning expected to invest in electronic chip and pin technology, same goes for the man trying to sell a few apples, it just doesn't make sense.

'Invest' in the dongle mentioned above that costs a tenner?
Besides. I don't think anyone said stop using money tomorrow.
There'll likely be stragglers but given that we're already in a mostly cashless society and convenience is king, by stages, we will approach closer and closer to a cashless society.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

With weather getting more and more unpredictable around the world then we would be literally at the mercy of it at all times, a 24 hour power failure could literally cause chaos as people suddenly realise they have no way to feed themselves or even fill their car with petrol, it would be madness.

Jaysus that's a terrible point. Weather getting more and more unpredictable? Really?

Fromthetrees wrote: »

We will always need a tangible currency of some kind and if the government decided to abandon it then I can guarantee you one would rise up in it's place (whether it be deemed legal or not).

There'll probably always be a small amount of backup hard currency but in all likelyhood, we'll get to a point (and probably in the next 20 years I think) where we'll almost never use it.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I can only speak for myself but I am simply not afraid of getting mugged in person, maybe if I was a 90 year old woman I might be, but I'm just simply not.
I am afraid that anyone on the planet with the wherewithal could 'hack' my debit card or my electronic banking details though.

But they can already do that.
What would change if you replaced the act of going to the ATM now and again, with just leaving money in your account all the time?

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Privacy and trust are the main reasons that we cannot move completely towards a cashless society. I (like many people) simply don't trust banks or corporations. What's to stop banks raising their transaction fees every year, the answer is nothing in a cashless society.The digital world is meant to supplement the physical world, not replace it.

Again, the banks already control all your money. They already have transaction fees at some ATMs.

This red herring keeps coming up again and again.
We're already in the situation described. Seemingly, we like it too much to go back.
How many people store all their cash under their bed? They are the ones who aren't beholden to banks and power cuts and whatever else.

Fromthetrees

Gbear]He has a little wireless dongle. You swipe your card against it (or even better, a chip embedded in your finger). Transaction complete.

The bit about having a 'chip embedded' in my finger kinda makes my head explode, I think it's a crazy way to go. How is this in anyway necessary?
Like I said, the current way I buy my paper cannot in any way be quicker or easier, I don't even stop the car fully, it takes about 3 seconds.
I just have the attitude if it ain't broke, don't fix.

'Invest' in the dongle mentioned above that costs a tenner?
Besides. I don't think anyone said stop using money tomorrow.
There'll likely be stragglers but given that we're already in a mostly cashless society and convenience is king, by stages, we will approach closer and closer to a cashless society.

I agree we will use less and less cash in the future but never (in my opinion) to the extent of a cashless society.
Too many people deal in mainly cash for them to accept it for one.

Jaysus that's a terrible point. Weather getting more and more unpredictable? Really?

It's actually by far the most serious point. If we rely exclusively on electronic equipment to pay for goods and services and there is a, lets say 72 hour power blackout, how is the whole of society going to function?

What about a flood that damages the electronic equipment necessary for a shop to function whereas in a cash society they may have been able to open as soon as the flood has reseeded?

There'll probably always be a small amount of backup hard currency but in all likelyhood, we'll get to a point (and probably in the next 20 years I think) where we'll almost never use it.

I just don't know, I like going down to the post office and paying my bills in cash (and I suspect I'm not the only one).
Personally, I think the direct debit is the greatest curse to my financial mental health, stupid X company taking vast sums of money out of my account without telling me (I accept this is just a personal gripe).

But they can already do that.
What would change if you replaced the act of going to the ATM now and again, with just leaving money in your account all the time?

Common sense would tell me that the more presence you have online (with correct details ) both financial and personal the more vulnerable you are to being compromised in any way.

Again, the banks already control all your money. They already have transaction fees at some ATMs.

Did you google 'paypal freeze'? It's pretty scary.
In a non cashless society I know I have enough to get me by if someone, anyone 'decides' to freeze my bank/ financial account.

This red herring keeps coming up again and again.
We're already in the situation described. Seemingly, we like it too much to go back.
How many people store all their cash under their bed? They are the ones who aren't beholden to banks and power cuts and whatever else.

I think you'd be surprised by the amount of people that keep a sizeable amount of cash in a 'safe place'. I'd almost say most old people do it and with distrust of banks at an all time high more and more people are doing it now.

Again, what's to stop banks raising their transaction fees every year, the answer is nothing in a cashless society.

sweeney1971

The Mark of the Beast. Revelation 13:16-18

Gbear

Fromthetrees wrote: »

The bit about having a 'chip embedded' in my finger kinda makes my head explode, I think it's a crazy way to go. How is this in anyway necessary?
Like I said, the current way I buy my paper cannot in any way be quicker or easier, I don't even stop the car fully, it takes about 3 seconds.
I just have the attitude if it ain't broke, don't fix.

Convenience isn't necessary - it's nice.
Never having to worry about cash and having a chip in your finger would be really really convenient.
If you needed to buy anything all you need to have is your finger and it only takes a second.
Whether getting the paper off yer man at the side of the road (incidentally, papers will probably disappear within 20 years) is quicker with the swipe of a finger or if you happen to have the exact change handy isn't really relevant.

If in general it's quicker to use the chip in your finger then most things will switch to that system if possible.
If it's faster to use the chip for 9/10 things you're better off having more convenience 9 times out of 10 and a little less convenience the 1/10.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I agree we will use less and less cash in the future but never (in my opinion) to the extent of a cashless society.
Too many people deal in mainly cash for them to accept it for one.

Now they do but things change - for example; cheques are getting rarer. Some businesses I know have stopped accepting them from alot of their debtors.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

It's actually by far the most serious point. If we rely exclusively on electronic equipment to pay for goods and services and there is a, lets say 72 hour power blackout, how is the whole of society going to function?

What about a flood that damages the electronic equipment necessary for a shop to function whereas in a cash society they may have been able to open as soon as the flood has reseeded?

Again you seem to be assuming that we'll advance only in the technology for the details of cashless society.
For example, cheap minaturised power storage would solve the power cut problem.
Again, if power cuts were still too much of a problem then until that problem was solved, we wouldn't adopt that aspect.
And failing all technology, a bit of backup hard currency could be kept.
People could buy special backup money that could only be used in the event of emergency.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Common sense would tell me that the more presence you have online (with correct details ) both financial and personal the more vulnerable you are to being compromised in any way.

Maybe, but me not taking money out of my ATM to buy things wouldn't really have much affect on that.
In practice, if I went cashless it would be the same as having money in my account and not using it from a security point of view.
If someone can steal money from your account then it's only ever safe when you happen to take it out.

So if you got a paycheck and the same day took it out of a bank as cash or only ever received payment in cash then you'd be safe from people robbing your bank account.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Did you google 'paypal freeze'? It's pretty scary.
In a non cashless society I know I have enough to get me by if someone, anyone 'decides' to freeze my bank/ financial account.

Do you? If at all times you've got a huge amount of cash lying about then yes, but if like me and most people, you generally keep all your cash in the bank most of the time then it wouldn't make much of a difference.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I think you'd be surprised by the amount of people that keep a sizeable amount of cash in a 'safe place'. I'd almost say most old people do it and with distrust of banks at an all time high more and more people are doing it now.

Perhaps. I don't have any actual numbers though so I don't really know. Do you? I would like to see statistics on how many people prefer to keep money "under the mattress".
I suspect it's pretty small, certainly in the western world.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Again, what's to stop banks raising their transaction fees every year, the answer is nothing in a cashless society.

What's to stop them doing it in a non-cashless society?
You could not have a bank account and thus be protected.

Again, I think the situations that would arise resulting in less privacy and more control to the banks has actually already passed. It happened whenever nearly everyone started giving their money to banks for safe keeping.

Gbear

Fromthetrees wrote: »

No, I don't want a chip embedded in my finger, it's just a crazy road I don't want to go down, technology is suppose to supplement our lives, not become apart of us. I think it's convenient to have choice, pay with your cash or card.
Embedding chips in the human body has many other consequences that go far beyond wanting a cashless society.

Cybernetics is the future, probably.

Heard an interesting question asked today.
When do you suppose the first perfectly healthy person will replace an organ or a limb with a synthetic one?

Handy to see in UV or have a wider, sharper field of vision.

