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

[William Lin]

Lana Swartz is right that cash has some benefits compared to digital currency. However, she seems more dubious when she claims that cash is the best transactional tool for increasing community and individual independence. First, it is hard to provoke any actions to make counterfeit copies of it. As for the second, cash will keep transactions anonymous. Furthermore, the third would be that people do not need to pay the payer or additional payee fees. The most critical benefit would be the second one because keeping transactions anonymous can prevent criminals from gaining access to people's bank accounts. However, the downside is that cash can sometimes come from a failed or fictitious bank or might have been a counterfeit copy of a note from a functioning bank. People in the much lower class have trouble using or accessing digital currency or mobile transactions because digital currencies are subject to high fluctuations in value. The ramifications of having multiple monetary systems in the U.S. meant that everyday spending requires considerable street smarts, which caused a highly chaotic situation that created highly stratified transactional communities.

[XinGuo]

1. It is convenient to pay in cash. There's a lot of tax relief.2. Lana Swartz believes that while electronic payment is convenient, there are still some drawbacks. 3.I think both cash and electronic payment should be improved. Cash should be prevented from being fake, and electronic payment should improve the security of people's use

[Idella Mcdonald]

Many people don't pay with cash anymore because so much technology has changed and everyone has changed to debit and credit card transactions. You can also save your money a lot better by using a card. I feel that you constantly have the cash you want to spend as soon as you get it. With me having a card now I have been able to manage my money properly. Not saying having cash is bad because it is not. Some places do only take cash payments so having cash on hand is also very helpful. In her essay, “ In praise of dollar bill” Lana Swartz argues that an appropriate currency should be created to give the benefit of the bill as well as the technological cashless purchases. I agree with her because some of us don't understand the purpose of cash. Lots of federal issues can come with handling cashless payments. People like to have the cash the IRS doesn't know actually how much ou really have.

[tyler a]

Lana Swartz is correct in her argument by saying that there are many benefits to living in a cashless society. Though that may be the case, having cash and spending it is a crucial part of our lifestyle that will never fully dissipate. Cash is a reliable source of payment that can be accepted almost anywhere, and it is a more stable form of currency that has been around for a longer period of time. That being said, many people can and should still be able to go for the option of using other methods of payment such as cryptocurrency or credit cards, but they should keep in mind the danger that they could potentially be putting themselves into by doing so. The use of digital payment options opens the door to plenty of fraudulent activity and scammers that can manipulate you and take your money. While that may seem jarring, the use of digital money does have its benefits such as convenience and low-profile transactions. I personally believe that in order to keep things running smoothly, locations around the country should be accepting of both cash payments and digital payments to give people a fair choice.

[PatrickOrz]

In these times after the pandemic people are more mindful of the germs that they come into contact with. As a society, we have realized how dirty physical cash is, taking into consideration how many hands it passes until it reaches yours. In light of this, some businesses have gone cashless entirely. An issue that arises from this is, the lack of consideration for older generations and the less educated. These groups of people would have the most difficult time converting their physical cash into online currency. They are not technologically savvy as the average person and will have difficulty adapting to this new way of using money. Some people just might not trust online banks as they rather have cash that they can control. Moving along with how society is, these demographics will have to be accounted for along with stragglers of other demographics that face the same issue. Big changes are being made in short periods of time and some people are just not ready for it.

[Ahmad P.]

In Lana Swartz’s essay “In praise of dollar bill,” she talks about how the rise of digital payments has possibly caused “far weightier social barriers and inequalities.” However, using cash for payments have deemed to be more beneficial than originally expected. For instance, using cash instead of credit or debit cards can make sure that the transactions can remain anonymous. This will prevent the possibility of card information theft. Secondly, cash payments allow one to know exactly how much they have on hand. With cards, one may be spending more than what they have, which can lead to debt. Lastly, the digital currency has so many factors involved in it. It relies on the bank, the card, and the card machine working properly to allow the transaction to work efficiently. Out of all these things though, the best benefit of using cash is knowing exactly how much you have on you. Many people end up going into debt as they end up spending more than what they can give back. However, it is also worth noting that using digital currency is much more convenient and secure. Cash can become too heavy or bulky at times, making it much easier in misplacing it.

