Cashless Society!

[Barnsley]

Seems like a good idea until you look into what it could actually mean.

All transactions need approval.

Who approves the transactions?

[ecureilx]

Seems like a good idea until you look into what it could actually mean.

All transactions need approval.

Who approves the transactions?

I don't know, but .. having worked with poor folks here, the pre paid card system sucks for a few poor.

Example, minimum top up of 10 $ .. when the person's monthly income is only 400 $ .. and every dollar counts. I guess soon it will be 20 $ or higher. No more 2 $ or 5 $ top up options...

I believe the cashless will take off with more public support, if Govt gives credit, which wont happen.

Remember the old Bus Cards which had nearly 5 $ credit balance, so you can go below 0 $ ? Somebody figured it out that it's all loss, so make the people pre-pay.

Random Rant.

PS< heard the Founder of Razer has offered to build a new solution, free.

https://e27.co/razer-ceo-pitches-singap ... -20170823/

[bgd]

Sweden is racing to be the first cashless society. A friend has just returned from a 2 week holiday, didn't use or even see cash the whole trip.

I guess the black economy will have to move to crypto currency. That or bartering might make a comeback.

[Barnsley]

Sweden is racing to be the first cashless society. A friend has just returned from a 2 week holiday, didn't use or even see cash the whole trip.

I guess the black economy will have to move to crypto currency. That or bartering might make a comeback.

Very nice , even better when Govt or Bank can control your spending , take a lot of the pressure off yourself.

[taxico]

nothing is truly "free" in this world, especially when big data is involved.

someone has to pay for the costs of running and maintaining the system and losses from hacking (and the loss of privacy).

sadly, it'll almost always be the consumers on the losing end.

cashless isn't better. it's just cheaper (for the government and companies).

[x9200]

I've been practically cashless for over 2-3years already I believe. I pay in cash something like 5 times a year and this 5 times happens when I find in my drawer at work some left-over coins/notes and use them for a vending machine.

[PNGMK]

As mentioned cashless is painful for the poor, elderly, stupid and those who don't handle disruption or hate have extra time added to transactions. Saying that I was in Australia for a week and didn't use cash once.

Personally I do not want a cashless society. However I expect we will see Singapore crater the $1000 bill soon and then move on the $100 as Australia is planning on.

[casey5047]

I'm yet to hear what the advantages of having a 'cashless society' are - LHL's apparent reasoning seems to be that, because China is moving towards it, Singapore must do so or it's lagging behind (behind what?). I don't see whatever China do as axiomatically worth following, and I'm suspicious when a government takes inspiration from them / notoriously controlling and repressive regimes.

So it's either the technological equivalent of the pointless global 'who can build the tallest skyscraper?' dick-waving competition or something far shiftier.

Do we really want a traceable permanent record of everything we purchase (and therefore nearly everywhere we go)? It makes me feel uneasy.

Why should we believe that this technology will be infallible? Last week, I queued up for 50 minutes to buy some Irvin's and, when I finally reached the front, was told that the 'system was down.' It's hardly a freak occurrence, and it doesn't make me think that absolute dependence on a more sweeping system is a necessary thing.

Another minor issue - what will tourists be expected to do?

PS: the Razor guy never said anything about doing it for free (unless I've missed that?). So now we can add one of Singapore's richest men - a man who, after the death of LKY, eulogised that he was the 'entrepreneur' who founded 'Singapore Inc' (which tells you everything about his values) - as another untrustworthy driving force behind it.

[Max Headroom]

Along with a few other reasons, I think this drive to go cashless by governments is at least one of the causes Bitcoin and its cryptocurrency ilk are gaining so much traction. The surveillance factor is making people uncomfortable.

[x9200]

Do we really want a traceable permanent record of everything we purchase (and therefore nearly everywhere we go)? It makes me feel uneasy.

There is already the whole infrastructure in place and operating that can trace your location and pretty much link it to other activities. If you feel that uneasy about it, Singapore (and most of the other developed countries) is probably not the right place for you.
Alternatively, you may consider trashing your mobile phone, not using any proximity cards and walking around inside a cardboard box (this would unfortunately attract some attention).

Why should we believe that this technology will be infallible? Last week, I queued up for 50 minutes to buy some Irvin's and, when I finally reached the front, was told that the 'system was down.' It's hardly a freak occurrence, and it doesn't make me think that absolute dependence on a more sweeping system is a necessary thing.

And if you need a cash you have it all stored at home, or perhaps you have to remember to withdraw it from a bank an ATM, finding them, reaching them, queuing etc?

Another minor issue - what will tourists be expected to do?

Pay with a cash/debit card that can rely on their own bank or could be top up locally at any money exchanger counter?

[casey5047]

Do we really want a traceable permanent record of everything we purchase (and therefore nearly everywhere we go)? It makes me feel uneasy.

There is already the whole infrastructure in place and operating that can trace your location and pretty much link it to other activities. If you feel that uneasy about it, Singapore (and most of the other developed countries) is probably not the right place for you.
Alternatively, you may consider trashing your mobile phone, not using any proximity cards and walking around inside a cardboard box (this would unfortunately attract some attention).

This is the logic of a dribbling moron: most of the infrastructure is already in place, and the potential is already there, so why bother complaining about its further encroachment. 'Go live on a desert island if you don't like it!'

