# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Should We Get Rid of Cash?    (Focusing on Cons)

# data[].attributes.body
C- The video was posted on March 8, 2021.
R- The video relates to my topic because it tells reasons why we should not get rid of paper money.
A- The publisher is Kite and Key Media.
A- The video supports my claim because it tells me that without paper money, people could be forced to spend more money than save it. Also, when the power is out, card machines wouldn't work, so people won't be able to purchase anything.
P- The purpose of this video is to persuade the reader into believing that paper money should be kept or these problems could occur in their life.

# data[].attributes.body
C- The video was posted on August 20, 2020.
R- The video relates to my topic because it tells me that getting rid of paper money wouldn't be very advantageous for the people.
A- The publisher is Economics Explained.
A- The information supports my claim because it tells me that when using cards you have a higher chance of overspending, and it can charge the store when purchasing from there.
P- The purpose of this video is to show and tell the reader that getting rid of money would only make it complicated for the people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
0:00 / 16:29•Watch full video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Becoming A Cashless Society Is A Terrible Idea

# data[].attributes.body
C- The picture was published on May 2, 2015.
R- The picture relates to my topic because it shows that if people get rid of paper money, some people could be left out.
A- The publisher is Mae Charles.
A- The picture supports my claim because it shows why people should not get rid of paper money because what the picture shows is a person left out meaning when people get rid of paper money this could happen.
P- The purpose of the picture is to tell the reader that not to get rid of paper money.

# data[].attributes.body
C- There is no date when the picture was posted.
R- The picture relates to my topic because it shows what could happen if people start using card and not paper money.
A- The source is 123rf.
A- The picture supports my claim because since people stopped using paper money, there are more chances to get their account information stolen or hacked.
P- The purpose of the picture is to show that after people stop using paper money, and start using card, their card information can be hacked. Then, they are likely to face consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
C- The picture is posted on August 9, 2019.
R- The picture relates to my topic because it shows what could happen if you use paper money.
A- The publisher is Jaime Ochs.
A- The picture goes against my claim because it shows that if people keep money in their pocket, purse, wallet, etc. then it could be easily ripped.
P- The purpose of this picture is to show people why keeping paper money isn't a great idea. Moreover, after its ripped, there will be no value to it.

# data[].attributes.body
C - The picture is published on November 22, 2017.
R- This picture relates to my topic because it shows me why we stop using paper money and start using card.
A- The source is Quill.
A- The picture goes against my claim because it shows the pros of getting rid of paper money. Such as using card is very efficient and easy.
P- The purpose of this picture is to show the reader why getting rid of money is good thing to do, and why it is beneficial for the people.

# data[].attributes.body
C- The picture is published on July 18, 2019.
R- The picture relates to my topic by showing the good things about keeping paper money, and the bad things about using card.
A- The source is facebook.
A- The information goes against and supports my claim by sharing the pros and cons for cash and card.
P- The purpose of this picture is to show and tell the reader about the good and bad things about cash and card.

# data[].attributes.body
C- The information is published on September 23, 2014.
R- The information relates to my topic because the article states opinions that are the opposite of my claim. It states the reasons why people should get rid of money.
A- The source is India Today.
A- The information goes against my claim because the article shares opinions on why people should get rid of paper money. Such  reasons like digital money equals less crime, money is dirty, cheaper for the government, etc.
P- The purpose of my information is to persuade the reader into thinking that getting rid of money is a good thing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 reasons to get rid of paper money, now!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A list of advantages that stem from a cashless society

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The upsides and downsides to eliminating paper currency    (Focusing on Cons)

# data[].attributes.body
C- The information is published on March 9, 2017.
R- The information relates to my topic because it tells me that getting rid of paper money can leave people out, and it could eliminate privacy.
A- The publisher is Kevin Cochrane.
A- The information is supported by my claim because it does say it could leave people out because not everyone has bank accounts.
P- The purpose of my information is to tell the reader that letting people get rid of paper money is not beneficial to them because of this reason.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Kublai Khan invaded China, in addition to spreading disease and starting a postal system, he introduced paper money. It would take the Chinese a few hundred years to overcome the Mongol hordes, build a wall to keep them out, and abolish currency in the early Ming Dynasty. But now, almost 500 years later, the rest of the world is catching up with those Chinese emperors.

There is an effort gaining momentum to limit, or even abolish, physical money. There are some very positive upsides, but there are also some very disturbing downsides too. It's that way with most disruptive events in history - gunpowder, the steam engine, music videos - but this time the ledger of pluses and minuses is a little more difficult to balance.