[Charles Clermont]

We are in a time where everything is changing before our eyes. Everything is changing from the physical to digital market. Money is also making this transition. The digital world makes the physical world easier but not everything can make this transition and I think money is in the middle. Having digital money makes life easier. You don't need to carry a wallet full of cash. You don’t have to remember to bring cash with you when you go out. It is safer to have no cash on you. You can make purchases easier and faster but It's also helpful to have cash. Some shops/institutions only take cash. Examples of these are like little businesses that would see on the side of the road. When you go for a haircut you probably pay cash I know I do. If you go to a cash station, pay cash for small items. Everyone has their own way of doing things. I don’t mind paying with cash on with digital money. There are positives to both of these forms of payment. In the article In Praise of Dollar Bill the writer Lana Swartz says that there should be currency that can be used physically and digitally to satisfy both parties.

[Charles clermont]

We are in a time where everything is changing before our eyes. Everything is changing from the physical to digital market. Money is also making this transition. The digital world makes the physical world easier but not everything can make this transition and I think money is in the middle. Having digital money makes life easier. You don't need to carry a wallet full of cash. You don’t have to remember to bring cash with you when you go out. It is safer to have no cash on you. You can make purchases easier and faster but It's also helpful to have cash. Some shops/institutions only take cash. Examples of these are like little businesses that would see on the side of the road. When you go for a haircut you probably pay cash I know I do. If I go to a gas station, I pay cash for small items. Everyone has their own way of doing things. I don’t mind paying with cash or with digital money. There are positives to both of these forms of payment. In the article In Praise of Dollar Bill the writer Lana Swartz says that there should be currency that can be used physically and digitally to satisfy both parties and I also agree.

[Amber Pink]

A Cashless society wouldn't be fair to people that are homeless, and to the elderly that can’t understand technology. If you were to think about it, if the world we live in were to be cashless then people would be more vulnerable to cyber-attacks. There should be a balance between physical currency and online transactions currency. As technology advances, people are starting to use cashless transactions and I hope it doesn’t break our society. Remembering when you had to swipe your card and enter the pin, insert the card, and entering the pin, to tapping your card. Now we are using phones to pay for things which shows us the transition of how we pay for things in our modern-day society. We are advancing in a fast pass and I assume we would start using chip implants to pay for things in the future

[lisa.sch]

Lana Swartz writes in her article about the drawbacks of living in a cashless society. While society adapts to new inventions and tends to pick the more convenient way, paying cash has become the currency that gets used less than paying electronically. The pandemic made people more aware of hygiene and germs that spread easily while paying with cash. For people, including myself, it is convenient, effortless, and easy to pay with their phones or cards. The last few years I rarely made the effort to go to an ATM to pick up some cash as I didn’t have the need to do it. Recently that mindset of mine changed drastically. Three months ago, I started studying in a foreign country, on the other side of the world from my home town. As being an international student, I have come to the conclusion that cash is still an important currency to have. Paying with cash comes with no fees. Due to the fact that my credit and debit cards are from my home country, with every transaction there are additional fees that occur. At first the few cents did not disturb me but realising how much I actually pay electronically, these “small” fees secretly sum up to a noticeable amount of money. In addition to Swartz’s mentioned arguments, about why cash is still important, I now always carry a small amount of cash with me. Cash is indeed a currency that we cannot yet go fully without.

[Aidan]

Begins with talk about covid and some precautions used that affected the use of paper money. This had a bigger effect than planned. Going online provides many benefits, but also carries a risk. Cash is a safer option. Cash is defined and explained through history and past use. Spending money has required some street smarts and skills, the world of money is quite complex.Those who were wealthy were easily able to progress in life, while the poor were stuck using coins. The future points to a life with much less cash, but most likely not cashless. Cash is universal, but it has many flaws such as being able to be stolen, and is unable to use online.New forms of money are not the most reliable and can be risky as well.

[Jasmine Fitzgerald]

In Lana Swarts essay she states that "Cash is the best transactional tool for increasing community and individual autonomy." Spending cash is not specify where you can spend it at. Having cash you don't have to have anyone signature to spend it. Cash is universal but as a mass media form.

[A]

In Lana Swarts essay 'In praise of dollar bill', she outlines the unexpected benefits of using cash compared to having a card or some form of payment other than card e.g bank transfer. Swarts says 'It is anonymous: no one needs to know who you are for you to spend it' which implies that this form of privacy would not be possible for other forms of payments like card so having no trackability in your purchase may come as a vital benefit for some. On the other hand, not being able to track payments could be dangerous for fraudulent activities or illegal purchases. This will make it far more difficult for authorities to track down or locate criminals. However, using forms of other payments such as digital transfers could lead to misleading payments and therefore scammers that could manipulate you and take your money which is significantly dangerous if its a large amount. Having the option of both allows a choice which allow someone to choose the best option for their purchase.

