Is a moneyless society in our future? Has money become nothing more than an abstract idea as useful as the human appendix? David Wolman certainly thinks so. Where do you stand on the issue? Read the following interview with David Wolman and answer the questions that follow.
http://gizmodo.com/5882836/lets-kill-cash-qa-with-author-david-wolman-on-our-moneyless-future
1) Can society function without using a tangible money? What are the benefits/dangers with such a society?
2) What are David Wolman's best arguments? Explain.
3) What points does David Wolman make that you disagree with? Explain.
49 comments:
1. I think society can function without tangible money if it is developed enough to support such a system. A benefit is that consumers will always have money win them, so they won’t be without money at a place that doesn’t accept credit cards. Other than that, I don’t see any major advantages that going totally cash-less would have over the credit and debit card system we live in now. I think a huge danger with going cash-less is fraud and hacking. If a hacker gets on to the electronic treasury (or whatever is in place) they can dramatically effect a nations economy. Right now, credit card fraud is common, but at least our online accounts are cash backed, if that makes sense.
2. I think David Wolman’s best argument is that the cash system is slow and expensive to maintain. I like that he made the point about cash being expensive. If someone is going to make an argument for changing something so familiar and overlooked in our lives, it should be about cost. I really didn’t care about what Wolman had to say until he made that point.
3. There isn’t a specific argument that Wolman made that I disagree with, but I don’t think that implementing a totally cash-less society is unrealistic. I don’t see what would people who aren’t economists care enough to switch the way they buy things.
After reading this article, I realized that a society without cash money is very possible. It would be a long gradual process altering how people view their financial transactions to accept complete use of electronic transactions while also abolishing cash; however the final effect would be beneficial. Though technology is advancing and much of America use credit cards or pay via smart phones, a large change would be the thought of children now needing credit cards. Also, simple payments such as babysitting would now be taxed which may upset the social norm. Looking at the idea from an economic stand point however, converting to a moneyless society would aid to lowering the nation’s financial problems by eliminating the expenses of maintaining the currency. As stated in the article, David Wolman argues that dollar bills only last for 40 months, electrons and atoms however, greatly surpass the lifespan of any other currency printed. Therefore, removing cash as a form of currency would act as a government spending cut by eliminating the cost of reprinting the money supply every 40 months. Wolman also argues that if electronic transactions were the only form of currency, there would be a strong decrease in black market trades – such as drugs and prostitutions, as the transactions would be documented The few downsides to the shift is that it may not be as widely accepted, purely because society is not one hundred percent used to solely paying by way of transactions instead of cash. However as society progresses into a more technology based system, the complete shift should be possible.
Anthony A.
1. I believe the eradication of tangible currency from society is possible but poses many inherent problems. There are obvious benefits, such as convenience. The removal of cash, checks, and coins drastically reduces transaction time as a mere swipe or scan supplants all the fumbling around with bills and change. This may lead to higher sales volumes resulting from shorter lines and quicker transactions, something that lowers the opportunity cost of making the trek to a store by decreasing the time required. However, there are countless weaknesses, all of which relate mostly to a dependence on technology to function. If there is a software malfunction, power outage, or other damage to the virtual commercial infrastructure, the entire economy comes to a screeching halt. Without a working mainframe, exchanges cannot occur between buyer and seller with electronic money as the medium of exchange. There would have to be a backup generator or other energy source in case of an emergency, but there is no guarantee that any safety valve is perfectly reliable, either. Another problem is the high initial cost involved with a complete system overhaul. Not only must new physical equipment in the form of new pin pads, scanners, or readers of biometrics such as fingerprints, voice, or retina authorization be created, but there is the cost of wireless infrastructure, the maintenance of a universal network, and the coding behind security and software upgrades. With the necessity for a universal network through which to transact, the governmental centralization of personal information associated with every transaction is something that neither banks nor consumers would be comfortable with. There's also the issue of hacking, which I'll discuss later.
2. David Wolman makes a very compelling argument that there's an exorbitant back-door expense to maintaining physical currency. Money is being constantly printed, distributed, and inspected in a cycle that raises the cost of inputs to a level above the currency's face value. The money being poured into keeping it clean and well-supplied provides the government with an unnecessary cost that could be avoided by going to an entirely virtual system.
3. The argument that funds allocated to apprehend criminals who commit cash crimes would be eliminated with intangible currency is insane. To think that crime will decrease because there isn't physical cash left to steal is asinine. There's also a glaring hole in the argument for NFC (near-field communication) as a means of transaction in addition to "stuff we cannot envision yet." NFC is a highly flawed system from a security standpoint. There are only so many encryptions that a signal can be beefed up with to protect from being intercepted, and as security systems get smarter, hackers follow these advances step for step. Although NFC involves short-range scanning and does eliminate skimming, a hacker standing behind you on line can take out a device the size of a cell phone and steal your PIN, personal information, and anything else on file with your account, all from your signal. It's then up to the discretion of the thief to use your information however he wants; with all the information he possesses, he can do anything from wiring money to himself to robbing your house or harming your family. God forbid one of them gets onto a bank server or national mainframe, a country can be sucked dry of money in an instant. Even if technology advances further to things like biometric security, there are already ways to hack it. A specially designed contact lens can get through a retina scan while a simple recording circumvents voice recognition, and fingerprinting can be discovered with infrared technology can recover prints by where or when the finger was place with the intensity of heat residue that remains. There's no new technology that will ever exist to be perfectly foolproof, and while a digital system seems to be akin to a virtual Fort Knox, it's only becoming more fallible.
Alec S.
1. Society would absolutely be able to function without tangible money; however, the dangers of such a proposition could potentially out-weigh possible positives. For example, if card-based, intangible money were to be used, society and financial institutions must ensure complete protection from "money-hackers". It is easy to point out possible abuses of this form of currency--stores and people secretly adding digits to a bill or consciously overcharging. People are more inclined to spend when they do not see what they are giving away. Imagine paying $200 worth of groceries in cash as opposed to a credit card, you'd probably be more inclined to put back the Doritos you had planned on buying--with a credit card purchase, you'd be home enjoying your delicious Sweet-Chili Doritos, not thinking twice about it.Anthony brought up a good point in that in an emergency case-scenario how would someone be able to have their "cash" readily available. Two more points: how would someone like me (working off the books) be paid for my job, and two, what would be the role of the Federal Reserve in the United States if this system were to be implemented?
2. David Wolman brings up some good arguments as to why our current "cash system" will and should be abolished. His statement that "Cash is the Currency of Crime" holds some water, in that the use of cash money would significantly curtail drug trading. There is a certain cost of cash: going to a secure ATM to withdraw money, the possibilities of bank robbers shooting up a bank in demand for cash, and the cost of transporting cash.If we were to become a cashless society, these costs would no longer have to be accountable for.
3. While reading this article I had the feel that David Wolman thought that there could be a simple conversion to electronic and card-based currency in a seemingly short period of time. If society were to become cashless, it would take a long (possibly even 20-30 year)process. For one, people do not like change from the norm--the norm being cash. The (appropriately used) quote by Mark Twain about progression and change fits perfectly in this scenario: "I', all for progress; it's change I don't like." Wolman also does not take into account money exchange between people with this electronic/card system? Would our cards have a device on them that makes transfer of money possible? Or would we have to buy a small machine that one person swipes their card in that takes away money from one card and puts it on another--and if that's that case, is that a trustworthy method of money transaction? I feel at this point there are too many questions and not enough sufficient answers to have complete faith in a cashless society.
