Imagine the situation in which we don't have any physical money and every currency is digitalized. The US dollar is now a token, the Japanese Yen is only in the network and the British pound is a fast-moving digital coin. What are the consequences of such an economy for the poorest of the population? Do you think that a few people can influence the digital wealth of people and wouldn't hackers be the best people to have as friends?
This is precisely why you cannot move all the economy to digital, unless you lift all the poor people from that state then you are always going to need something like cash, only countries that are very rich are going to be able to afford such a thing, however I think that as time passes transactions are going to become more and more digital as people begin to adopt the new technologies and the technology gets cheaper to the point anyone can afford it. 
Topic: Is an economy without physical money safe for the poorest? - page 15. (Read 3645 times)
I don't think that it is safe for the poorest to live in a country or world without the physical money because they can't afford the things that they need to have in order to fit in the society like for example, when the country or the world goes online payment and cash based money then it will be hard for the poor to adjust since they can't afford a device to use to fit in.
At the end, however it is, the poorest will always end up being at the end of the chain and there is nothing that can really be done. Issues like this will only make them even more poor as adaptation will be extremely hard for them which would obviously be like a stress most especially for the old ones while the young ones may just have to find other means until they are able to adapt if they end up not being denied the infrastructure. 
Imagine the situation in which we don't have any physical money and every currency is digitalized. The US dollar is now a token, the Japanese Yen is only in the network and the British pound is a fast-moving digital coin. What are the consequences of such an economy for the poorest of the population? Do you think that a few people can influence the digital wealth of people and wouldn't hackers be the best people to have as friends?
I think it's not good because people who are poor wouldn't have access on cryptocurrency, which means there are no means for them to purchase or get any amount of it. I really think that it's still best to have fiat money even though crpytocurrency is convenient to use.
Imagine the situation in which we don't have any physical money and every currency is digitalized. The US dollar is now a token, the Japanese Yen is only in the network and the British pound is a fast-moving digital coin. What are the consequences of such an economy for the poorest of the population? Do you think that a few people can influence the digital wealth of people and wouldn't hackers be the best people to have as friends?
An economy without physical money is an anti poor because most of the poor people cant afford to pay the digital and computer education that instead of paying the school for learning they will going to prioritize the food in the table than schooling. If the government want to establish a mandatory paper less transactions they should attend to educating all poor people by providing a free computer education so that all people can adopt the changes.
i think without physical money, we would go back to the barter system again, we should also take a look back on why money was created in the first place, that is, it is payment for exchange of goods and services, and looking back on the barter system, there are still rich people and poor people, i think without physical money, if you set your mind to become poor you will be poor, but if you set you mind to become rich, you will be one. in times like this, if you take away physical money from the poor and just let them use bitcoin, they will be having a hard time since bitcoin's value is volatile, they still need to be educated so they can realize how they can benefit from it. this is like giving bitcoin to homeless man, and even if you give him 10 bitcoins, we will never understand the value, unless been taught on how to benefit from bitcoin and what is bitcoin all about, since what they believe is they need to do odd jobs, in order for them to survive, the same will also be true to a country, if the have a very low financial literacy rate. i think it will depend on the type of economy that will live without physical money, be it a poor economy or not.
I will say that we already have such a little, because everyone has money on cards, so you have a digital currency, and accordingly we are counting on it, only while it can be cashed. Well, if you can not cash out, what will be the problem is everything will simply develop and each will have 3 cards for each currency and everything, ATMs will only be removed.
If we are to play the scenario you just painted to be a global one, I am pretty sure you will understand that even the cards you are talking about is still a challenge.There are some countries where most of the uneducated people do not even understand what cashless is like and they pretty much depend on it as the only form of payment they know. Are these the kind of people you want to force to get a smart phone, or start making use of the web for transactions?
I think it is very difficult for now to say that physical money is very much important for today economy. Now a day’s physical money is very necessary for the good economy with out fiat or physical money solve many problems of us. When paper money introduced the big problems were solved by this and today we are able to sale and purchase through this paper money.
There is no denial in this fact that we cannot survive at the moment without paper money. The main reason is crypto currencies are still not mainstream and nobody knows how long it will take them to get realized by the whole world population. Bitcoin is making constant progress in price and fame but still a very little percentage knows about this currency. There is one more thing that I would like to add here, for using bitcoin one must have some education but mostly poor people can’t read or write.
It is safe if the people who are the poorest is at least knowledgeable on using technologies required to run application wallets and websites that hold the digital money and they need to learn the basics of crytocurrencies like its features, the dos and don'ts, bitcoin currency, transaction fees, sending coins to the wallet addresses and its price, they need to know also that cryptocurrency are so volatile so that they are not ignorant and calls it a scam.
Majority of poor people lack education, and that will be the reason for the hackers exploitation. Furthermore, that kind of system would only make the rich richer and the poor poorer as the latter have no resources to begin with.
I don't think that it is safe for the poorest to live in a country or world without the physical money because they can't afford the things that they need to have in order to fit in the society like for example, when the country or the world goes online payment and cash based money then it will be hard for the poor to adjust since they can't afford a device to use to fit in.
