The current trend of removing cash is a serious mistake

Experience_day

Out of curiosity, what if we moved to a cashless society.........hit a recession and the government decides to incentivise spending by putting a ridiculous tariff on savings?? What if suddenly activity X becomes socially reprehensible and you're ostracised?

What if you have an opinion that is now deemed "wrong think" (not too hard to imagine in today's society...) and no one will process payments for your business?

PCeeeee

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Hold on a moment while I shed a tear for the soon to be extinct drug lords, dealers and money launderes.

Can't happen soon enough imo

Kermit with the greatest of respect if you think the drug lords do not have extensive and unhindered access to the banking system already then I believe you are heartily mistaken.

Low level dealers would certainly be hindered albeit briefly (imo) but those at the top who control huge sums?

peasant

El Tarangu wrote: »

How much cash do you need to have in order to put this into practice - €2k? €5k? Keeping that much cash on your person/at home at all times carries its own risks - risks which are an order of magnitude more likely to be realised than some irrevocable global financial crash.

It doesn't matter how much cash anyone keeps, what matters is that they have the right to do so.
That way not all liquidity in the system rests in electronic records somewhere, but a significant amount is (or theoretically can be) outside the control of the banks / the financial system.
It further means that the financial system has to be set up in a way to exchange the figure in your account for hard cash if you walk in tomorrow and demand it.
This is another safeguard against manipulation.

Old fashioned cash keeps cashless transactions honest.

Robert ninja

PCeeeee wrote: »

Kermit with the greatest of respect if you think the drug lords do not have extensive and unhindered access to the banking system already then I believe you are heartily mistaken.

Low level dealers would certainly be hindered albeit briefly (imo) but those at the top who control huge sums?

To add to that; Some of the biggest drug trafficking controversies had law personnel involved. People with access to the system often abuse it.

El Tarangu

skooterblue2 wrote: »

that is why you diversify, options, swops, stocks, comodities, property and precious metals. Do not trust the Dollar since they decoupled it from gold in 1972(I think Nixon)?

Whether or nor a society is cashless has no bearing on any of the above - if you don't trust the dollar, presumably you don't trust its cash variant.

peasant wrote: »

That way not all liquidity in the system rests in electronic records somewhere, but a significant amount is (or theoretically can be) outside the control of the banks / the financial system.

If the world decided tomorrow that the euro was worthless, the bits of paper in your wallet would be as equally worthless as the zeroes and ones in your bank account - the value of those coloured pieces of paper is completely at the mercy of the global financial system.

peasant

El Tarangu wrote: »

If the world decided tomorrow that the euro was worthless, the bits of paper in your wallet would be as equally worthless as the zeroes and ones in your bank account - the value of those coloured pieces of paper is completely at the mercy of the global financial system.

You're not wrong ...
A global event would f*ck everything up completely, cans of beans will be the new cash then

But that still doesn't mean we should willingly hand over total control of our money (and privacy) just for convenience.

El Tarangu

peasant wrote: »

You're not wrong ...
A global event would f*ck everything up completely, cans of beans will be the new cash then

But that still doesn't mean we should willingly hand over total control of our money (and privacy) just for convenience.

I've not actually got a burning desire to abolish cash - but I do think that the benefits would be greater than any drawbacks.

When you balance the loss of privacy (though I think privacy could be on the way to being extinguished by other means anyway) against the elimination of virtually all forms of tax evasion, making criminality significantly more difficult, and even the epidemiological concerns, given the current context - the idea that, on your bedside dresser, next to the glass of water you've just been drinking, are some little metal disks that have been in circulation since 2002, have been held by many dozens of people (at least some of whom will have had dubious hygiene), and in all that time these disks haven't been cleaned once - well, you get the point I'm making.

skooterblue2

El Tarangu wrote: »

Whether or nor a society is cashless has no bearing on any of the above - if you don't trust the dollar, presumably you don't trust its cash variant.

Complex question. I trust the dollar with all its faults over the numbers on a screen for its potential to be used as a coercive force. It is easier to move a few numbers on a screen than it is to remove cash from the hand and harder still to remove precious metals. Dont forget in 1933 the US government wanted everyone to turn in their gold.

meeeeh

El Tarangu wrote: »

One of the reasons banks are expensive is that their overheads are so high - they own or rent expensive real estate in every town in the country, and employ people to staff each of these branches. Many of these expenses are due to the circulation of cash - as others have pointed out, Revolut and N26, and I'm sure there are others, have shown that it is possible to provide banking services free (or almost) at the point of use for the customer - this is possible once you take cash out of the equation.

Do you know what's the interest on the mortgages N26 and Revolout are offering? What are their business loans like? Credit cards? You know the usual banking services banks offer and you pay for.

Also it is extremely naive to think you will manage to abolish criminal activity if you abolish cash.

