Sometimes you need cash.

[Car-Guy]

I'd pay cash for everything except for the convenience of CC's and the cash back I get. I take the base 1 to 2% cash back rewards on everything but won't play their quarterly rotating special games that might get me a little more cash back on a few categories.

Also, about once a month I buy "something" from Amazon and my account is linked to one of my cash back cards. I almost always have enough cash back rewards in my account to pay for whatever I'm buying... It's like free stuff. They automatically let me know how much I have and automatically deduct the credits. I think I just click one box saying, "yes" use the credits.

For my other cash back cards, I just use the credits as part of my monthly balance payoff.

 

[Piper20]

In SE PA 2 fish markets and pizza place started charging a 3% convenience fee. I’m assuming the interchange fees have increased.

 

[Koolau]

You made my point. If cc companies can deny legal transactions and banks can close your account for no good reason, then what are your options if cash is no longer accepted?

I would guess folks actually DO know about the situations where CC companies or banks have denied transactions or closed accounts. Since they "agree" with these actions in the specific circumstances, it doesn't bother them. Someday, when it happens to them, it might be a bit more problematic.

As long as cash is still used, "denied" but legal transactions will still be possible. When there is no cash, even gummints will be able to deny "legal" transactions. YMMV

 

[CaptTom]

As long as cash is still used, "denied" but legal transactions will still be possible. When there is no cash, even gummints will be able to deny "legal" transactions. YMMV

I guess I tend to agree that the option to use cash has value. But I have to admit it's mostly to keep dishonest options open.

I see the point about not trusting the government to decide which transactions are allowable. If, say, contributing to an opposing political party becomes illegal, tyranny is almost guaranteed.

But look at all the tyrants and wanna-be tyrants in power or seeking power today. They all do just fine in societies where cash is perfectly legal.

I don't think the problem is going cashless. The problem is that we like to elect or support tyrants, as long as they're "on our team." The problem is that we allow them to twist the truth through propaganda, and convince us to never listen to opposing views. The problem is us.

 

[Alan]

The largest cash transaction I have done was in 2016 and it was £8,600 all in £20 notes. We had moved to England and had a hire car while we looked to buy a 2nd hand car. We found a car very quickly, did all the paperwork, insurance etc and arranged to pick it up. We dropped off the rental car and they gave us a lift to the garage to get the car. For some reason our attempts to transfer the money just did not work, the dealer saying there was nothing wrong at their end, the bank saying they were not blocking the transfer. The salesman let us drive the car we were about to buy to our bank about 5 miles away where we tried again an electronic transfer and failed, so simply asked for the money in cash which we then carried to the dealer who had 2 folks count the money, give us a receipt and we then drove off.

One thing that surprised me, other than the failure to electronically transfer the money, was that the cash the bank gave us was all in £20 notes. The largest note in England in circulation is £50, to discourage large transfers of cash, and even our bank teller would or could only give us cash in £20s

A suitcase full of cash is worth a lot less here than it used to be. I guess smaller notes requires larger suitcases for those under the table payments.

 

[Spock]

The other way of looking at it is "what if cash was not an option?" and "what are the goals of the war on cash?"
The designers of the non-crypto, blockchain digital cash alternatives in the form of Central Bank Digital Currencies have published white papers of some of the "features" to be achieved and can be enabled by programmable money :
* expiration dates: when trying to increase the velocity of money/encourage spending during a recession, the funds can be programmed with a "use by" date.
* negative interest rates: another tool to discourage savings and get money moving in the economy. Today people would put cash in their mattress if faced with a negative interest rate on savings. But without cash you have no other other alternative.

This is straight from the people designing the Feds proposed CBDC.
Then there are all the things that a non-cash society would be exposed to but disabled by having cash available: social credit scores, carbon rationing, meat rationing. Remember when governors required Walmart to rope off all "non-essential" sections of the store to prevent shoppers from buying whatever they decided to be non-essential? Now put a tool like this in either party's paws look at what the zealots running those parties would do with it.


"remove cash to prevent crime" isn't going to sound as good when it's a crime to buy things you need.

 

[Koolau]

I guess I tend to agree that the option to use cash has value. But I have to admit it's mostly to keep dishonest options open.

I see the point about not trusting the government to decide which transactions are allowable. If, say, contributing to an opposing political party becomes illegal, tyranny is almost guaranteed.

But look at all the tyrants and wanna-be tyrants in power or seeking power today. They all do just fine in societies where cash is perfectly legal.

I don't think the problem is going cashless. The problem is that we like to elect or support tyrants, as long as they're "on our team." The problem is that we allow them to twist the truth through propaganda, and convince us to never listen to opposing views. The problem is us.

When it comes down to "crime" or "tyranny" I guess you have to ask the question: Who do you fear most? Street thugs or maybe "organized crime" or a gummint with a 1.5 million man army? They can all steal from you and even kill you, but which do you think would be more effective if they decided you were now on the "outs?" Taking away cash would make it tougher on criminals, of course. BUT it would also make it easier for gummint to control citizens. Any gummint that had the chance to control citizens and didn't do it would be the first in history. YMMV

 

[CaptTom]

@Koolau, we're on the same page as far as government goes. I think maybe where we differ is identifying the source of the problem. The last paragraph of my previous post pretty much sums it up.

 

[MichaelB]

Let’s make sure this thread doesn’t drift into politics, please.

Despite the hand wringing and worries about government overreach, there is no developed economy government initiative to replace cash with digital currency. Even if there were, a digital currency does not give public agencies any greater authority to act on private assets.

 

[Rocket Man]

Let’s make sure this thread doesn’t drift into politics, please.

Despite the hand wringing and worries about government overreach, there is no developed economy government initiative to replace cash with digital currency. Even if there were, a digital currency does not give public agencies any greater authority to act on private assets.

You say no politics and go right ahead and give your political opinion. LOL!

 

[MichaelB]

You say no politics and go right ahead and give your political opinion. LOL!

Sorry, this was not a “political opinion”. My post was an effort to explain why politics is not relevant to this discussion.

The discussion of a cashless society is primarily about merchants and consumers, the advantages and disadvantages to each of using hard currency or credit / debit cards.

 

[CaptTom]

Despite the hand wringing and worries about government overreach, there is no developed economy government initiative to replace cash with digital currency. Even if there were, a digital currency does not give public agencies any greater authority to act on private assets.

Well said, this is exactly what I was trying to get at. Cash or cashless, doesn't change any concerns we might harbor regarding governmental overreach. Those have been well-known for centuries. Discussing them here won't offer much illumination.

Lots of governments in the world today have managed to be repressive and authoritarian even without banning cash. Could cashless processes be abused? Sure. So could cash. Same as anything.