Call me naive of old-fashioned, but I like my movies with loud and explosions and hand grenades going off with people fighting each other in order to get that large suitcase of cash. I shall leave my house now to go see Contraband.
or*
Kelly F
1) I believe that society can function without tangible money. Is it not true that a lot of people not carrying a ton of money with them now? Everywhere we go everyone is using a credit card, debit card, or personal checks in order to make purchases. Today, we use less and less dollar bills to make purchases and forget about the coin currency. I cannot remember the last time I saw someone take out a nickel in order to make exact change upon making a transaction. The dangers of having a society without tangible money is that maybe for some people it will be more difficult to keep track of money that they have spent or have. Upon using dollars, you can use as many as you have and then they are all gone. By using credit cards many people spend money they do not have. It also seems that in such a society there could be a risk of identity theft or fraud. It seems that today many people can catch counterfeit money and it is difficult to make, however with an intangible currency it may be easier to scam the system. The benefits of such a society would be the saving of time and money that it takes to make a transaction with currency or to print up the currency itself.
2) Wolman makes some very strong arguments. I believe that his best argument was saying how expensive it is to maintain our cash supply. The time and money that it takes to distribute, inspect, re-inspect, thread, and reissue currency seems very impractical in my opinion. That’s not even taking into account the costs to make money available for personal withdraw, and the security protocols that must go into this process. I also think that he makes the argument that the value of something is how we perceive it. The thing that gives money value is us and the getting rid of tangible currency would not lead to a collapse as long as the public is willing to perceive something else as valuable.
3) I disagree with Wolman that he thinks that tangible money results in an increase in crime. Honestly, intangible money will probably still result in financial crime. Overall, cash does not appear to be the issue. There needs to be a currency regardless of what it looks like, which will always result in people trying to manipulate it for negative means.
1) Societies can function without using tangible money. We are already halfway through a transition to completely cashless society with the increasing use of credit and debit cards. The benefits include a decrease time in waiting online to make transactions because you would no longer have to deal with handling over small change and bills to pay for various items. Additionally, money will be easily accessible to make any payment in theoretically any store. However, there are many negatives to not having tangible money. With a completely electronic banking and system of money there will be an increased number of computer hackers who just make up money out of thin air which could cause inflation in the dollar. Additionally there might be privacy issues because now everyone will be linked to every single item that they have ever purchased. In addition how could you easily pay our friend back the ten dollars you owed them? Would you have to boot up your computer when you got home rather than just handing them a ten dollar bill? I definitely see more dangers then benefits with the creation of a cashless society.
2) David Woman’s best argument has to be his concept of “cash is the currency of crime.” Cash is indeed used as a resource to fund illegal activity such as drug deals and terrorist activity. With the creation of a cashless society these deal will be easier to monitor and the government would theoretically be able to just freeze someone’s complete buying power. Also, there would be no longer a need to violently hold-up a store or bank and demand them to empty their registers for the cash inside. This system would also decrease the ability of many people to hide their money from the government to avoid taxes creating higher revenue for the government through those taxes.
3) David Wolman makes it seem like a person’s accumulated wealth will all be condensed down to one plastic card. I do not agree that this would be the right direction to move towards because if a person lost or misplaced their card, then all of their purchases will be frozen until you receive a new card or find the one you lost. I also feel that the more abstract money becomes it will slowly lose value because it will no longer be tangible. A person will quickly hand over a plastic card when purchasing groceries without even hearing the total, but when cash is involved a person will actually count and see how much they are actually spending to a point where they may value the dollar at a greater amount.
1) Society is already makes steps towards a cashless future. The use of debit and credit cards is already extremely common and it wouldn't require any great lengths to completely replace cash as a medium of exchange. Cash can easily be misplaced or destroyed, so at least with intangible money, that danger can be avoided. I think the most important thing to be wary about, however, is that fraud and scams through the internet are already very common and replacing cash with credit would only make things worse.
2) The fact that cash is expensive to create and keep in circulation is a compelling reason to get rid of it. Switching to credit would be much more efficient, in that aspect.
3) He states that "cash is the currency of crime" but fraud is a much more common crime than a bank heist. He also goes under the assumption that these alternative electronic payment methods wouldn't cause crime, but in my opinion, crime and technology would only evolve to fit new developments. He also talks about the benefits of making payments through smartphones, even for low cost goods. It would be extremely easy to steal a phone, and through it, money. You'd probably be less likely to be robbed if you were only carrying around a small amount of cash for small purchases like Wolman's example of cigarettes or candy.
1) I think society can function without using tangible money. It would just take a lot to transition society to become that way. This makes things like debit cards, credit cards, and even things like starbuck's cards pop into my head. The only thing changing when you make purchases with these things is the number representing the money in your account. The weight of your wallet remains the same. However, one of the problems with this is that it'll be more difficult to lend money to people or to transfer money to people. For example, before I had a debit card, I only paid in cash. How would children and tweens be able to pay for things themselves when they begin to grow more independent. Another ting that could be an issue is if people get access to information that could give them access to your money. I know it's probably easier for someone to steal a wallet out of a handbag, but you don't carry thousands of dollars in a wallet.
2) I think one of his best arguments is toward the middle of the article when he says something about terrorists being able to use money because it's "an anonymous payment mechanism." Without using tangible money, all transactions could be traced and it would be a lot more difficult for people to buy drugs. They'd probably have to start bartering a lot more to keep these transactions as secret as possible. Another great point is the one about lending a ten dollar bill to pay for lunch with someone. It's a lot easier to do that than it is to run over to an ATM and "to make sure that money is circulating back to a place where it can be inspected so ensure it's not deteriorated too much and has to be pulled from circulation."
3) The only point that I disagree with is the one about the kilowatt card. I just don't think that kilowatt cards are as valuable to people as gold once was because at least gold is something you could hold and keep with you. I just feel that kilowatt hours, despite their importance, aren't concrete enough.
1. I think that society could function without tangible money if there was a robust system in place. In an age where most technological advances are made to free us from things that may be seen as inconvenient (such as the creation of cell phones and a move to "wireless", moving to a system where there is no tangible money is the next conceivable step. Also, most Americans own a credit card or debit card, so it's not like the idea is completely alien. One positive is that it would save the government the cost it takes to create money. It would also speed up many transactions that are held back by people who need to count change. Some negative effects is that the system that controls the virtual money supply may be hackable, and fraud may be much easier.
2. I think that the issue of cost and security is the strongest argument Wolman makes for the virtualization of money. He mentions that the current money system makes it easy to anonymously transfer money to organizations that deal in illegal activities, such as terrorist organizations and drug cartels. I also think his argument regarding the cost of money is strong, because it does cost the treasury a lot to maintain, regulate, and reissue currency each year. A lot of this could be fixed with a paperless system.
3. I think the weakest argument Wolman makes is that alternative currencies, such as the "Facebook dollars" are feasible. I don't think any system like that can take hold when it requires you to sacrifice your money for a very specific kind of currency that can only be used for one thing. I think it'll be just like the Simpsons episode where they go to the amusement park, and turn all their money into "itchy and scratchy bucks", only to enter the park and find no one takes them. Systems like that are unnecessary, useless, and often hurt the customer by limiting the value of his or her money.
Kelly W.
1. I think that it is possible for society to function without tangible money, although there would be problems associated with using this kind of system. Today, the majority of people use credit and debit cards most of the time and carry very little money with them. A downside to relying on intangible money is the possibility of fraud or hacking, as this type of currency would be stored electronically. Credit cards would also allow people to spend money that they do not have, which would cause people to be in large amounts of debt. Also, this system would require children to carry credit cards instead of money, which would be a difficult transition.
2. I think that Wolman's best argument is that a cash system is expensive to maintain. It is costly to print, distribute, transport, and secure cash. In addition, cash only lasts 40 months before it must be reprinted. In a cashless system, this would not be a problem.
3. I disagree with Wolman's statement that "cash is the currency of crime." He believes that tangible money causes more crime than a cashless system would. I think that there would be at least the same amount of crime, if not more, in a system with intangible money. If tangible money is stolen today, it would be limited to the amount of money a person has on them. However, with an intangible money system, thousands of dollars could be stolen at a time.