US2

As long as the bank charges me for spending my own money I wont be happy with a cashless society. I with day all my wages at once every week

El Tarangu

meeeeh wrote: »

Do you know what's the interest on the mortgages N26 and Revolout are offering? What are their business loans like? Credit cards? You know the usual banking services banks offer and you pay for.

There are already 100% online banks engaged in mortgage lending (maybe not in Ireland, but certainly in other countries - Hello Bank in Belgium, for one). Providing credit cards or business loans online does not sound insurmountable either - also, none of these transactions typically involve cash, so I don't really see how they are relevant to the current discussion.

Also it is extremely naive to think you will manage to abolish criminal activity if you abolish cash.

Not abolish, for sure. Just make some forms of it a lot more difficult. It's just bringing the efforts to ban the €500 note to their logical conclusion.

meeeeh

El Tarangu wrote: »

There are already 100% online banks engaged in mortgage lending (maybe not in Ireland, but certainly in other countries - Hello Bank in Belgium, for one). Providing credit cards or business loans online does not sound insurmountable either - also, none of these transactions typically involve cash, so I don't really see how they are relevant to the current discussion.

It's relevant about your statement that internet banks are able to offer free services because they don't deal with cash. Certain transactions are free or cheaper (Internet banks are not free) because their services are extremely limited.

An awful lot of criminal activity already moved away from cash unless criminals you are most worried about are small time drug dealers who are just trying to get enough money to feed their own addiction.

suicide_circus

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I am amazed after the last 12 years that people think that Banking institutions and Governments are infallible.

ah g'way
there has never been a single recorded incidence of a major institution letting the people of Ireland down

listermint

Lyan wrote: »

Never heard of cryptocurrency OP? There are alternatives that are privacy focused.

Using crypto as a serious form of your wages spending is absolutely lunacy.

suicide_circus

meeeeh wrote: »

All this type of threads actually show us is that people with Revolout accounts like to tell everyone that they have a Revolout account. A lot.

have you heard the Good News?

El Tarangu

meeeeh wrote: »

It's relevant about your statement that internet banks are able to offer free services because they don't deal with cash. Certain transactions are free or cheaper (Internet banks are not free) because their services are extremely limited.

Yes.

Bricks and mortar banks are more expensive because they have many bricks-and-mortar banks and need to pay people to staff them; not for reasons of the range of services they supply. If there were no more cash, banks would no longer need a physical presence in every town in the country. So far, none of your examples of the services banks provide would preclude an online bank carrying them out.

An awful lot of criminal activity already moved away from cash unless criminals you are most worried about are small time drug dealers who are just trying to get enough money to feed their own addiction.

I suppose I'm worried about all levels of criminality - but yes, a disruption in petty crime would be one of the benefits of getting rid of cash.

RobbingBandit

suicide_circus wrote: »

ah g'way
there has never been a single recorded incidence of a major institution letting the people of Ireland down

On multiple occasions Ulster Bank and Bank of Ireland have had IT crashes in the past number of years where wages Social Welfare payments and debit and credit card payments have been cancelled or unavailable however briefly these occurrences have lasted they have happened massively letting people down.

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

Jimmy McGill wrote: »

Cash is king

Margaret Cash?

RobbingBandit

5 finger discount queen so she is

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

I can see the benefits of reducing cash in society, but it shouldn't be mandatory.
It is, after all, legal tender and MUST be accepted when a debt is accrued. It is not compulsory to accept cash in any other situation.

A carrot and stick approach would be good to encourage electronic payments, for example, offering slightly reduced VAT if payments are electronically accepted.

There's little bit no reason for business not to accept card apart from tax evasion. Transaction fees are but a few cent each, if even that.

Reducing cash will reduce robberies and reduce the need for cash security pick ups and Garda escorts for cash. A certain ethnic group would hate to see cash abolished.

J Madone

suicide_circus wrote: »

ah g'way
there has never been a single recorded incidence of a major institution letting the people of Ireland down

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_RBS_Group_computer_system_problems#:~:text=The%202012%20RBS%20computer%20system,%C2%A342m%20over%20the%20incident.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I didn't expect there to be such push-back and a fair level of, in my opinion, paranoia around non-cash forms of payment.

The only way for people to avoid a lot of the problems being discussed here is to operate completely outside of banking institutions. In most cases that would mean holding large amounts of cash so that would need to be secured from robbery.

Another problem I would see in avoiding banks is when a person needs a loan or mortgage, there would be no records of a saving history, many banks may not lend.

CoBo55

Stark wrote: »

I became a lot more aware of what I was spending using card vs cash when going to apply for a mortgage. Having a stranger being able to pore through every detail of my life from what I had to breakfast to my subscription to pornhub premium made me a little uneasy.

What do you get for the premium?

seamus

It's genuinely not something that I care about all that much.

