A cashless society.

[Guest]

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

All of it.

Edit> Well, me anyway. But I am honest. Honestly.

Edited April 17, 2016 by bcsapper

[TimG]

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

Depends on the amount. For anything over $1000 cash is very hard to use unless you do most of your business with organized crime.

Banking complicates and adds costs to transactions.

For the individual, banking adds costs but the overwhelming majority of people think it is more convenient than using cash. For businesses, the cost of handling cash can be more than the cost of electronic banking fees.

[taxme]

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.

Sure, and the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 just happened, right? No conspiracy there, and it's ridiculous to think so, right? Those who believe that conspiracies belong to crazy people cannot be living in a realistic world. Just my opinion, of course.

Private banks should not be allowed to create any money, digital or otherwise. That is the job of the federal government to do that. For banks to be printing money is the same as if I were printing money. They call it counter fitting. It is strange that banks can just create digital money out of thin air, and reap the rewards from it thru interest rates on that money borrowed. Geez, even our own government borrows from them when they don't need too. The government can print that money without interest for infrastructure or whatever needs the country requires. Why does the taxpayer have to pay someone interest who does not deserve it. Again, this is how I understand as to how the banking system works in Canada. In America they call it the Federal Reserve which has nothing to do with the federal government at all. Private banksters making a bundle of money at the people's expense.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Again, this is how I understand as to how the banking system works in Canada. In America they call it the Federal Reserve which has nothing to do with the federal government at all. Private banksters making a bundle of money at the people's expense.

The U.S. Federal Reserve System (aka Fed) was created by government and has both public and private components. It is the central bank for the United States, and has nothing to do with Canada "printing money". The Fed pays profits to the U.S. Treasury after expenses and member bank dividends.

[taxme]

The U.S. Federal Reserve System (aka Fed) was created by government and has both public and private components. It is the central bank for the United States, and has nothing to do with Canada "printing money". The Fed pays profits to the U.S. Treasury after expenses and member bank dividends.

Or so you have been led to believe. The Federal Reserve is owned and operated by the Rothchilds, and papa Rothchild many centuries ago stated that "give me control of a nations money, and I care not who who controls the country" . You want to make appear as though all is legit, but it is not.

The Comer Report is a Canadian version of some Canadians questioning the power of private banks in the issuing of money in this country. Punch in Comer Report on the internet. This is where you might get to understand as to how the bankers control the the issuance of money really works.

Go ahead. They can explain it all better than I can.

[bush_cheney2004]

Or so you have been led to believe. The Federal Reserve is owned and operated by the Rothchilds, and papa Rothchild many centuries ago stated that "give me control of a nations money, and I care not who who controls the country" . You want to make appear as though all is legit, but it is not.

Nothing spices up a good conspiracy story for Canada's banks better than pointing at the United States....otherwise, nobody would pay attention.

[Michael Hardner]

Stay on topic, thanks.

[GostHacked]

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.

Are you aware of the large cost of digital currency? Dependent on computer power and electricity. Computers get hacked and security measures are needed..... check the infrastructure for digital money.

[nerve]

Depends on the amount. For anything over $1000 cash is very hard to use unless you do most of your business with organized crime.

For the individual, banking adds costs but the overwhelming majority of people think it is more convenient than using cash. For businesses, the cost of handling cash can be more than the cost of electronic banking fees.

Really?

I don't do most of my business with organized crime.

$1000 is only 20 $50 bills or 10 $100 bills. Rent on tons of places is more than $1000, and things like electronics, exercise equipment, and cars all run over that. Nothing organized crime about that. Why would I want the banks to know everything of value I own? If that info leaks all my valuables and own safety could be jeopardized. The best way to protect things is to hide them, telling people everything you have of value is just inviting criminal activity on those goods. (Toys often cost more than $1000 and cash is just easier)

Do the banks disclose all their ownership information to me? This is just common sense. Banks have people that can commit crimes too, insider information can be leaked, and all that adds risk to your personal and property safety.

