top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 84 points 6 months ago (7 children)

Banks are hilarious. They use YOUR money to invest and make more money, then they have the audacity to give you paltry interest. Meanwhile they charge a percentage of a sale for processing that has a flat constant amount of processing power used. It costs them the same to process a $1 transaction and a $10,000,000, but they have the gall to charge 1.5% for both. Sure you can argue that the 1.5% is to cover overdrafts and nonpayment, but if you pay the bill in full you should be refunded the extra.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    Buy a home. The paperwork costs a % of the home's value. It's the same paperwork whether you buy a 2 million dollar home or $200k home. It is not a insubstantial sum. Plus you you tip your realtor a % of the sale value. Absolute scam.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    They also create money out of nothing to lend it for profit. So that's fun.

    "Money is created out of nothing, as bank debt" / "Although new loans are being created, the interest on the principal is not. Nowhere in the system is this additional money created. This gives rise to scarcity, which, in turn, creates competition to acquire the extra money to cover the loans’ interest." / "The competition to obtain the money necessary to pay the interest is structurally embedded in the current money system. [...] to pay back interest on a loan requires using someone else’s principal. In other words, not creating the money to pay interest is the device used to generate the scarcity necessary for a bank-debt monetary system to function. It forces people to compete with each other for money that was never created, and it penalizes them with bankruptcy, should they not succeed." / "When a banker checks a customer’s credit score, it is to assess how successful or aggressive that individual or business will be in contending with others to obtain funds that are not created in sufficiency to pay back the interest on the loan. In a manner of speaking, it’s like a game of musical chairs in that there are never enough seats for everyone. Someone will end up getting squeezed out. There isn’t enough money to pay the interest on all the loans, just like the missing chair. Both are highly competitive games. In the money game, however, the stakes are elevated, as it means grappling with certain poverty or, worse still, having to declare bankruptcy." (from the book "Rethinking Money: How New Currencies Turn Scarcity Into Prosperity" by Bernard Lietaer [who worked at the central bank of Belgium] & Jacqui Dunne)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    Every loan made by a bank can create another loan 90% the value of the first loan. Think about what I just wrote and you will see your argument doesnt scratch the surface of the greed they create.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 107 points 6 months ago* (13 children)

    I know the part about the government will be unpopular in some circles, but

    Imo it's the government's job to facilitate trade and provide currency. Nowadays, digital trade is the norm, so the government needs to facilitate a digital currency that is functionally identical to cash. No fees (neither transaction nor accounting), no tracking, no restrictions on how to use it. Ideally, it works offline.

    I'm eagerly awaiting what becomes of the digital Euro wallet.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    "No tracking" is the one we're least likely to get, since the.Christians want to.be a me to control what you spend it on

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    How would untrackable digital currency even work?

    Any transaction is a request from one to another entity, with some authority registering the exchange of funds. Even bitcoin works like this, where the authority is the consensus of the network, instead of a bank.

    Any system without some central authority seems impossible to keep safe from fraud to me. But while I'm skeptical, I'd love to be proven wrong here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    As someone replied before me, monero is one example. There is more, though.

    But that's never going to be government promoted, and I'll be content with any form of digital currency, cause fuck the banks taking a share of every transaction :')

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    That would happen in an ideal society but at that point you basically have cash. Cash works offline but a digital currency wouldnt because there is no way to prove that youre the one who has the money. This way an offline transaction could be used to basically duolicate money and the first one to reconnect to the network would get the money. But idk, there are much smartee people than me, they can probably figure something out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Fully offline is of course impossible. But it can be partially offline. Blockchain, for instance, doesn't require an internet connection to prove that a transaction is possible, but it does need an internet connection to submit and settle. So you would not need an internet connection to pay, the merchant does to accept payment. Similarly to how this works today with card payments.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

    You must be delusional if you think anything good will come of digital euro.

    It will be nothing but a mass surveillance tool. And another step towards the abolition of cash.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    As opposed to Visa/Mastercard?

    Currently, there are only concepts and promises. They promise the wallet will be p2p, anonymous, and non-traceable. We'll see if that's the case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    There isn't much more they can surveil with a digital euro that they can't yet with how banking works today. Everything is controlled.

    So, between a controlled banking system and a controlled bankless/facilitatorless digital euro, I'll pick the one that doesn't give away my money to the financial world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    the government needs to facilitate a digital currency that is functionally identical to cash. No fees (neither transaction nor accounting), no tracking, no restrictions on how to use it. Ideally, it works offline.

    This will happen sooner or later because cash and crypto are currencies of criminals and tax evaders.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Fun fact:

    In some countries there are laws that make it illegal for prices to vary based on payment methods, this means that sellers must decide to either take the 1.5% fee so that the prices are fair for cash payments, or increase all of the prices by 1.5% to cover the fees, regardless of payment method.

    This means that in those countries, everyone is paying more just to enable the system of cards, even if you don't use one.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    A common loophole for that (because the credit card companies themselves demand no fees for using a credit card) is to offer a discount for cash/debit. So everything is priced with the CC fee built in, but they take it off the price when you don't use a CC.

