A cashless society.

[dre]

Well, I could say also that it is not all about you either. So, why should I lose some garage sales just because you believe that a cashless society will be just great, and better for all of us? I just cannot get those who do not see the threat of a cashless society? I guess their freedom and privacy means nothing to them. And geez thanks for pointing the fact out that cash isn't being used for that many transactions anymore these days. I learn something new every day.

The real danger in eliminating physical tokens is not that you will lose out on some garage sales. Its that the government risks undermining confidence in its own currency and financial institutions.

Confidence in the banking system is the belief that you are loaning the banks your wealth, and if you wanted to go and take it all out you could cash out. Physical currency is what provides that portability. People like to believe their relationship with banks is voluntary, but if you cant cash out then it no longer is. Its true that only about 5% of our money supply is made at the mint, but its the most important part.

This whole thing is just a silly non-starter. The government knows that if it tried to end physical currency that people would flock to precious metals, alternative currencies etc. A fairly large segment of the economy would no longer be using legal tender and currency values would immediately plummet.

Anyways this is a stupid idea promoted by people that don't understand the ramifications. Minted coins and printed notes might be replaced with another form of portable physical currency but physical currency will NEVER be phased out.

Also when people flippantly mention garage sales or drugs or small personal transactions what they forget to consider that these shadow economies are a whopping 20+% of global GDP.

Some people should just shut up and shop...

Edited April 6, 2016 by dre

[Derek 2.0]

Some people should just shut up and shop...

Ahh but that is the point and why Keynesians are pushing the prospect of a cashless economy with negative interest rates.....what better way to centrally plan an economy then having no physical cash and being able to force the populace to spend or be taxed for saving money? The central bank, then has total control over all legal tender........and the Government controls the banks..........

All those with the utmost faith in the big banks and Government.....be my guest.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I could say also that it is not all about you either. So, why should I lose some garage sales just because you believe that a cashless society will be just great, and better for all of us? I just cannot get those who do not see the threat of a cashless society? I guess their freedom and privacy means nothing to them. And geez thanks for pointing the fact out that cash isn't being used for that many transactions anymore these days. I learn something new every day.

You're welcome....money comes in many forms...not just cash. As for being afraid of a "threat", I love the NSA...."you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide". I still use coins to spray wash my car, even though I could use a credit card. Hope that helps....

[Argus]

Who cares about what the answer to this question is. They probably don't care what you do in your own home or bedroom either but that's no reason to accept surveillance there.

You appear to be confusing the possibility that they might want to know something with them actually doing anything about it.

[msj]

(1)Because the government then would be able to build up a profile on people just from what they buy if they so chose too. A cashless society would be the one way to do that. They could make a mountain out of a mole hill.

(2)I guess what the NSA or what some of our own Canadian police forces would like to do, is ok with you, eh?

(3)In a cashless/digital society the government can sure as hell be able to keep track of everything they are doing with their digital currency, like they can do today.

4) use cash to evade taxes.....

Edited April 7, 2016 by msj

[TimG]

If a government wanted they could establish a block chain system for their currency

(bitcoin is not required for block chains which are a useful tech on their own).

This would allow electronic cash-transactions between anonymous electronic wallets.

They could even put limits on the size of transactions allowed via the C$ block chain.

IOW, cashless does not need to mean that every transaction is tracked.

However, governments don't want to do this because they like the idea of tracking everything.

Edited April 7, 2016 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

Why would you think the government or anyone else cares what you buy at the grocery store?

Businesses are very interested to know what you buy at the store. Any smart business wants to know as much about you and your spending habits as possible.

The government is lucky if it knows what THEY are buying and selling. There's no way in hell they can keep track of what everyone else is buying and selling.

They don't have to keep track of everything, they just need the ability to access that info whenever they want to.

[August1991]

Are you pro or against a cashless society?

taxme, I suspect that you don't understand what "money" is (you call it cash) or how modern banking works.

(Suggestion: Google "Canadian Payments Association". If msj posted above about this and I missed his post, excuse this repeat... )

=======

As to the anonymous nature of cash/money, have no fear: anonymous money will always be with us. Among the various inventions of humans, I suspect the idea of numbered trade, a price, will be the last idea to disappear with our species.