"For the individual, banking adds costs"

Exactly, that is why cash is important because people don't want extra costs. Part of the problem is that people are increasingly being forced to have all their payments routed through the banks, which means they need to get money from an ATM or perform electronic transactions. Of course bank cards can get frozen, the security can be compromised and whole bank accounts can be siphoned or have their electronic security stolen as people can hack their accounts remotely and make off with their life savings.

Cash has no electronic banking fees. A prudent person can hide cash somewhere no one will find it.

Populism and libertarianism is the right way to run government, corporatocracy is to be avoided because everyone deserved equal rights, not just the people who are given the reigns to say who lives and who dies.

We need our freedoms and cash is freedom. Corporate controlled life is a gateway to disenfranchisement and enslavement.

What is good for the people is the right way.

We need to see the big picture of not what it does, but how it transforms and effects society on the large scale.

If the system had no fees and could not be interfered with many of the failures of the banking run monetary system wouldn't exist. It is not just money that is involved but the essence of life, power and control.

That is why we must keep the system individualized so that people are not controlled but rather free to transact without contract and third party vetoes on what they choose to engage in commerce with. We arn't even talking about government interference in the free market and commerce here we are talking about corporate interference in private business, that totally violates international law on commerce, and non discrimination, as well as the premise of power of attorney and contract rights, as well it interferes with government exercise of monetary controls through the removal of a government controlled legal tender. In short it opens a gateway to hell that violates essentially all rights of the free world and gives power to the few to decide the fate of billions.

This is made even more complex with the upspringing of countless payment processors with and without bank affiliations (often with).

You don't even know where your money is going these days using electronic payment systems. Each with contracts that are pages and pages, allowing your charter rights to be ignored, and activities that use to require warrants to be performed, and including clauses which bar you from legal action against them for anything. You know your payment info is being sold for marketing and secret profiling of you. Its not good stuff. It isn't just crime, but people have been profiled for years and years for political and corporate opinions. All this stuff in the US for instance is being fused in fusion centers to better enable population control for whatever purposes.

It is really issued. It totally rapes sovereignty and our human rights. At face value it looks like a beneficial service but the hidden costs and associated contracts really arn't beneficial at all. It isn't good business.

Edited April 19, 2016 by nerve

[TimG]

Rent on tons of places is more than $1000, and things like electronics, exercise equipment, and cars all run over that.

Cash is convenient for you maybe. But not for the merchant unless they are evading taxes.

This is the only point that I am arguing: cash costs businesses money to handle. If they accept your cash is it because they have decided that the business from people like you is worth the cost.

As time goes on fewer businesses will be willing to accept cash (no e-business does today but they might accept bitcoin).

Edited April 19, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

All of it.

Edit> Well, me anyway. But I am honest. Honestly.

I think the penetration of secrecy surrounding an individual's transactions should be progressive like taxes. The more you make, spend, move etc the less secrecy you get. The less you make, spend, move etc the more privacy you get.

Perhaps when an individual reaches a certain threshold they should only be allowed the same amount of cash that the average person could be expected to have in their possession.

Edited April 19, 2016 by eyeball

[overthere]

Depends on the amount. For anything over $1000 cash is very hard to use unless you do most of your business with organized crime.

For the individual, banking adds costs but the overwhelming majority of people think it is more convenient than using cash. For businesses, the cost of handling cash can be more than the cost of electronic banking fees.

In reality, many substantial transactions are done in cash. Nearly everything in the black economy, which is very substantial, is done in currency. So are many deals done on the Internet. I just sold a car and bought an ATV, both for cash money, on Kijjiji. There wasn't much option for either, PayPal is rife with scams, a personal cheque is laughable, and even bank drafts are often forgeries now. Cash isn't going anywhere.

Oh, and the main reason people use banks is not convenience but security. If you put $100 in the bank today, the odds are good it will still be there next week. Same for bank controlled payment systems- safer than the alternatives.