[John]

With the rapid technological advancements in the past few decades, many people have discarded old ways of life and introduced new and advanced ways of living. In the last few years, due to the explosion of the COVID-19 Pandemic, many businesses have moved to a new way of accepting payments. This new form of accepting payments is commonly referred to as “contactless payments”. This allows you to simply pay with a phone without having to hold any physical currency. While this may be a very innovative technology, some businesses have taken this a step too far. If you walk into any establishment, you will have a good chance of being able to pay without having physical currency. However, there are businesses out there that do not accept cash at all. With cash being the base of all payments in the United States, it has become a big debate if businesses should be allowed to decline a cash payment. Personally, I never carry around cash due to the fact that there are many risks. It could be damaged, lost, or even stolen if you leave it somewhere. Secondly, the money does not have your name on it so if you do happen to lose possession of it, there is no way of proving it was yours and you will likely never see it again. With contactless payments, all of your money belongs to you and if it is digitally stolen, you can prove that it was taken away from you and your bank will be able to return the funds to you. My opinion matches very well with another blog entry written by Mason Curtis, as they mention that digital transactions are much safer due to all of the transactions being tracked and secure. Mason also mentions the benefits of cash, as cash allows you to avoid tax and play a more flat rate. While cash may be the basis of all of our payments, I do think as a society we should move on to the more safer and innovative way of payment, which is referred to today as contactless payment. Even if customers do not have access to a cellular device, they can still go to their bank and retrieve a free bank card that links directly to their bank account.

[jianxin]

Digital currency and cash have advantages and disadvantages, but whether they are good depends on personal opinions and usage scenarios. First, let's discuss the benefits of currency. Digital currency is more convenient and faster. Digital currencies can be easily traded over the Internet without waiting for banks to process them or carrying large amounts of cash. Now everyone likes to go out without cash. A mobile phone and a few credit cards are all we need. Digital currencies are highly secure. Digital currency is encrypted using cryptography technology, which can more securely protect the privacy and security of both parties to the transaction. Digital currency can reduce costs. Digital currency transactions are often faster and cheaper than traditional bank transfers and can be transacted internationally, saving money that could otherwise be used to print money. After the currency is digitized, it is more convenient to freeze abnormal users. For example, if you earn 3,000 a month and suddenly transfer 100 million, your account will be listed as abnormal immediately. The digital currency challenge you will face in the future: Your bank account is infinitely transparent, with no privacy at all, and the bank can learn more about your source of income. As students, we generally require our part-time jobs to be paid in cash so that we don't need to worry about tax issues. Digital currencies are very volatile. Digital currency prices can be volatile, meaning they can appreciate or lose value quickly, making it difficult to predict their value. Digital currencies are also unconventional. Digital currency is a new form of payment that may require people to adapt to new ways of transacting and paying, which takes time and training. Digital currency instead of cash may be a good solution in some cases, but it needs to weigh the pros and cons and consider the needs of different usage scenarios and groups of people.

[Kevin Cao]

Due to their convenience and security, digital wallets are becoming increasingly popular among consumers. As more consumers turn to online shopping and mobile payments, the use of digital wallets has expanded in recent years. Users may securely store credit card details and other sensitive data on their mobile devices using digital wallets, often known as e-wallets. This allows customers to make transactions without having to input their credit card information several times.

The widespread use of encryption technology is one of the primary reasons why digital wallets are more secure than conventional wallets. When a user enters credit card information into a digital wallet, the data is encrypted and safely kept on the device. This makes hacking virtually impossible. In contrast to traditional wallets, where criminals may quickly steal cash or credit cards, the information is freely accessible.

Another element that makes digital wallets more secure is the usage of two-factor authentication. When a user wishes to use their digital wallet to make a transaction, they must either enter a password or utilize biometric authentication, such as a fingerprint or face recognition. This additional layer of protection guarantees that only authorized users may access and make purchases from the wallet.

Finally, in the event of loss or theft, digital wallets allow you to remotely disable or wipe the information stored on them. This implies that even if a criminal acquires access to a user's device, the credit card information saved in the digital wallet is inaccessible.

