“no way would I carry that much cash”
“no way would I carry that much cash”
That was Bitey in a comment to a recent post when the comment stream turned to how much cash we might carry in or wallets or pockets.
Consider this:
“Cashless systems can be problematic for people who currently rely on cash, who are concentrated in certain populations such as the poor, near poor, elderly,[27] undocumented immigrants, and youth.[20] Electronic transactions require a bank account and some familiarity with the payment system.[28] Many people in impoverished areas are underbanked or unbanked. In the United States, almost one-third of the population lacked the full range of basic financial services.[29] According to FDIC data, of households that earn an annual income of less than $15,000 per year, almost 25.6% do not have a bank account.[30] Nationwide, 7.7% of people in United States do not have bank accounts, with levels over 20% in some cities and rural counties, and over 40% in some census tracts.[31]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashless_society
Notice how the author of this Wikipedia entry is careful to avoid identifying or characterizing the adversely effected population as primarily or disproportionately people of color.
A shift to a cashless economy would effectively exclude or shut, already marginalized black and brown people, out of the economic mainstream altogether.
I have several bank and debit cards that I use on a very limited basis.
Generally, I carry enough cash to complete my round of errands or shopping. I’m engaged in resisting the move toward cashlessness.
Cash is one of the few areas of economic leverage we commoners have left.
The dollar bill is our marketplace ballot, and just as we should do with our votes on election day, we should protect our right to retain and use cash as we choose.
In my view, going cashless is a prelude to going choiceless.
07/05/2020 @ 9:38 am
“ A shift to a cashless economy …”
Consider this:
No one suggested a shift to a cashless economy.
R.P., the refutations of that argument are virtually infinite. I gave the most obvious. A cashless economy has not been suggested.
Here are some examples of how else your argument is flawed.
Have you used a staircase today…or recently?
Have you used a printed page?
Have you used artificial light?
Have you used the English language? Etc, etc, etc.
The use of one does not preclude alternatives for those whom cannot. The premise of your argument implies exclusivity. “Cashless” is an absolute. $0.00 is the equivalent of cashless-ness. The statement, no one should ever carry cash would imply the embargo of cash. None of those ideas are relevant to the statements made previously.
I agree that a cashless economy would disadvantage many without access to other forms. For that reason, I would never abolish cash.
On a slightly different matter, this idea is profoundly regressive.
“…The dollar bill is our marketplace ballot, and just as we should do with our votes on election day, we should protect our right to retain and use as we choose…”
I recall having this idea. I was about 18. I said to a college buddy of mine while holding up a dollar, “these are tangible pieces of freedom…”, or something to that effect. That is actually an extremely regressive idea. Ballots must only be enumerated by the number of eligible voters in a society. Equating dollars to ballots creates a system where the few dominate the many. That is counter to the idea of the ballot.
The universe is finite. Goods and services are finite. Value of goods and services is based upon their scarcity. If the value of goods and services is removed, then the incentive to produce and develop them dissolves. Controlling scarcity is perhaps the greatest power in civilization. If that power is combined with the ballot, which ideally would counter the power of controlling the scarcity in the finite universe, then the cash based system which you advocate for has zero value for those who would be disadvantaged by a cashless system. Cash are not ballots. Cash are counter ballots. Cash subverts the ballot because the purpose of cash is to control scarcity for the cash holder. Ballots are to provide access to the scarcity equally, irrespective of the amount of cash held.
I agree that cash is necessary, but has taken various forms. Ballots enumerated by amounts cash is far more regressive than changing the form of cash.
07/05/2020 @ 12:28 pm
There are and have been those who have advocated reduction or removal of the availability of cash from those who are least likely to be connected to the marketplace through the banking system.
It wasn’t that long ago that GW Bush considered and studied the removal of negotiable instruments from any form of public assistance.
The wrongheaded thinking was that if you reduce the amount of cash that reaches the underground street economy, you can reduce the crime rates.
The scheme was tried in Australia and resulted in a variety of creative attempts by recipients to navigate around it.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/loopholes-in-cashless-welfare-scheme-allowing-access-to-alcohol-cigarettes-and-cash/ar-AAFmFW6?li=AA4Znz&%25253Bocid=spartanntp
Many employers here are issuing debit cards instead of payroll checks or direct deposit arrangements to employees bank accounts.
I was not suggesting that there is in any way an equivalency re cash in the marketplace and votes in the political arena.
I don’t disagree with your take in the main. However, there is much to be said for your instinctive, even if rudimentary, grasp of the matter as an 18 year old.
BTW:
Let’s be clear.
I am not suggesting that you would in any way advocate a cashless system.