Edited April 7, 2016 by August1991

[taxme]

It's nice to see that you have no problem with a government agency going thru your emails. Privacy means nothing to you. It's just a word. Was Stalin or Mao people you admired? The problem with people who don't have a problem with it today is that they are not giving thought to how that could be used against them in the future. Today, you may have a belief in something, and all is ok. Tomorrow that could change, and now that belief is suddenly considered terrorist. And now you have become an interested party, and now the NSA types are now tracking you and what you are saying.

Give the government an inch of your freedom, and they will surely take a foot. You either are for freedom or you are against it. I am for the former.

[taxme]

Cash under the table is being done everyday. I have no problem with it. The government steals enough from we the people already. At least with paying cash, it helps keep the governments greedy hands off some of it.

[overthere]

Cash under the table is being done everyday. I have no problem with it. The government steals enough from we the people already. At least with paying cash, it helps keep the governments greedy hands off some of it.

I used to think like that too.

But all the perks we all enjoy like cops, firemen, hospitals, education, roads etc are paid for by people who pay taxes. They also pay the share of people who scam their taxes or work in the black economy. No free lunch.

[nerve]

Legal tender should be respected by government.

I am really upset with Passport Canada and other government services only being offered through bank and financial services such as debit and credit card, or forcing people to pay more to obtain a postal money order.

It is just ridiculous you can't pay in Canadian Dollars, the stuff the government prints, for government services.

It is horrible.

Government should be forced to take its own money to pay for its services.

If it isn't good enough for it, why the heck should anyone else use it.

Edited April 16, 2016 by nerve

[TimG]

Government should be forced to take its own money to pay for its services.

It costs businesses a lot of money to manage cash. It is a waste of taxpayer money to accept cash when the overwhelming majority of people prefer electronic transfers.

[nerve]

It costs businesses a lot of money to manage cash. It is a waste of taxpayer money to accept cash when the overwhelming majority of people prefer electronic transfers.

It costs absolutely nothing to take a paper bill from someone.

How is that any different than a money order?

You can take legal tender, or you can take a peice of paper saying the government took your legal tender and charged you 5$ for it? Money orders are way more complex and costly than cash.

Hello do you see the problem. The government is charging more to take legal tender, its chosen form of currency.

Meanwhile you can pay a government agency to take your legal tender for the service they are saying costs a certain amount.

It makes far more sense for them to charge the legal tender rate and take the legal tender.

If they take it at the post office, have all government services paid for at the post office then.

But not taking legal tender unless you pay to convert legal tender to a post office note is extra costs.

Sorry try again total lie.

It costs the exact same to deposit cash as any other monetary instrument including money orders.

It is a shill. It is also totally nonsense the government issues a currency it won't take for payment.

Do you realize how wrong that is?

Oh but businesses have to give their money to the banks.

The government can't manage its own money.

Self fulfilling failure of management.

Freedom of Association should free me from needing to agree to private financial contracts to do business with the government.

I should be able to do business direct with the government through legal tender, and not be treated unequally by having additional service charges for using Canadian currency to transact that business with the Canadian government.

They could have Canada post as a source of all payments in cash, but forcing me to pay for a money order is nonsense.

It is wrong. It is blantaly obvious it is wrong to force people to use private third party financial services to do business with the government.

The government should offer accounts to every citizen or person who transacts business with the government if they force these for things like paying taxes, obtaining a passport, or paying for licensing and ID.

These businesses have no obligations to offer their financial services the government shouldn't expect people to use them for basic services.

Having people pay more for using cash is just wrong.

If money orders are magical and superior to cash, then hell why not just issue money orders instead of cash as the form of currency.

IT IS STUPID. It is a rip off, and it is morally wrong.

If it is so much cheaper why do ATM and debit charges cost as much?

It ain't cheaper for people.

Oh it depends on what bank services you have.

Trust me at the end of the day.

CANADA ISSUES CURRENCY TO BE USED TO BUY STUFF IN CANADA, if the government doesn't take its own monetary instrument for its own services, IT IS WRONG. Something is seriously wrong.

The Canadian government could do two things, require banks to ledger funds to the bank of Canada if deposited, utilize Canada post to make deliveries to the bank of Canada or to a bank required to ledger funds to the bank of Canada.

All this extra processes is just adding costs to the public, and the banks will be doing the exact same thing.

Banks should not be an intermediary that can veto business between the public and government.

Sorry I absolutely reject it.