[nerve]

Cash is convenient for you maybe. But not for the merchant unless they are evading taxes.

This is the only point that I am arguing: cash costs businesses money to handle. If they accept your cash is it because they have decided that the business from people like you is worth the cost.

As time goes on fewer businesses will be willing to accept cash (no e-business does today but they might accept bitcoin).

Businesses will take it happily with a smile because it ain't going anywhere anytime soon and they would be idiots not to take it.

Regardless of the delusions you are pushing cash doesn't take anything, in fact electronic payment costs a percentage. Have you ever run a merchant account to accept this payment.

Your information is soooo wrong.

Also hopefully you recognize there are tons of communities that arn't in cities, and people buy and sell from individuals as opposed to storefronts.

Not everyone wants to wait days weeks or months for items to arrive to them. Other people travel.

Regardless of what you think most people do, this is not the case, and it doesn't work for people who do various things, not involving being stationary and having a regular schedule that leaves them in one location most of their life.

Electronic payment is not secure. Electronic banking and payment creates incredible risks from people gaining access to your device and gaining total control of your finances.

Technology also quickly becomes cracked, and these sorts of systems will be totally vulnerable once the criminal side catches up on them. If it is fragmented and done by private financial service providers.

Cash will be around for decades. There is no alternative. Not everyone is hooked up to a machine, nor does everyone want one.

It is a payment option but it should not be superior to legal tender.

There is no doubt there will be that segment that will buy with the drone to door service all via their automated payment system, not everyone wants to buy into those services.

Some people actually prefer to go to the grocery store and have cash in hand and walk out with the food they want.

People want to be able to buy stuff if there is a network error, or power outage.

These systems are not 24/7, they get knocked down, no one wants to depend on another business for their own success. Cash is usable 24/7 and cannot have a network error.

What if I commute to work and my "card" or "device" gets damaged, and I need to get gas? Even worse I work evening shift and it is 11:30pm

oh what now I can't get gas to get home cause I don't have a way of paying?

Get real, cash is essential.

What if my account gets locked for any reason, do I want to starve to death?

Electronic payment offers no security.

Then you have bitcoin that whole banks of coins have been robbed and the currency value collapsed not providing clear insight into its trading value.

Meanwhile so many card numbers have got carded, cards can be damaged, locked, or a chip damaged.

Cash is cash. It cannot be hacked.

Also you keep mentioning businesses.

I don't care what is good for businesses, what matters is what is good for the public. Businesses have done just fine in the past using cash, there is your history, guess what, cash has been fine in the past.

The LOGICAL answer is to print numbers on every bill, and to have those numbers registered at point of sale if they are high value bills.

Keeping an electronic record of who has ownership of high value bills would reduce counterfeiting, while still allowing bills to be accepted of lower value with lower risk of great loss. Eventually scanning and transferring bills would be as easy as an electronic transfer. Meanwhile holders of the actual cash money have the note, tracking duplicate or counterfeit bills would be easy whenever the bills ownership which could be verified would be noticeable.

Making secure CASH is what needs to be done, not putting everyone online in previous systems that have proved themselves to not be secure.

Worse yet, not having cash on hand, makes people susceptible to a "Greek" bank bailout, or austerity, where bank accounts are seized en masse, and everyone forced to pay direct for government debts, then restricted to a small amount to live on even though they may be millionaires, only 50$ a day.

We don't need to be hostage to the banks, government, or private financial service providers. With cash in hand, it should be our money to decide how much we want to spend, not told by the government what we can do with our own money.

Like take a church for instance, instead of a tithe will they pass around the debit machine?

These things are just really issued, people should not just be throwing around their financial information such as access to their actual bank accounts. Cash allows a total separation and anonymity in purchases, in situations where people want their privacy and don't want to be identified as buying certain items, or having specific habits that are private and not meant to be public or disclosed to the banks or government.

Cash provides total privacy.