    Though I have the most respect for the places willing to say "nah, we won't take CC at all".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    fyi I live in one of those places and giving "discounts for cash" is illegal (It does happen anyway) and "nah, we won't take CC at all" is also illegal... so yeah...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    The first one I can kinda understand (though in a "yeah, corruption" kinda way, not a "great idea"), but the second one sounds more like an outright racket because there's fees and shit involved in just being able to process CC payments.

    I'm curious about where, though understand if you'd rather not share.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    Isn't that the case in most countries? I've never seen in European offline shops different prices advertised based on payment method. They'd put up the annoying "cards only above 10 €" and such, but never "cash 9€, card 10€"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    The part everyone ignores is that the cash also has a price for the stores or anyone with a lot of money. They have to spend a lot more time, effort and money on security for their cash. After a while putting it under your mattress just doesn't work anymore. And it costs you 1 - 2 % per received payment, but you also "save" 1 - 2% by having your money on an account where you get intrest on it while your under the mattress stash just becomes worth less and less purchasing power a lot faster... It's a slight win for banks (waaaay less employees and offices), but the entire gain of electronic payment is definitely not benefiting only the banks, that's oversimplifing things a lot.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    When I worked at Target many years ago, one of my roles was the Cash Office.

    I can confirm it was incrdibly tedious and expensive work. The store would do $100k in sales on a Saturday, and Sunday morning i would spend 3 hours counting uo the $10k of that which was cash. Plus another grand or so in checks.

    Then there was the change to deal with making sure we were well-stocked on all the various coins. It's been a while but I think we sometimes ordered Ones, Fives, maybe even Ten dollar bills too. All of which of course cost a premium over face value tl have delivered to the store. Plus I am sure it cost a decent amount to have the Twenties and higher picked up a few times a week. Then there was the cost of equipment - the registers themselves, the safe, the cash counting machine, the software, the special envelopes, the cash cart we used to move cash between the registers and safe, the double-locked doors in the cash room. The opportunity cost of dedicating a whole room to that which could have been retail or office space. The insurance on it all.

    Aa much as I hate the control and privacy issues, I also absolutely understand why businesses hate using cash.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (1 child)

    Oh they can more than make up for the costs of dealing with cash by not declaring it as income. What sale? Waves hand. There was no sale!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (6 children)

    For small, local, high volume transactions cash wins.

    For large purchases over long distances or time periods, modern banking is more efficient

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)

    I disagree. For a very large volume of very small transactions the time it takes to process 1 digital payment is a fraction of the time it takes to process 1 cash payment (and giving back change). For very small transactions in digital payment there's no entering PIN, no confirming, no thinking and change giving, no opening cash registry or even putting it in a pocket or pouch, it's incredibly fast nowadays. I don't even have to put my card in the machine, just hold it in front of it, seller doesn't have to count or give back, it saves enormous amounts of time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    You also have to pay for the cash truck service to get it safely delivered to the bank unless you're a VERY small business and can just carry it all on your person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    $500 a month for a small store. About 0.1% of turnover.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    500k a month turnover is not a small store though. Also it'll likely be more for rural places where stores are smaller.

    Local grocery store for me doesn't even crack 100k a month I'm pretty sure. I don't think they'll even get close to 10k a day on st. john's day, let alone any other day of the year.

    Don't forget that cash also means more errors (which in sensible countries do NOT come out of the pocket of the clerk, but rather eats into the store's margins) and requires extra insurance because there's always that tiny risk of someone literally robbing the place. And sometimes the employees themselves will pocket some. You'll fire them, but it's not like you're getting any back.

    You also need a safe, though luckily that's a capital expense rather than an operating expense.

    You can more or less say that cash has a level of natural loss attached to it. I have no idea how it compares to the ~1.5% that you'll have to pay for card payments, but it's not zero.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • A "per stop" cash pickup is about €30 in Europe. So scheduling a pickup when you earn €1500 would match the 2% CC charge.

    For me that is very risk averse, but others may disagree.

    10k turnover and a pickup a day is a 0.3% cost.

    Errors occur with digital too (wrong code etc) and are less likely to be noticed by staff.

    I do agree with the last point. The cost of cash is not zero, and my original point was that the cost of cash increases with volume. There is a crossover point where digital becomes preferable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    Plus the money is always in an account now, so it's always available for banks to leverage for their profit. Instead of only when the dollar is deposited.

    In a cashless world, banks can just make up how much money everyone has, while trading with it. All of it is just numbers in a ledger that banks handshake on "moving" from one place to another.

  • source
  • [–] 46 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    One of many reasons. Surveillance is another.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    And being able to control what people are able to buy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Revelation 13:

    16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads,

    17 that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark or the name of the beast or the number of his name.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 6 months ago

    My bank now charges my business to deposit cash. The cash or cashless part is not relivent to the greed.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 6 months ago

    The other part is that they can then also act like crackpot dictators, who ban random things they don't like, except they're just withholding payment options on sites that host things they don't like.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago

    Walmart keeps the entire $100 bucks actually.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    I wish they only took 1.5%

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    Find it mildly funny that he's talking about a 100 dollar bill, when I can see this guy is obviously in the UK.