1) I believe that society can exist without the use of a tangible money supply. Lots of people are already beginning the transition to not using tangible money by using credit cards, debit cards, and making payments through mobile devices and computers. I see this with my mom who hardly ever uses cash anymore and uses her debit card instead. Benefits of such abstract money include saving more time, easier access to money, and lower opportunity costs for other things. However, there are many dangers to this as well. Whether you have an intangible money supply or not, there will be robbers or hackers that will always try to steal people's money. Also, with debit and credit card fraud on the rise, the possibility of achieving this total intangible money supply will go down the drain because people might slowly lose credibility with such a system. And when everyone doesn't agree on one thing, such thing can never be achieved.
2) I think that Wolman's best arguments are that money is really expensive to control and how currency is whatever people perceive it to be. It seems ridiculous at the expense that money has to be distributed, inspected, secured, reinspected, and reissued only to have a new security measure the next year or so and the process to go on again. Also dollars were backed up by gold only because people believed it be some value of importance to them. I think that essential commodities such as water and electricity have more value than gold and should be looked at in more depth in the future as forms of intangible currency as the author implied when he talked about Kilowatt cards.
3) The points I disagree with on Wolman is with some of the points he made on that "cash is the currency of crime". One point he made was about robbers robbing banks and drug and human trafficking as a result of cash currency. An intangible money supply could potentially pave the way for hackers in the form of robbers to steal money from people's bank accounts. And also, thieves might steal more money than they probably would have in the form of cash. And intangible money might also make transactions much easier for drug and human traffickers as well.
Gary K
1. Society can definitely function without using a currency. People currently don't use money as much as they used to. Debit cards and credit cards are being used a lot today. The major risk of using just credit or debit is that people would definitely start to hack people's money. This already happens with credit and debit cards, so what would happen if everybody used credit and debit? The benefits of using just debit and credit are that it would be cheaper. The federal reserve would have to do virtually nothing.
2. I think that David's best argument is that, "cash is the currency of crime." So many violent crimes happen just because of money. Money is a very good motive to commit a crime. The article said there were 10,000 bank robberies in 2009 and 2010. If people didn't carry money would there be many crimes which exist today?
3. I think that David gives off this type of thought that going cashless is something very easy. In reality I would have to imagine that going cashless would take years to do. The government would have to think of so many countermeasures to hackers. Not to mention that this would be contested by people. Would congress pass this?
Lauren K.
1. In my opinion I believe that a society can function without a tangible source of money because as long as citizens are able to make transactions and people are able to pay their debts they should be able to use it, whether its swiping a credit card or one of those Kilowatt cards that was mentioned in the interview. However, as simple as this concept is there is always the possibility of someone hacking into your account and stealing all your money, but even today with our current currency there's counterfeiting and people's identities being stolen. So no matter what route humanity chooses as a currency there's always going to be someone or some group that will find a way to steal your money. The real question is, which method will allow for fewer possibilities of theft.
2. David Wolman's best argument is the Kilowatt card, or at least the concept of having a currency backed by something that has real value, such as electricity. I thought this was a good idea because instead of being paid in cash you get paid in energy and its placed onto a card. Also, having a stable source to have money backed on would result in a stable value, no real inflation, and it would be easier transition to a universal currency. Not only this but the actual supply of electricity won't drain out, it would simply flow from place to place. And in terms of savings, its possible, because, just like how it is today, banks will keep only a % of the energy for themselves, and this should keep the flow going. And when it comes times to make a withdrawal the energy goes right back on your card.
3. A point that David Wolman made that makes me disagree with him is that "cash is the currency of crime" because no matter what we use as currency there is always the possibility of crime. Also, while making that argument David Wolman mentioned that there wouldn't be a certain number of cash crimes and therefore certain people that are incarcerated wouldn't be, but I disagree. I think there would just the same amount of criminals because greed doesn't just apply with dollars. If anything if our future currency is digital it may become easier to steal money if one knows how the system works and knows the right passwords or numbers to punch in, hopefully the system won't as primitive as that but you never know.
Jenna P.
1) Yes, society can function without tangible money because there’s an excessive amount of people that use credit/debit cards. Society today has become-or has forced to become-technologically savvy. From advances in our technology, more online transactions have erupted which uses less paper money. An intangible currency would be beneficial because the government can spend less money on the upkeep and spend more money on other important things. Although there are some beneficial effects from intangible currency, there are also detrimental ones. There could be a possible higher chance of fraud on online transactions, while paper money belongs to the person who is carrying it. Also, many of the students have created a good point. People would have a hard time paying for trivial things such as a pack of gum or a lottery ticket.
2) David Wolman has made some very interesting arguments in the article. I think his best argument would have to be how cash’s value is tied to perception and not goods. In today’s society, everyone is told that paper money can get a person a house, a car, and/or food…etc. What if suddenly the new currency is bags of salt? Paper money would then be worthless because people’s perception of bags of salt is the same as how cash was looked at.
3) A point that David Wolman had made that I disagree with would be about the Kilowatt card. To some people, it could be very useful, but to others it may not work. There are many people in this world that have different opinions and may not agree with the switch to Kilowatts. Just like Facebook credits, it would only be designed for certain people. Kilowatts would be useless to some.
1) Can society function without using tangible money? What are the benefits/dangers with such a society?
Our society can easily function without using a tangible money source. In my opinion, we have already initiated a new transition to a new and upcoming completely cashless society. The major benefit would be how you would no longer have to deal with use of annoying change and paper bills to pay items at retailers. However, the major negative associated with nontangible money, is the scare of computer hackers, with the use of an electronic payment etc. there will be an increased number of computer hackers who just “create” money, this may cause severe inflation in the dollar and the addition of even one zero to a bank account may lead to severe financial problems. Additionally, there may potentially be various privacy issues. This may due to everyone being linked to one unitary system.
2) What are David Wolman's best arguments? Explain.
I feel as though the issue of cost included in the money is the strongest argument Wolman makes to allow for removal of a tangible system of money. I think this argument regarding the high cost of money is strong, because just look at all the security included in a $100 bill. It does cost the treasury a lot to maintain, secure, transfer, as well as reissue currency each year, imagine all these listed problems could be fixed with a paperless system.
3) What points does David Wolman make that you disagree with? Explain.
The major point I disagree with is how "cash is the currency of crime". The argument he made about thieves and drug trafficking being a result of cash currency seems like an uneducated thing he just threw in. Although, on the other hand, virtual crimes due to intangible money supply may potentially lead the newest way for hackers to steal money from people's bank accounts.
Just another point I thought of, if we did enter into an intangible money supply in the near future, unemployment would sky rocket because now, banks, money transporters, and all the security involved with money, etc. would all be gone and unneeded leading to a failed intangible money system.
Why am I moneybags?
-whitearab
Matt M.
1. I think that society would be able to function without tangible money, but it is much easier to with tangible money. An electronic money system would work much like a credit card and just like with a credit card, many people will end up going into debt. People are much more reluctant to go and buy an expensive item with cash because they are able to see how much they are actually spending, not just seeing a price amount and than swiping their card. It would be very easy for a person to not know how much money they have in their bank accout and then just spending all of what they have and going into debt. If we did have an electronic money system people who are savvy with computers could hack into peoples accounts and transfer their money elsewhere. The only potential benefit that I actually see would be some sort of security for your money. The electronic system would take away the loss of lets say a hundred dollar bill that you happen to misplace.
2. I think that David Wolman's best arguement is the crime associated with money. He talks about the high number of bank robberies that took place in 2009 and 2010. This shows that tangible money has dangers. Wolman also talked about how money is used by terrorists because of the fact that it is not traceable like bank statements and other documents. Although more violent crimes may begin to stop over time, some less frequent crimes may take the possition that a bank robbery once did.
3. I disagree most with the fact that it will be an easy switch with less crime. If anything, I think that crime rates will go way up. I feel that many ATM skimmer type objects would be used to get account information on a more regular basis and that there could be a lot of mistakes between transfers. What if one person was paying for something but the transfer put the money into a different account? Also for people who are good with computers who may not go and rob a bank may now see more of an opportunity to steal from the comfort of their own home. It seems rather unfeasible to just switch over from a tangible currency to electronic. It will most likley not be accepted by everyone, and that could cause yet another problem.