Finally, digital wallets are more secure than traditional wallets due to encryption technology, two-factor authentication, and the ability to remotely disable or wipe the information stored on them. Digital wallets are expected to become even more popular as more customers switch to online and mobile payments due to their convenience and security.

[imran]

In her article, Lana Swartz states that even though electronic payments are practical, they also amplify existing disparities. She thinks that it might be time to reevaluate the usefulness of actual money, particularly US dollar bills, for achieving financial equity. Swartz points out that having a smartphone, consistent internet access, and a bank account are frequently requirements for using digital payment methods. Due to these criteria, people with low incomes and people who live in rural or distant locations are left out. Additionally, technological issues and outages with digital payment systems can prevent users from having access to their money. Cash, on the other hand, is widely available, trustworthy, and doesn't need any special infrastructure or technology. The US dollar is also the most used and acknowledged kind of currency globally, making it a crucial tool for cross-border trade. Swartz agrees that using currency has disadvantages of its own, such as the possibility of theft and the difficulty of keeping track of transactions. She contends, however, that these dangers can be reduced by taking steps like enhancing security features and enhancing financial reporting transparency. Overall, Swartz argues that paper money, especially US dollar bills, shouldn't be written off as a thing of the past. Instead, she talks also about in her article how spending cash can boost economies and how it is the better option in her opinion because it doesn’t leave any digital trace of where it is being sent and no data is being collected from just using cash. In my opinion I don’t agree with what the author said I believe there should be room for both people using cash and electronic payments in 2023 a lot of old generation people might not know how to uses the electronic payment so they uses cash but for everyone that uses these online services to pay I think it is so much more easier to track and spend were your money is going rather than having physical cash on you I agree part with what William Lin posted in his blog he said “that the author seems dubious when she said cash is the best transactional tool”. I 100 percent agree with his statement cash is the past, we still use it will never go away but the future of payment methods has arrived, and we should try to adapt to the new.

[Professor's Fav : )]

In the article, Lana Swartz about how we are better off as a community using digital wallets rather then cash. Even though she makes some great points about how great digital wallets can be. Cash has always been king, Having on hand money is always needed especially for young kids who shouldn’t have access to that much money and people who are too old to understand or who can’t grasp the idea of using digital wallets. I feel like having all your money on paper and have a paper trail of every single dollar we have spent can be taxed by the government. And there’s always the risk of identity theft or your accounts getting frozen or hacked. It can definitely be a good thing to have a trail of where you spent your money and maybe it can even change your idea of how you waste your money. Cash is universally accessible, universally accepted, relatively stable in value, and can be exchanged for goods and services without transaction fees. Having alot of money transferred to your account can always get you in a blacklist and even cause your account to be temporarily closed due to suspicious activity which in situations of emergencies can cause alot of unfiable problems. Digital money such as cryptocurrency can lose value overtime. Also purchasing things such as cars, tools, and property, etc… can be much more easier as showing cash can always make your negotiations easier. The argument of Digital money vs Cash can always be a good way to kick things off at the thanksgiving table, They both co-exist and they both have their own valuable existence.

[Claire]

I agree with Lana Swartz's perspective presented in "In praise of the dollar bill" regarding the importance of cash as a transactional tool. Swartz effectively highlights the potential drawbacks of a completely cashless society and emphasizes the unique benefits that cash provides. One of the key points made by Swartz is the universality and anonymity of cash. Unlike digital transactions, cash does not require personal identification or generate transaction data that can be accessed by third parties. This aspect of anonymity is crucial for preserving individual privacy and avoiding potential surveillance. In a world where our communication and transactions are increasingly channeled through centralized platforms that collect fees and data, maintaining a certain level of financial privacy becomes a valuable attribute. Furthermore, Swartz rightly points out that cash provides a sense of control and awareness of one's financial situation. Cash allows individuals to have a tangible representation of their funds, preventing the risk of overextending or falling into unexpected overdraft. This level of transparency is especially important for vulnerable populations who may not have easy access to digital banking services or who may rely on cash for their daily transactions. Swartz's historical analysis also sheds light on the potential social inequalities that can arise from a cashless society. The use of various currencies throughout history, with different values and acceptance levels, created distinct transactional communities. This highlights the importance of cash as a form of currency that is accessible and accepted by all, regardless of socioeconomic status. In a fully digital payment system, marginalized communities may face barriers and unequal terms when conducting transactions. While acknowledging the limitations of cash, such as the risk of loss or theft, Swartz recognizes the need for a balanced approach that combines the benefits of cash with the advancements of digital technologies. This resonates with the notion that a cash-light system would be more suitable, allowing individuals to have the option to choose between different transactional methods based on their needs and preferences.