In years gone by, paying with card was much slower, but now it's way faster. I was using cash far far less even before Covid. I could easily go weeks without taking cash out.

Of course there are potential issues, but with sufficient privacy and security laws in place - constantly reviewed and tightened - I see few problems.

Technical glitches are just that. As card payments become more and more necessary, the infrastructure will become more reslient to match. With a protocol for retailers to follow when the machine is down.

The "cash under the bed" people are fools in any case. If that's the kind of saving mechanism you want, you're better off converting it to a solid commodity like gold or silver and storing it securely.
Cash stuffed in pockets around the house is too easy to lose and loses value while it's there. As we move more cashless, we'll probably see a few of those vending machines pop up selling gold or silver in small bars.

Issues around access to bank accounts/cards for poorer people will need to be resolved one way or another. If it was me, I would require banks to offer "starter" accounts to those who wanted them, which has no fees once your average balance remains below €3k over 6 months.

If you're concerned about banks looking through your transactions before offering a mortgage, then I suspect you probably haven't gotten a mortgage in the last decade. Continuous withdrawals of anonymous sums of cash are viewed with as much suspicion as transferring a few euro to paddy power. Whether you take out €500 on a Monday or take out €100 a day, you will be asked what the story is, and it will increase your risk rating and lower the mortgage available to you.

Cordell

Cash is king does not mean what you think it means.

sydthebeat

Cordell wrote: »

Cash is king does not mean what you think it means.

Agreed.

Its so funny reading posters say "cash is king" as if that means it's a better way to pay than digital.

"Cash is king" means there's a dodgy deal happening somewhere

meeeeh

El Tarangu wrote: »

Yes.

Bricks and mortar banks are more expensive because they have many bricks-and-mortar banks and need to pay people to staff them; not for reasons of the range of services they supply. If there were no more cash, banks would no longer need a physical presence in every town in the country. So far, none of your examples of the services banks provide would preclude an online bank carrying them out.

Basically you are saying that anyone who is not tech savy and needs a bit of help with their banking should be abandoned. Not to mention that as a business some things are easier delt with dedicated person over the phone or in person. Or people like my MIL who couldn't access her money because of technical issues (confirmation txt wouldn't come true).

I go to bank quite a bit and vast majority of interactions people have are not about cash. You can get over 1000 euro out of bank atm anyway and you can lodge whatever you want in the atm.

Wanderer78

It ll be interesting to see what happens in the next banking crisis, with an ever increasing amount of cashless transactions, will banks temporarily shut down during this crisis, preventing withdrawals, cash or cashless! Maybe it's a good idea we keep a few quid around the place

Cuddlesworth

peasant wrote: »

Not normally a conspiracy theorist but ...

The only way to safeguard against peoples' savings being wiped out instantly by a hostile power at the push of a button is the right and the freedom of hiding them in cash under your mattress if you so desire.
As long as that potential exists, cash money will always be worth something (even if not its nominal value).

Electronic figures in electronic accounts can be stolen / deleted by anyone and hence are worthless in reality, especially so once all cash has disappeared.

Doesn't seem likely, even if you go all "Fight Clud" and blow the buildings up, its not one big giant financial system but a series of broadly interlinked ancient and complex systems that barley talk to each other. Even trying to "wipe" out wealth in a small country like Ireland would be next to impossible.

Dravokivich wrote: »

What are you on about, usually that's all done before meeting someone. You know what you're going to get and for how much.

How does technology make it any easier? If an atm was offline, theres usually one right beside it, or in a spar/centra nearby.

Why shouldn't we use cash? I still dont see the benefit for discouraging the simplest and least complex means of bartering.

You haven't spent much time down in rural Ireland then? I can think of a fair few places that have a single ATM for a significant distance and there is zero guarantee that its going to be up and working. And they are going over time, or being taken over by third party's and charges are getting added because its a significant cost to banks to maintain them.

Experience_day wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what if we moved to a cashless society.........hit a recession and the government decides to incentivise spending by putting a ridiculous tariff on savings?? What if suddenly activity X becomes socially reprehensible and you're ostracised?

Whats that the difference between a cash and cashless society in that regard.If your a piece of crap in either scenario and outed, your business will suffer.

Experience_day wrote: »

What if you have an opinion that is now deemed "wrong think" (not too hard to imagine in today's society...) and no one will process payments for your business?

It would still be under the exact same system. You think you can run a legal business without government approval right now? Go ahead and open up a coke import business and see how that goes. Or go try to sell a significant amount of crypto and watch the bank shut your account down until you prove where it came from.


Regardless of the pro's and con's, without decent infrastructure(fixed and mobile combined) and incentives to go cashless we are not in a position to move right now. You would have to have a redundant highly connected society to manage that, which we don't have.

sydthebeat

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sweden-cashless-society


There won't be a completely cash free society for short to medium term future at least