Hacker News Reader

Comment by PixelB | Hacker News Reader

The main issue here is actually the 500 euro note, not the $100 bill. The idea is that such notes fund a great deal of terrorist activities overseas, and I sort of agree that we shouldn't have such large denominations.

I would even be okay with getting rid of the $100 bill. Let's face it, people who deal in VERY large amounts of cash $100,000+ are not good people. Drug dealers or politicians (same thing in my opinion) don't use $20 bills as amounts that high get very cumbersome. If you find yourself in a situation with so many $20 bills that you physically can't carry them around, I have literally zero sympathy for you.

Slippery slope? Maybe, but as it stands I have no issue.

View on HN

Except the note size is kind of secondary here.

Having limits on transactions over 1000 euro (like France) does forces law-abiding citizens to handle transactions in a way that can be monitored by the security services (the non-law abiding citizens of course just ignore the damn law or wash the money through a front).

It's yet another attack on privacy, if I want to buy a bike from someone legally and pay in cash for it what business is it of the governments, it's a private transaction between two parties for a legally owned and sold item.

I'm rapidly coming to the view that Orwell wasn't far of the mark with "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." except instead of an actual jackboot we just have the complete removal of privacy, fear of the boot stamping on your face instead of an actual boot.

> The idea is that such notes fund a great deal of terrorist activities overseas

That's the bare faced lie masquerading as an excuse. The reason they want to get rid of it all of a sudden is to cut down on cash hoarding in a negative interest rate environment.

>If you find yourself in a situation with so many $20 bills that you physically can't carry them around, I have literally zero sympathy for you.

I lack sympathy for the banks that would see a deposit flight to cash in the event of negative interest rates they lobbied for.

I once paid a five-digit amount for a used car in cash, using 1000 chf bills. This would have been inconvenient with 20$ notes.

The only legal tender is cash (and coins). Bank accounts are not, they are just claims for legal tender. If Banks close or go bankrupt you have no way to get to your money quickly or painlessly.

But Apple Generation does not care. We are used to being watched and patronized.

Do you imagine that one iota of crime would be prevented by making drug lords pack an extra suitcase full of money? If not they why bother.

Yes. Carrying an extra suitcase is inconvenient, makes you more stressed and so more prone to making mistakes (or means you have to pay an extra lackey to carry it). None of this makes crime impossible but it raises the cost, which for some people will shift the balance in favour of legitimate business instead.

> Drug dealers and politicians (same thing in my opinion)

The number of things wrong with this statement. I don't like most politicians, but those two are very different. I'll just leave it there, because I don't even know where to begin to refute this.

Also, anyone that uses +$100,000 in cash is a bad person? This makes no sense. I run a charity, and if I choose to give cash to the organizations beneficiaries, is it evil? If I do the same thing personally and find $100,000 to give to charity or a family in need, am I evil now? Generalizing people who spend a lot of money (to you anyway, it's a very subjective and arbitrary definition of a lot of money) is just illogical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com