Anyway, you can still be stuck with your archaic card while the rest of us carry on with chipped payment.:pac:

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I find cash absurdly easy, fast and convenient to use 9 out of 10 times

Cheques have been replaced by electronic payment, essentially the same
method though.

Having to carry around cash and count it out very simply isn't quicker then a small finger movement.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

People buying 'backup hard currency' in case of an emergency seems quite unrealistic given that it would be an emergency.

It'd be like a spare tire or something. You have some in case of emergency before the emergency happens.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

The whole concept just seems unworkable regardless of technological advancement, we're still human and having hard tangible currency for general purposes seems the only way small transactions work properly in all situations all of the time.
We're talking about people being able to eat here and not having poor reception on a tv (and make no exception, that's what we're talking about).

I've just explained a perfectly plausible mechanism for small scale transactions. There's probably millions of other ways you could do it.

Almost nothing humans make works perfectly - TV's, surgery, democracy, birth control.
Do we abandon living in houses because they might burn down or collapse in an earthquake?
No. It doesn't need to be 100% secure or 100% efficient - it only needs to be an improvement on balance.

So far I've seen nothing to suggest that it would be any less secure given how reliant we already are on the power not failing or the possibility that someone could steal money from our bank account.
We're already past the point where technology is embedded in how we trade. From a security point of view to be logically consistent if you oppose cashlessness, you should also be opposed to the way banking and trade is done now.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I know a lot of what you're saying is based on technological advances in the future but that doesn't change human problems occurring, Communism to some looks great on paper.

What human problems? I'm not sure I've actually seen anything so far in this thread other than technological problems or citing problems that we already have around cashlessness that don't seem to bother us enough to stop using it.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

When your details are all over the internet it is far easier for you to be robbed in general, if I walk down the road with 10,000 euro then only the people who pass on the way to where I'm going can steal that cash, online your open to anyone with an internet connection technically, just to repeat, you're far less likely to be compromised.

But nearly no one does that. Who walks around with 10 grand? Drug dealers?
We already face these problems but they don't seem to be important enough to turn people away from keeping their money with banks.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

In a cashless society the banks and whoever owns/controls them has absolute power without question over everything (thus being able to hike up transaction fees without repercussion), in a cash/electronic cash society everyone has the power. Today (if you choose) you can live your life without a bank account, without debt, without an 'embedded chip', without cards/devices/electronics/gadgets, without a car, ID ect., all you need is an accepted physically currency which I think is an innate tenet of our freedom, it makes us human.

You can do so, but virtually nobody does. This is the point I keep coming back to. We do not live in a society broadly independent from electronic banking - it's already deeply embedded because it's really handy to not have to go to the shops and instead have them deliver your groceries to your door, or buying an obscure album that you couldn't hope to find otherwise via amazon or something.

I don't really think cashlessness would be imposed.
I think it'll get to a point where there's almost no cash in circulation any more and it stops being worth the hassle to print it.

The overriding sense I get here is one of technophobia.

Fromthetrees

Gbear;]Convenience isn't necessary - it's nice.
Never having to worry about cash and having a chip in your finger would be really really convenient.
If you needed to buy anything all you need to have is your finger and it only takes a second.
Whether getting the paper off yer man at the side of the road (incidentally, papers will probably disappear within 20 years) is quicker with the swipe of a finger or if you happen to have the exact change handy isn't really relevant.

No, I don't want a chip embedded in my finger, it's just a crazy road I don't want to go down, technology is suppose to supplement our lives, not become apart of us. I think it's convenient to have choice, pay with your cash or card.
Embedding chips in the human body has many other consequences that go far beyond wanting a cashless society.

If in general it's quicker to use the chip in your finger then most things will switch to that system if possible.
If it's faster to use the chip for 9/10 things you're better off having more convenience 9 times out of 10 and a little less convenience the 1/10.



Now they do but things change - for example; cheques are getting rarer. Some businesses I know have stopped accepting them from alot of their debtors.

I find cash absurdly easy, fast and convenient to use 9 out of 10 times

Cheques have been replaced by electronic payment, essentially the same
method though.

Again you seem to be assuming that we'll advance only in the technology for the details of cashless society.
For example, cheap minaturised power storage would solve the power cut problem.
Again, if power cuts were still too much of a problem then until that problem was solved, we wouldn't adopt that aspect.
And failing all technology, a bit of backup hard currency could be kept.
People could buy special backup money that could only be used in the event of emergency.

People buying 'backup hard currency' in case of an emergency seems quite unrealistic given that it would be an emergency.

The whole concept just seems unworkable regardless of technological advancement, we're still human and having hard tangible currency for general purposes seems the only way small transactions work properly in all situations all of the time.
We're talking about people being able to eat here, not having poor reception on a tv (and make no exception, that's what we're talking about).

I know a lot of what you're saying is based on technological advances in the future but that doesn't change human problems occurring, Communism to some looks great on paper.

Maybe, but me not taking money out of my ATM to buy things wouldn't really have much affect on that.
In practice, if I went cashless it would be the same as having money in my account and not using it from a security point of view.
If someone can steal money from your account then it's only ever safe when you happen to take it out.

So if you got a paycheck and the same day took it out of a bank as cash or only ever received payment in cash then you'd be safe from people robbing your bank account.

When your details are all over the internet it is far easier for you to be robbed in general, if I walk down the road with 10,000 euro then only the people who pass on the way to where I'm going can steal that cash, online your open to anyone with an internet connection technically, just to repeat, you're far less likely to be compromised.

Do you? If at all times you've got a huge amount of cash lying about then yes, but if like me and most people, you generally keep all your cash in the bank most of the time then it wouldn't make much of a difference.


Perhaps. I don't have any actual numbers though so I don't really know. Do you? I would like to see statistics on how many people prefer to keep money "under the mattress".
I suspect it's pretty small, certainly in the western world.

What's to stop them doing it in a non-cashless society?
You could not have a bank account and thus be protected.

Again, I think the situations that would arise resulting in less privacy and more control to the banks has actually already passed. It happened whenever nearly everyone started giving their money to banks for safe keeping.

In a cashless society the banks and whoever owns/controls them has absolute power without question over everything (thus being able to hike up transaction fees without repercussion), in a cash/electronic cash society everyone has the power. Today (if you choose) you can live your life without a bank account, without debt, without an 'embedded chip', without cards/devices/electronics/gadgets, without a car, ID ect., all you need is an accepted physically currency which I think is an innate tenet of our freedom, it makes us human.

C14N

Sorry in advance for these walls of text but most of the problems brought up by Fromthetrees are actually very solvable.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

When I'm in the car and there is the fela selling the paper on the road, I role down the window, hand him 2 euro, take the paper and drive off basically without even having to stop the car fully, couldn't be any easier.

Okay kind of an obscure example for a niche audience but lets go with it.

How would swiping a quick magnetic card off a small device to pay the €2 be any slower? I take the bus a lot (something that uses cash traditionally) and I can say without a shadow of doubt that the people who use Leapcard or Buss pass are much faster than the ones using change. Also, you assume you have exactly €2 on hand at all times, not everyone does. Some people have to count out their change and some need to get change back, both of which are much slower than a quick scan. Others still have no change on them at all for whatever reason.

Farmers markets and market stalls are getting more and more common (and rightly so), is the lady who knits woolly hats in her spare time and tries to flog a few on a Saturday morning expected to invest in electronic chip and pin technology, same goes for the man trying to sell a few apples, it just doesn't make sense.

You could honestly sell these for a few Euro or even in the longterm have it integrated into a smartphone. You might say an old lady won't have a smartphone but they will some day. This isn't going to happen overnight.

With weather getting more and more unpredictable around the world then we would be literally at the mercy of it at all times, a 24 hour power failure could literally cause chaos as people suddenly realise they have no way to feed themselves or even fill their car with petrol, it would be madness.

Okay this is a really unusual one. I assume you mean some kind of nationwide blackout, not just the localised power outages we have now that are usually sorted in a few hours and this would be unprecedented. Now I'm not sure what sort of disaster would have to happen to cause this but you can be sure it would result in serious consequences even now.