People who pay in legal tender should not be paying more than people who have accounts with private banks.

That is unequal application of the law. A fee is a fee in legal tender. It should be payable in legal tender rather than through a contract with a private financial service.

I should not have to sign a contract with a third party to do business with the government for essential services.

It is wrong and offensive.

Edited April 16, 2016 by nerve

[TimG]

It costs absolutely nothing to take a paper bill from someone.

You are wrong. Handling cash is incredibly cumbersome for businesses because it needs to be sorted, counted and secured (since it is easily stolen). This may be a necessary cost for businesses where customers want to use cash but if most of your customers use electronic payments when given a choice it makes no sense to spend the extra money required to maintain the business infrastructure needed to accept cash. Edited April 16, 2016 by TimG

[nerve]

You are wrong. Handling cash is incredibly cumbersome for businesses because it needs to be sorted, counted and secured (since it is easily stolen). This may be a necessary cost for businesses where customers want to use cash but if most of your customers use electronic payments when given a choice it makes no sense to spend the extra money required to maintain the business infrastructure needed to accept cash.

TimG, no it isn't. It costs absolutely nothing.

There will always be someone pushing the envelope so your security point is again a lie.

Canada post already handles cash.

It isn't extra money.

You have done nothing to demonstrate how this would require more effort. In fact me paying money in a bank in cash or paying cash direct it is more efficient to pay direct because it doesn't involve a middle man.

Sorry your whole model is failure by design because it places banks and financial services as the gatekeepers to do business.

Your model is flawed. Banks add costs that is why they make billions. The billions don't come from thin air, and someone is definately paying.

Canada post could be a bank, it already stores goods. You just don't want to not be retarded in how you view the status quo.

You are saying, but it has to be this way, it lets banks control monetary policy and turns government into a business instead of a source of monetary control.

Fascist!

Cash is less burdeonsome than electric, which is also dependent on electricity which can fail. Cash doesn't disapear when it is hacked. Your model is technologically dependent, and requires a middle man to delegate business processes for government which the government is bound to contract with.

You subject government to private powers. You are fascist.

You are rejecting sovreignty for Canadians in how they interact with their government, and your postion is unconstitutional.

It cannot be supported.

People should have a means of direct control of their money, not be required to give it to a bank to manage as their own.

The money in your bank account is the banks not your own.

Being at the whim of financial institutions should not be forced on the people.

Giving financial institutions a veto on when to transact or allow your business is not something the public should be bound to.

We should control our own money, not be forced to give it to others who control the monetary system.

We deserve freedom of our currency, not for it to be controlled by our masters. We don't need masters.

You are lying about increased costs, in fact the government is bound and dependent on the financial services to be able to serve essential public services through your suggestion.

We should have freedom of association not Corporatocracy ruled by financial service providers.

I want to be able to pay for my passport, which is forced as a barrier to international and constitutional mobilitiy rights with Cash,

not be vetoed on my human rights by http://www.globalistagenda.org/

It lets them make more money, it does not save us money.

http://www.globalistagenda.org/finance.htm

It is more efficient to pay direct because it doesn't involve a middle man.

Further these government services could be held to account and not cause a deficit by needing to pay their way with their earnings, or whatever the government sent to them. I have the hunch most funds would be flowing from government and anything paid to them would be kept at the point it went in. This is a way of insuring fiscal accountability.

If they had such a need to transfer money to the consolidated revenue fund or corporate HQ after their costs were paid perhaps cost of services should be rethought, since they would be making money off essential public services instead of providing a non-profit service.

Your process isn't providing for the government to manage expenditures and manage services logically, by insuring that costs are paid by those using the services where there are fees for services, instead of just inventing costs. It would allow them to better manage how these services are provided.

Part of the issue is that private debt is high so people don't have money, they have liquidity as long as they keep paying their debt interest.

People loose their liquidity to the whim of financial service providers if they hold electronic notes controlled by financial controllers. Cash is liquidity. Loss of liquidity is complete dependence on the controllers of the system.

Federal employees can't even have a criminal record, you are saying the people that are making passports couldn't just sell fraudulent passports, and are more likely to steal cash? You know the RCMP could commit fraud and theft too. The fact is these people are screened, and well much like the military, if these people are found then they are accounted for. People could set up skimming machines, use credit card numbers or any number of other "cashless" processes to do what would they could do with cash, so no sorry your position is faulty.

