Why Killing Cash is Key to MasterCard’s Competitive Strategy

MasterCard refused to process donations: http://observer.com/2010/12/card-declined-visa-mastercard-re...

Whether you agree with Julian Assange or not, the fact that democratically elected leaders in a democratic country tried to force a democratic society to _NOT_ support a cause by telling MasterCard "don't process these donations" was an incredibly chilling event.

It's a fascist (I.e. corporate state) control freak's dream.

The Japanese have been smart enough to stick with cash in their decades of deflation. As it looks increasingly like a number of Western economies may 'turn Japanese', I hope those nations will follow Japan and stick with cash.

... and 1.5% of GDP (almost certainly overstated by an order of magnitude) is a low price to pay to prevent a demonstrably criminal and corrupt banking cartel from controlling all transactions.

And for those of you that cherish privacy, imagine the tracking possibilities in a society where commercial transactions no longer can be pursued anonymously.

This is troublesome for two reasons.

The first is political; both companies are American. This gives the American government way too much control over such critical infrastructure. Even if they do not overtly mess with the system, they most certainly are passing all this information on to their intelligence agencies. Even a single worthy competitor from somewhere else would be a huge improvement.

The second is that it stifles innovation. Because of the lack of a well-established competition, the only innovation these companies are interested in is new products that make use of their existing infrastructure. Contactless payments on mobile phones could have been reality five years ago, but MC and Visa have to jump through several hoops and require special SIMs to have it all run over the infrastructure they sell instead of the internet. And the banks are happy to wait instead of innovating themselves.

I'm all for killing cash by digital means. But not if these two companies are doing it.

Yeah, if you're of the mindset that everything that anybody purchases should be tracked and scrutinized.

He's making the bet that as he grows the market, MC will be able to make the new parts profitable somehow, and that the thing holding him back is his dealmakers being too conservative.

Put another way, he's hit top safe speed, and he's just flipped up the molly-guard on the "untested go-faster button."

I thought this was meant to be about 'killing money', not Bangladesh's apparent lack of gender equality or the MasterCard boss's rather blunt views on the subject.

The article is all over the place. And -

"What really helps them realize they can make a difference is [the ability to make] a decision — and that not making a decision is a criminal offense."

If I were an employee of MasterCard, I would feel very patronized and angry in the face of a policy that disregards our opinions - even if it's obviously just a marketing farce for the stockholders.

For once, I'm glad I use Visa.

is an odd statement. Cash goes back to at least the 30 pieces of silver in the Bible, it's not much of a secret and I wonder who the "vested interests" are. Perhaps the several billion people who use it daily? And "allowed to play a role" is odd as it's the standard system everywhere. Maybe Banga dreams of a world where Visa and Mastercard have the power to ban cash but perhaps still graciously allow it to play a role. I hope that does not happen.

s/credit card/crypto currency/g

On the other hand, if this was meant as click-bait, then go right ahead and not change the name. I'll just regret my click, and hopefully this comment will serve as a warning to other unsuspecting, curious individuals.

Edit: I see that the title has been changed. Thank you very much, mods!