If all power went out across the country for a full day, you can be sure shops wouldn't be opening anyway, business would come to a halt. No supermarket (or really any shop I could think of) would operate without its

• CCTV
• infrared scanners
• electrical doors
• heating
• cash registers
• refrigerators
• plenty of other things

A cashless society would barely change that. And honestly, I think most people have enough food in the house to ration themselves for one day.

I would honestly say to leave this argument alone because there is no history of something like this happening with the present infrastructure in place.



I can only speak for myself but I am simply not afraid of getting mugged in person, maybe if I was a 90 year old woman I might be, but I'm just simply not.
I am afraid that anyone on the planet with the wherewithal could 'hack' my debit card or my electronic banking details though.

That is a sort of unjustified fear and if you really think that, you just won't ever be able to keep any substantial amount of money in a bank account. Say what you want about "hacking" into accounts and stealing money, there are ways of making up for that. If I withdrew all of my current account and savings, I'm pretty liable to having that stolen. I've been burgled before and had my cash stolen and I'm sure far more people can say that than can say all their money disappeared overnight from their account.

What's to stop banks raising their transaction fees every year, the answer is nothing in a cashless society.

What's to stop them now? Banks have 99% of the world's money already. What's to stop them charging you every time you withdraw your cash or just imposing annual fees for the fun? Nothing really other than the fact that another bank can just do it for free and everyone will flock to that bank, as well as maybe consumer protection laws.

The digital world is meant to supplement the physical world, not replace it.

I no longer read newspapers, I get news online.
I no longer send letters, I use email.
I have seriously reduced how much I text message, I use Facebook.
I don't go to travel agents, I book holidays online.
I don't watch much TV, I watch Youtube.
I'm not having this discussion in a pub, I'm doing it on boards.ie
I don't have an Encyclopaedia, I have Google.

I'm sure I could go on for hours. What I'm saying is that in many cases, technology HAS replaced physical things and it will keep doing it. There's nothing wrong with that. Your statement seems to be conservationism for the sake of it.


Google 'paypal freeze'.

Paypal is just one private company who act as a middleman in small online transactions. They aren't a bank and people don't rely on them to nearly the same extent.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

The bit about having a 'chip embedded' in my finger kinda makes my head explode, I think it's a crazy way to go. How is this in anyway necessary?

It isn't. Honestly it will probably never happen, it was just an imaginary scenario but really it wouldn't be in any way harmful. It's more likely that a cashless society would be done by card or using smartphones for the forseeable future.

Like I said, the current way I buy my paper cannot in any way be quicker or easier, I don't even stop the car fully, it takes about 3 seconds.

Yes it can, see my post above. For lots of people, it does not take 3 seconds.

I just have the attitude if it ain't broke, don't fix.

This is a dangerous attitude that impedes any progress from happening at all. Brace yourself for another list.

Horses weren't broke, we still made engines.
Boats weren't broke, yet airplanes are the standard now for international travel.
Going to a bank to get out money worked for years, but some bright spark still came up with ATMs.
People loved silent movies in black and white but someone changed that.
Telegraph did the job, and landlines after that but mobile phones dominate today.

Basically if everyone took this attitude, we would still be hunter gatherers who never bothered with agriculture because hunting and gathering had been fine up until now.


Too many people deal in mainly cash for them to accept it for one.

As Gbear pointed out, lots of people once dealt in cheques, yet they've nearly gone the way of the dodo. Countless other things (see previous list) were done "the old way" for a long time before the new one became standard.


It's actually by far the most serious point. If we rely exclusively on electronic equipment to pay for goods and services and there is a, lets say 72 hour power blackout, how is the whole of society going to function?

Wow, now it's up to 72 hours. Just to repeat the main point, there is no reason to believe that would happen and it would cause so many problems if it happened even now that the "cashless society" part would make a negligible difference.

I just don't know, I like going down to the post office and paying my bills in cash (and I suspect I'm not the only one).
Personally, I think the direct debit is the greatest curse to my financial mental health, stupid X company taking vast sums of money out of my account without telling me (I accept this is just a personal gripe).

You're probably not the only one but that opinion will become much less popular very soon. Going paperless is becoming very popular for paying bills, I know because my own mother is an accountant for a company who prints up physical bills for companies to send off and she genuinely might be out of a job in a few years due to the fact that fewer and fewer companies are looking for this service.

Common sense would tell me that the more presence you have online (with correct details ) both financial and personal the more vulnerable you are to being compromised in any way.

What does this have to do with a cashless society? You don't suddenly have to start putting all your details online or even use the internet at all.


In a non cashless society I know I have enough to get me by if someone, anyone 'decides' to freeze my bank/ financial account.

If your money is stored on a top up card, how is that any different? And unless you are going around with literally hundreds or maybe thousands, you won't last too long anyway without needing to withdraw (since you said you pay bills and such in cash, not to mention things like food and fuel).

I think you'd be surprised by the amount of people that keep a sizeable amount of cash in a 'safe place'. I'd almost say most old people do it and with distrust of banks at an all time high more and more people are doing it now.

Do you have any official figures on this? If not then it's a moot point. Either way, this is a foolish thing to do. Even if you don't trust the banks, its far safer there than in your own house.

Again, what's to stop banks raising their transaction fees every year, the answer is nothing in a cashless society.

see previous post

Fromthetrees wrote: »

No, I don't want a chip embedded in my finger, it's just a crazy road I don't want to go down, technology is suppose to supplement our lives, not become apart of us.

This is just fear talking. It doesn't even make sense. If I have to get a prosthetic limb or a metallic hip, isn't that "technology becoming a part" of me? Especially if it's one of those new prosthetic limbs that you can control with your brain.

I think it's convenient to have choice, pay with your cash or card.


Ignoring the "embedded chips" thing, how is it convenient to have this choice?

Cheques have been replaced by electronic payment, essentially the same
method though.

Exactly, and you could easily make cashless payments essentially the same method as ones using cash.

People buying 'backup hard currency' in case of an emergency seems quite unrealistic given that it would be an emergency.

Wat. This is like saying "people buying fire extinguishers for an emergency seems unrealistic given that it would be an emergency".



The whole concept just seems unworkable regardless of technological advancement, we're still human and having hard tangible currency for general purposes seems the only way small transactions work properly in all situations all of the time.

It absolutely does not seem unworkable, all the reasons you have given for it not working are really just down to your personal tastes and mistrust of banks with money.

How does our humanity have any solid link to tangible currency?

And small transactions are already being taken care of by electronic means (as a few other posters have pointed out).

We're talking about people being able to eat here, not having poor reception on a tv (and make no exception, that's what we're talking about).

No we aren't. Apart from your unrealistic total blackout scenario, there is nothing about electronic payment that stops people from eating. I know this because the majority of my food is paid for electronically without a hitch and that's using today's primitive technology.

I know a lot of what you're saying is based on technological advances in the future but that doesn't change human problems occurring, Communism to some looks great on paper.

What exactly are these human problems?

When your details are all over the internet it is far easier for you to be robbed in general, if I walk down the road with 10,000 euro then only the people who pass on the way to where I'm going can steal that cash, online your open to anyone with an internet connection technically, just to repeat, you're far less likely to be compromised.

No, this just isn't true in any way. Walking around with lots of cash is dangerous and you are far more likely to lose it. I walked through Dublin today and I must have passed a few hundred people. A good portion could have mugged me if they had a knife. I could safely say that NONE could just hack in and steal money from my bank account. I think you might have been watching too many movies and TV shows because you seem to think that any teenager good with computers can walk into a stranger's bank account and empty it. Bank account's being compromised are extremely rare if not unheard of entirely. Getting mugged or burgled isn't. Why do you think the bank has the army transporting it's cash if just stealing it online is so easy?


In a cashless society the banks and whoever owns/controls them has absolute power without question over everything (thus being able to hike up transaction fees without repercussion), in a cash/electronic cash society everyone has the power.

No, they do not. The banks control practically all of the money in the western world. Everyone can't just take all their money back tomorrow, it doesn't work that way. Only a very small proportion of the money that exists is in cash form. Most working people keep most of their money in banks, the money belonging to businesses, the wealthy and the country is almost entirely in banks. You completely underestimate the amount of money in possession of banks at the moment. Cash is not the thing that prevents them from trying to take over the world.

Today (if you choose) you can live your life without a bank account, without debt, without an 'embedded chip', without cards/devices/electronics/gadgets, without a car, ID ect.