Edited April 17, 2016 by nerve

[TimG]

TimG, no it isn't. It costs absolutely nothing.

You clearly know nothing about running a business and don't seem to want to learn. Accepting cash comes with cost for businesses. That is the real world. Denial won't change anything.

In case you feel like learning something:

http://www.cashtechcurrency.com/blog/which-payment-method-costs-you-more-cash-payments-vs.-card-payments

Though accepting cash as payment might seem like the most advantageous option, because it eliminates monthly fees and allows for immediate liquidity, it actually has a very high cost and comes with unique risks of robbery, theft, and counterfeiting, as well as the risk of human error during the cash handling procedures. Labour costs are higher for cash payments because your employees have to manually count, sort, reconcile, store, and deposit them throughout the day. There are also the costs of secure storage, security measures, and investments in counterfeit detection training and technology in order to reduce risks. In addition, financial institutions charge fees for cash deposits and withdrawals as well as coin ordering. All of these expenses of cash handling add up considerably, and make it the most expensive payment method.

You might be surprised to hear that accepting cash is more expensive than paying credit and debit fees, but considering most of the expenses are not priced explicitly, you might not recognize the full costs of cash handling.

Edited April 17, 2016 by TimG

[nerve]

You clearly know nothing about running a business and don't seem to want to learn. Accepting cash comes with cost for businesses. That is the real world. Denial won't change anything.

In case you feel like learning something:
http://www.cashtechcurrency.com/blog/which-payment-method-costs-you-more-cash-payments-vs.-card-payments

Is that your brainwashed propaganda information you got from the banks?

Cash costs absolutely NOTHING to take.

Try selling your snake oil to someone else.

Are you not reading -

CASH TAKES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO ACCEPT.

NOTHING.

IT IS THE MONEY.. MONEY DOESN'T COST MONEY TO TAKE.

You are absurd.

LEGAL TENDER IS THE MONEY!!!

IT IS WHAT MONEY IS. YOU DON'T PAY TO PAY IN MONEY OR TO TAKE MONEY IT IS THE MONEY!!!

How stupid do you think people are.

You think a complex computerized payment system costs less than legal tender???

You are insane.

You are utterly brainwashed if you think that.

Ok say you have a bag of apples you want to sell for 10$

I have a 10$ bill. I give you that 10$ bill for the bag of apples. DONE. Not so complex

Now say I want to pay with a debit card

I need to open a bank account GIVE THE BANK my money which it now owns and controls, get the bank to give me a debit card which it says I am responsible for if my money is lost by the system quite possibly.

You then need to set up an electronic payment system set up a communications infrastructure.

I need to pay with my debit card costing me 12$ for your 10$ bag of apples, you also need to pay to use the receipt so your 10$ bag of apples gets you 9$

the bank makes 3$ my living standard goes down by 2$ and your living standard goes down by 1$

and if the power goes out I don't have apples and you don't have a business. The system of course can opt to veto the transaction or freeze either of our accounts completely removing our ability to do business.

Meanwhile the system is compramised you loose all your money.

NOT SO SIMPLE.

Of course my debit card can be swiped, my card can become faulty, your reader can get damaged, and a host of other issues.

You are nuts if you think the system makes things "easier" for people.

You DO NOT understand the system whatsoever.

It gives total control to the people in control of the system rather than the people with the money. Worse yet the money in the system is their money, not yours. once it is there it is theirs.

Do you really want a monetary system where you are a slave with no financial control and the masters delegate how you can do business?

Someone can blow your head off without robbing you and you still don't have access to your "credit" people can be a victim of crime at any time. Saying but of course someone can't steal access to my bank account, and if they arnt' robbing that they are stealing something else? What are you selling, are people steeling your goods and your car keys instead? Perhaps you should be concerned about robbery control and deterrents. Are you not going to own anything valuable that can be stolen? People would just resort to other forms of crime. You are saying that the absence of cash will reduce crime, oh I think quite the opposite it will increase it because people won't be able to make cash from other activities in a cash based economy.

What is stopping me from forcing you to empty your bank account through threat of force, rather than getting you to empty a till?

But banks charge to use cash.. .OF COURSE THEY DO IT IS THE ONLY THING THAT IS STOPPING THEM FROM HAVING A MONOPOLY ON BUSINESS TRANSACTION WITH THE POWER TO VETO ANYONE THEY WANT FROM HAVING THE ABILITY TO BUY OR SELL.

