you wouldn’t instinctively want to take more than you need and leave others short
But do they actually have more than they need? Sure, if there’s plenty of food for ages and then some, it would be fine. But if the supply is just enough, then it would make sense for an individual to take and stash a bit more to guarantee their personal survival just in case.
Kinda the same reason behind a “rainy day” pot in 
.
Can’t fault the logic in that reply ! Hmm I must be a dreamer!
Karl Marx is turning in his grave reading that.
Unless you skim money from someone else it’s nothing like a rainy day pot. All goods belong to the community. Sure you might think you will keep yourself alive but if the best hunter dies as a result then it’s futile. By pooling resources and everyone having a bit less you have more chance of everyone getting through the tough times
I hated this - and when it’s dark you can easily end up handing over a bigger bill than you intended and some dodgy merchants would just pocket it and give you change for the smaller bill.
As someone who handles cash in their job, if I could turn down every person who did this, I’d be a happier man. 
The opinion article muddles a number of different concepts.
Yes, digital services = data, and data = monetisation (physical cash doesn’t offer these opportunities)
However, banks don’t make their money from data. Banks make their money from loaning you money and while digital services allow them to provide these services at convenience to you, many people prefer the face to face interaction especially when it comes to mortgages.
There is significant money to be made by making customers better off by offering them a mortgage review & switch service - and while you can ignore prompts and pop-ups online, if you’re in a physical conversation with a staff member at the counter in branch it’s harder to ignore.
My point is, banks need branches. However, customer behaviours in using online/mobile banking means that they don’t use branches as often as they used to. It’s true in the early days that banks were very much driving this behavioural change, but there is a balance between cost saving and profit generation.
Bank closures are very much driven by customer footfall and yes whether there is any profit to be made there. ATM closures is a whole different argument altogether and nothing to do with digital services.
The true con is the myth of ‘free banking’. It’s not free, and if you’re not paying, then somebody else is - often the most vulnerable who end up paying in overdraft fees.
This is why I’m happy with the refreshing level of transparency at Monzo - they are telling us how much it costs them to run our accounts and talk to us about the true costs of banking (like atm withdrawal fees, oversees withdrawals etc).
Anyhow, that’s my tuppence… 
I mostly use my card or phone to pay although I would feel quite uncomfortable if we went digital only as it requires complete trust in the government and banking system.
In my opinion it would be far too easy for a dictatorship to take complete control of the economy and control the entire monetary system with no way out.
I believe we need a way to circumvent government control in case this becomes necessary for a free society 
We have cryptocurrencies as a backup. They’re pretty niche at the moment but if something like this truly happens and cash no longer exist I’d expect them to gain wider adoption.
Do you think there needs to be a cap to the amount of cryptos, or do you think it’s good having so many with different purposes ?
Crypto currencies are just software - how could you enforce a cap on how many text files someone could write on a computer?
As usual, I say let the market decide. 
I like this idea, a QR code that would take someone without Monzo to a screen with info on how to claim said money and anyone with Monzo would just have this money moved to their account. Neat!
Cash issued and controlled by central governments and national banks?
I understand where you are coming from, but I would tend to suggest that card is universally accepted more than cash.
If I go to Greece, Italy, France, Germany, Australia etc, I can use my Monzo card and make purchases in (most) shops and restaurants.
If I go away with the cash in my wallet, it is only accepted in the country if I have converted my money into the local currency.
Cash purchases to need to be converted for the merchant to accept them.
Edit: Cash, not card
I hear you but I would argue that cash is universally accepted. What you are saying is for international use a card is easier which is kind of true, as for one there is no changing of money or anything like that.
Where your point falls down is you are taking about international currency.
In the UK Pound Sterling is universally accepted. In Europe the Euro is universally accepted. In the USA the Dollar is university accepted.
Edited as the last bit was a bit confrontational.
I think this is a really good discussion to have, as it highlights how different everyone see’s money and their finances.
One of the main reasons I love Monzo :mondo: is because it lets me manage my money and spending how I want to. Other high street banks feel much more restrictive IMO
Typo on my part! Sorry gang
It’s all good we’ve all done that at one point or the other.
I am perfectly aware of who controls cash issuance and distribution. I’m uncomfortable in knowing certain people can monitor and theoretically restrict exactly where and how I spend my money. I can spend my money on illegal things if I consider it necessary.
Many advances in our society would have been impossible if governments had absolute control over every aspect of people’s lives and money is one of the most basic requirements for doing anything
Thanks for bringing this in, Monzo!