Ryan G
1)I believe that society can function without a tangible money supply. There are three benefits to such a system. The first is the cost of money. I costs the government money to print bills as well as coins. Paper money are printed with special ink on cotton weaved paper and is costly to do for our government. It also cost people money as many people lose change. The second benefit is that it will help protect against theft. I understand that many people are worried about credit card theft, but I believe the bigger problem is robbing banks and houses for cash. Without any cash, there would be a decrease in thefts. The third benefit would be that the money is able to handle. You never have to worry about how much cash you are carrying and you do not need to go to the bank to get out money. You could also better keep track of your money with one basic spending account. The dangers are that a new generation of hackers will be born to steal money. If they are successful that any theft that occurs will be on a large scale. Also, with all your money on you, it might be difficult for teenagers to control their spending.
2)David's best argument is that it costs money to make money. He shows how it is more difficult for people to use cash and manage cash as opposed to just swiping a card. We are living in an advanced society, why can't our currency follow the same path of modernization?
3)I disagree with the tone of this article. David makes it seem as though this change over would have no ripple affects and it would happen very easy and quick. I believe this would be a tough change, especially for older people who still work mainly in cash. Also, David talks about how it would be harder to hide money without cash, but many people today hide this money in offshore bank accounts and in other ways besides in cash.
Ryan G
1)I believe that society can function without a tangible money supply. There are three benefits to such a system. The first is the cost of money. I costs the government money to print bills as well as coins. Paper money are printed with special ink on cotton weaved paper and is costly to do for our government. It also cost people money as many people lose change. The second benefit is that it will help protect against theft. I understand that many people are worried about credit card theft, but I believe the bigger problem is robbing banks and houses for cash. Without any cash, there would be a decrease in thefts. The third benefit would be that the money is able to handle. You never have to worry about how much cash you are carrying and you do not need to go to the bank to get out money. You could also better keep track of your money with one basic spending account. The dangers are that a new generation of hackers will be born to steal money. If they are successful that any theft that occurs will be on a large scale. Also, with all your money on you, it might be difficult for teenagers to control their spending.
2)David's best argument is that it costs money to make money. He shows how it is more difficult for people to use cash and manage cash as opposed to just swiping a card. We are living in an advanced society, why can't our currency follow the same path of modernization?
3)I disagree with the tone of this article. David makes it seem as though this change over would have no ripple affects and it would happen very easy and quick. I believe this would be a tough change, especially for older people who still work mainly in cash. Also, David talks about how it would be harder to hide money without cash, but many people today hide this money in offshore bank accounts and in other ways besides in cash.
Nick H
1. I believe that tangible money has become a problem in the ever-growing electronic world. The majority of Americans own at least a credit card or debit card, which allow for an ease of access when making purchases; and lessens the need for paper money that is costly and expensive to produce. We have lived under the misconception for many years that paper money is a true representative of value. When separated from society, a dollar can not provide food, nor living requirements for survival. Furthermore, paper money has been a limiter of economic growth due to the fact that economic growth will be limited if it is paired with corresponding growth in the money supply. Ultimately, to move away from the cumbersome paper money supply would mean sole use of credit as buying power, decreases in crime and increase in purchases due to the ease of buying.
2.)I personally agree with the idea of a kilowatt currency. Even gold, the standard of value, has held a misconceived value for its weight and aesthetic appearance. With a currency that hold actual value, I think inflation would be less likely to occur. The reason being, electricity will always be in constant demand and more importantly, carry tangible value.
3.)Although I agree with most of what David Wolman argued, I disagree with the fact that a cashless society is unrealistic. What person could have envisioned 50 years ago that you could pay bills online, trade stocks through websites like etrade, and manage your retirement? The bottom line is people are always innovating (through the incentive of profit) to make living more accessible and I believe it is naive to assume new innovation will not make a cashless society a reality.
Ryan G
1)I believe that society can function without a tangible money supply. There are three benefits to such a system. The first is the cost of money. It costs the government money to print bills as well as coins. Paper money are printed with special ink on cotton weaved paper and is costly to do for our government. It also cost people money as many people lose change. The second benefit is that it will help protect against theft. I understand that many people are worried about credit card theft, but I believe the bigger problem is robbing banks and houses for cash. Without any cash, there would be a decrease in thefts. The third benefit would be that the money would simply be easier to manage. You would never have to worry about not having enough money on you and you could have all your money in a spending account where it is easy to monitor. The dangers are that many irresponsible teenagers may not be able to control themselves having this much money on them and many elderly people may not be able to function without cash.
2)David’s best argument is that money is actually hurting us as it costs money to produce it. It is a medium of exchange that can be made more efficient. As our society is advancing, why isn’t our currency as well?
3)I disagree with the tone of David’s article. He makes it seem as though this transition will be quick and easy with no ripple effect. I believe that it will be a slow process as many people will not want to conform, but I also believe it is a necessary step. I also disagree that it will help stop people from hiding money. People have the ability to store money in offshore accounts and this will only increase as more money is stored in accounts as opposed to in cash.
Mike K
1. David Wolman provides a strong argument in favor of a society with no form of tangible money. However I don’t think today’s society is prepared to completely ditch cash as form of currency. Fraud would be a huge issue in a cashless society because without the proper precautions I could see it being fairly simple to fabricate money when there doesn’t have to be any tangible asset in its place. What would happen if the card you use to make every transaction was stolen? Would it be that easy for someone to have unlimited access to your money? I also believe that our technology isn’t advanced enough just yet to let people easily deal with small transaction without using cash. There are some benefits though. Cash, for the most part, is untraceable and therefore allows black market transactions to be conducted. If this money had to be wired from one account to another instead of using cash it would leave behind some kind of digital footprint.
2. I believe David Wolman’s best argument is that “Cash is the currency of crime.”, in a cashless society there is no incentive for bank robbers or counterfeiter’s. Cash essentially creates the incentive for these kinds of crimes. Unfortunately I doubt there is a foolproof way to completely shelter whatever is in place of cash from some kind of fraud or crime. I also think the argument he made about how much it costs to print money and replace the worn or damaged bills makes a lot of sense. Eliminating cash would eliminate these expenses and therefore cut a decent amount of government spending.
3. I don’t necessarily disagree with anything he said in particular; instead I just don’t think that our society is prepared to be a cashless society. I believe that a lot of people find some sense of comfort or stability from being able to open their wallet and see a tangible form of currency. I also think that because the dollar has been so stable in comparison to other forms of currency that people don’t want to change what’s been working all this time.
Craig Madarasz
1.) I think it is possible for our society to function in a world without tangible money. There are a few reasons why I believe the idea of getting rid of tangible money is useful. Many people in our work industry get paid in direct deposits. This is when the money the employee makes goes right into his or her account. The employee is paid without ever seeing his or her money. These people may use credit cards when they purchase items and when they do this their spending money without ever seeing it. Technically these people are avoiding the transactions of tangible money. It’s a quicker way to spend the money they earned because they avoid the trip to the ATM. If we eliminate tangible money, every person in the work force will be paid this way. It also can be a danger to our society, because if people never use tangible money they tend to spend more. Personally when I use cash to buy an item, I think twice about the price and how much money I actually have in my wallet. I tend to spend less when I’m paying in cash, compared to a credit card. I think everyone feels the same way. With this proposed plan I feel many people will go into debt due to never actually physically seeing the money, they only see their bank accounts shrink.
