Re:San Francisco considers banning cashless Amazon stores
by JumpCrisscross on Thursday March 21, 2019 @02:31PM
(#19455747)
> cash itself says you have to accept it for "all debts public and private" and as an equitable society we have an incentive to make sure that is true
Restaurants have to accept cash. When you order food you incur a debt. That's what "all debts" on cash means. Buying things in a store is different. No debt is incurred.
Such bans are a cosmetic solution to poverty. They give the illusion of dealing with the problem. But they solve nothing. Prices will be a little higher for all San Franciscans (handling cash, even intermittently, is risky and expensive). Meanwhile, the poor will have no more income or opportunities. But hey, they will have the theoretical ability to buy a plush toy from an Amazon store. (Assuming such stores still make economic sense to deploy.)
Restaurants have to accept cash. When you order food you incur a debt. That's what "all debts" on cash means. Buying things in a store is different. No debt is incurred.
Such bans are a cosmetic solution to poverty. They give the illusion of dealing with the problem. But they solve nothing. Prices will be a little higher for all San Franciscans (handling cash, even intermittently, is risky and expensive). Meanwhile, the poor will have no more income or opportunities. But hey, they will have the theoretical ability to buy a plush toy from an Amazon store. (Assuming such stores still make economic sense to deploy.)