FED -> JOE's bank account -> ATM cash withdrawal -> Buys private stuff $$$ cash
FED -> JOE cashes the check -> Buys private stuff with $$$ cash
The FED still knows that it went to JOE. Whether they use the bank as the intermediary or a check-cashing service as an intermediary, its all traceable.
May be my logic is flawed here? To me, it doesn't make any difference. In both cases, what JOE bought with hard $$$ cash is indistinguishable. I think we're making a big deal out of this - I haven't read the bill but I am presuming that its just a modernization of physical mailing of checks to some wire transfer.
After all, they'll be debit-card accessible to buy food or supplies; why would you need cash unless you're going to buy drugs or something?
They're talking about using these digital dollars instead of checks, for the unbanked and those without addresses at which they could receive a check, et c.
Checks don’t do this.
And they pay dearly for the privilege. I imagine the number of Americans who use check cashing for privacy is extremely small compared to the number who use it because they're in poverty and unbanked.
Currency is only as meaningful as its usefulness to people. If a large number of people can't or won't use a currrency, they'll just find another. It wouldn't be the first time in history a majority currency became too inconvenient for a large number of people and alternatives were found.
Not quite. I can spend cash and nobody knows when or where I did so.
> If they send you a check, that's not helping you much. It goes through the bank and there is 100% traceability of the $$$ from the Fed to your bank account
Many, many Americans receive checks as payment which they then take to a service which will exchange the check for cash in hand, no bank account required. The check issuer has no idea where or how the money gets spent.