Using the argument that the people who want to control the ability to purchase goods are charging to use their competitor, just says dont' use the banks, they are ripping you off, and hijacking the financial system.

My gosh you are calling offering information from a business that sells alternative payment systems to be "education" you clearly are not educated if you think the authority on a system is unbiased if it offers products that completely match what it is saying is the case.

It was a massively unacademic link.

"

About CashTech

CashTech has been helping our customers for 29 years to improve efficiencies, reduce potential money currency losses, increase security, and improve cash flow when dealing with frequent or large volumes of cash, coin or cheques. We have also been helping our very large banking customers to implement cash management systems as well as providing procurement, fulfillment and on-going service maintenance support.

We offer a wide range of commercial currency solutions a"

Don't come here and tell me about educating me, it is called marketing recognize the difference.

"www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0XuKORufGk"

Edited April 17, 2016 by nerve

[TimG]

Cash costs absolutely NOTHING to take.

Businesses have to have change which costs money to get. They have to train staff which costs money. They need to protect against theft which costs money. They lose money if they accept counterfeits. It adds up. Businesses pay these costs when and only when they believe they have enough cash paying customers to justify the cost.

[Smallc]

To take cash, you have to have cash on hand, and not in the bank where, in this technological age, it's most liquid. That's expensive.

[taxme]

taxme, I suspect that you don't understand what "money" is (you call it cash) or how modern banking works.

(Suggestion: Google "Canadian Payments Association". If msj posted above about this and I missed his post, excuse this repeat... )

=======

As to the anonymous nature of cash/money, have no fear: anonymous money will always be with us. Among the various inventions of humans, I suspect the idea of numbered trade, a price, will be the last idea to disappear with our species.

From my understanding, private banks create the money. At least that is what I understood from the Comer Report. A report that the media and politicians seem to want to avoid talking about for some unknown strange reason. They want to keep it hushed up from we the people.

Edited April 17, 2016 by taxme

[eyeball]

How much privacy would honest people be willing to give up if it meant crooked people had to give up their secrecy?

[TimG]

From my understanding, private banks create the money.

Private banks create electronic money when create loans but they also create liabilities which they are responsible for so a bank does not end up with any profit when the issue the loan. The only make profit on the difference between interest paid on savings and the interest collected on loans.

This is also no secret. Any introduction to economics course should cover it in detail. The only issue are people who do not understand how it works dream up ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Edited April 17, 2016 by TimG

[Scott Mayers]

There's a lot of weird interpretations on what money is here.

"Cash" is just the paper form of money that we hold trust in on its face value. All money represents 'energy' owed (debt) as a storage or buffer (a delay) so that one can trade the debts as value in common. Cash now is still based on the accounting of these debts which act no different than non-cash transactions.

The government IS the negotiating mechanism to supply the cash as notes that promise one must owe something of accepted equal value on its face. They don't take cash because they play a role in creating it. As such, when they accept this form of money, it is destroyed or canceled, since it has no meaning anymore.

It's like this:

Assume I own a house completely outright. This represents REAL energy in the form of matter that I can either keep to myself or lease/rent out, or, in general, trade for something else through negotiated barter. Because barter is not easy to do since it requires a physical market place to bring such values to in order to trade, we need some means to make some trades 'liquid' or stand in as a promise for such property. You cannot just drag your house to some downtown farmers market and so require some officially and recognized note to represent this. This note I can create myself with my signature to promise that whomever holds it bears the right to my house or some part of it.

I may not be able to find one who would want my house outright but would be willing to take a partial LEAN of such ownership. This can be done if I split up the promise of the bearer to my house in parts, or 'shares'. I could be very specific, like creating a note to the bearer that represents my living room; one for my main bathroom; etc. But while this has been done, it is hard to determine how one should split up such property rights among different people. If I 'own' the right to all of the house except for some room in the center, I might opt to destroy all my rightful rooms and create a very real problem for the one 'owning' the center room as it would be destroyed in my own freedom.