    He's shopping in Marks & Spencers (clothes and food) and probably a Boots (Pharmacy, Health and Beauty).

    To be fair, although the UK does have a £100 note, it's rare to ever get one. Plus, people in shops get suspicious when you hand them even a £50 note.

    I've started seeing more shops actually offer discounts for using cash. But just as many now take card only. I guess it depends how much time and money is needed with the additional admin that comes with it. Maybe 1.5% is a saving to the business.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    That's interesting, here in Germany a 50€ note is very common, a 100€ note is not that common but people do use it from time to time, we also have a 200€ note that is definetly rare and then there even was a 500€ note which is basically extinct by now.

    But we probably also use more cash here, I've never heard of a place here that doesn't accept cash, only of places that don't accept cards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Took me an hour in the evening to do the cash admin and banking when I worked in retail, for a 3-6k a day business years ago. I think my hour was cheaper than 1.5% of takings, but then card was usually faster at checkout, so maybe it does all balance out.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Put something in the coke and watch bankers just start dropping.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I personally think all capitalist and Epstein class should be required to do intensive, lifetime therapy, which includes yearly guided ayahuasca trips.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    The most important aspect is control.
    If it's all digital they can cut you off at any moment, as they are doing now with certain journalists.
    After the 2008 financial 'crisis' they had to decide on bail outs to reward the scammers.
    After that they left their gambling system intact, nobody (except in Iceland) got punished and we will inevitably have another crash.
    But they did change it for us suckers who paid for it the first time.
    Now there is a bail in system where they will simply take anything above a certain amount on your account.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Fractional reserve banking means that they do this with cash too

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    But cash can be kept at home or in a safe deposit box. All cashless society means there's no benefit to that and the reserves on bank increase. Per person it's a small amount but over all account holders and fractional reserves, it maybe be worth several billion dollars

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    I mean if your using credit cards for cashless. We have Interaction which takes a much smaller percentage.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    How can I go to the sex shop and the bathhouse and buy shrooms if I don't have cash?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (4 children)

    It is.

    Sure, the note doesnt change, but whoever receives payment does not receive the full $100 because of taxes.

    Unless you're at a local fair which does not pay taxes, nobody is just trading a full $100 at each stage

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    At least with taxes something useful can potentially be done, like funding schools, healthcare, street maintenance, ...
    That it just lands in the military or the branches, that spend the most on lobbying, is a sad different topic...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Taxes are still paid if you pay by card no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Less taxes are payed on cash because plenty of shops don't register every cash sale, but a card payment you almost can't not register correctly. That is the sad real reason many smallish shops don't want to accept cards: it becomes a lot harder to illegally avoid paying taxes on a substantial part of your business turnover.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but I do think everyone should read The Creature from Jekyll Island. While I don't think it's 100% correct, it does bring up some very relevant points.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (16 children)

    Does nobody use debit FFS? Card-based, zero fees. Don't act like there's only two options.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    There are still fees for the retailer, and on lower cost purchases, the fees tend to be higher. That's why stores often have a $5 minimum for cards. They don't want people buying a pack of gum with their debit card, and end up costing them more than the meager profit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    That’s why stores often have a $5 minimum for cards.

    no, it's a percentage of total monthly transactions. The $5 minimum is a bullshit excuse to make you buy more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    The fees on CREDIT cards are confusing, with the percentage changing based on volume, etc. I once found a really good explanation online, and it made perfect sense for about 15 minutes, and then it faded again.

    Debit cards usually have a fixed fee per transaction, as well as a percentage based on volume. Credit cards don't have that fixed fee, just a percentage of the total, so they don't care if you use it on a small purchase.

    But if the fixed fee is 50 cents, and you buy something that is 50 cents, they literally lost money. Even in a case where the item is 2 or 3 dollars, that 50 cent charge is a big hit to the profit. Do that 100 times a day on things like cans of soda and candy bars, and much of your profit on those items gets eaten by the fees, and those things are a BIG part of the profit for something like a convenience store.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    In the states the machines to process debt are far more expensive than credit, and all of the services I looked into using had a monthly subscription... on top of the fees to take debit. While the fee schedule was less than credit, it was not zero.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (9 children)

    Erm... Pretend like I don't know what that is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    You use your bank card to use money in your bank account (or credit union account) to pay for things at the point of sale. Insert or tap the card, and pay for things.

    Is that seriously not a thing elsewhere??

    We also have built-in money transfers, where we can directly pay for things by electronic transfer. No need for any of those 3rd party apps you hear about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    INTERAC? Canadian? Orbdoes another country do this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Transaction costs in my country for the most popular digital payment method are between 0.05 and 0.09 euros per transaction. At an average of 0.07 €/transaction, that's 1428 transactions before a 100€ is reached. To me, that seems like a small price to pay for some added security and convenience for store keepers.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›