You technically could, but I can't say I've heard of a soul who does and I would be surprised if such a person existed in this country. If someone lived like that they would be the modern day equivalent of John the Baptist and they would probably live off the land too.

gaffer91

I have stated earlier that there is a multitude of small reasons where it is handy to have cash around, when you're playing a small game of poker with your pals or giving a kid communion money or whatever.

However the real question question I want to ask the pro-cashless posters is what about illegal transactions? Are you so naive that you believe every illicit transaction is immoral? Take for instance, cigarettes. There is a booming black market for cigarettes in this country. This is obviously because of the crazy taxes successive governments have placed on them. Is it really a crime for, let's say, a 70 year old man from the inner city to just buy them off a smuggler on Moore street for half the retail price? The man could be genuinely addicted to nicotine and would be unable for the life of him to stop smoking, but he doesn't have the money to fund his habit anymore. Cash gives him the opportunity to opt out of the government's stupidity.

The same reasoning could apply for cash with the war on drugs. What I am saying in effect is that cash gives you freedom. I'm sure some sanctimonious poster will be along later to berate me for breaking the law. But some laws are just unfair and stupid and cash gives you a way around them.

Gbear

gaffer91 wrote: »

I have stated earlier that there is a multitude of small reasons where it is handy to have cash around, when you're playing a small game of poker with your pals or giving a kid communion money or whatever.

None of which are beyond technology like my little chip-in-finger analogy.

Everyone could have little dongles with a scanner in them. It links to your bank account. It doesn't matter if it's stolen because what'll they do? Put money into your account against your will?
And with the finger thing you'd have easy money. It could be made so that it doesn't work when you're asleep, or between certain times, or whatever.

Again this seems like more of a lack of imagination than an intrinsic fault.

gaffer91 wrote: »

However the real question question I want to ask the pro-cashless posters is what about illegal transactions? Are you so naive that you believe every illicit transaction is immoral? Take for instance, cigarettes. There is a booming black market for cigarettes in this country. This is obviously because of the crazy taxes successive governments have placed on them. Is it really a crime for, let's say, a 70 year old man from the inner city to just buy them off a smuggler on Moore street for half the retail price? The man could be genuinely addicted to nicotine and would be unable for the life of him to stop smoking, but he doesn't have the money to fund his habt anymore. Cash gives him the opportunity to opt out of the government's stupidity.

The same reasoning could apply for cash with the war on drugs. What I am saying in effect is that cash gives you freedom. I'm sure some sanctimonious poster will be along later to berate me for breaking the law. But some laws are just unfair and stupid and cash gives you a way around them.

Saying that having cash makes it easier to break the law is a really awful argument. I'm sorry if you have such disdain for the law but I think it's fairly important. If there's a problem with the law you can break it, or you can push towards having it overturned.

I'm a firm believer in natural equilibria. **** laws will eventually get overturned.
In the same vein, things that are inefficient will get replaced. See the massive list C14N mentioned above for examples.
Having to print, coin, manage, transport, count, store and actually use cash takes time, effort and money. There will always be a natural tendency to reduce those costs and cashlessness is an obvious way to do it.

Incidentally, and in a similar way that C14N mentioned about his relative in accounting, I work with clients, generally not hugely versed in computers, that have to work on implementing our business management system.
There is always reticence towards more efficiency, less paperwork and trying to reduce costs using technology. I don't think it's self-serving and a case where they feel their jobs are being threatened (although that is the case occasionally) but rather a fear of change and technophobia.

I think that's what we're seeing in this debate as well.

gaffer91

Gbear wrote: »

Saying that having cash makes it easier to break the law is a really awful argument.

Why? Many laws are unfair and it is completely justified to break them.

Gbear wrote: »

I'm sorry if you have such disdain for the law but I think it's fairly important. If there's a problem with the law you can break it, or you can push towards having it overturned.

I'm a firm believer in natural equilibria. **** laws will eventually get overturned.

The only thing I have disdain for is unfairness and stupidity. I don't see why you have so much faith in banks and governments to the point where you are willing to give them complete access to your financial matters. How often do they have our best interests at heart?

Assuming a far right government landed into power in 20 years and decides to seize, for instance, Irish Muslim's assets-would it not be important to have cash in this instance? Or if a strict conservative party decided to give alcohol prohibition another go? Highly unlikely I know but you see what I'm getting at. Do you not see the freedom and privacy cash gives you?

I agree that cash might be inefficient but I also believe cash has a vital role to play in a Republic.

Run_to_da_hills

sweeney1971 wrote: »

The Mark of the Beast. Revelation 13:16-18

The very fact that 13.56 mhz RFID / NFC smart cards etc all share the same wireless hardware systems, scanners etc as Verichip / Positive ID should alone ring alarm bells.

Wibbs

Gbear wrote: »

I don't think it's self-serving and a case where they feel their jobs are being threatened (although that is the case occasionally) but rather a fear of change and technophobia.

I think that's what we're seeing in this debate as well.

There's certainly some of that alright, but what we're also seeing here IMHO is the "Nerds*" Versus Non-Nerds viewpoints. People who tend towards linear thinking versus non linear people(Very broadly speaking).

EG

Fromthetrees wrote:

The digital world is meant to supplement the physical world, not replace it.

V

Gbear wrote:

I no longer read newspapers, I get news online.
I no longer send letters, I use email.
I have seriously reduced how much I text message, I use Facebook.
I don't go to travel agents, I book holidays online.
I don't watch much TV, I watch Youtube.
I'm not having this discussion in a pub, I'm doing it on boards.ie
I don't have an Encyclopaedia, I have Google.

Both viewpoints can tend towards the extreme. The nerd viewpoint can have a tendency to miss the human element in the hunt for metrics/solutions, solutions that are often looking for problems. Change for the sake of it, because you can kinda thing, plus like the notion of complete replacement cos it's "neater". The other side as you say can fear change.

We saw this with the idea of the paperless office. Paper consumption went up. The nerds missed this, because they missed the human factor. 1) people tend to prefer reading something physically in the hand, so will print it up anyway and 2)it made it easier to edit stuff, so you could become lazy and print out multiple copies, whereas if you had to physically type a letter you'd be more likely to take your time and 3) people like to create stuff, so they'll print up circulars and in office charts and all that shíte just because they can.

In this debate the human element is being missed. As I said unless the world goes cashless all at once, then people will use other currency in a second economy. People generally don't like to pay tax if they can avoid it. They also tend towards the paranoid more than not, so the idea of being so obviously tracked would go against the grain for many. They also like to feel in control(even if they're not) and a cashless society would feel like a squeeze on that front.

On the security front the simple fact is credit card and electronic money fraud is rising and rising fast. Chip and pin, biometrics whatever will not stop that, merely slow it down for a time. Computing power is cheap and more powerful by the year. Mark my words, there will come a time when we'll all have to change our passwords to much more complex ones just to keep ahead of that. As I pointed out I had 500 quid taken from my CC account last year by some person in New Mexico. They didn't know me, they didn't have my card and certainly didn't have my pin number, so how did they manage that? They had to come up with my (pretty oddball) name, my CC account/number and pin and clone all that. They had to clone all that because they charged the card in a shop. The bank couldn't explain that one to me and since it happened I've heard of two other similar incidences of this from folks I know. Of course the major advantage with the CC was I got my money back, which wouldn't happen with a mugging of burglary. Scale this up. I'd not be so worried about power failures as they would likely be temporary and if they weren't all bets are off anyway. I'd be more concerned about the security issues of large groups of people, even nations. If politically funded hackers got access to such a system(like the Iranian missile system) they could bring down or seriously screw with a nations economy by hitting confidence where it really hurts, the "punt in your pocket".

I look on the "cashless society" a little like I look on that other great techy/nerdy dream and mainstay of scifi movies and such, the videophone. We've been able to do videophones for quite a long time, today damn near every smartphone has the capability, yet how many use it? Skype has made inroads on the videophone idea and it's great to have, but it's nowhere close to overtaking phonecalls and texts. It's clearly "better" than just voice comms or texting and it would seem logical that people would prefer it and it would replace other systems, but generally they don't and it hasn't.

As I said in my first post on the matter "A problem with engineering solutions is too often they neglect or omit the human nature factor."




*I'm not using the term in the pejorative sense. If I was it would be more than a tad ironic.

