Over the last month or two, I’ve written a bit about the idea of eliminating cash and moving to a digital payment system. There are some problems with eliminating all cash so my preferred outcome is merely that it be possible to handle fiscal matters digitally while keeping physical currency available for those who prefer it. Over at The Balance, Justin Pritchard has a nice article that sums up the pros and cons of going cashless and takes a quick look at what a cashless society would look like.
The advantages fall into two groups: convenience and less crime. The convenience aspect is mostly obvious. You don’t have to deal with handling, storing, and replenishing cash. It could also make international travel easier by eliminating the need to buy local currency.
The anticrime aspects are a little—but only a little—less obvious. It would certainly eliminate most armed robberies since there would be nothing to rob. It would also eliminate some non-violent crime as well. Money laundering and tax evasion, for example, would be more difficult because there would be a paper trail.
The main problem, as I’ve written before, is that a certain segment of society—poor people mostly—don’t have bank accounts and credit cards so there needs to be a way for them to buy things without cash. Another problem is what happens when the technology fails. If some natural disaster results in a loss of power for, say, a week, how are people going to buy food and other needs? Similarly, if cybercriminals drain your account, what are you going to do until things get straightened out? And, of course, that paper trail that helps prevent money laundering and similar crimes also means that we all lose some privacy.
Pritchard examines each of these benefits and concern so it’s definitely worth reading the article if you have any interest in what a cashless society would look like and why or why not you might want one.