Actually, even with cash you are still somewhat tied to the state, as it is they who guarantee it. If the government were ever to destabilise and inflation went through the roof (see: Venezuela, Argentina, most of Africa...) then the cash you hold in your hand would be worthless anyway. Even cash is only worth what someone is willing to trade it for, and that devalues over time. It's just a nationally agreed notion of worth. As for electronic payments, these too can also be anonymous; see BitCoin. You could potentially have a payment network based on this, much like Visa or Mastercard, and simply pay with BitCoin instead of cash and it all remains anonymous. Most banks are looking at including BitCoin (as the most popular/proven Block Chain implementation) so this may well become more common in future. I have a PayPal card which works like a credit/debit card but runs from my PayPal account. It is also a "Contactless" card so I can wave it in from of the terminal to pay (currently upto £20) so it's just as quick as fishing a £20 out of my wallet, handing it over, letting them test it with a pen, figure out the change, count the change, count the change back to me and for me to put it back in my wallet/pocket. Technology will continue to improve to cover everything that is a problem now. Will we ever get rid of hard cash? Possibly, but I expect it will only be in favour of another intrinsically worthless item such as gold or diamonds that have an agreed value. Look at the Romans - they had a currency system and I bet they never expected their empire and currency to end!
I understand that governments are doing all they can to destabilise/get rid of BitCoin, as they essentially have no control over it. Governments want to be the only ones to create money (except, notably, in the UK, where they have their tame Banks do it for them).
you can take the south, and i will take the north. and i will be bankrupt before ye. cant see bit coin taking off. to much cash being made trading currency.
cant see that contactless payment is a step forward... seems to me that in one of the most fraudulent countries on the planet it is an extremely daft idea. we had chip and pin (as they call it in the uk) 30 odd years ago in NZ but it has only been out in the UK for 10 years? and they wondered why fraud was rife? before that you could just sign a name to get goods or money now there is a system where you need no pin or signature.... grand idea
Christ, some people on here really need to loosen their tinfoil hats! Mustn't say too much mind, the government might be tracking this site...
Not true; high-street banks don't create money, the Bank of England does and guess who runs that? No need to control the banks when you can just print your own money and call it Quantitative Easing! I don't think the banks necessarily want to get rid of BitCoin. They may have been sceptical at first but have since realised that they can still make money from them even though they are digital, especially as the virtual currency has stabilised over the last couple of years. The average Joe in the street won't have the technical nous to create an maintain a BitCoin wallet but may still want to use them (own/trade/pay) and there is a commission opportunity there for a bank to take that and run it. Adding Block Chain technology into an already electronic bank account is no harder than adding another currency to an account, so it's also a low-cost investment. There's also the opportunity for the banks to trade BitCoin themselves and make money that way. Traders will trade anything if there's a way to make money off it! In fact Block Chain technology is simpler and has less overheads than trading in Bonds, CFDs, Structured Products, etc!
Anti-Money Laundering regulations are there for very specific reasons; it stops the investment of proceeds from criminal activities being legitimised (aka laundered) and also to stop the trade of funds to criminal and terrorist organisations. These are Good Things to happen, unless you object to that? I know that sometimes it is inconvenient, but you should only have problems if you don't have valid reasons for handling a large amount of cash. For example, if you run a cash business then any bank will understand that you may need to deposit cash and deposit it often. If you're making a large one-off deposit it could be because you sold a car/motorcycle; the bank will be fine with that. However, turning up with large amounts of cash every day when you don't have an obvious regular source of income (such as wages coming into your account) and you have a private account rather than a business account... do you really have a good explanation?! As you say it is down to the interpretation of the individual bank and also to the individual that you deal with, but AML laws are very, very specific and very, very heavily regulated with both the individual and the bank being liable for prosecution should anything not be done correctly. There are also Failure to Disclose laws in place, which means you can also be convicted of an offence should you know or suspect of an offence but did not report it, so it's really is in the interest of the individual to make sure they are happy that you are legit.
@antonye, it is not that I object to restricting the opportunities for criminal activity, far from it, what I object to is the implementation of legislation intended to prevent money laundering on a significant scale being applied by petty buearocrats (my spelling is rubbish) making me feel that I am of the same ilk when I try and deposit a few hundred pounds from the sale of some component or set of leathers I can no longer fit into and I do not exagerate as it has happened to me a number of times. I had a pension investment mature (sadly before the recent changes) and bought an annuity through my building society and took the permitted tax free lump sum which was £10,000 and still had to fill in forms to explain where the money came from which is just too ridiculous. andy
Sorry, I was referring to the perception amongst many quarters that it is the banks which create and control money - I've seen figures quoted that the UK Government only creates 3% of new money, the rest is brought into being via interest on bank loans and interest paid on deposits. I'm not going to defend this position though, it's a political issue unrelated to this thread. The impression I've received from the admittedly minimal research I've made into BitCoin is of claims quite forcefully made that the Government and the major financial institutions are vehemently against BitCoin, as they had/have no significant input in its creation or ongoing role in the economy. They cannot place tabs on how, why or where money is changing hands. The role of Government and Banks these days is to control the economy with an iron fist - claims of market economy politics notwithstanding.
The French only make new rules so they can break them......!! When I bought the DVT the sales guy didn't bat an eye when I said cash, we just went in the office counted it out and I rode off.......the black economy is alive and well...!!
I was in an established phone repair shop yesterday as my son had dropped his phone again. It was a big repair bill and I was surprised when I was told it was cash only payments. But immediately equally unsurprised when I realised the gaff was owned by tax dodging Asians. Like a twat I handed over cash.
Being innocent until proven guilty does not mean you are entitled to suppress all possible evidence of wrongdoing. Legitimate financial transactions usually leave an audit trail. Persons who have acquired large sums of money as a result of theft, fraud, extortion, drug deals, bribery, blackmail, smuggling, or tax evasion are very keen not to leave any audit trail, and thus prefer cash transactions. Often the existence of large unexplained sums of cash is the only feasible way of detecting crimes and identifying criminals. The interesting question here is: Who are all these people who are so keen for crimes to be undetectable? And why would that be?