C14N

gaffer91 wrote: »

Why? Many laws are unfair and it is completely justified to break them.

If there's a law that is really that bad, then I too believe it will be repealed. As it is, things like human trafficking, arms dealing, property theft and the drug trade are all bad enough that they overrule the odd person who thinks they can decide their own laws. Laws are not "A La Carte", you aren't supposed to obey only the ones that suit you and I can't think of many that you could really justify breaking.

gaffer91 wrote: »

I don't see why you have so much faith in banks and governments to the point where you are willing to give them complete access to your financial matters. How often do they have our best interests at heart?

Who said anything about giving the government access to my finances?

The banks already have access to almost all my finances. I spent my last bit of cash yesterday, you know how much I have on me now? €6. The rest of my financial assets are in a bank. If all banks are really as dodgy as you make them out to be, it would be just as easy to refuse to let me withdraw any more as it would be to let me pay for things electronically.

Similarly, it would be just as easy for the government to decide that all of your notes and coins are worth nothing anymore.

"Banks" are made up of thousands of employees and thousands of shareholders. Some crazed CEO or group of executives don't just have access to your current account. Who exactly is it that you fear is going to try and take your money away?

gaffer91 wrote: »

Assuming a far right government landed into power in 20 years and decides to seize, for instance, Irish Muslim's assets-would it not be important to have cash in this instance?

No, not at all. How on earth would cash make even the slightest difference? Overlooking the fact that a right wing government has no more reason to seize Irish Muslim's assets than any other government, if this happened then the writers of the magazine are obviously going to be put under arrest. Unless they're management is supremely stupid, almost all of their money is in banks anyway even today.

gaffer91 wrote: »

Or if a strict conservative party decided to give alcohol prohibition another go? Highly unlikely I know but you see what I'm getting at. Do you not see the freedom and privacy cash gives you?

We live in a democratic country, if this happens it will be because the majority people wanted it to be the law. Once again though, you're bringing up impossible hypothetical situations to justify cash. If any of these scenarios were realistic, they might have some weight but they aren't so it's a bad reason to fear a cashless society.

Wibbs

C14N wrote: »

Similarly, it would be just as easy for the government to decide that all of your notes and coins are worth nothing anymore.

Eh no it wouldn't. Damn near impossible without printing an entirely new currency and if that had no confidence among people they'd PDQ start using another currency. A physical 20 quid note isn't attached to me as a person, my e money/credit is. Doesn't matter who gives you 20 quid it's still 20 quid, a credit card payment is different.

gaffer91

C14N wrote: »

If there's a law that is really that bad, then I too believe it will be repealed.

It could be the case, but often change takes generations. Forgive me if I want something to enable me to see my life as I see fit.

C14N wrote: »

As it is, things like human trafficking, arms dealing, property theft and the drug trade are all bad enough that they overrule the odd person who thinks they can decide their own laws. Laws are not "A La Carte", you aren't supposed to obey only the ones that suit you and I can't think of many that you could really justify breaking.

That is most people's viewpoint, granted. My personal view is that it is ok to break the law, especially in victimless crimes, but you must face the consequences of you are caught.

C14N wrote: »

Who said anything about giving the government access to my finances?

The banks already have access to almost all my finances. I spent my last bit of cash yesterday, you know how much I have on me now? €6. The rest of my financial assets are in a bank. If all banks are really as dodgy as you make them out to be, it would be just as easy to refuse to let me withdraw any more as it would be to let me pay for things electronically.

If everything is electronic, then the government will have access to your finances should they require them.

I actually agree with the point earlier about how if everything is electronic, then banks could start screwing us on transaction charges. Cash to a certain extent keeps them honest imo.

C14N wrote: »

No, not at all. How on earth would cash make even the slightest difference? Overlooking the fact that a right wing government has no more reason to seize Irish Muslim's assets than any other government, if this happened then the writers of the magazine are obviously going to be put under arrest. Unless they're management is supremely stupid, almost all of their money is in banks anyway even today.

I am talking about a far right government who hates muslims as a hypothetical example. You don't see how in this situation muslims could withdraw their money from the bank and hide it in the form of cash?

C14N wrote: »

We live in a democratic country, if this happens it will be because the majority people wanted it to be the law. Once again though, you're bringing up impossible hypothetical situations to justify cash. If any of these scenarios were realistic, they might have some weight but they aren't so it's a bad reason to fear a cashless society.

Well we actually live in a Republic, where in theory every citizen is supposed to have certain inalienable rights. What you are talking about is majoritarianism.

And how is it an impossible hypothetical situation? There is a pretty much exact parallel today with the war on drugs.

Gbear

Wibbs wrote: »

Both viewpoints can tend towards the extreme. The nerd viewpoint can have a tendency to miss the human element in the hunt for metrics/solutions, solutions that are often looking for problems. Change for the sake of it, because you can kinda thing, plus like the notion of complete replacement cos it's "neater". The other side as you say can fear change.

It isn't change for the sake of it, no more than e-mail was.

Wibbs wrote: »

We saw this with the idea of the paperless office. Paper consumption went up. The nerds missed this, because they missed the human factor. 1) people tend to prefer reading something physically in the hand, so will print it up anyway and 2)it made it easier to edit stuff, so you could become lazy and print out multiple copies, whereas if you had to physically type a letter you'd be more likely to take your time and 3) people like to create stuff, so they'll print up circulars and in office charts and all that shíte just because they can.

I don't know what offices you're talking about but every month, several of our clients have us print out some of their invoices and post them to their debtors.
The vast majority of their invoices are sent by e-mail but there are some people who drag their feet (mostly people who're from the country and aren't very technically minded).
We charge them for stamps, paper and the time it takes to fold everything, stamp it and post it. It cost's 500-1000 quid a year even for small companies.
If they were printing and posting all their invoices it would be 3 or 4 times that.

Again, you're talking about human nature now. That includes people who live out in the country, inherited their family business and are completly flummoxed by computers. Do you really think that's going to continue? Nearly every household has a computer. In 40 years time paperless will be the standard everywhere and my 60-odd year old self will probably be grumbling about some newfangled technology then. Or maybe in general, the time it takes for old people to accept new technologies will decrease.

Regardless, aversion to technology has always existed but technology has thus far nearly always won through, sometimes when the people who were against it died off.

Wibbs wrote: »

In this debate the human element is being missed. As I said unless the world goes cashless all at once, then people will use other currency in a second economy. People generally don't like to pay tax if they can avoid it. They also tend towards the paranoid more than not, so the idea of being so obviously tracked would go against the grain for many. They also like to feel in control(even if they're not) and a cashless society would feel like a squeeze on that front.

I don't think it would work that way though. I don't think that the government would decide to all of a sudden, stop the use of cash. Would is more likely is that, as has already happend, cash will become less and less prevalent. Eventually, probably when it becomes obsolete altogether, they'll shut down the printing presses.

We're already living in a mostly cashless society. Right now if you were to stop using cash there would be some problems.
If it gets to a point where nearly everyone stops using cash then we'll have become cashless - not consciously but through a gradual trend.

Wibbs wrote: »

On the security front the simple fact is credit card and electronic money fraud is rising and rising fast. Chip and pin, biometrics whatever will not stop that, merely slow it down for a time. Computing power is cheap and more powerful by the year. Mark my words, there will come a time when we'll all have to change our passwords to much more complex ones just to keep ahead of that. As I pointed out I had 500 quid taken from my CC account last year by some person in New Mexico. They didn't know me, they didn't have my card and certainly didn't have my pin number, so how did they manage that? They had to come up with my (pretty oddball) name, my CC account/number and pin and clone all that. They had to clone all that because they charged the card in a shop. The bank couldn't explain that one to me and since it happened I've heard of two other similar incidences of this from folks I know. Of course the major advantage with the CC was I got my money back, which wouldn't happen with a mugging of burglary. Scale this up. I'd not be so worried about power failures as they would likely be temporary and if they weren't all bets are off anyway. I'd be more concerned about the security issues of large groups of people, even nations. If politically funded hackers got access to such a system(like the Iranian missile system) they could bring down or seriously screw with a nations economy by hitting confidence where it really hurts, the "punt in your pocket".

Again, we're already there. Unless you want to take all your money out of the bank and keep it in your own safe then you're already exposed to this risk.
Not using cash wouldn't make any difference.