The Chinese abandoned paper money because of inflation. Governments today say they want it eliminated because of crime, but they have other reasons too. India recently required its 1.2 billion people to surrender all of their largest notes for smaller bills, effectively eliminating more than 80 percent of the currency in circulation. The prime minister said the action was to stop counterfeiting, but there was another more subtle reason behind the move - taxes.

More than 70 percent of all transactions in India are done with cash because it's untraceable. Cash means no record of sales and that means no record for income taxes. In what has been called "India's national sport," it's estimated that billions of dollars in taxes are avoided every year by using cash. By eliminating the two largest bills in circulation, it becomes physically problematic to do business in cash.

The United States doesn't have this problem with tax evasion because less than 15 percent of all transactions stateside are completed in cash, and those only average about $21.

That's why many people support eliminating the $100 dollar bill, and even the $50 and $20 bills. Again, the idea is to make it impractical to use paper money in high-dollar transactions. A million dollars in $100 dollar bills weighs only 20 pounds, but the same amount in $10 dollar bills weighs more than 200 pounds and requires an Olympic weight-lifter to carry it. Having only small bills purportedly moderates or even ends illegal undertakings.

But arguing this is na&iuml;ve. Drug dealers would just move on to diamonds, gold coins, or even untraceable crypto currencies like Bitcoin. Yes, there would be a period of adjustment, but soon grams of cocaine would be priced in carats instead of dollars. However, there is evidence that eliminating cash does have some effect on more common street crimes.

During the 1990's, Missouri transitioned from paying public assistance by check to paying it by preloaded debit card. Most recipients of public assistance don't have bank accounts and checks they receive are cashed for currency and not deposited anywhere. A study at the University of Missouri found that common street crimes like robbery and burglary were reduced by 10 percent after the switch to debit cards. Removing cash didn't end crime, but it did temper it.

Eliminating cash has another upside for governments around the world: better macroeconomic control. Central banks often use interest rates as a tool. With lower rates, people borrow more and buy things like houses and cars. But low rates also means there is little difference between keeping money as cash in your wallet or keeping it in a savings account. But what if rates on bank deposits weren't just low, they were negative?

Negative rates have been tried by a few central banks attempting to recover from recessions, but with cash still in circulation people just withdraw it and hide it in their mattresses. Eliminate cash and you eliminate this alternative. With negative interest rates and no currency in circulation, people either pay to keep a balance in the bank or withdraw it - but the only way to withdraw money is to spend it, since it can't be held in physical cash.

However, there is a significant downside to eliminating cash - privacy. With no currency, every transaction flows through some electronic system where it's ultimately available to anyone that can access it: bank employees, government agencies, even hackers. I'm not certain I want anyone judging my second purchase this week at the liquor store, even though it was just for a case of soda on sale.

There are ways to make electronic transactions anonymous. Bitcoin does it through something called "block chain technology." Banks could also adopt systems like this and guarantee the privacy of electronic transactions. However, it's not much of a stretch to imagine bank regulators requiring banks to provide "backdoor" access to transactions, or even banning the use of technologies like block chain ledgers. After all, the U.S. government did sue Apple in an attempt to force them to break the security of iPhones.

There's another downside to eliminating cash: Not everyone has a bank account. How will the unbanked get access to their money? Perhaps the government itself would open a bank to provide universal access. But if you think a government agency could operate efficiently with offices essentially everywhere, just consider the inefficiencies of the U.S. Postal Service.

There are downsides to eliminating cash, but there are upsides as well. Even the Chinese ultimately started using paper money again (although the largest bill in circulation there is only worth about $17 dollars). Perhaps the modern world will decide to eliminate paper money, only to bring it back hundreds of years later.

Kevin Cochrane teaches business and economics at Colorado Mesa University, and is also a permanent visiting professor of economics at The University of International Relations in Beijing.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The upsides and downsides to eliminating paper currency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Kublai Khan invaded China, in addition to spreading disease and starting a postal system, he introduced paper money. It would take the Chinese a few hundred years to overcome the Mongol hordes, build a wall to keep them out, and abolish currency in the early Ming Dynasty. But now, almost 500...