2.) I think David Wolmans best argument is the fact that using cash isn’t actually fast as many people presume. He does agree the actual transferring of money from one individual to another is fast, but the process to obtain that cash is a much slower process than using say a credit card. He goes on to say that the process is slow because of the banks having to make the money available via the ATM, and then the bank has to make sure money is circulating back into the banks. Along with all the inspection of paper money it makes the process slow to actually obtain tangible money. I also thought his points about mobile transactions were good. Almost every single person from the age of 12 and up, that doesn’t live in a box, owns a cell phone. Technology is rapidly improving and we should use that to our advantage. If people can make transactions via mobile devices then I think it makes easier and faster transactions. It also can be taken straight from the bank account and it will avoid credit card fraud because the transaction of money from your bank account happens at that very moment.
3.) Overall I found all his points to be intriguing. In my previous answer I noted what arguments I thought he thoroughly explained and could be interesting. Although the idea of no tangible money can seem great, but they are still many flaws in the ideas I talked about in my previous answer. One argument is that he claims crime may go down. Hackers are getting more knowledgeable, and I think without paper money crime and hacking accounts will go up. Also he thinks that if we eliminate cash, then crime oriented with cash(drug dealing) will go away. Criminals will not stop buying drugs just because government takes away the paper dollar. I think that point he made was asinine.
Amy S.
1) It seems as though society has already started to function without the use of tangible money, as seen by the use of credit and debit cards. Some of the positives of converting to a moneyless society would be that it would be easier, faster, and more convenient to check out at a store using only a card or your cellphone, as it would eliminate the threat of someone paying for a soda in nickels. Additionally, it would end the weekly ATM stop because you would have money at your fingertips. While there are benefits to getting rid of money, there are some drawbacks. Every transaction you make could be traced back to you; in other words, no one would be able to hide anything they purchase because there would be a paper trail. Additionally, one of the main reasons people use cash is because they can’t control themselves when walking into a store with an unlimited flow of money. The use of cash is a limiting factor for some people, and that is the only thing saving them from blowing $500 in one store. Additionally, along with most new technology, it is bound to fail at one point or another, so that would be devastating to anyone trying to purchase something at that time. With computerized money via a phone, it would also be easier for hackers to get into someone’s account. Finally, depending on your job/your point of view, it would stop people who are paid off the books from avoiding taxes.
2. Wolman’s best argument would be that “cash is the currency of crime.” With the movement to a cashless society, there would definitely be a decrease in drug related crime. Additionally, bank robberies would basically stop because there would be no point of going to a bank, as cash wouldn’t be stored there. Additionally, terrorists could be tracked much easier because they would have to pay for explosive devices and weapons in something other than cash. Wolman also said that everything else is our society has become more technologically advanced, so why shouldn’t our money, as well?
3. I think David Wolman’s weakest argument is the one where he discusses “Facebook credits.” While a large number of people do use Facebook, there are just too many people who don’t. Additionally, if there were multiple forms of alternate currency, what would determine which places accept or reject those forms of currency? Also, while I agree with the fact that cash is a large cause of most of the crime that occurs, a transition to a moneyless society would just cause a different kind of crime and make fraud and hacking much more prevalent. Finally, as many people here have discussed, the idea that we could become a cashless society in a timely manner is a very unrealistic thought.
1. I think that society will be able to function without tangible money, especially if the economy is well functioned. Everything could possibly be better without "cash", everyone using a piece of plastic to buy things would be much simpler and would encourage consumers to spend more, which allows the economy to flourish. In addition, exchanges and the buying process would be a lot quicker and simpler, however the only downfalls are debt and fraud. Unless there is certain restrictions and certain security initiations this will be tough to use.
2. David Wolman makes many debatable but strong arguments to why we should go to a cashless system. His best argument is that cash is very expensive to maintain. They waste a lot of time and money that it takes to distribute, inspect, and issue our currency. It's pointless because time is money and time could be spent on more practical things than just sorting. In addition, for security reasons they spend numerous days configuring each dollar to make it different than the next.
3. I really don't think any one of his arguments were bad and they were all supported by statements. But if I had to pick one, is that mobile money by technology is a good idea. It can be very dangerous and you can make mistakes very easily if you are busy and making a transaction.
1. I think that society will be able to function without tangible money, especially if the economy is well functioned. Everything could possibly be better without "cash", everyone using a piece of plastic to buy things would be much simpler and would encourage consumers to spend more, which allows the economy to flourish. In addition, exchanges and the buying process would be a lot quicker and simpler, however the only downfalls are debt and fraud. Unless there is certain restrictions and certain security initiations this will be tough to use.
2. David Wolman makes many debatable but strong arguments to why we should go to a cashless system. His best argument is that cash is very expensive to maintain. They waste a lot of time and money that it takes to distribute, inspect, and issue our currency. It's pointless because time is money and time could be spent on more practical things than just sorting. In addition, for security reasons they spend numerous days configuring each dollar to make it different than the next.
3. I really don't think any one of his arguments were bad and they were all supported by statements. But if I had to pick one, is that mobile money by technology is a good idea. It can be very dangerous and you can make mistakes very easily if you are busy and making a transaction.
Justin L
1. I think that society will be able to function without tangible money, especially if the economy is well functioned. Everything could possibly be better without "cash", everyone using a piece of plastic to buy things would be much simpler and would encourage consumers to spend more, which allows the economy to flourish. In addition, exchanges and the buying process would be a lot quicker and simpler, however the only downfalls are debt and fraud. Unless there is certain restrictions and certain security initiations this will be tough to use.
2. David Wolman makes many debatable but strong arguments to why we should go to a cashless system. His best argument is that cash is very expensive to maintain. They waste a lot of time and money that it takes to distribute, inspect, and issue our currency. It's pointless because time is money and time could be spent on more practical things than just sorting. In addition, for security reasons they spend numerous days configuring each dollar to make it different than the next.
3. I really don' think that any of david wolman's arguments are bad and they are all supported by the statements he makes. However, if I had to pick one then I would say mobile money is not a good idea because it is not safe and people can easily make a mistake if they are really busy and it might be very difficult to use.
1) Can society function without using a tangible money? What are the benefits/dangers with such a society?
I believe that society could most definitely function without using tangible money. Some benefits of this include fast and easy transactions. By eliminating the use of tangible money, lines at stores are cut down for all the customers would need to do is simply swipe a card instead of search for the exact dollar and change amount. David Wolman states, "everyone always thinks cash is cheap and fast and safe. It's not cheap, and it's not fast, and it's not safe!" Creating cash and coins costs the government a lot of time and money. It also costs to transport and circulate the money. Some dangers of living in this society without tangible money include more computer/account hackers who can access and steal people’s money and could potentially share their account information. Another danger is how quickly one can attain debt. For example, with a credit card, a person can buy items with money they don't necessarily have by charging it to their account; however, if paid with tangible money such as a check or cash, one would be budgeted within their account supply. This could also be a huge issue to children and young adults growing up in this society because with the access of a credit card, it would be hard to learn the value of a dollar if anything and everything could be obtained with a swipe of a card. This could bring upon large economic problems if all started to occur debt. Presented with the dangers and benefits, I see more dangers then benefits in accordance to creating a society without tangible money.
2) What are David Wolman's best arguments? Explain.
David Wolman makes some very cogent arguments however the one in particular that I believe is the best is how expensive it is to maintain the money supply in our society. Not only is there the printing aspect, but distribution, circulation and the actual upkeeping. For example, due to safety and security issues, money is often altered or even redesigned and with that comes more expenses and labor needed, thus more money spent.
3) What points does David Wolman make that you disagree with? Explain.
The point David Wolman made that I disagreed with is the "cash is the currency of crime".
According to Wolman, with tangible money comes more crime than intangible money, and to this I firmly disagree. No matter the means of payment, there will always be crime. A hacker or robber who steals from an account online can obtain the given person’s whole money supply whereas if they were to steal that person’s tangible money they would be limited to the cash and checks the person has on hand, for example.
Erik H.