Bitcoin is the best currency not only for the rich people but for the poor as well, the bitcoin economy is the other thing for the value and the bitcoin price will get the worldwide importance in very short time. The bitcoin is the best currency to buy and to invest for the long time so no one will be able to know about the user either it is being use by the rich people or the poor.Poor people usually don't have means to invest in anything, they are poor and it means just that. They don't have spare money, as simple as it gets. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are used for investment purposes, and for the majority of people in such poor countries like India or almost all of Africa, Bitcoin is of no particular value or importance. On the flip side, though, if some local currency crashes, and here we should think the Zimbabwean dollar, Bitcoin, and even its cheaper and faster competitors like Litecoin or Dogecoin, may be an option for real trade after all.
I think it is safe for the poor to have an electonic currency because it is much safer to carry that the physical currency. Also they need to have such things for them not to be left by the technology. Most of the transactions now a days prefer electronic transaction because it is much economical, hastle free and safe.
It's a scary scenario, but not that far removed from today.
Everyone would need to have some type of basic electronic for transacting. Even the homeless.
I think the poor also need preferential policies to ensure their own lives. They also need to use electronic devices, need to participate in the necessary services in life. Especially we need to help them learn and invest in bitcoin to change their lives to become rich. Everyone would need to have some type of basic electronic for transacting. Even the homeless.
I don't think that it is safe for the poorest to live in a country or world without the physical money because they can't afford the things that they need to have in order to fit in the society like for example, when the country or the world goes online payment and cash based money then it will be hard for the poor to adjust since they can't afford a device to use to fit in.
Bitcoin is the best currency not only for the rich people but for the poor as well, the bitcoin economy is the other thing for the value and the bitcoin price will get the worldwide importance in very short time. The bitcoin is the best currency to buy and to invest for the long time so no one will be able to know about the user either it is being use by the rich people or the poor. Imagine the situation in which we don't have any physical money and every currency is digitalized. The US dollar is now a token, the Japanese Yen is only in the network and the British pound is a fast-moving digital coin. What are the consequences of such an economy for the poorest of the population? Do you think that a few people can influence the digital wealth of people and wouldn't hackers be the best people to have as friends?
That's actually not good for any economy because the GDP of the economy will be affected very badly when it would be compared to an economy which only uses physical coins. Most of the economists consider crypto as a transfer income which again is not used when national income or GDP is calculated. And poor people will find it really hard to use cryptos as they might have not even used a computer before and they don't such facilities as well.
In this World the economy without physical money is not safe for the poorest, assume only digital money is option first the government of each country has to provide mobiles and to use mobile they need internet and to use internet they need to educate everyone which is not possible so presence of physical money is not avoidable and it is not affordable by the poor people and lot of issues in using the other mode of digital currency. We can keep hope that in next 50 years this present situation can be changed and lot of new things may be implemented by the governments to access cryptocurrencies.
Imagine the situation in which we don't have any physical money and every currency is digitalized. The US dollar is now a token, the Japanese Yen is only in the network and the British pound is a fast-moving digital coin. What are the consequences of such an economy for the poorest of the population? Do you think that a few people can influence the digital wealth of people and wouldn't hackers be the best people to have as friends?
I think it's not good because people who are poor wouldn't have access on cryptocurrency, which means there are no means for them to purchase or get any amount of it. I really think that it's still best to have fiat money even though crpytocurrency is convenient to use.
Imagine the situation in which we don't have any physical money and every currency is digitalized. The US dollar is now a token, the Japanese Yen is only in the network and the British pound is a fast-moving digital coin. What are the consequences of such an economy for the poorest of the population? Do you think that a few people can influence the digital wealth of people and wouldn't hackers be the best people to have as friends?
I think it's not good because people who are poor wouldn't have access on cryptocurrency, which means there are no means for them to purchase or get any amount of it. I really think that it's still best to have fiat money even though crpytocurrency is convenient to use.
conspicuously speaking i don't is safe for the poor to stay without physical money, because not all that have debit card or credit card moreover having access to the internet were they could do their transactions, infact the poor needs physical money for immediate usage. for instance if the poor doesn't have the following requirements that mean they all have die off hunger and frustration. so i advise let there be physical money.
Imagine the situation in which we don't have any physical money and every currency is digitalized. The US dollar is now a token, the Japanese Yen is only in the network and the British pound is a fast-moving digital coin. What are the consequences of such an economy for the poorest of the population? Do you think that a few people can influence the digital wealth of people and wouldn't hackers be the best people to have as friends?
In above scenario, we need to understand that all the fiat currency in hard-cash and net-currency/digital currency is managed by the banks (federal and other). Having all currency over the digital medium will give these entities more power of price manipulation than ever. One more thing, the carbon footprint to manage this infra structure of digital transactions will be even high side and all people will have to bare its cost. For poorest people perspective, lack of infrastructure which support digital transaction directly links to great danger and life-death scenario.
Imagine the situation in which we don't have any physical money and every currency is digitalized. The US dollar is now a token, the Japanese Yen is only in the network and the British pound is a fast-moving digital coin. What are the consequences of such an economy for the poorest of the population? Do you think that a few people can influence the digital wealth of people and wouldn't hackers be the best people to have as friends?
Honestly, I don't fully understand what you mean.
If people are not quite happy with digital only money, they will certainly use money substitutes when they need to make hand-to-hand transactions. I don't know what it could be, but, as the saying goes, the necessity is the mother of invention, so they will come up with something handy and convenient. On the flip side, though, people on average don't have plenty of savings, therefore there is not much they can be stripped off by hackers or their friends. Anyway, the poorest people are not poorest out of fun.
Jump to: