The cover story in IEEE Spectrum magazine is about the demise of cash money. It's a measured piece -- the end of cash is nigh, but not too nigh. Rather than a cashless society, the article envisions a "less-cash society." OK. What's most interesting to me is that the idea of a cashless society seems momentous and even fantastical -- like a world without walls or laws (cue John Lennon). It's just trading in one abstraction (currency) for another (or several others), right? Maybe. Maybe not.
The article argues that our main reasons for clinging to cash are (a) habit (b) privacy. Cash is mainly good for the "big, spinning world of under-the-table-transactions" that we want to keep to ourselves. Is the best argument for cash that it's harder to trace? The role of cash is indeed diminishing, but I think there's a little more to our desire to keep cash around. The bills and coins are more than symbols. Their weight and tangibility convey value to our metaphorical minds in a way that binary bits don't. Not yet anyway.
The article argues that our main reasons for clinging to cash are (a) habit (b) privacy. Cash is mainly good for the "big, spinning world of under-the-table-transactions" that we want to keep to ourselves. Is the best argument for cash that it's harder to trace? The role of cash is indeed diminishing, but I think there's a little more to our desire to keep cash around. The bills and coins are more than symbols. Their weight and tangibility convey value to our metaphorical minds in a way that binary bits don't. Not yet anyway.
2 comments:
Here's a different angle. Cash carries germs. Does a cashless or "less cash" society have healthcare upsides?
Good point! And the article makes a point of noting some particularly germ-exposed folks who still love cash -- dog walkers, prostitutes, nannies.
Post a Comment