Goose wrote on Apr 4
th, 2024 at 11:57am:
I think there is a role for government and legislation in this; regarding perhaps ensuring physical Aussie dollars must be an option accepted as a form of payment. I know many wont like that idea for a number of reasons. Short-sighted economists aside re; "untaxed" tiny proportion of GDP thought to exist, There exists elements of society where removal of the physical payment option will have more far reaching results than anticipated IMHO. From sex workers to the poor and others whom would be thrown under the "bus" and forced into further criminal efforts to survive. The small "untaxed" portion that may exist should be thought of as the sacrificial anode that stops society corroding from the bottom. I'm positive if using physical payments becomes "impossible", crime will steadily become worse and worse. You can't beg for dollars, you have to steal goods. You can't retain sex work anonymity etc etc. You think the entire length of human existence drug trade wont continue; you're an imbecile. I also predict a massive rise in payment fees. The digital system then becomes effectively, an economic system monopoly. You can guarantee it will be monetised even further. The tiny gain the economists and short-sighted business groups think they are getting, will be more than cancelled out once truly calculated through the entire society. Once again, none of that even factors in digital payment system failures and nefarious attacks. Wising up and realising you need to keep the option is probably in reality not enough, if it is allowed to become effectively impossible to revert to cash as all businesses and financial systems have removed the option. Track it, limit it sure, but society needs a form of physical transaction as an option.
Your posts are insightful in that you're trying to look at all sides of this.
When this transition started I used to joke that prices would go up. You'd no longer get the "cash price".
Well, that's not so much a joke anymore, is it? It's definitely a factor in the increased cost of living.
Also, there's the privacy aspect. You mentioned sex workers. Well, for those who visit them, I'm sure they don't want that to be displayed on their statements for the prying eyes of the wife, girlfriend and nosy public servants. But there may be a host of other things people might be shy about revealing.
There is also the problem of hackers. Geez, there are devices where such bent persons can walk into shopping centres with them and download your cards' details because of the RF signal they continually transmit.
And what if some super hackers sponsored by adversary states bring down the system or there's some kind of EMP attack. People will be left in a lurch because they won't be able to access funds. There needs to be a physical back-up- like being able to walk into your bank and directly withdraw cash.
Have anyone of you watched the movie Brazil? In it governments have the power to disconnect you from services and your money at a flick of a button. They're almost there. Are you all comfortable with that prospect? Do you trust governments enough with the kind of omniscience and power that going cashless will give them?
Electronic transactions are a form of mass surveillance. This old article from The Guardian shows us how this will corrode our democracy, nay our very society:
NSA and GCHQ: the flawed psychology of government mass surveillance"Research shows that indiscriminate monitoring fosters distrust, conformity and mediocrity
Recent disclosures about the scope of government surveillance are staggering. We now know that the UK's Tempora program records huge volumes of private communications, including – as standard – our emails, social networking activity, internet histories, and telephone calls. Much of this data is then shared with the US National Security Agency, which operates its own (formerly) clandestine surveillance operation. Similar programs are believed to operate in Russia, China, India, and throughout several European countries.
While pundits have argued vigorously about the merits and drawbacks of such programs, the voice of science has remained relatively quiet. This is despite the fact that science, alone, can lay claim to a wealth of empirical evidence on the psychological effects of surveillance. Studying that evidence leads to a clear conclusion and a warning: indiscriminate intelligence-gathering presents a grave risk to our mental health, productivity, social cohesion, and ultimately our future.
Surveillance impairs mental health and performance
For more than 15 years we've known that surveillance leads to heightened levels of stress, fatigue and anxiety. In the workplace it also reduces performance and our sense of personal control. A government that engages in mass surveillance cannot claim to value the wellbeing or productivity of its citizens.
Surveillance promotes distrust between the public and the statePeople will trust an authority to the extent that it is seen to behave in their interest and trust them in return. Research suggests that people tolerate limited surveillance provided they believe their security is being bought with someone else's liberty. The moment it becomes clear that they are in fact trading their own liberty, the social contract is broken..."
theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2013/aug/26/nsa-gchq-psychology-government
-m
Forum
Pages: 
