{"id":206667,"date":"2020-05-04T07:58:54","date_gmt":"2020-05-04T07:58:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=206667"},"modified":"2020-05-08T07:05:17","modified_gmt":"2020-05-08T07:05:17","slug":"the-cashless-society-is-a-con-and-big-finance-is-behind-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=206667","title":{"rendered":"The cashless society is a con \u2013 and big finance is behind it"},"content":{"rendered":"

Brett Scott \u2013 The Guardian July 19, 2018<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

All over the western world banks are shutting down cash machines <\/strong><\/span><\/a>and branches<\/a><\/strong><\/span>. They are trying to push you into using their digital payments and digital banking infrastructure. Just like Google wants everyone to access and navigate the broader internet via its privately controlled search portal, so financial institutions want everyone to access and navigate the broader economy through their systems.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another aim is to cut costs in order to boost profits. Branches require staff. Replacing them with standardised self-service apps allows the senior managers of financial institutions to directly control and monitor interactions with customers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Banks, of course, tell us a different story about why they do this. I recently got a letter from my bank telling me that they are shutting down local branches because \u201ccustomers are turning to digital\u201d, and they are thus \u201cresponding to changing customer preferences\u201d. I am one of the customers they are referring to, but I never asked them to shut down the branches.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is a feedback loop going on here. In closing down their branches, or withdrawing their cash machines, they make it harder for me to use those services. I am much more likely to \u201cchoose\u201d a digital option if the banks deliberately make it harder for me to\u00a0choose a non-digital option.<\/span><\/p>\n

In behavioural economics this is referred to as \u201cnudging<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u201d. If a powerful institution wants to make people choose a certain thing, the best strategy is to make it difficult to choose the alternative.<\/span><\/p>\n

We can illustrate this with the example of self-checkout tills at supermarkets. The underlying agenda is to replace checkout staff with self-service machines to cut costs. But supermarkets have to convince their customers. They thus initially present self-checkout as a\u00a0convenient alternative. When some people then use that alternative, the supermarket can cite that as evidence of a change in customer behaviour, which they\u00a0then use to justify a reduction in checkout employees. This in turn makes it more inconvenient to\u00a0use the checkout staff, which in turn makes customers\u00a0more likely to use the machines. They slowly wean you off staff, and \u201cnudge\u201d you towards self-service.<\/span><\/p>\n

Financial institutions, likewise, are trying to nudge us\u00a0towards a cashless society and digital banking. The true motive is corporate profit. Payments companies such as Visa and Mastercard want to increase the volume\u00a0of digital payments services they sell, while banks want to cut costs. The nudge requires two parts. First, they must increase the inconvenience of cash, ATMs and branches. Second, they must vigorously promote the alternative. They seek to make people \u201clearn\u201d that they want digital, and then \u201cchoose\u201d it.<\/span><\/p>\n

We can learn from the Marxist philosopher Antonio\u00a0Gramsci in this regard. His concept of hegemony<\/a><\/strong><\/span> referred to the way in which powerful parties condition the cultural and economic environment in such a way that their interests begin to be perceived as natural and inevitable by the general public. Nobody was on the streets shouting for digital payment 20 years ago, but increasingly it seems obvious and \u201cnatural\u201d that it should take over. That belief does not come from nowhere. It is the direct result of a hegemonic project on\u00a0the part of financial institutions.<\/span><\/p>\n

We can also learn from Louis Althusser\u2019s<\/strong><\/span><\/a> concept of interpellation. The basic idea is that you can get people to internalise beliefs by addressing them as if they already had those beliefs. Twenty years ago nobody believed that cash was \u201cinconvenient\u201d, but every time I walk into London Underground I see adverts that address me as if I was a person who finds cash inconvenient. The objective is to reverse-engineer a belief within me that it is inconvenient, and that cashlessness is in my interests. But a cashless society is not in your interes<\/strong><\/span>t<\/a>. It is in the\u00a0interest of banks and payments companies. Their job\u00a0is to make you believe that it is in your interest too, and they are succeeding in doing that.<\/span><\/p>\n

The recent Visa chaos<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, during which millions of\u00a0people who have become dependent on digital payment suddenly\u00a0found themselves stranded when the monopolistic payment network crashed, was a temporary setback. Digital systems may be \u201cconvenient\u201d, but they often come with central points of failure. Cash, on the other hand, does not crash. It does not rely on external data centres, and is not subject to remote control or remote monitoring. The cash system allows for an unmonitored \u201coff the grid\u201d space. This is also the reason why financial institutions and financial technology<\/strong><\/span><\/a> companies want to get rid of it. Cash transactions are outside the net that such institutions cast to harvest fees and data.<\/span><\/p>\n

A cashless society brings dangers. People without bank accounts will find themselves further marginalised, disenfranchised from the cash infrastructure that previously supported them. There are also poorly understood psychological implications about cash<\/strong><\/span><\/a> encouraging self-control while paying by card or a mobile phone can encourage spending. And a cashless society has major surveillance implications<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite this, we see an alignment between government and financial institutions. The Treasury recently held a public consultation on cash and digital payments in the new economy<\/a><\/strong><\/span>. It presented itself as attempting to strike a balance, noting that cash was still important. But years of subtle lobbying by the financial industry have clearly paid off. The call for evidence<\/a><\/strong><\/span> repeatedly notes the negative elements of cash \u2013 associating it with crime and tax evasion \u2013 but barely mentions the negative\u00a0implications of digital payments.<\/span><\/p>\n

The UK government has chosen to champion the digital financial services industry. This is irresponsible and disingenuous. We need to stop accepting stories about the cashless society and hyper-digital banking being \u201cnatural progress\u201d. We\u00a0must recognise every cash machine that is shut down\u00a0as another step in financial institutions\u2019 campaign\u00a0to nudge you into their digital enclosures.<\/span><\/p>\n