Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdietrich | Hacker News Reader

>I would see this practice immediately banned.

That's just covering up for a bigger problem. If you've got a lot of people without bank accounts, just make it easier to open a bank account. Here in the UK, you can open an account in minutes on your mobile phone with any photo ID, even if you're not a UK resident. Banks are required by the banking code to offer fee-free accounts regardless of credit history and to accept a wide range of identity documents, including letters from the welfare agency or a homeless hostel.

https://monese.com/

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/basic-bank...

View on HN

The problem isn't about how difficult it may be to open an account. The problem is that banks become gatekeepers for the ability to exchange legal tender for goods and services.

I could write an entire essay on the problems this causes if cashless business becomes wideapread. But a few highlights include:

* A positive feedback loop will form due to less cash being accepted => less cash circulating => less reason for businesses to accept cash

* Banks able to de-platform individuals and lock them out from access to life necessities

* Governments likewise able to de-platform individuals as a neat new way to oppress dissidents and undesirables

* The telco backbone of a nation becomes a one stop shop for a decapitating attack. Telco is also one of the first utilities to fail during natural disasters

* Impossible to purchase goods/services without it being logged, surveilled, and used to manipulate you with individualised advertising

* Once cash circulation drops below a critical point, opening or operating a business will not be possible without accepting card payments. That's your plumber, the kid who walks your dog, anyone offering any goods/services. Banks are now in control of who can receive money in addition to who can spend it.

* Ditto for p2p transactions

Anything that threatens the universal acceptability of legal tender should be viewed as a national security threat.

> Anything that threatens the universal acceptability of legal tender should be viewed as a national security threat.

I agree, but it depends on your point of view, I guess. Cash will itself probably be portrayed as a "threat." After all, only drug dealers and people too lazy to lift themselves up to bankable condition need cash. Right?

No-cash is an example of a middleman, or system of middlemen, locking up something for themselves that was once "free."

Water, especially bottled water, can be an example. Gentically modified seeds that produce sterile plants, in addition to some other benefit (Roundup-Ready) is another.

> After all, only drug dealers and people too lazy to lift themselves up to bankable condition need cash. Right?

Even if we accept that line of fallacy, the sum threat of everything that could be done with illegal cash transactions is orders of magnitude smaller than the threat of a cyber attack or natural disaster disabling all exchange of money.

I don't think even the staunchest anti-cash proponents could seriously advocate for building a house of cards out of our monetary system and creating a much bigger problem than what anti-cash purports to solve.

> I don't think even the staunchest anti-cash proponents could seriously advocate for building a house of cards out of our monetary system and creating a much bigger problem than what anti-cash purports to solve.

I don't think anyone who could influence that decision would hesitate for an instant, if it brought them money or power in their lifetime. You really have to apply Kissinger's model of international relations (nations can be relied on to act in their own self-interest) to individual politicians and other wielders of direct power.

> * A positive feedback loop will form due to less cash being accepted => less cash circulating => less reason for businesses to accept cash

This is already happening in Sweden: most people find card or mobile payments more convenient and therefore carry little or no cash with them; more and more shops go cashless; and the cycle continues. New coins and bills were introduced a year or two ago and I still hear people complain that they haven't learned to tell them apart yet because cash is so rarely used.

> The problem is that banks become gatekeepers for the ability to exchange legal tender for goods and services.

Aside from banks, you generally need a debit/credit card to participate, and one of the major providers has already started this with MasterCard's ban on Robert Spencer.

  > in the UK, you can open an account in minutes on your mobile phone with any photo ID, even if you're not a UK resident.

But u need a house contract/utility bill. I was in this situation recently. Arrived from non EU. Cannot sign a rental agreement as i did not have bank account and could not get bank account as i had no rental agreements!

The problem is that most banks in the US are incredibly predatory, especially toward low income customers. Banks love to provide small amount short term loans (honoring NSF funds) at usurious rates. Instead of bouncing a transaction that would overdraw an account by, say, one solitary dollar banks will let it go through then hit the account holder with a $30 NSF fee (which works out to something like 4000% APR or so). For poor people a bank account can look like a huge risk, which can introduce massive expenses in a moment's notice with the slightest mismanagement (or external emergency).

Unfortunately, it's unlikely that this situation will change any time soon in the US, it's just too profitable for the banks and the government is too much in their pocket to actually want to fix the problem.

> Here in the UK, you can open an account in minutes on your mobile phone with any photo ID, even if you're not a UK resident.

Is this a relatively new thing? One of the biggest bureaucratic nightmares I’ve ever had was opening an account in the UK.

Closing it was even worse. I emptied it from an ATM then walked in and asked to close it. They agreeed then handed me a fist full of money that I’d already withdrawn from the ATM. I queried what was going on and a months long misery ensued as they seemed to think I was trying to defraud them.

>Is this a relatively new thing?

Yes. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, regulators took the opinion that the retail banking sector had become over-consolidated, with a handful of "too big to fail" players dominating the market. Steps were taken to promote competition and diversity in retail banking, which led to a proliferation of mobile-first entrants - off the top of my head I can name Revolut, Monese, Monzo, Starling and Atom.

These new banks have the benefit of a clean-slate IT infrastructure and culture, so they're genuinely modern. For example, Revolut's business bank customers can control their accounts via a fully-specified API and receive transaction notifications in Slack.

https://www.revolut.com/open-api

https://www.revolut.com/connect-your-apps-to-simplify-work

Reply on news.ycombinator.com