1. I believe that a society can function without a tangible money system to an extent. There will be no more trouble with credit, and it prevents the hoarding of wealth in society. Some high points are the fact that if we went to a bartering system that fraud would virtually disappear as there would be no credit or financial information to steal, and the ability for people to change their financial status if they are good at bartering or if they have something that people want. However, some disadvantages of this are the lack of a widely accepted monetary system to determine value, and the possibility of extreme damage to ones financial state if a hacker was to steal information (if a fully digital system was used).
2. I believe that Wolman's best argument is that the cash system is too slow and that maintenance is actually very expensive, which I don't think that many people realize. I think it is his best point because the simple fact that it costs money to maintain the money system will reach people who may not share his personal dissatisfaction with the money system; cost is a factor that can cut through ideological walls.
3. One point I disagree that Wolman makes is the safety of paper money. I personally love the feeling of cash in my hand as opposed to just a number in my bank account, and I am sure that I am not the only one who feels this way. Also, if I physically have my own money then I feel I can trust its safety, and if anything happens to it I know that I am directly responsible for it. In these times of fraud and hacking, I feel it is much safer to have my cash on-hand.
Amanda C
1) I believe that society can function without tangible money. Today many people rely on credit cards and debit cards to pay for goods and services. Completely removing cash and coins from society would create a faster moving society as transactions would become a lot quicker. However, there are many problems that removing money would cause. One major issue is the issue of fraud. Even today credit card fraud is happening. If money was removed from society fraud would only increase. Another problem is that people would not feel is that they are spending money. Because there is no exchange of money, a consumer will not feel as though they are parting with their money and will therefore be more inclined to spend money that they don't have.
2)David Wolman's best argument is that the cost to maintain money is very high. It takes a lot to print money, distribute it and to inspect it. Money is constantly being pulled from circulation and being put into circulation. Over the years the process becomes very tedious and expensive.
3) I have to disagree with Wolman when he says that "cash is the currency of crime." No matter what type of currency society is running on there will always be crime. Crime will never just disappear, it will simply revamp in order to keep up with modern society. If the country begins to run as a cashless society, people will be more intrigued to commit credit card fraud or find other ways to cheat the money system.
Geoff 4
1. I do not think society can function without tangible money. I mainly think this because intangible money voilates one of the rules of money: scarcity. Scarcity is what makes anything have value. Scarcity is something people can trust. Although money without value may seem convenient, its nonexistence creates a very unstable risk.
2. I think one of David Wolman's strongest arguments for intangible money would its convenience. I would personally enjoy the convenience of just using my phone to pay that $1.09 for a candy bar as opposed to getting mad that tax makes me go through the dollar and 9 cents to pay for that candy bar and not even bother with dealing with change.
3. One of the points David Wolman makes that I disagree with is that intangible cash is safe from crime. He talks about how money is wasted in protecting money from robberies with costly security measures. The only thing that would change regarding money crime if money were to become electronic would be how the crime is committed. Bank robbers would no longer be men in ski masks with guns but geeks sitting behind a computer. Also, since all of this money is electronic, that means it exist all in one place, the internet. Now when this new bank robber breaks into the new electronic vault, he is in the presence of all money as opposed to the old bank robber in a single bank vault containing some money. An electronic money crime could be much more dangerous and costly to an economy.
1) I believe that society can function without tangible money, just not in the same way it currently does. Currency has no real value and is only backed by our faith in the government so switching to a means of trading that involves objects themselves or a form of currency that has real value. The Kilowatt Card that Wolman mentions is an example of a currency form that would hold real value in society, although not entirely applicable. Some of the benefits include cutting the costs of dealing with cash and transactions in their current form as well as having wealth with no real backing. Some dangers from cutting currency out of society are the collapse of our economy from losing the necessity of investment and companies when people can trade with each other to get what they need rather than using an alternative source. I believe our society's progression would slow and we could possibly even regress to a more primitive state with a blurred concept of wealth.
2)David Wolman's best arguments are that it's very expensive to use cash and that it is the form of currency which is linked to crime. Financial crime such as fraud, tax evasion and drug/human trafficking are harder to fight since the exchange of said "goods" involves cash. The government and companies spend a lot of money processing transactions, checking that money is in usable condition and trying to stop counterfeit cash from circulating in the economy.
3)David Wolman says "Cash is the currency of crime" because of tax evasion, bank robberies and fraud. Although crimes such as terrorism are generally fueled by cash since it is a much harder to trace form of money, I disagree with this because no matter what form a valuable object is measured in, there will be crime. David makes a valid argument with his statements against cash causing crime but crime will occur in any society regardless of circumstances. The concept of people paying for things through the sole use of a cell phone is a weak argument because not everyone can afford a cell phone and there's too many circumstances that could inhibit it's use such as bad service, no internet connection, not enough money to pay the bill itself and the phone being stolen or broken. I don't think the shift from currency to a society not using currency is possible in current times because of our economic status and could cause a total collapse of the economy and society as we know it.
Patrick M.
1. I believe that society can function without paper money. I believe that there are many factors about paper money that make it a burden upon our society. One of these burdens being the amount of money and resources that are spent into maintaining our paper currency. Our society could be greatly benefited if these resources went into something more productive than maintaining a paper form of currency. Some obvious dangers include computer hackers being able to severely injure the economy, but you could argue that they can already do that with things such as online banking.
2. One of his best arguments is how much money and resources we put into maintaining our paper currency. This just shows how much we waste to maintain something that is not really needed in this day of age. Another argument I strongly agreed with was how he explained about how crime would diminish from this switch. This is because much of today's crime involves paper money being stolen, so in a world where paper money doesn't exist the crimes along with it obviously wouldn't exist either.
3. I disagreed with what he said about alternate currency's. I believe that they serve their purpose and aren't generally a bad thing, but I highly doubt any of them will ever be able to trump cash. No matter what, I believe dollars (paper or digital) will always be our main source of currency, and they will live alongside other alternate currency's such as "Kilowatt Cards" and "Facebook Dollars", but will never be trumped.
1. The form of money discussed in the article has at least partly been introduced already. A vast amount of the nation's wealth is kept inside the bank, and purchases with debit cards are no longer an uncommon sight. Debit cards are seen as an alternative to carrying cash, and are especially used during large purchases. However, with the recent concern that cyber-terrorism may be the next big thing to hit the United States, going completely digital may put the country at risk.
2. I think his best argument is how fast digital money can be, compared to our picture of what digital money is. People tend to think money is convenient because you can pay wherever and whenever, but literally texting someone your money is just as fast.
3. The only flaw in his argument that I can see is his overestimation of peoples' willingness to accept a new form of money. While people have generally accepted the introduction of credit cards and debit cards, I doubt money will ever be completely annihilated. Money has a history in this country, and in the rest of the world, and it is unlikely that people will ever be able to get out of the mindset that they need money. Perhaps that will change over the generations, but I can't see that happening in my lifetime.
Renee A
1. I believe that society could function without tangible money. Currently only about half our money supply is physical currency, and I foresee this decreasing over time as debit and credit cards become more widely used. A completely digital system would be advantageous to businesses because it would help to reduce human errors in making change. On the other hand, if our money supply becomes completely digital, people may begin to develop poor spending habits because when people spend with cards they do not psychologically feel like they are spending money. This can cause people to build credit card debt even worse than they do now, and our current economic problems are proof of how dangerous credit can be both for individuals as well as for the nation as a whole.
2. I find Wolman's arguments that money is not as fast and cheap as people tend to believe to be his strongest arguments in this interview. Much like the video we watched about the penny showed, production of cash and coins is expensive, as is the labor required to remove damaged currency from circulation and ensure proper security of cash as well as proper functioning of ATMs. I also like his argument that money is slow. Because i work as a cashier, i have seen first hand how time consuming cash transactions are. Money needs to be counted first by the customer, then by the cashier, and later the money needs to be recounted and the amount of money counted needs to be verified by yet another person. In total, the cash for one transaction needs to be counted at least four times before the money even leaves the store, not including recounts due to human error. Debit and credit cards require none of this hassle.