Wibbs wrote: »

I look on the "cashless society" a little like I look on that other great techy/nerdy dream and mainstay of scifi movies and such, the videophone. We've been able to do videophones for quite a long time, today damn near every smartphone has the capability, yet how many use it? Skype has made inroads on the videophone idea and it's great to have, but it's nowhere close to overtaking phonecalls and texts. It's clearly "better" than just voice comms or texting and it would seem logical that people would prefer it and it would replace other systems, but generally they don't and it hasn't.

Is it clearly "better"?
It's less convenient to have to go to the effort of setting up a video call.
It's less convenient to have to put on 3D glasses to watch a film.

If we get to a stage where 3D works without glasses (so far you have to sit a certain distance away from the screen for it to work - wouldn't really work in a cinema) or video calling is no more difficult than regular phone calls (it's getting there, video calling is already fairly widespread).

The shorter the gap between technological savy and complexity of the technology, the faster the technology will spread.

Something like having minor surgery to embed a chip in your finger could be 100 years down the line but ultimately, rarely and eventually never using cash will not really be much different than where we are now - it'll be a series of incremental steps.

This debate is going nowhere. G'luck.

Wibbs

Gbear wrote: »

It isn't change for the sake of it, no more than e-mail was.

Has email removed all other forms of communication? Nope, it's added to them. Bad example.

I don't know what offices you're talking about but every month, several of our clients have us print out some of their invoices and post them to their debtors.

Point missed.

Again, you're talking about human nature now. That includes people who live out in the country, inherited their family business and are completly flummoxed by computers. Do you really think that's going to continue? Nearly every household has a computer. In 40 years time paperless will be the standard everywhere and my 60-odd year old self will probably be grumbling about some newfangled technology then. Or maybe in general, the time it takes for old people to accept new technologies will decrease.

Regardless, aversion to technology has always existed but technology has thus far nearly always won through, sometimes when the people who were against it died off.

And point missed again. Indeed expected response from the "nerdy/techie" mindset. Tends to lay the blame at the pesky user of the tech, rather than any complexity in the tech itself. The "why should you need icons and windows when a command line is better?" notion.

I don't think it would work that way though. I don't think that the government would decide to all of a sudden, stop the use of cash. Would is more likely is that, as has already happend, cash will become less and less prevalent. Eventually, probably when it becomes obsolete altogether, they'll shut down the printing presses.

We're already living in a mostly cashless society. Right now if you were to stop using cash there would be some problems.
If it gets to a point where nearly everyone stops using cash then we'll have become cashless - not consciously but through a gradual trend.

The most likely scenario, but it's a long way off yet. As I point out just because email comes along it doesn't stop other methods of communication with the exception of faxes. It adds to the existing convenience. That's how this stuff works. You almost never get complete replacement and this will certainly go double for financial transactions.

Again, we're already there. Unless you want to take all your money out of the bank and keep it in your own safe then you're already exposed to this risk.
Not using cash wouldn't make any difference.

Ignoring the point again. Cash is quite simply safer, more trustworthy and more secure in transactions than credit cards or similar. Sure one has forgery of currency, but "forging" a CC/credit identity is significantly easier to do and harder to get caught doing and it will get more widespread and easier to do. If you had read my link in my first post you would have seen that CC fraud has gone up by over 60% in the last few years. 60%? And you reckon that's not an issue? OK...

Is it clearly "better"?
It's less convenient to have to go to the effort of setting up a video call.

No it's not. With something like Facetime it's the same as making a phonecall and a lot quicker than sending a txt.

It's less convenient to have to put on 3D glasses to watch a film.

If we get to a stage where 3D works without glasses (so far you have to sit a certain distance away from the screen for it to work - wouldn't really work in a cinema)

Dunno where 3D cinema lives in this debate, but let's be honest 3D is a marketing gimmick(which has had many an incarnation) and most of all makes it harder for some gimp in the local flicks nicking the film with a handicam.

This debate is going nowhere. G'luck.

More like not going your way, but how and ever.

One other issue with the cashless society is the credit aspect. People spend more when they can't see how much they've spent to the same concrete degree with cash. You run out of cash well you've run out of cash. You don't so much run out of virtual money and it's harder to track.

C14N

Wibbs wrote: »

The nerd viewpoint can have a tendency to miss the human element in the hunt for metrics/solutions, solutions that are often looking for problems. Change for the sake of it, because you can kinda thing, plus like the notion of complete replacement cos it's "neater".

I completely disagree. The only reason I would even want this to happen is so it is easier and safer for the average user. If there wasn't a way of making it faster and easier to pay for things electronically, I wouldn't want it. Honestly, if it was completely possible to go 100% cashless now, I would do it and be happy with that. I wouldn't expect everyone to follow suit, but I would expect over the next few years that more and more people would make the jump.

Wibbs wrote: »

We saw this with the idea of the paperless office. Paper consumption went up....

This sounds like a short term backlash though. The experienced staff who are used to the way it's always been done will carry on as before but the fresh out of college upstart will be more likely to use the new method which will actually be less alien to them. I see this myself, my dad is always printing stuff out from webpages and emails. He's no technophobe by a long way, that's just what he does and nothing I say to him will change it but I don't think many people of my generation will want to pay so much money (printer ink ain't cheap) for a taste they never developed.

Wibbs wrote: »

As I said unless the world goes cashless all at once, then people will use other currency in a second economy.

Fair point, but that assumes most of the world does not go cashless. Don't get me wrong here, I don't expect Uganda to switch to electronic payments soon but in North America, the EU and some Asian countries, cash is already playing second fiddle to electronic payments. I would expect it to get squeezed out more over time, the only problem I could imagine is for tourists but even then I'm sure a solution could be found. People already have to get by without some things they are used to while abroad. Now it might be drinking alcohol, smoking in bars or driving; one day it might be using cash.

Wibbs wrote: »

People generally don't like to pay tax if they can avoid it. They also tend towards the paranoid more than not, so the idea of being so obviously tracked would go against the grain for many. They also like to feel in control(even if they're not) and a cashless society would feel like a squeeze on that front.

Yes, all true. Fear is probably going to be the main factor in preventing cashlessness. I do believe that the fear will dwindle over time though as cash is simply used less and less instead of just vanishing suddenly.

Wibbs wrote: »

On the security front the simple fact is credit card and electronic money fraud is rising and rising fast...As I pointed out I had 500 quid taken from my CC account last year by some person in New Mexico. They didn't know me, they didn't have my card and certainly didn't have my pin number, so how did they manage that?...Of course the major advantage with the CC was I got my money back, which wouldn't happen with a mugging of burglary.

If it really becomes a big problem, it will have to combated, cashless society or not. At the moment, it is cheap enough for the bank to take the fall and pay you what was taken but if it does keep rising as you say, you can be sure they won't just roll over. And as you yourself point out, you did manage to get the money back. While it's in a bank's possession, it's their responsibility so they have to replace the money. If you get mugged, nobody is going to just give you the money back.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd be more concerned about the security issues of large groups of people, even nations. If politically funded hackers got access to such a system(like the Iranian missile system) they could bring down or seriously screw with a nations economy by hitting confidence where it really hurts, the "punt in your pocket".

You're talking science fiction with the missile system. I would have to believe that there is a lot more security around massive amounts of money (e.g. a nation's cash reserve) than there would be around a simple current account.

Wibbs wrote: »

I look on the "cashless society" a little like I look on that other great techy/nerdy dream and mainstay of scifi movies and such, the videophone...It's clearly "better" than just voice comms or texting and it would seem logical that people would prefer it and it would replace other systems, but generally they don't and it hasn't.

No, that's just not true. It isn't as convenient to use video calling, even on a smartphone. For one thing, the infrastructure still isn't there. A lot of people (myself included) don't have broadband fast enough to give a smooth conversation with video. Not all smartphones support it, not everyone with a smartphone has Skype and not everyone has a smartphone at all. You brought up Facetime in a later post which is not only locked in to Apple devices but requires a Wi-Fi connection meaning you can't use it while out and about so no, it isn't as easy as a text message.

Even excluding all of these current factors there is a major intrinsic problem in that it requires a whole other sense to use. I for one, rarely just sit down and have a chat with someone. I usually use the phone while doing something else. You can't drive while video chatting. Even just walking around you have to hold a phone up in front of you which is both tiring and dangerous. Radio was not replaced by TV either.