All of our existence we have got along just fine with cash money.

You are trying to replace something that has existed forever.

Do we really want a system that vanishes if there is a HEMP or major solar flare?

My cash will still exist after a EMP, your banking system may not.

There are no safeguards on the private payment to insure that technical faults or natural disasters will not wipe out peoples savings.

And then there are the people who don't have a good rating, and can't even get services, or have all their money automatically removed from the system. Then there are the bank errors or misunderstandings that can cause major disruptions to access to accounts.

Last thing we need is a socialist government to get in and decide to use everyones electronic currency to fund its projects and debts.

The easier it is for them the more likely they are to do it.

Money can only be printed so fast. Electronic currency can be manipulated in real time.

Initially registered cash bills could be a way of reducing counterfit risk, and eventually they could be phased in to replace older unregistered cash. These two types of bills unregistered and registered would allow businesses to choose between complexity and level of safety of the monetary instrument. You could even designate your currency to be tradable or only registered transfer.

You know it would make way more sense for people to have an ID, and that ID is used in concert with a scannable number code, so that when secure transfer is required people can register the transfer of the bill.

Scan ID, scan bill pay cash. Meanwhile if there are problems we revert to a cash system with the bills where the ID info can be taken manually if required. This system is much more secure, as even if there is an electronic issue people still have the hard currency in hand if the system fails. It is like having a hardcopy of your records when your harddrive fails, gets corrupted or stolen. Any theif still needs to take both the money, and commit identity theft on ID, which can be tied into biometrics, which will be easier to integrate in the future to DNA, finger print or retina security with these devices being increasingly available everywhere in smart phones.

There is no reason to trust an electronic databank when you can have online offline and biometric security in legal tender.

The only thing to make it better it to use a laminant with security features precious metal such as gold foil or more coinlike form as the bills print material to make counterfeiting less likely, with value of the bill recoverable in the forecast value of the precious element in the bill. Certain elements could be a way of building a strategic reserve and disaster planning element into the currency system. Having available elements in a time of emergency that are used for survival situations is very invaluable.

Just think it is easy to see the use of silver for antibacterial or wire creation, but what about chemicals such as KI potassium iodide. Or magnesium etc.. Various airsealed non hazardous chemicals could be sealed inside the money itself insuring the emergency substances were circulating in the public.

Wouldn't businesses love to have a hot commodity on their hands in the event of a disaster?

No need to prep for a disaster such as a unimaginable nuclear strike if things for radiation treatment were built right into the cash in the lockbox.

Need a disenfectant or adhesive surface just rip the bill apart and use it to stop the bleed with an anticlotting and suturing bill.series 393938

Need an aspirin to reduce heart attack risk, have various essential preventative medicines floating in the money supply.

Edited April 21, 2016 by nerve

[Big Guy]

I can only speak from personal preference and from the "old" school. I was brought up before the credit card and you spent only what you had with you. I do not recollect that it was either inconvenient or cumbersome - but it was very easy to control spending. You kept your "bank" at home and took with you what you intended to spend that day - no more. Near the end of my professional life, I dealt with mostly very techno smart young professionals who shared stories of on line financial transactions and shopping from computer terminals.

Having been retired for a few years, I still do not own a credit card or a cell phone. I am fairly proficient on my computer using e-mail and software to have the machine assist me in writing and general household management. We live in a small town (pop 25,000) in Southern Ontario and shopping is an opportunity for social interaction for us. We know most of the clerks, bank tellers, farmers selling at the market and clerks and cashiers at local commercial outlets.

I think those who use their computer terminal for life's transactions are missing an important part of communal living. Most people in our area use credit systems (especially the off-shore workers) but a large number also deal strictly with cash. Veggie and fruit stalls, especially the serve yourself honor system roadway stands, do not accept cards.

I know I am part of a disappearing population but when I have to decide whether to have another beer at the local Legion, I check my wallet - the contents dictate my actions. I am a selective Luddite.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Big Guy