3. I find Wolman's argument that tangible money is unsafe to be his weakest argument. Everyone wants more money, and there are only two ways to achieve that goal, 1) inflate the currency so that everyone has more dollars (yay for worthless paper!) or 2) get money from someone else. I think most people would agree that option one is a bad idea. I also think that most people would agree that option two can be achieved both morally and immorally; morally by earning money as payment, or immorally through fraud or theft. In a society using tangible cash,some people will simply take paper money from others. In a digital society, those same people will steal other people's money by hacking into their bank accounts. Theft of money is virtually unavoidable. Although digital money has many advantages over currency, i do not feel safety is one of them.
Joe-zeppe See.
1. Yeah, about this idea... Wolman makes this idea seem foolproof and without faults. I challenge him to read a a little book called 1984. Which citizens would want the government to be able to see exactly where and on what they are spending their money on? Additionally, the polling system of America is not yet fully electronic because of the scare of fraud. Would we, as a society, really want to put all our eggs in one electronic basket that could be hacked by computer geniuses overseas? The Federal Government is having a hard time keeping Chinese hackers out of its systems. How would the government guarantee that when we wake up, our bank account is now missing a few digits? This segways into a point I’ll make in bullet three (Unless I forget. Then, you’ll just be out of luck.) Additionally, small businesses would be crunched by having to pay full taxes and show all earnings (Insert your favorite local breakfast spot with an enormous cow out front...). While I am not a proponent of hiding earnings, taxes, etc. there is a reason why places like the aforementioned breakfast joint play hide-and-go-seek with the bo(t)og(a)ie(x) man...Additionally, I believe that small-cap businesses would hire less employees because of the increased taxes and insurance coverage they may be accountable for. Last point: What if there is a power outage? Oh. That’s awkward. “No cereal for breakfast, kids. 7/11 only takes Facebook Points and I can’t find them right now!”
2. The only argument I find any credibility/functionality behind is the idea that maintaining a hard money supply may, at times, a financial burden. The case for eradicating the penny is the poster child of why hard currency is actually bad for the economy. But come on, printing a sheet of $1 bills can’t be breaking the bank... Besides the possibility of George breaking the bank with Abe by his side, I’d rather not consider Wolman’s petulant propaganda of preposterous proportions on pompous policies.
3. Okay, I remembered. You know, about my point from before? I remembered to make my point but now, after my asinine assaults on wondering Wolman, I don’t even remember what I wanted to say. Nice. This is almost as awkward as my Wild West Showdown at the 7/11 Corral over a gallon of the finest milk this side o’ tha’ Miss Hippy... Almost. (Inquiry. Why the Hell are you still reading this crap I’m spewing? Turn on MSNBC. You’ll get the same thing but at least they try to back up their misled mischief, I, on the other hand, acknowledge my silly soliloquies. And think about it--they have 5 initials in their name. I only have 2.) Okay, back to the task at hand and not on violating the First Amendment. Wolman says that the actual labor that goes into transporting money, creating infrastructure for ATM’s, etc. would make cash less quick, after all the inputs are added up. News flash. We don’t have all these electronic monitoring systems that his wonderfully wound plan would require. Not to mention the additional manpower that would be needed to put all businesses “on the grid”. Also, let’s take a step back and look at this all. America is inhabited by ~300,000,000 people. How will we get all these people, especially the oldiekiz who have a hard time turning the TV on, to learn this new electronic system? Better yet, how shall we proceed in protecting these people against the threat of scam or abuse by shoddy businesses? We can’t provide protection for every American citizen and when the issue comes up, there is only bound to be more gridlock in the DC. Another point is how will the value of currency be gauged? We know that by printing more money, the purchasing power of our currency will also decrease. And what about legal tourists? How shall they take part in our fattening festivities? Shall they too be issued a cell phone that works outside their native breeding grounds?
1: Society can function without actual money because now money itself is valueless and it would not be a huge change to how society operates. Benefits of a paperless society include the ease of use, losing your card does not mean you lose your money, and the ability to keep illicit transfers from happening. Negatives include loss of revenue by the treasury department and more regulation by the government.
2: His best argument is how expensive it is to maintain cash’s infrastructure. Everything needed to help with the use of cash costs money to maintain. ATM’s cost money, the building the ATM’s are in cost money, and it costs money to transport cash. These add up to cost money just to spend money.
3: I disagree that small purchases or transfers of funds will be able to be done simply in the near future. I don’t believe that everyone will be able to have this capability unless smart phones or some other way of doing this is mandated by the government.
Caitlin S.
1) I believe that society as a whole can function without using a tangible form of money. American society is getting close to it today. The benefits of a society without tangible money are a decrease in crime (because with nothing to grab there will be no pickpockets), and a decrease in taxes. It is not free to print money and the money required to print bills or mint coins is paid for by US tax dollars (or, so I'm assuming). The dangers of such a system in society lie with the computer hackers. Without tangible money, everything will be done electronically and by credit or debit card which means a good enough hacker could steal your entire life savings just by the click of a mouse. I also believe that people like me would have a difficult time with a society such as this. I would become indebted very quickly as I need to see my money in my hand to know how much I can spend.
2) I believe the Wolman's best argument for illiminating money is that it has no real value and neither does gold. (Which our money was once backed by.) Wolman says: "food and electricity and blankets, these things have real value." And I really agree with him in this regard. I really liked the idea of a monetary system not based on the government and at the same time, found that I could not really wrap my brain around such an idea.
3) About the Facebook Credits, I very highly doubt that people will be using Facebook credits or any of the like any time soon (soon being within my lifetime). And about the frequent flyer miles, I don't think that flyers are able to purchase real items other than ones bought through their travel agent or airline. Because his example is a flyer using their miles to by a hotel reservation. This would be purchased through the airline or travel agency. A person could not by dog food with frequent flyer miles. Finally, I disagree with Wolman's saying that Kilowatt Cards will not catch on. I think they would actually be a very good thing and I would definitely use one.
1) Yes, society will definitely be able to function without physical currency. To a large extent, we already do this today, with debit and credit cards being not only acceptable, but mandatory for many forms of transactions. Everything is computerized, so it'll be easy to convert to a digital currency. However, in the event of an EMP attack on banks or individual accounts, it will be possible to lose entire fortunes in a heartbeat.
2) I think his most compelling argument is that it's expensive to maintain a physical currency, constantly producing to match the demand for money. It would be a lot easier to simply add points to a plastic card or digital account.
3) I think his argument about criminals and the identification thereof is somewhat flawed, as hackers and other tech-savvy criminals will always be able to find a way to circumvent almost any system placed before them.
1) Yes, society will definitely be able to function without physical currency. To a large extent, we already do this today, with debit and credit cards being not only acceptable, but mandatory for many forms of transactions. Everything is computerized, so it'll be easy to convert to a digital currency. However, in the event of an EMP attack on banks or individual accounts, it will be possible to lose entire fortunes in a heartbeat.
2) I think his most compelling argument is that it's expensive to maintain a physical currency, constantly producing to match the demand for money. It would be a lot easier to simply add points to a plastic card or digital account.
3) I think his argument about criminals and the identification thereof is somewhat flawed, as hackers and other tech-savvy criminals will always be able to find a way to circumvent almost any system placed before them.
Thomas T.