It also rests on the assumption that I don't know those things, or do know about them and are fine with them, so I'm being inconsistent or hypocritical. None of which is true.

And yeah, that's exactly what tourists will need to do. They already have the option of paying for everything with their home debit / credit cards, but few do, which suggests it's not going to be popular. That's what I was driving at, but your piss-poor attempt at being sardonic depends on you pretending you can't infer things or draw basic conclusions.

[casey5047]

Do we really want a traceable permanent record of everything we purchase (and therefore nearly everywhere we go)? It makes me feel uneasy.

There is already the whole infrastructure in place and operating that can trace your location and pretty much link it to other activities. If you feel that uneasy about it, Singapore (and most of the other developed countries) is probably not the right place for you.
Alternatively, you may consider trashing your mobile phone, not using any proximity cards and walking around inside a cardboard box (this would unfortunately attract some attention).

Why should we believe that this technology will be infallible? Last week, I queued up for 50 minutes to buy some Irvin's and, when I finally reached the front, was told that the 'system was down.' It's hardly a freak occurrence, and it doesn't make me think that absolute dependence on a more sweeping system is a necessary thing.

And if you need a cash you have it all stored at home, or perhaps you have to remember to withdraw it from a bank an ATM, finding them, reaching them, queuing etc?

Another minor issue - what will tourists be expected to do?

Pay with a cash/debit card that can rely on their own bank or could be top up locally at any money exchanger counter?

Instead of trying to disingenuously minimise the disadvantages, why not name some actual advantages? After all, that was my main point. Wouldn't want to think you were side-stepping that, Bruce.

[x9200]

I don't try to disingenuously minimize the disadvantages. These are the fact you are apparently oblivious of. Perhaps you should make some effort to address my points instead of trying to turn this discussion personal?

And why instead? This is one whole package. The only disadvantage I can see are potential problems for people of very low income.

Advantages, for me, is mostly the convenience. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I practically don't use cash already, I don't need to bother with ATMs, I always have a proof of transaction, I can buy many things simply cheaper comparing to the situation I would need to go to a shop and physically pay in cash.

Our lives, whether we like it or not, are already substantially cashless and invigilated so instead of seeing only the devil it's good to realize the obvious benefits of such systems. The privacy, where important should be protected by controlling the information given away on more personal grounds, not by paying cash for a bag of tomatoes.

[casey5047]

I don't try to disingenuously minimize the disadvantages. These are the fact you are apparently oblivious of. Perhaps you should make some effort to address my points instead of trying to turn this discussion personal?

And why instead? This is one whole package. The only disadvantage I can see are potential problems for people of very low income.

Advantages, for me, is mostly the convenience. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I practically don't use cash already, I don't need to bother with ATMs, I always have a proof of transaction, I can buy many things simply cheaper comparing to the situation I would need to go to a shop and physically pay in cash.

Our lives, whether we like it or not, are already substantially cashless and invigilated so instead of seeing only the devil it's good to realize the obvious benefits of such systems. The privacy, where important should be protected by controlling the information given away on more personal grounds, not by paying cash for a bag of tomatoes.

Why 'instead,' what? Are you talking to yourself?

You didn't make any points in your first reply. There were no facts, just logical fallacies, a straw man argument and desperate attempts at being witty. In short, you're an arsehole.

This time, you're conflating the benefits of online shopping with those of a completely cashless society, and repeating the fallacy that if a bad thing is happening (our lives are increasingly 'invigilated'), it's somehow wrong to oppose more of that bad thing, which is so abstract and confused, I don't know where to begin.

I pointed out the 'devil' and you said all people who've noticed the 'devil' haven't noticed other bad things and want to return to a bartering economy or keep money under their beds or some unfunny guff.

[x9200]

I don't try to disingenuously minimize the disadvantages. These are the fact you are apparently oblivious of. Perhaps you should make some effort to address my points instead of trying to turn this discussion personal?

And why instead? This is one whole package. The only disadvantage I can see are potential problems for people of very low income.

Advantages, for me, is mostly the convenience. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I practically don't use cash already, I don't need to bother with ATMs, I always have a proof of transaction, I can buy many things simply cheaper comparing to the situation I would need to go to a shop and physically pay in cash.

Our lives, whether we like it or not, are already substantially cashless and invigilated so instead of seeing only the devil it's good to realize the obvious benefits of such systems. The privacy, where important should be protected by controlling the information given away on more personal grounds, not by paying cash for a bag of tomatoes.

Why 'instead,' what? Are you talking to yourself?

You didn't make any points in your first reply. There were no facts, just logical fallacies, a straw man argument and desperate attempts at being witty. In short, you're an arsehole.

This time, you're conflating the benefits of online shopping with those of a completely cashless society, and repeating the fallacy that if a bad thing is happening (our lives are increasingly 'invigilated'), it's somehow wrong to oppose more of that bad thing, which is so abstract and confused, I don't know where to begin.

I pointed out the 'devil' and you said all people who've noticed the 'devil' haven't noticed other bad things and want to return to a bartering economy or keep money under their beds or some unfunny guff.

If you had a bit better attitude I could even (attempt to) explain to you these fallacies (as you perceive them) but ultimately this is your problem and your limitations, so QFP only.