I'm right there with you for every reason you listed. Here's an anecdote from the last week when my mother visited: In NYC, the buses are equipped with devices to accept change as a fare. Also, the metrocard machines support the use of cash to purchase said card. Now, there is a special bus that runs from LaGuardia into Manhattan upto Colombia University area called the M60. When she arrived in the city this last time, apparently, the MTA has removed the ability to board the M60 via change payment. Instead, you must purchase a special pass from a machine inside (there's nothing wrong with that). The problem? That machine accepts cards and only cards. So if you wanted to use that method of public transport, you have no choice but to use a credit/debit card. Thankfully, taxis accept cash however, that is an expense closer to $40 than the $5 to use public transport which does not have the appearance of being fair to anyone at all. Also, I have very little trust in the current social constructs and do not like the idea of having every single purchase I make recorded and distributed to advertisers and other not-so-nice government agencies for furthering questionable agendas of individuals within said organizations. I do not like the argument of "but it's so convenient and why not? It's not like I can be harmed." because it always opens up the door for exactly that. I just think us so called residents of the 1st world really really really need to start evaluating our reasons for creating the things that we do beyond "we can afford it and it makes me temporarily happy." *edited because wall of text
EXACTLY! You'd literally disenfranchise significant portions of the city's poorer areas if the MTA decided to nix cash metrocard payments across the board. The amount of human traffic caused by the metrocard machines no longer accepting bills and there's only 1 person in the booth is a massive problem during morning commutes and many of those people have jobs where they're punished for being not being on time.
excellent point! going to a cashless society would have ripple effects like this, and even further down. Having said all this… I LOVE my plastic. I love paying at the pump. I love parking meters that take plastic. I love that every vendor at the farmers' market has a square, or paypal, or other credit card reader slapped on their iDevice. I love it. I am fortunate to have learned a long time ago to live below my means and budget. Because of that, I have the luxury of earning bonus points for using a card. I am grateful for this skill and for this opportunity. but that's my privileged, educated, first-world situation. So many people don't have those luxuries.many of those people have jobs where they're punished for being not being on time.
The "underbanked" are a segment that the CC companies are now essentially fighting over. They've all begun to issue cards that are "reload able" with cash at certain places, i.e. Walmart and can be used like a credit/debit card. This is a way to "get them in to the system." It's essentially "cash" though so the "live outside of your means" thing isn't an option. Also, the truth is, most large organizations would rather not deal in cash but a cash equivalent like a "MTA card" or a reload able cash card.
pre-pay cards that are not attached to anything specific is seriously one of the largest growing financial investment markets in existence right now. So I'm struggling to understand why it requires a card that's attached to your personal identity.
For the record, while I think you make valid points, Banks absolutely do not do this - to advertisers at a minimum. The gov't can come in and investigate your account through certain procedures, so I can't speak to that, but when banks give your information to advertisers, it's not your transactional information. I know I'm asking you to trust me on this, but I know what I'm talking about. On a side note if you search the word "regulation" on hubski, you won't find my post but you'll find some very interesting discussion. I'm going to have to go back to it.Also, I have very little trust in the current social constructs and do not like the idea of having every single purchase I make recorded and distributed to advertisers and other not-so-nice government agencies for furthering questionable agendas of individuals within said organizations.
Hey that was a great thread and I didn't actually ever realize you passed (has it really been 250 days) but it's esp. great because if you scroll down to the bottom of the page you witness thenewgreen using the word 'droll' to mean 'dry', which is a misapplication, but one that is only interesting if you happen to be reading the Droll Stories of Honore de Balzac right now, as I am. They certainly are not the Dry Stories of -- anyway. You get the point. What was the point? EDIT: the point was that your transactional history falls under the jurisdiction of a warrant for your arrest, I think.
I think part of what should be considered is that these theoretical corporations who would be buying your transaction history really don't care that much about individuals on an individual level. Big companies such as Target already track everything you buy, even if you don't have some kind of card with them or a rewards program - they track your debit card number as it is used, and record the history of all items. Then they go do crazy things and tell you you're pregnant. Additional transaction information, such as what you buy at other stores, probably wouldn't be very helpful or informative to them, unless they were considering expanding into other types of businesses or providing other services. In addition, selling transaction history could potentially violate laws like HIPPA (as it would be possible to see whether you were going to doctor's appointments, especially specialist doctors or psychiatrists) and it would take manpower to scrub the transaction history of those purchases, and I don't think a bank would be willing to invest that much time into a situation like that. It's a matter of practicability in application - I don't think many corporations would want that information, and I don't think banks would find it profitable to provide it. I also highly doubt it would be legal, but as you believe, there's a wide gap between what banks should do and what they don't do[1] so I encourage you to think about it from terms of practicality and profit. In short I highly doubt it would be a profitable venture for a bank to sell transaction history. In addition, if regulators came across such a process, they would clamp the fuck down on it ASAP. [1] I have mixed opinions on this but that's not he point of this discussion