The future of money: Lana Swartz on digital currency and the benefits of cash

Don’t have cash? No problem. The number of places where you can use cashless transactions has multiplied in recent years, from digital wallets to contactless payments on public transit. For all the convenience of digital currency, however, there are significant downsides to eschewing cash, according to Lana Swartz, an assistant professor of media studies. Swartz argues that cash is a “universal, public, printed monetary medium” that makes it possible for people to participate equally in economic exchanges.

Lana Swartz, "In Praise of the Dollar Bill," MIT Technology Review, 15 April 2022

 

1. In the first two paragraphs of her essay, Swartz states her “I say” argument and the “they say” argument she is responding to. Using templates from Chapter 1 and Chapter 4, paraphrase these “they say” and “I say” statements into your own words.
   
2. Swartz identifies many benefits to using cash as opposed to digital currency. Name three of these benefits. In your own view, which benefit do you think is most critical, and why? What is a significant downside to using cash instead of mobile currency or digital transactions?
3. What groups of people have the most difficult time using or accessing digital currency or mobile transactions? Why? In the past, what were the ramifications of having multiple monetary systems in the United States? What inequities might a “cash-light” or “cashless” economy create today?
4. Swartz argues, “we might work to prevent money that acts like today’s social media platforms: privatized and rooted in data-driven business models.” What are the key differences between public money, like cash, and privatized monetary systems, like cryptocurrency? How might the privacy of individuals be affected if our future monetary systems were built like today’s social media platforms? What do you think could be done to combine the stability of printed cash and the convenience of digital currency?

Comments

[Leena Ratti]

In her essay , “ In praise of dollar bill” Lana Swartz argues that an appropriate currency should be created that could give us the benefit of the bill as well as the technological cashless purchases. However along with that she forgets to state one significant aspect about the transactional chain of the cash. Since the founder is the keeper in case of cash, when it comes to paying taxes, the federal government cannot keep the track of the cash flow thereby giving opportunities to the people who only work in cash in order to save the federal and provincial taxes. So adding on to the category of people are the ones also who would not like to have the cash that serves both the purpose of cash as well as digital currency. As a result of such currency the tax frauds would not be then possible.

[Mason Curtis]

Lana Swartz argues that while current technological forms of payment aren't perfect, we should still develop some sort of currency that gives the benefit of both the bill and electronic currency. However, there are advantages to digital and cash currency that are not inherently there when both are combined. Digital currency allows for there to be an absolute record of all transactions which helps alleviate the possibility of tax fraud. However, those that choose to deal in cash, or pay employees for one time jobs, have the ability to charge a flat rate, and not pay taxes on one time services or jobs such as, hiring the neighbors kid to mow your lawn. While both systems have their benefits and flaws, moving towards a dual currency would most likely be of benefit to all.

[Agustin Owens]

a. The author is mostly disagreeing because he believes moving away from cash will lead to inequality and the people that use cash will be the lower class. We can clearly see this in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
B.The author does give the idea of people on the other side and why they think cash is a bad idea.
C. I think the author is very considerate and respectful of the other side's opinion. This is very important because being disrespectful would show that you don't have much to your argument