Do you remember the first $100 bill you ever had, the first one that actually belonged to you, that you earned?  Perhaps you even have it framed, but probably not.  I remember mine.  I was thirteen and had just received my first payday from my first “real” job!  A one-hundred-dollar bill!  The possibilities seemed endless to a young girl, not even yet in high school, with a crisp, new $100 bill in her pocket!  It dwindled down pretty quickly, half into savings and half for who knows what?  Probably cigarettes, gasoline, hamburgers and books.  I don’t remember what I spent it on, but I sure do remember the feel and even the smell of that bill!

For some years now, the powers-that-be have been talking about a “cash-less society”.  The argument has been that it is more efficient, will save the government a bundle in the cost of printing money, enhanced security and convenience, etc.  All, I am sure, valid reasons, but a completely cash-less society makes about as much sense as … well, never mind … I cannot publish things like that here or WordPress will discipline me.  Anyway, some theorize that in order to gradually achieve the ultimate goal of the cashless society, governments will start by removing large bills from circulation.  The U.S. stopped making the $500, $1,000, $5,000 and $10,000 bills in 1969 (I actually never saw any of those, so I obviously did not mourn their passing) The $100, however, is another matter … it is a fairly common form of currency and requires being replaced by a minimum of 5-$20’s, taking up five times the space in pocket.  The ECB (European Central Bank) is also considering removing the €500 from circulation for many of the same stated reasons.  Recently, according to the Washington Post, Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury secretary and former adviser to President Obama, has argued that the United States should get rid of the $100 bill, claiming that the larger nominations are “often used by drug cartels, corrupt politicians, terrorists and tax cheats to evade law enforcement. Getting rid of big bills will make it harder for criminals to do business and make it easier for law enforcement to detect illicit activity. Consider this: a stack of 500-euro notes worth $1 million weighs just five pounds and can be carried in a small bag, whereas a pile of $20 bills worth the same amount would weigh 110 pounds and would be much more difficult to move around.”  I imagine the leather industry is already planning to expand wallets to hold five times as many bills.

I don’t really care if they get rid of the $100 bill.  I see one “up close and personal” once every blue moon, so it doesn’t matter to me.  However, if one views it as the first step toward an all “cash-less” society, then I have an issue with it.  Those in favour of the cash-less world argue that it would not be an inconvenience at all, as there are now so many other means by which we can pay for goods and services.  There are credit cards, debit cards, ATM cards, online banking, services like PayPal, GoFundMe, online bill pay, bitcoin, and the list goes on.  Yes, I use most of those, and I’m sure most of you do too.  But think of this.  What if the electricity goes out in your area?  Or what if your bank’s server goes out for an extended period of time?  Or your own internet service is down?  And your car insurance, rent or electric bill absolutely must be paid today?  Or you need to buy food, baby formula, diapers, or hot dog buns?  Even simpler … no catastrophe in this one … what if you want to surprise your husband/wife with a special gift, but you do not want him/her to see it on the online statement that you both have equal access to?

There are other concerns about going cash-less as well.  I can sum them up in three words:  control, security, privacy.  Have you ever had your bank account hacked?  We did, a few years ago when our bank was taken over by another bank.  We were more than adequately reimbursed for the funds that were taken and since I routinely check all of our bank balances daily, I caught the problem almost immediately, so it wasn’t as bad as it could have been.  But the career hackers are ever-growing in number and talents, so if you have not been hacked, it is only a matter of time.  One of the allures, for some, of using cash is that it is anonymous and virtually un-traceable.  This has value … for criminals, certainly, but on occasion for the rest of us also (refer back to the husband/wife scenario above).  I can tell you, again from personal experience, that I have somewhat reverted back to using cash more, ever since my bank replaced my original debit card with a “chip” card.  A chip card is supposed to ensure a greater level of security by having an embedded microchip as well as a traditional magnetic stripe.  Fine, but it is a pain in the royal patoot to use, so now I stop at the drive-through ATM on my way to the grocery store, get out sufficient cash, then go to the grocery store where I pay in cash.  It keeps me on budget, if nothing else.  As you know if you read my previous post about the death of Justice Scalia, I do not ascribe to conspiracy theories, but some do and it bears mentioning here that one of the biggest concerns of a completely cashless society is that of control.  It is said, and to some extent I imagine it is so, that the government could have complete control over us through our financial transactions.  Yes, probably could, but would they?  I doubt it, as there would be no justifiable reason to and it would likely never be tolerated.  I mention it only because it is one of the main concerns stated in the articles I have read.  I am more concerned about EMPs (electromagnetic pulse) that could shut electrical grids and technology down for years.

I remember a time, not too many years ago, when I was employed by a mid-size publishing company.  The goal of the company’s I.T. director was to become completely paperless within a two-year period.  It did not work, for a number of reasons.  The “all-or-nothing-at-all” concept is rarely successful.  In many cases it may not be practical, people will be resistant, and in the case of either a cash-less or paper-less society, there is much potential for serious negative consequences in the event of power or technological failures.  My grandmother kept almost all her money in cash under her mattress, having struggled through the crash of 1929 and its aftereffects.  I am not suggesting this to anybody … but I think I can understand now why she did it.  I do not think we are headed to a cashless society either here or in Europe in my lifetime or yours, but eventually perhaps.  Meanwhile, let us bid a proper “adieu” to the €500 and “goodbye” to the $100.