So what has occurred instead is that you set up a government-recognized authority that can act as the formal writer of such contracts (Notaries) who also can have assessors that determine value based on guidelines held in common from the government (represented by the people). So instead of the possible situation above, we create middle-people who act to 'monetize' real value. This could be labor energy, literal real energy from other resources, property energy, etc, etc. The shares as notes representing these values cost its own energy: the notaries, the making of the paper contracts themselves, and the assessors, etcetera. That is, the paper money being created actually costs energy too that needs to be accounted for.

The banks are initially collective 'owners' of the actual properties they hold outright, NOT created out of thin air. Initially they acted as storage businesses for commodity money and other contracts. And though the original form of money by many such banks 'borrowed' their stored property of its clientele to lend it, like entrusting a friend to hold on to some property of yours that they have opted to pawn without your notice, this evolved into requiring the banks to pay interest should they be allowed to do this just as the client must pay for storage. The bank thus evolved to have their own notaries and assessors among all other factors to create paper money AS DEBTS from either what they OWN outright, OR to require paying those who are storing value with them to pay them a fee or share of the activity of lending their stuff out.

Money is thus 'debt' and represents stored potential energy. It must abide by the laws of physics too in that what goes in can only be used for what goes out. Thus these paper promises are just checks that get canceled when the ones using it as cash return it to the bank and 'pay' them some interest for that loan. But how does the person 'borrowing' the promises to trade for other things pay the bank? With 'other' promises from elsewhere?

This would initially be done by demanding the lender to grant the bank another promise directly tied to some real asset, like the house. So I could use my house, or part of it, like a room's value, to act as collateral to the bank in which they now 'own' a part of your real property. This "mortgage" can be canceled in some other way that you could either barter with the bank or promise in some other way that cancels the mortgage or lean the bank has against your house.

Of course this evolved to cause more trouble when many people tried to pay debts with debts in a form of Ponzi scheming, or the pay-Peter-to-pay-Paul loop. Eventually when these types do this, the interest gets rapidly too high to actually keep going without somebody noticing somewhere in the system. But this is precisely what happened and still is hard to stop. When these schemes get rampant, the increased money supply makes the dollar less valuable and people inflate the costs of their goods & services to catch up.

Since these have got to the point that people all of a sudden lose faith in the rapidly decreasing value of their promises (money), they take it to the bank in a rush to cancel such debts out and get their stored real properties etcetera out (like Gold, as a commodity, or one's lean against their house as a mortgage). This run on the bank is why governments had opted to step in, demand the banks to have a centralized place they must also 'store' a percentage of their ownership in (as insurance) AND to allow the government a means to create a universal control of making dollars. The amount the banks save in percentage in this central bank is what gives them the privilege to have bills promised by the government in the form of CASH that is backed by that reserve.

Since the money costs to make is now with the government, the government needs to find a means to pay for this through taxation in some way. The only way most universal is to create a stock that represents the actual paper money being created in which they promise those holding these a 'future' money, called "Treasury Bonds". It is a catch up kind of thing with the literal costs of making money for the people. The government making the bills has no actual value in them when their Treasury departments handle it.

Sorry for the unasked for lesson here. I think it should be helpful to understand to answer the OP here. Cash is NOT anymore 'secure' regardless of whether we use it or accounting balance trades trusted over the internet, etc. It's literal value may be less easy to possess in your own 'trust' for holding it, but both virtual forms of money AND cash risk being stolen and counterfeited regardless. The paper contract is at least easier to feel confident in when the virtual forms seem as easy to counterfeit with only ones and zeros these data debts are made of. A simple power out or surge can potentially destroy the money in those forms too. So this is BACKED up in paper still, even if not in our 'cash' form through accountants who must keep multiple copies in various trusted hands to later refer to should something like this happen. But paper money too can be literally burned up and create as much problems.

There is not perfect solution. However, encrypted data techniques can often be even MORE secure than paper money, don't have the same costs associated with it that contribute to government debt (for those Treasury bonds) and can likely outlast the lifetime of any paper bill.

So does this help?

[nerve]

To take cash, you have to have cash on hand, and not in the bank where, in this technological age, it's most liquid. That's expensive.

If you need cash in the bank you can put cash in the bank.

Its not expensive to make a deposit at the end of the day if you need cash in the bank at the end of the day, or the end of the week if you need it in there at the end of the week.

Also no, it isn't most liquid in the bank. It is most liquid as cash.

You just choose to deal with bank transfers instead of cash handoffs.

Banking complicates and adds costs to transactions.

Edited April 17, 2016 by nerve