The banknote of 500 euro is cancelled. Should cash disappear? Would that not be more cost-effective?

In the abolition of cash, one must realise that the alternative is money. These are two fundamentally different types of money.In fact, the banks guarantee money, while cash is guaranteed by the central bank.

Banks can fall over, you simply lose your cashless money.Of course, there is a guarantee of up to 100,000 euro (for the financial crisis 2008 that in NL was significantly lower), but based on a law, however, laws can be easily altered, even reworking. Also know that in the fall of the DSB it took about 5 years to honour the balances to their holders by the guarantee Fund. So the bank of your debit card is about, you don’t have your money for a long time. The money for your daily groceries is only to be arranged by changing the bank quickly, where you also have to deposit your salary, in the hope of course that your employer is not banking with the fallen bank. Then it keeps up and you can not do any more shopping at the moment.

In short, only cash is for sure!The problem of cash is only them against theft or loss by fire etc. Safe to store. Worthless cash is much less fast than money. For that, the currency in which the cash was valued should fall over (Dollar, Euro, etc.). In our case the Euro would be threatened, the immortal and equally gratuitous ECB word “whatever it takes” applies. An economy of 12 trillion euros (so much in circulation) only falls to a total war. And then one will have to pay tax, which happens in euros and not in bags of potatoes.

Banks, however, have the utmost, utmost importance, to abolish cash.You would hurry to speak of a banking conspiracy. In fact, there Is only money, no bank can fall over and no banker will be unemployed.

Still about the cost of content money.It does indeed cost something to make it. But the central banks make decent profits, where they can easily pay for the production of cash. The banks, on the other hand, give out baking money, to have cash in Kas. That is therefore immediately worthless for the bank. It is naive to think that when the banks would save the costs, the account holders would all suddenly get nice presents from the banks.

Releasing cash and completely transferring to ‘ digital money ‘ would be a big mistake.

I understand all the good intentions and the savings and ease of letting go of cash, but I think we have to think further than just the arguments put forward by the banks.

This, as far as I am concerned, has everything to do with privacy and how politics and any new law and regulation in the (near) future can send the process.

With digital money you always have (there are exceptions but that I leave aside) an intermediary who keeps a balance (your credit), registers a transaction and books and/or writes money and tracks the result.

We call that party a bank.

That means that if you want to checkout in a store or someone would like to borrow money you would always be dependent on a third party that makes this possible.You can no longer pay your bread in cash and you can not borrow just a few ten to a friend without it being recorded anywhere. On this basis, profiles are drawn up and you can start categorizing people (which happens on a large scale, of course).

That party, the bank, also has a facilitating function In addition to registeringe .They keep the information but also make it possible that the transaction can take place.

Then you are completely dependent on the bank and the Law and regulations (concessions are granted by the government to banks) around the functioning of banks.

Your account (and) may be closed for certain transactions, depending on the political climate and the category in which you and/or the other is covered.No donations to WikiLeaks or not desired political parties for example. And if there’s a crisis you can’t just take your money from your account (no more Bank runs!) and banks can decide that there should be a negative interest on the savings (what they have done in Switzerland) or that the cost of banking should rise by 10%. What are your alternatives then?

Now in the current era and in the Netherlands, the risks to an average bank customer will be windfall.But try to imagine another era with other kind of rulers. Can be very oppressive.

I think you should always be able to make a transaction without interference from a third party that keeps track of all the information and is also able to block your transactions.

I don’t know if it’s really more cost-effective or not, but that seems to me a bad plan for another reason: anything that’s digital can be hacked or controlled by the government.You are very vulnerable to the rulers. I always wonder how it will be, if a tyrant who would have power and how much leeway dissidents have to resist against it. If all transactions are digital, the government can easily cut off resources and excommunicate.

No cash is total control, in an Orwellian dream world (for the state so) you are going to ask a virtual state doctor why you buy sixty condoms every month.Because there is enough to walk around with pikkie punishment because of the spreading of obscenities on the Internet. So this doctor suspects that you buy illegal weed with the money, since you were once caught in a forum conversation. So a conversation with the AI psychiatrist follows, and who knows you are going to a few hunts to a re-feeding camp. And so I can come up with a lot of those playful little stories, but wasn’t it only in China that thousands of people got a travel ban because they didn’t get their 20 compulsory visits to grandma? So straight away we have 5G. Think about it. Even your bike gets a chip, if you don’t have one in your thunder, because for the convenience but to oblige ES and not to listen to the Alu hats and so on. See how you want to commit vaccinations now, and yes, even for adults.

Cost-effective results fall in the nothingness of strong electromagnetic emissions from our lovely sun.All over the internet is flat, electricity power plants lie flat, and it definitely takes months for everything to be restored again. Unlikely this? Well no though, so something is relatively short ago already happening in the northern hemisphere, US and Canada got a hefty optater. Luckily we did not have Internet as we know it now.

It is about total control, and unfortunately the state has a weakness for that.

JAAAA!!!Let’s put all the payment traffic in the hands of a handful of companies that have a history of ICT Pruts work and do not have an ethical compass. Good plan. What can go wrong???

I would find it annoying.All transactions are measurable, on demand and traced back to the man.

And that’s not just government!Now I buy presents for my lovely credit card because of course they can easily see that I made a payment, and to whom.

There has been a time when it was still somewhat shielded.You may remember, the Chipknip.

No success because (parking) automats were not made suitable for it, the cashier clerk did not understand how the chip worked, the entrepreneur had to buy another pin device for it,

And

The POSTBANK torpedozed the initiative by putting its own, incompatible card on the market.I am still angry about that, it was the last chance.

So move forward, stick to real money.Also read the other answers for equally good reasons!

It is the wet dream of the financial and other governments to make cash disappear.Safety is invariably the communication. Control of the masses is the real goal.

If you go too much against the governments, you simply lose access to your financial reserves and your monthly income.End opposition to the government. It’s that simple.

Wikileaks??End of story. Acting as a whistle-blower?? End of story.

Is that bad?In a decent country with a decent government that is not a problem, but let there be a second or is it already a third Hitler standing up and you have price, fat price.

Negative interest on your savings account?No problem, you have no choice, your savings is on the bank, because there is no alternative.

All these arguments have nothing to do with security, but to prevent governments from derailing and passing it on to their people.

Electronic payments are cost-effective, but they are vulnerable to failures.

I have been to a grocery store where I saw a note that PIN payments are not currently possible.Annoying, but no disaster. It will be a lot harder to get out of the summer with an almost empty tank at a petrol pump and hear that pin payments are not possible due to a malfunction.

When I go on holiday from summer, I always have at least 鈧?00, -cash for this kind of emergency.

Cost Effecienter for whom is the question?

For banks: Yes!

For people who work legally: YES!

For people who work black: totally not!

These should then be reimbursed in other ways.The catering industry would also have to endure heavily.

The state would benefit greatly from it.

It can easily investigate money flows and intervene where necessary.

Leave a Reply