Democracy and Inclusivity Require Cash
Oct 30, 2023
British writer and comedian David Mitchell recently posed a blunt question: ‘Without coins and notes, unaccountable banks can know everything we’re spending. Is that good?’ While the answer may vary depending on who’s asked, if the ideal is a democratic and inclusive society that values choice and leaving no one behind, keeping cash is the obvious move.
Writing for The Guardian, Mitchell feels that ‘society’s blind march towards a cashless economy’ is becoming a problem. Those already feeling it most are likely to be poorer and older citizens, but some of the issues surrounding the loss of cash will ultimately affect just about everyone and—as Mitchell points out—it is far from a democratic process.
[Going cashless] is a massive change in the way society is managed and we have not been consulted on it. There was no referendum on putting an end to cash. The banks, for whom no one has voted, are imposing this on us without having secured our consent. That is not how a democracy is supposed to work.
The tangibility of banknotes and coins is greatly valued as an introduction to financial management for children. Rather than being numbers on a screen, they are physical things that can be handed from person to person, giving a real and immediate sense of gain and loss. This physicality continues to matter to adults, such as those currently depending on cash to help them control stretched budgets.
Even for those who are comfortable with spending and saving digitally, there will be certain transactions that simply cannot be conducted cashlessly, such as in the case of a power or internet outage, or when a card has been lost or a password forgotten, rendering digital wallets inaccessible.
Without cash, we have lost the technology for paying for things in a power cut. Is that because the banks think there’ll be fewer power cuts in future? If they think that, they’re too stupid to look after anyone’s money. But mainly, it’s that digital payments are all traceable. There would be no anonymous spending of money.
Ultimately, the answer to making an economy as inclusive and democratic as it can be is to include cash alongside the widest possible selection of cashless options. With choice comes the power of self-determination, not to mention the greatest economic stability, as transactions can be conducted in a variety of different forms, depending on different technologies and platforms and—in the case of cash—being able to continue in the absence of electricity or internet.
Mitchell’s answer to the question he posed, of whether handing full control of our finances over to banks could be a good thing, is unsurprisingly negative. He acknowledges that it may, in the short term, make certain types of money laundering more of a challenge (‘then again money launderers are pretty professional and I’d be amazed if they don’t find a way’) but fails to see other advantages, while there are plenty of obvious pitfalls for people at all levels of society.
It potentially gives the state the physical power to stop us spending our money. Are we sufficiently convinced of the insuperable probity of our governmental system to be sure this power will never be misused?