[Jade]

Author of "In praise of the dollar bill", Lana Swartz argues that cash is the best transactional tool for payments. Before reading, I personally believed that digital payments are the way to go. Since we live in a world full of advanced technology, payments through our cell phones seem to be on the rise. I find it more convenient because I have my phone on me at all times, more often than my actual wallet. In the times I forget to bring it, just in luck I have my phone to make the payment. However with cash payments, Swartz claims that there is no data about your transaction with third parties, there are no transaction fees, and signatures are not needed. Additionally, cash can help with over-spending habits and control savings. Even though I personally do not use cash, there is still great benefits to it being around for other people. She provides arguments from both sides, finding the faults in both uses. She acknowledges that cash is less convenient to carry and use for online purchases, lost, destroyed, and easily stolen. I think that our world with both digital and cash payments would be a beneficial system depending on what is being purchased. Since both have their benefits, there should not be stress on which one should be completely removed and demolished. Additionally, we still live in a world where a generation is not accustomed to the use of technology. People with lower incomes or elderly individuals would not be able to benefit from digital payments if we took cash payments away. Things can never be completely beneficial or harmful, it is difficult for it to be one or the other- especially with economical issues. As our world advances, more forms of currency will be developed. Today, I see more cash-less payments and though it is sometimes an inconvenience, it is a change that can hurt to adapt to.

[Laksh K]

I agree with Lana Swartz’s argument about putting effort into finding a new payment medium that has the benefits of cash while eliminating its drawbacks. Reimplementing cash in our society would be inefficient and a step backwards. Cash has many issues, including being unsanitary and not as nimble to use; a tap of a card is much easier than fumbling with bills and coins, which we inevitably end up counting frantically at the register while being glared at by impatient people in line behind us. It is also important to focus on the fact that our technology today is not accessible to everyone, which is why we should increase our efforts in making banking and contactless payment available to all people. These technologies should not only be concentrated in the hands of those who have not faced severe financial disenfranchisement. Allowing people who do not have access to the efficiency of new payment technologies to participate in this system of contactless payments would be economically beneficial for both the individuals who participate in our economy and for business owners.
I think that the author focuses too much on the anonymity that cash provides instead of the privacy it provides. I disagree with the author on the statement that the anonymous aspect of cash is positive. While I do think that transactions should be private, I do not think that the anonymity of cash is something that should be maintained in future payment mediums. The fact that cash is anonymous makes it perfect for criminals and tax evaders to operate with. Of course, we don’t need to publish a weekly ledger for everyone to read where we spent our money. This information should be kept private, but for the sake of law enforcement and accountability in our financial system, I think that a trail of data that should be regulated and kept safe is beneficial.

[James D.]

The article talks about how moving toward a cashless society could make social inequalities worse, especially for people who don’t have access to the digital tools needed for online payments. Those without smartphones, stable internet, or digital skills might get left out of the economy as everything goes digital. Cash, on the other hand, is a key tool for privacy, it doesn’t have extra fees and doesn’t rely on third parties. This is especially important for low-income people, as cash lets them participate in transactions without surveillance or worrying about extra costs, which can hit poorer communities harder with digital payments. The author also looks at the history of money in the U.S., pointing out how previous systems were uneven and how a cashless future might repeat those mistakes, creating more gaps in access based on income. For example, the article highlights how different forms of currency in the past were not always equally accessible to everyone, and if we move fully digital, some people might be excluded from basic financial activities, just like they were excluded from the old systems. Even though cash has downsides, like being lost or not working online, the article pushes for new digital payment systems that can keep the good parts of cash, like privacy and low fees. These systems should be inclusive, making sure people who rely on cash aren’t excluded. The goal is to create digital payment methods that are fair, transparent, and available to everyone, helping build a more equal financial system where everyone, no matter their income, can take part without feeling left behind. In the end, the author argues that we need to balance the convenience of digital payments with the security that cash offers, creating a system that works for everyone, not just those with the latest tech.