|
|
Post by coderedx82 on Jul 21, 2011 21:18:57 GMT -5
I have to do a summer project for AP world, and I think this would be a good discussion on Delicious Steak (not that I'm charming any of you) . I have discovered that there are some people who would believe that in the future, currency (Paper, Coined, and Plastic) should be replaced with Digitized credits. It seems like a trade off for the fact that numerous video games already test that theory out pretty well. Instead of being mugged of your wallet with all Credit Cards, Paper Money, and Identification, the only 2 feasible ways to get somebody's money with digitized credits, is hacking a secure website or stealing somebody's thumbprint (assuming the fact that usernames and passwords are too risky in future society). So now what? Credits would become global, you won't need to pay tax dollars to pay for overpriced money (I.E. a nickel costs 9 cents to make, go figure), and it is almost impossible to steal it. Unless it isn't our government being held accountable for our credits, this could all go down south. Fees, Subscriptions, Credit Caps, Loaning, and Purchasing Restrictions would be issues if the "Credit Bank" is a corporation within itself. Do you guys have any thoughts or ideas to expand upon this?
|
|
|
|
Post by mashuga31 on Jul 21, 2011 22:37:34 GMT -5
This seems more like a topical discussion, but ill go.
First off I think its a great idea, but only if its done right. Todays banks have money in them, and you go up and take however much out of an account which is pretty much a credit system already, and they dock that from your account and yadayadayada. But say we all used credits banks would be unnecessary. You have however many credits you could check from your phone or maybe a government issue credit pad that connects the the interwebs. whenever you buy something you trade credits to another account, which would deal with public and private affairs. No need to write checks, no need for credit cards, although i guess they could implement charging your credits which any new credits you make simply fill uhp that debt. THat would also help out the economy because people would finally fucking realize they cant buy something they cant pay for and would have to actually earn what they bought by paying it off bit by bit.
Example you have an outstanding charge of 500 credits. You have 450 credits. You keep the 450 credits and spend them as you please but any further credits earned would lower your debt instead of adding to your balance.
Companies accounts could be linked directly to their employee's so workers could be paid on the hour. Overtime could be allowed or disallowed by only delivering pay for a certain number of hours before a reset timer occurs.
I believe the system would be flawless unless your accounts hacked by a super genius or some guy sneaks up to your beer glass with a piece of tape. Or of course an EMP, but if other countries are on the same system chances are theyd be more wary of launching one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Jul 21, 2011 22:41:24 GMT -5
(This reminded for an instant about the Venus project...) It may be a comfortable idea to some, but I think that there are sometimes that a solid real-world currency can be useful too. For example, unless there was some portable device to check one's thumbprint (and even if there was) it would be kind of an annoyance to give or lend someone else money, also, for this to work everyone's got to have access to an account and to the techonology necessary to make it work (and I think that these should ideally be costless), if not, some people would be loss and unable to use money because no one would be able to lend or give money to them if they can't access the account whenever they need (also, it would make things kinda harder for street artists... or maybe not... I suppose it depends on how money is passed from one account to other). And, if you do make this whole system be of easy access, then mugging can still happen, just that with the additional steps of forcing the password and thumbprint out of someone (but I guess that non-digital non-violent robbery would be eliminated), and I wouldn't underestimate hackers either.
I think digital money already exists (for example: passing money from one account to other using a cellphone) and it may be a good idea to expand upon it (and we probably will), but I'm not sure that replacing all tangible forms of currency is a good idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by mashuga31 on Jul 21, 2011 22:58:59 GMT -5
I was thinking of a little pad. Unlock it with a slider place your thumb on the screen and it opens your account. It'd connect with other accounts sorta like bluetooth, and for recipients further away just do a search for the account you're looking for.
Makes charity a whole lot easier *ba dum tshh*
Hobo looks at screen: 16 dollars has been deposited into your account, do you accept?
|
|
Linus
Star
Life is complex; it has both real and imaginary components
Posts: 614
|
Post by Linus on Jul 22, 2011 8:09:27 GMT -5
The currency in the world is as of right now basically "credits", since the bulk of the world's transfers (international trade, for example), is made completely electronically, and no physical money is ever involved. Also, in a rather big part of the world, debit cards are used to a rather large extent, which triggers an (often instant) electronic transfer of money from your bank account of choice. So I can't really see the big difference between this and the current economic systems. The difference between the current systems and the one you're describing is very small when it comes to the raw handling of currency on a global scale.
Basically, the big difference you're proposing is the centralization of money to a global bank. There would be countless disadvantages with this. I mean, imagine the power that corporation would have over the world's population and nations. They would be able to do whetever they wanted to since there would be no competition. And I mean anything... they could control everyone. I know it sounds like a Nineteen Eighty-Four scenario, but yeah.... it would be stupid for a number of reasons. It's not good to have that kind of power concentrated like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by mashuga31 on Jul 22, 2011 13:04:18 GMT -5
what do you mean by no competition? people still have to make money, it doesnt just fall from the sky and electronically transfer into your account?
elaborate cuz im confused.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Jul 22, 2011 13:22:22 GMT -5
^I think he is talking about the monopoly that the theorical global bank that manages this digitalized money would have.
I think that if a system like that were to be installed, then the money should be managed by some sort of association of different goverments of all world... or something different to a big corporation (unless it was really well regulated).
|
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on Jul 22, 2011 13:39:11 GMT -5
 We already have this. It's completely screwed the economy in the western world. </thread> |
|
|
|
Post by mashuga31 on Jul 22, 2011 13:53:01 GMT -5
credit cards are very different. just read my post above about charging credits.
there would be no monopoly if it was handled by the government, banks would be useless. if all we had to go on was digitalized money then you dont need a company like paypal to go to to transfer it. each government would handle the accounts of their people.
another problem with banks is if the bank runs out of physical money and closes, the FDIC (assuming your bank is FDIC Insured) will insure your account up to 250,000 dollars. however, if we run on credits FDIC Insurance would be useless.
besides, whats the use in having a separate account from the one technically used as your wallet?
|
|
Linus
Star
Life is complex; it has both real and imaginary components
Posts: 614
|
Post by Linus on Jul 22, 2011 17:41:12 GMT -5
credit cards are very different. just read my post above about charging credits. there would be no monopoly if it was handled by the government, banks would be useless. if all we had to go on was digitalized money then you dont need a company like paypal to go to to transfer it. each government would handle the accounts of their people. another problem with banks is if the bank runs out of physical money and closes, the FDIC (assuming your bank is FDIC Insured) will insure your account up to 250,000 dollars. however, if we run on credits FDIC Insurance would be useless. besides, whats the use in having a separate account from the one technically used as your wallet? Full government control = monopoly. Monopoly doesn't stop being monopoly just because it's a government corporation instead of a private corporation that is being the sole actor on a market. Also, to handle people's "accounts of money" (i.e. bank accounts) you need someone to run bank operations. So banks wouldn't be useless, and a centralization of monetary control within a country would not benefit the economy of it or its population. Competition on the "bank market" does not only offer variety for costumers, it also keeps the bank services on a quality level. And further, banks do a lot of other things than just handle accounts. They raise and lower interest rates, for example. What you're proposing that you claim is "very different from credit cards" is a simple debit (card) system, a system which is fully available today and is used in many places in the world already. In general, the system you're trying to propose is basically the one we have today. Money is already digital. |
|
