From some aspects, yes. From others (no interest in purchases, directly reducing one's account balance, etc) they are the same.
>There is a huge difference between having currency in your hand or use a medium to access money held by the private organization that can go bankrupt (and this happens much more often than, for example, governments with their currencies).
Still not often enough to matter, especially since the cash one has at hand will be a limited amount anyway.
It's not like having $100 or $300 in your pocket to buy things (as opposed to using a debit card) really protects you from the "private organization that can go bankrupt", when the large majority of your money will be in some bank anyway.
Except if you propose we keep all our money in cash at all times. This has other issues, not just a government going bankrupt, but inflation, theft -- and those things are much more common than a bank going bankrupt.
At the same time, though, the govt did push Lloyds TSB to take over HBOS in 2008 rather than let the latter fail.
Those claims are made to increase trust and lower market interest rates for companies to borrow money but regularly failed once really needed.
There is zero practical difference if you withdraw from an ATM every other day or more often, so you can pay cash.
Now I realize that if your account is used without authorization most banks refund the money. This can take a certain amount of time and could lock up your remaining funds in the meantime.
I noticed it on Thursday, I had the new card and all unwanted transactions rolled back on Monday.
This for a debit/Visa hybrid card, which acts as Visa out of country and on the Internet.
Also, the bank requires me to temporarily unlock the card for 'unsafe' Internet purchases before usage, which basically is all purchases that don't involve 2FA.
I know I can charge back. But then I need to waste time to check all the charges and go through the charge back process.
Also depit cards. At least in Europe. AFAIK don't offer a easy charge back at all