I think using quick, electronic payments instead of cash is more analogous to jet aeroplanes taking over propeller aeroplanes, flat TVs replacing CRT TVs or MP3 players instead of tapes. None of these things just appeared and took over. It was always gradual and it came down to people simply choosing to use the one that was superior along with some push by the companies in control. If people wanted they could have kept buying tapes or CRT TVs, but they didn't want to.

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh no it wouldn't. Damn near impossible without printing an entirely new currency and if that had no confidence among people they'd PDQ start using another currency. A physical 20 quid note isn't attached to me as a person, my e money/credit is. Doesn't matter who gives you 20 quid it's still 20 quid, a credit card payment is different.

I should have been clearer. My point wasn't that deciding to replace currency would be easy, my point was that it's near impossible. It's just that the government deciding to have a quick dip into your bank account at their leisure is also basically impossible, and I don't see how getting rid of cash will change that.

gaffer91 wrote: »

It could be the case, but often change takes generations. Forgive me if I want something to enable me to see my life as I see fit.

Probation in America only lasted 13 years, hardly "generations" and that was along time ago. Information travels faster now and the government took away Ireland's alcohol you can be sure people would be on the job to have that changed much faster, especially if there was no black market to turn to.

gaffer91 wrote: »

If everything is electronic, then the government will have access to your finances should they require them.

How exactly? Please explain.

My own finances are almost entirely electronic. I pay for most things with Laser or credit card. I only use cash for small transactions like buying lunch or a drink. Often I could pay for that with Laser too, I just don't because right now it's too slow and I don't want to hold up the queue. If I could do those few things with a top up card instead, how on earth could the government start accessing my finances?

gaffer91 wrote: »

I actually agree with the point earlier about how if everything is electronic, then banks could start screwing us on transaction charges.

I still don't think anyone has explained why, if they could do this in a cashless society, they couldn't just do it now. What's stopping them from charging me for my withdrawals and Laser payments now that would just disappear if we went cashless?

gaffer91 wrote: »

I am talking about a far right government who hates muslims as a hypothetical example. You don't see how in this situation muslims could withdraw their money from the bank and hide it in the form of cash?

No I can't. If their assets are frozen, they won't be able to withdraw their money from the bank. Furthermore they would have a hard time spending it since they would clearly be on the run from the law.

gaffer91 wrote: »

Well we actually live in a Republic, where in theory every citizen is supposed to have certain inalienable rights. What you are talking about is majoritarianism.

And how is it an impossible hypothetical situation? There is a pretty much exact parallel today with the war on drugs.

Yes, exactly. We live in a republic where everyone has inalienable rights. Alcohol is not going to be banned and it is, frankly, a ridiculous argument to say "we need cash just in case we elect a government who wants to ban alcohol because otherwise we won't be able to buy our black market alcohol".

Wibbs wrote: »

Has email removed all other forms of communication? Nope, it's added to them. Bad example.

It has not removed "all other forms of communication" but it has largely replaced the physical letter (which is the only one it was competing with, you hardly expected it to replace phone calls did you?). It's only going to happen more and more too. Why would anyone pay 50c to send a letter and wait two days for it to arrive when they could send an instant email for free? The only thing stopping it now is people who just prefer physical letters (same as cash) but I can't imagine many people born today will ever develop this love.

Also, how long have you had an email address? Unless you're a long-time tech person, I'd be willing to guess it's less than 15 years. Give it some time yet.

Wibbs wrote: »

And point missed again. Indeed expected response from the "nerdy/techie" mindset. Tends to lay the blame at the pesky user of the tech, rather than any complexity in the tech itself. The "why should you need icons and windows when a command line is better?" notion.

I don't understand. How do you relate his hypothesis that "the people who prefer the old system of hard invoices will inevitably die/retire and be replaced by people who use online invoices" to blaming the user? And how does your comman line vs icon analogy fit? Getting bills emailed to you is no harder for most of us (even non nerdy types) than having it mailed physically.

Wibbs wrote: »

Cash is quite simply safer, more trustworthy and more secure in transactions than credit cards or similar.

In transactions, yes. In carrying it around, no. I don't disagree that fraud is a major issue, I just think it is one that is going to have to be solved whether you go fully cashless or not.

Wibbs wrote: »

Dunno where 3D cinema lives in this debate, but let's be honest 3D is a marketing gimmick(which has had many an incarnation) and most of all makes it harder for some gimp in the local flicks nicking the film with a handicam.
More like not going your way, but how and ever.

He is just pointing out that 3D without glasses would be superior in every way. If it existed and was cheap, there would be no reason to keep going with the glasses method. This is how I (and presumably Gbear too) view going cashless, making my small payments electronically wouldn't have any drawbacks.

For the record, 3D isn't going anywhere. It's hard to buy a TV without 3D these days and as the technology becomes cheaper, more movies will be made with it. In contrast to my push for moving forward on the cashless thing, I'm not keen on this trend, since I recently made the decision to not watch any more films in 3D after getting headaches. Ah well.

Wibbs wrote: »

One other issue with the cashless society is the credit aspect. People spend more when they can't see how much they've spent to the same concrete degree with cash. You run out of cash well you've run out of cash. You don't so much run out of virtual money and it's harder to track.

This is really just a problem of visualising how much you've spent. There's no reason that if you didn't trust yourself, there couldn't be a system to put a cap on how much you can spend. And some people might think that way, but some (like me) just think "oh I've run out of cash, I need to take out more cash".



Just to go on record here, I don't want a cashless society to be forced upon us. I want it to be from choice. I don't think the option to make all payments electronically is too far away and once it gets going, I just believe it will become what most people choose over time.

Wibbs

C14N wrote: »

I completely disagree. The only reason I would even want this to happen is so it is easier and safer for the average user. If there wasn't a way of making it faster and easier to pay for things electronically, I wouldn't want it. Honestly, if it was completely possible to go 100% cashless now, I would do it and be happy with that. I wouldn't expect everyone to follow suit, but I would expect over the next few years that more and more people would make the jump.

It's easier for many transactions yes and it's a very useful additional way to make a transaction, but cash still has it's place for more than a couple of reasons. Numero uno it is still more secure at the transaction point than cashless. It's clearly more secure from identity theft as currency isn't tagged to one person.

This sounds like a short term backlash though. The experienced staff who are used to the way it's always been done will carry on as before but the fresh out of college upstart will be more likely to use the new method which will actually be less alien to them. I see this myself, my dad is always printing stuff out from webpages and emails. He's no technophobe by a long way, that's just what he does and nothing I say to him will change it but I don't think many people of my generation will want to pay so much money (printer ink ain't cheap) for a taste they never developed.

I recall someone saying that very thing in the early 90's. No seriously C and yet here we are.

People already have to get by without some things they are used to while abroad. Now it might be drinking alcohol, smoking in bars or driving; one day it might be using cash.

That's one helluva loss compared to the other examples.

Yes, all true. Fear is probably going to be the main factor in preventing cashlessness. I do believe that the fear will dwindle over time though as cash is simply used less and less instead of just vanishing suddenly.

Possibly, but fear isn't always a bad thing or a symptom of paranoia.

If it really becomes a big problem, it will have to combated, cashless society or not. At the moment, it is cheap enough for the bank to take the fall and pay you what was taken but if it does keep rising as you say, you can be sure they won't just roll over. And as you yourself point out, you did manage to get the money back. While it's in a bank's possession, it's their responsibility so they have to replace the money. If you get mugged, nobody is going to just give you the money back.

No, but with the year on year rise in identity theft and the financial theft on top of it, it could well go the other way and people see cash as being safer, which at the transaction point it is.

You're talking science fiction with the missile system. I would have to believe that there is a lot more security around massive amounts of money (e.g. a nation's cash reserve) than there would be around a simple current account.

Science Fiction eh? More and more government agencies are tooling up with hackers. For good reason, it's just like nicking someone's CC, very hard to track and can cause damage at a distance. No science fiction required, it's happening today and when some "amateur" can nick a few quid from me on a cloned card with all it's attendant security in a country that's well up to speed with CC's(USA) then it's more likely than not that government agencies are looking at ways to destabilise another nations financial market. Big business getting hit would have some effect, but hitting the citizens of such a nation would cause much more panic and be more advantageous in military terms.