1. I believe that society could very well function without tangible money. In fact, the development of a system without tangible money has already started through bank accounts, credit cards and new forms of payment that do not require any type of physical money. Many places do not even want to accept cash anymore. As a persons income rises, money becomes less valuable in its physical form and more valuable in a bank or used in investments. Physical money has become a bother and a waste of space, and the only reason people still use it at this point is to be able to physically see the money and be able to comprehend that it is actually there. There are many benefits to getting rid of tangible money. In one way money will become much harder to lose. Chances are at one point you will have found a large or small increment of money on the floor, fallen from some poor mans pocket. But without tangible money, it becomes much harder to lose your money, and there are usually safety nets to make losing your money much harder. People will have money on them more often, and spending will increase. People who would ordinarily only spend 100 dollars on groceries may spend 200 dollars or more, and people are usually would not treat them selves to the latest technology or a new ipod, might suddenly decide to do so. Physical crimes like bank robberies might also decrease, because there is nothing to be stolen, and people might be mugged less for money. However because money would then become completely digital, instances of computer hacking may increase, and stealing money online could be as easy as moving a zero from one account to another. Also without physical money to view, people may not always have as much faith in digital money, and find it difficult to imagine where exactly their income is being held, which is nowhere. Digital money can be moved with the blink of an eye, and in less then a second all your money could be gone, something that can be hard to imagine for some people. And what happens in a severe power outage ever took place? Suddenly your entire life savings could be gone, and you could be left with nothing, either temporally or permanently.
2. I believe David Wolman's best argument is exactly how expensive it is to use and maintain physical money. As he points out, a dollar bill only lasts around 40 months of circulation, and at some point more money must be printed. Printing money has become a very expensive and complex project, and doing away with all of that could save us a lot of money. Coins like pennies already cost more to make then the face value of the coin, and yet we still waste money to create a currency that is worth less then what it costs to make it. All in all, money is expensive to produce, distribute and protect, and the growing cost of it is not worth the hassle of using it.
3. One point David Wolman made that i disagree with is his belief that cash is the currency of crime, but in some aspect this can be true. Bank robberies are primarily caused by the desire for currency, and counterfeiters will go out of their way to create fake money, and then spend it to get the real stuff. While some crime is caused by physical currency in a way, digital money will not be without crime. As I stated before, the technology is very hackable and no matter what we due hacking crimes are going to happen due to the abundance of digital currency. As money evolves, crime could evolve as well, and there is no telling exactly what may change. Because of this i believe that digital money would bring no change to the crime aspect of money, and digital money would cause just as much harm as tangible currency would.
1. I think that the idea of a society without a tangible source of money is not too unrealistic. We have already started to follow this trend with the use of credit and debit cards. I can't count how many transactions I've made with the swipe of a card while being told that the amount shown was taken out of my checking account. Everything today, to a large extent, is already computerized. I don't think it will take that much effort to switch to some form of a completely digital currency. However, there are some problems. In the infant years of this system, it will probably be victim to many hacking attacks. I'm sure with some time, we will be able to create a secure digital monetary system.
2. I think that his most compelling argument is the fact that creating this physical currency uses many resources and a lot of effort. It seems like it would be a lot easier to just add "credits" to digital accounts or remove "credits" to deal with the problems of unemployment and inflation. We could then use the resources and labor that used to be directed towards controlling the supply of money to do something more productive.
3. The only point that I disagreed with was the usefulness of different forms of currency such as the Facebook Credits or Kilowatt Cards. Wolman was under the impression that these forms of currency can really become important to consumers today, but I fail to see their importance. I feel like there needs to be some sort of currency that can be used for everything and has the same feeling of value to everyone. What if somebody doesn't want electricity or Facebook Credits just so they can waste their life away on Farmville or one of those pointless games. Although he had a few good points about the support of these forms of currency, I really think we need a system of basic "credits" that have the same value to everybody.
1. A society can function without the use of tangible money, but such a society would have to be extremely advanced and well developed in order to function adequately. Technology would have to be ubiquitous in daily life even before moving away from a concrete currency, and our society is simply not near that level yet. While such a society would likely move quicker and have superior records of most transactions, resulting in greater economic stability, it would suffer from the constant threat of computer problems, such as viruses, dos attacks and root hacks. A single DoS attack directed at a payment hub would disrupt the entire economy.
2. Wolman's best arguments are those concerning the tying of wealth to a necessity, such as power. While it may be difficult to adopt, it should be functional.
3. David Wolman argues that totally electronic currency is the future, but it seems far more likely that some sort of tangible currency will exist to some extent in any society, if only for the purpose of tradition. He also seems to imply that by moving to electronic cash, financial crime will decrease. Computer crime would increase rapidly if electronic cash became the norm, due to the perceived anonymity of the internet and the vulnerabilities of computer systems.
1. Society is already functioning with several forms of intangible money. For example, credit cards are a form of money that doesn't have a tangible substance to support it but it is still used to barter. The future described by Mr. Wolman in his interview is already developing in our society. The benefits would be that it would be much easier to keep track of money. Instead of having a wallet stuffed with a random assortment of bills we would each have a single card or we could use our phones to make purchases. On the other hand, if the card or the phone was stolen, it is possible that someone could make purchases from your accounts.
2. I think that David Wolman's single best argument is that money as we view it today has no real value. The dollar is simply a piece of paper that people perceive as having some kind of value. This, however, is not the case. A system in which things with real value are traded would be more realistic because people would be trading something that held actual importance for the goods or services they desired. The Kilowatt Card is an excellent example of this.
3. The only argument that I disagree with is that something such as Facebook Credits could become a currency. I only disagree with the simplicity of this statement, however, because I feel that Facebook Credits would never be widely accepted enough to become a form of real currency, no matter how many people there are on Facebook. Although I do agree with the point he's trying to make, I do not agree that just Facebook Credits could complete the task.
1) A society can function without using tangible money. Though we are still using tangible money in our world today, we have made leaps and strides in technology which has started to allow us to use mobile money. To completely wipe out tangible money is far from impossibility and could very well soon be our very future. As for the dangers and benefits of such, there are many perspectives to consider. With no tangible money, if an electronic system is in place, cyber attacks and hacking would most definitely increase and the theft of money could be accomplished much quicker. On the other hand, if tangible money is subtracted from the social equation, crime can significantly decrease, as counterfeiting would no longer relevant and the fact that money is paid to fight crimes against stealing other people's money.
2) I believe some of David Wolman's best arguments were that of the expansive cost of maintaining the flow of money, the fact that cash is not cheap, fast or secure, like many people believe it is, that cell phones hold great potential in the future of the movement of money, and the possibility of the incorporation of alternative currencies. In the case of the cost of money production, financial crimes, as explained by Wolman, are incredibly detrimental to the function of economy, as money is spent to fix problem with more money, just to get back to equilibrium. With cell phones, a great portal to the future of mobile money is opened. Wolman states that as prices of smart phones continue to decrease, more people that aren’t particularly wealthy can have access to easy mobile banking, thus expanding its range and use throughout society. Finally, the possibility of alternative currencies as described by Wolman is rather plausible. In the future, new currencies could definitely take the place of the dollar, with widely used internet websites like Facebook to be a potential starting place to create a widely accepted medium of trade that does not infringe upon the governments production of money.
3) The point that Wolman makes that I do not agree upon is simply that of view of current contenders for an alternate currency. While Facebook is a wonderful place to be the birth of the next great, new currency, it still needs to be widely accepted. For that to happen, more people would have to a) have access to the internet, and b) own a Facebook account in order to make the transition possible. The current trend is moving in that general direction; however, you need more than the 800 million that use Facebook today to use it as well for the success of the currency. Until then, a currency like “Facebook credits” is going to have to wait until the environment is more hospitable for something of that sort.
Andrew S
1. I would say that Society can definitely function without a tangible money, however, it would require the system to be widely accepted. However, if this society was to experience a blackout then all commerce might have to cease. The great thing about tangible currency is its reliability under all conditions.
2. David Wolman's best argument is probably the cost of maintaining a tangible money supply. The cost of transporting, replacing, and all-around maintenance that a tangible money system requires is rather large, especially when compared to the cost of flipping a bit. He also made a strong point about the anonymity of money allowing crime and terrorism to transpire.
3. The only thing that I disagreed with Wolman about is his claim that crime will decrease because of the lack of a tangible money supply. I feel that the lack of a tangible money supply will do little to lessen crime and may actually end up causing a greater shift to internet crime which, when our entire monetary system is contained in a database somewhere, could be a greater issue.
Post a Comment