# data[].attributes.body
C- The information is posted April 7, 2014.
R- The information relates to my topic because this article states things that opposes to my claim.
A- The publisher is Richard W. Rahn.
A- The information goes against my claim because it tells why getting rid of paper money is good. Such things as being extremely dirty, could be easily lost or stolen, and could be easily destroyed.
P- The purpose of my information is to tell the reader that to get rid of money is a good thing to do, so people could face less difficulties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Governments like electronic money payment systems that they can monitor, such as credit cards, but they don't like nongovernment created electronic monies and payment systems that they find difficult to monitor like bitcoin. So, predictably, last week the IRS ruled that bitcoin is not money, thus the users must report the capital gain and loss against the U.S. dollar for each transaction made with bitcoins. Even with advanced software, an individual who might use bitcoins for the purchase of many goods and services will find trying to comply with the IRS an accounting nightmare.

Some 15 years ago, I wrote a book forecasting the demise of paper currency. I expected paper currency to gradually disappear like paper checks have. However, I was wrong. Rather than disappearing, the demand for paper currency is rising faster than inflation or population, albeit not by much, but the total quantity of paper U.S. dollars in circulation is roughly double what it was a dozen years ago. The question is: Why?

One reason given for the decline in street crime is that individuals and small merchants tend to carry less paper cash on their person as they rely more and more on the various forms of electronic payment systems - thus reducing the supply of easy‐​to‐​steal paper currency by petty criminals.

Yet, at the same time, paper‐​currency balances per person are rising rapidly, which means that most people are keeping larger and larger cash hoards at their homes or offices, or elsewhere.

Despite its considerable drawbacks, paper currency has a couple of very important advantages over other forms of money. It is anonymous - meaning you can keep your spending confidential - which almost all people like to do at times, both for good and bad reasons. Most electronic money must be held by a third‐​party custodian - such as a bank, merchant, or cellphone company, and hence is easily liable to seizure by government agencies or other electronically sophisticated miscreants.

In an age where the IRS and various other government agencies have "asset‐​forfeiture" powers, they can seize bank accounts before one is convicted of any wrongdoing. Therefore, people have a real and justified fear of having all of their cash in the bank.

The global anti‐​money laundering police with their ever increasing "know‐​your‐​customer regulations" have made it much more expensive for banks and other financial institutions to provide basic financial services, such as checking and savings accounts. As the costs of servicing each account rises because of government regulations, banks understandably require larger and larger minimum balances and more and more documentation from each customer, all of which causes a reduction in the number of potential customers who meet the new requirements.

Those who cannot meet the new requirements (most often, the young and the poor) go unbanked. Without a bank account, people cannot get credit cards.

Obtaining airline tickets, hotel rooms, auto rentals, etc., is most difficult for those who do not have bank accounts and bank‐​issued credit cards. By necessity, those without bank accounts are driven into the cash economy, where their paper currency is hard to protect and often stolen.

Politicians and regulators love to grandstand about how their regulations are preventing tax evasion, money laundering, drug dealing and terrorist finance. In fact, many studies show that most of the regulations are ineffective and only serve to benefit those who write the regulations, compliance officers in financial firms, lawyers, accountants and, of course, the politicians who extort campaign contributions from those who are regulated.

The truth of the matter is that those who come up with the regulations are responsible for more diseases being spread (from paper currency), more people being robbed, higher costs and fewer services for everyone who uses financial services, and a more difficult and dangerous life for the poor and the young.

The rise in the use of paper currencies is a direct result of overly intrusive and abusive government. If governments were benevolent and respected individual property and privacy, most paper currency would disappear - and that would be all to the good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Governments like electronic money payment systems that they can monitor, such as credit cards, but they don't like nongovernment created electronic monies and payment systems that they find difficult to monitor like bitcoin. So, predictably, last week the IRS ruled that bitcoin is not money, thus the users must report the capital gain and loss against the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Should We Get Rid of Cash?   (Focusing on Cons)

# data[].attributes.body
C- The information is posted on May 10, 2021.
R- The information relates to my topic because it tells me the bad things that could happen if people get rid of money.
A- The publisher is Martin Chorzempa.
A- The information supports my claim because the article states that getting rid of money could cause difficulties for the people.
P- The purpose of my information is the tell the reader that getting rid of paper money could become a big problem for people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
peterson institute for international economics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two experts weigh in on the pros and cons of switching from using cash to digital-payment systems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Cashless Society Pros and Cons  (Focusing on Cons)

# data[].attributes.body
C- The information was published on October 29, 2021.
R- This information relates to my topic because it tells me about the cons of getting rid of paper money.
A- The publisher is Justin Pritchard.
A- This information supports my claim because it tells me that getting rid of paper money can sacrifice privacy, people could overspend, technology could cause problems, etc.
P- The purpose of my information is to tell the reader and let them know that getting rid of money is not a right thing to do.