The attachment to cash is something I’ll never understand.
Research Central Bank-issued Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and specifically the so called “programmable money” parts of them. Central Banks and states are creating stuff like money that has an expiration date or that can only be spent on certain approved products and services.
Cash is privacy and no one can estimate your “climate footprint” based on its use while their class keeps on riding their private jets to World Economic Forum and other oligarch conferences.
This is not some futuristic stuff. All big countries are heavily invested in CBDCs, have pilot programs and some are already using them.
I mean, that’s a thing for quite some time, except now it’s moving digital. Here we have something like food tickets (can’t think of better translation now) which are untaxed and can’t be used for stuff like cigarettes, alcohol, gambling etc. And they have an expiration date. Every company here has to provide its employees with either a company cantina (is that the correct word?) or the “food tickets”.
I think that implementing food tickets, unless there are significant environmental concerns such as war, post-war situations, or famine, could have various benefits. But I see no benefits for the receivers of these food tickets. Unless if they are horribly underpaid which is actually a bigger issue.
The benefit is basically untaxed “money” - by law every company has to provide food for its employees for cheap. Think like $5 for a really big portion of good food. Some companies don’t have the means to provide it so they give the employees food tickets instead.
That is an excellent observation.
Could you please provide more information about the current shortage that is preventing working individuals from being able to purchase food or have access to nearby dining establishments like cantina for lunch? What about individuals who are currently unemployed? Will they need to use their savings for groceries, or is it necessary to be employed at all times, similar to the situations in North Korea or China?
It’s easy - tax evasion, money laundering, secret financing of things you wouldn’t want others to know. All perfectly fine reasons to fight for.
Cashless society is a controlled society. While some may misuse cash for illicit activities, many prefer it to protect privacy, maintain personal control, or avoid digital vulnerabilities. Dismissing cash usage solely for nefarious reasons overlooks legitimate concerns and individual freedoms, and equates privacy with wrongdoing, a perspective that might inadvertently erode fundamental rights and personal autonomy.
This is all technically true but cash is not the answer.
Right now there are so many easily accessible ways for governments to spy on people (cell phone geolocation, call metadata monitoring) that I’m not sure that for the purposes you think of you aren’t screwed already anyway. From this perspective fight for cash use becomes a bit theoretical.
The only people that I know of personally that are strongly for cash are either people that frequently skirt around taxes (“minor” stuff like car repair shops) and unfortunately conspiracy nuts. Genuine privacy oriented people exist but realistically the majority will be there for selfish reasons.
The societal cost of tax evasion, money laundering and financing organisations that legally require transparency (political orgs, NGOs etc) are massive and immediate.
What we really need is strong oversight of institutions, government transparency, rule of law and healthy democracy. Those are the things you want to enshrine in your constitution.
I agree that makes sense and is highly needed, but I always remember the civilization-old question “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (“Who will guard the guards themselves?” or “Who watches the watchmen?”). Balancing privacy with oversight is complex. Cash offers an option for privacy and autonomy. Striking a balance between individual rights and societal needs requires thoughtful governance, not necessarily the elimination of choices like cash that some citizens may rely on.
Building complex systems involving humans is hard because humans are flawed. The best thing we’ve come up so far are systems involving extensive checks and balances to prevent thing happening too rapidly and without necessary oversight and even then it’s a tricky part to balance.
For the record, I’m not for entirely cashless society but organisations that are cash heavy have proven to be source of many headaches. There is a balance to be found on thresholds and barring some types of businesses from using cash and where digital money transfer is required. Banks and other money transfer entities will have to deal with scenarios where malicious parties will try to obfuscate their intent outside of those thresholds.
I agree with you on the need for a balanced approach, recognizing both the utility and potential issues with cash. Checks and balances in financial systems are vital.
Thank you for a thoughtful and engaging conversation on this complex matter. Your insights have certainly added depth to my understanding. Let’s continue to advocate for responsible and balanced policies.
