Jain Anderson wrote:Moving into use is electronic 'money' (electrical accounting really). The convenience is even less burdensome than carrying a wallet with cash and change. Its also easier to 'exchange' – world wide! - by simply providing account numbers. Unfortunately, that account is subject to the whims of electricity as well as surveillance by 'authority' who oversees, approves and can REMOVE parts or all of the account without the account holder's permission.
So is the 'burden' of having and HOLDING ones assets personally greater than the 'convenience' of electronic accounting? Only each person, or participants in an exchange, can decide.
Travis Johnson wrote:
With Debit cards, there is less of acknowledgement of that. We pass them our debit card, and they pass it back, and there is a vague understanding that we have less money than what we had, but how much? When will it go through? Will our paycheck be deposited before we have no cash? So that is Negative, not so Immediate, and Uncertain.
With Credit Cards it is even worse. We hand them a credit card, and money gets taken off, but its debt, so we can keep right on using it. There is no physical loss for us, its just accrued debt...no big deal, we can always pay it off later...so we buy more stuff because there is nothing negative about the experience, it is in the future, and what the hey, we can always pay it back whenever.
One of the main reasons I use cash is because of this reason. Bankers call this "having skin in the game". It is my money, and I am giving it up, and I immediately know it. There is incredible power in knowing that.
There is nothing wrong with knowing human faults, and devising ways to circumvent them within yourself.
Trace Oswald wrote:And that my friend is exactly why casinos use chips rather than money. It makes handing it over a game, rather than losing money. I read a really great book once that explained the amount of thought that went into using chips rather than cash in casinos, and make no mistake, the people that came up with the idea understood the psychology behind it very well. It was a fascinating read, but the name escapes me right now.
Jain Anderson wrote:
There's a saying that goes like this - in order to have a change you must make a change. I can't help but wonder if the 'financial poverty' they find themselves in is debt based or simply reflects choices that didn't work well for them? Certainly there circumstances of illness, physical incapability and plain rotten luck!