I think using quick, electronic payments instead of cash is more analogous to jet aeroplanes taking over propeller aeroplanes, flat TVs replacing CRT TVs or MP3 players instead of tapes. None of these things just appeared and took over. It was always gradual and it came down to people simply choosing to use the one that was superior along with some push by the companies in control. If people wanted they could have kept buying tapes or CRT TVs, but they didn't want to.

Well actually they were stopped in the EU at least because of green legislation. Plus the later CRT's were arguably better than LCD tech. No problems with ghosting or any of that. MP3's are of lower quality than CD's. People are funny that way.

I still don't think anyone has explained why, if they could do this in a cashless society, they couldn't just do it now. What's stopping them from charging me for my withdrawals and Laser payments now that would just disappear if we went cashless?

Well with cash you can technically remove banks from your personal equation. Not very safe hiding it under the bed but it can be done. Hell you can be sure Anto the dealer isn't going to BOI with his many thousands in cash.

It has not removed "all other forms of communication" but it has largely replaced the physical letter (which is the only one it was competing with, you hardly expected it to replace phone calls did you?). It's only going to happen more and more too. Why would anyone pay 50c to send a letter and wait two days for it to arrive when they could send an instant email for free?

Yet the amount of post the Royal Mail in the UK handled grew in the last two decades.

Also, how long have you had an email address? Unless you're a long-time tech person, I'd be willing to guess it's less than 15 years. Give it some time yet.

Early 90's here, but yea I've likely a few years on you. Like I said I have heard many of the same stuff being said over the last 20 years about how this tech or that tech would do this or that and remarkably few predictions were accurate. It was often the wierd outlier stuff that took off. Look at texts. Originally stuck on as a sideline, never really seen as a comms thing in of itself. It can be really hard to predict this stuff.

For the record, 3D isn't going anywhere.

I've heard that before too.

I'm not keen on this trend, since I recently made the decision to not watch any more films in 3D after getting headaches. Ah well.

Ditto. I think its shíte for the most part and horribly artificial looking.

This is really just a problem of visualising how much you've spent. There's no reason that if you didn't trust yourself, there couldn't be a system to put a cap on how much you can spend. And some people might think that way, but some (like me) just think "oh I've run out of cash, I need to take out more cash".

You'd defo need some visualisation going on. Though banks and CC companies prefer if you don't as it gets you more into debt and so long as that's relatively manageable they prefer you doing that.

Just to go on record here, I don't want a cashless society to be forced upon us. I want it to be from choice. I don't think the option to make all payments electronically is too far away and once it gets going, I just believe it will become what most people choose over time.

Interesting times ahead. Shít the way things are going ATM I'm stockpiling effin cowrie shells.

C14N

Wibbs wrote: »

I recall someone saying that very thing in the early 90's. No seriously C and yet here we are.

Yeah but most people who were working in the 90s are still working now, it's hardly going to be gone yet.

Wibbs wrote: »

That's one helluva loss compared to the other examples.

In your opinion, I'm sure I know plenty of people who would rather take an electronic card on arrival in a foreign country for their payments than not be able to drink alcohol.

Wibbs wrote: »

when some "amateur" can nick a few quid from me on a cloned card with all it's attendant security in a country that's well up to speed with CC's(USA)...

I would hardly call someone like that an "amateur". They've still got to be pretty damn skilled to pull something like that off.

Wibbs wrote: »

MP3's are of lower quality than CD's. People are funny that way.

That's why I used tapes as an analogy instead. People (myself included) still use CDs for their higher quality, nobody still uses tapes (okay I'm sure you can pull up an example of a mad friend of a friend who still goes to car boot sales and buys tapes but you know what I mean).

Even with the CDs thing, there is no denying that the MP3's are taking over and I'm worried about how much longer the physical discs will be available for. This just shows that people prefer convenience, even if there are drawbacks, which I believe going cashless gives you.

Wibbs wrote: »

Well with cash you can technically remove banks from your personal equation. Not very safe hiding it under the bed but it can be done.

You can in theory but, for most people, not in practice. You'll have a hard time getting a house or a car this way, or even a job (my last two employers paid directly to bank accounts ONLY, and I was only getting minimum wage).

The point is that they could get away with this right now and people would still have to put up with it. Most of us can't say "well then I just won't use the bank", withdraw the lot and close the account.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yet the amount of post the Royal Mail in the UK handled grew in the last two decades.

Got any stats on that? I know the story certainly isn't the same with our western friends.

Near-Bankrupt US Postal Service Plans Unprecedented Cuts

Why the Postal Service Is Going Out of Business

Wibbs wrote: »

Like I said I have heard many of the same stuff being said over the last 20 years about how this tech or that tech would do this or that and remarkably few predictions were accurate.

Want to give some examples?

I know there are plenty of things I was sceptical about that did turn into successes. Smartphones, tablets, Sky+, HD video, 3D TVs. Now I've come to rely on several of them.

Wibbs wrote: »

You'd defo need some visualisation going on. Though banks and CC companies prefer if you don't as it gets you more into debt and so long as that's relatively manageable they prefer you doing that.

Yeah they probably do like that, but at the moment there still isn't really any visualisation from cash. You can see how much you have left, but not how much you've spent or what you've spent it on.

In contrast, I can easily see how much I've spent with my Laser/CC, how much I have left, what I started out with and what it was that I spent my money on all instantly using my phone (or computer). That's a lot more information than cash gives unless you're taking it all down yourself and it makes it a lot easier to budget and make rational spending decisions than when I have a fifty burning a hole in my pocket.

gaffer91

C14N wrote: »

Probation in America only lasted 13 years, hardly "generations" and that was along time ago. Information travels faster now and the government took away Ireland's alcohol you can be sure people would be on the job to have that changed much faster, especially if there was no black market to turn to.

I'm not just talking about prohibition, I was talking about bad laws in general. Divorce being illegal less than 20 years ago, gay marriage being still illegal and so long. I know that these laws have nothing to do with cash, just using them to cite how long bad laws can last for.

The current war on drugs is similarly ludicrous and I don't see it ending anytime soon.

C14N wrote: »

How exactly? Please explain.

My own finances are almost entirely electronic. I pay for most things with Laser or credit card. I only use cash for small transactions like buying lunch or a drink. Often I could pay for that with Laser too, I just don't because right now it's too slow and I don't want to hold up the queue. If I could do those few things with a top up card instead, how on earth could the government start accessing my finances?

If there is a large lodgement from, let's say, a deceased relative which you have yet to declare then revenue get on your case. Bank statements also state where money is withdrawn and son as well.

C14N wrote: »

I still don't think anyone has explained why, if they could do this in a cashless society, they couldn't just do it now. What's stopping them from charging me for my withdrawals and Laser payments now that would just disappear if we went cashless?

If they started doing it now, people would likely make one large withdrawal on a weekly or monthly basis to pay for day to day living rather than several smaller payments. Removing cash takes away this option.

C14N wrote: »

No I can't. If their assets are frozen, they won't be able to withdraw their money from the bank. Furthermore they would have a hard time spending it since they would clearly be on the run from the law.

This is a bit of a side show, but my point was after getting wind of the law they could withdraw the cash and hide it, which is virtually impossible in an entirely electronic system.

C14N wrote: »

Yes, exactly. We live in a republic where everyone has inalienable rights. Alcohol is not going to be banned and it is, frankly, a ridiculous argument to say "we need cash just in case we elect a government who wants to ban alcohol because otherwise we won't be able to buy our black market alcohol".

We're supposed to have inalienable rights but we don't was my point.

You seem to be fixated on the alcohol thing. It is just an example of the freedom cash gives a consumer to by what he or she likes. We need cash to ensure freedom from an overbearing government that places crazy taxes on things like cigarettes and garlic and prohibits what should be victimless activities, like prostitution and drugs.

We seem to be going around in circles here to a certain extent so I'll just my position clear. I've no problem with most transactions occurring electronically, I just think that cash should never be done away with entirely, because of the freedom, privacy and anonymity it gives you.

I know you stated that you don't want a cashless society forced on people against their wishes, and that is commendable, but I don't see how you don't see how the existence of cash, even if you don't use it personally, gives people freedom.