Every time you use a card insted of cash you are paying a 2-3 percent tax that goes straight to the rich oligarchs who are destroying society. At the same time every purchase you make is tracked.
Fuck the oligarchs, use cash when possible.
Banks are closing ATMs and branches in an attempt to ‘nudge’ users towards digital services – and it’s all for their own benefit
Thu 19 Jul 2018
All over the western world banks are shutting down cash machines and branches. They are trying to push you into using their digital payments and digital banking infrastructure. Just like Google wants everyone to access and navigate the broader internet via its privately controlled search portal, so financial institutions want everyone to access and navigate the broader economy through their systems.
Banks, of course, tell us a different story about why they do this. I recently got a letter from my bank telling me that they are shutting down local branches because “customers are turning to digital”, and they are thus “responding to changing customer preferences”. I am one of the customers they are referring to, but I never asked them to shut down the branches.
There is a feedback loop going on here. In closing down their branches, or withdrawing their cash machines, they make it harder for me to use those services. I am much more likely to “choose” a digital option if the banks deliberately make it harder for me to choose a non-digital option.
In behavioural economics this is referred to as “nudging”. If a powerful institution wants to make people choose a certain thing, the best strategy is to make it difficult to choose the alternative.
We can illustrate this with the example of self-checkout tills at supermarkets. The underlying agenda is to replace checkout staff with self-service machines to cut costs. But supermarkets have to convince their customers. They thus initially present self-checkout as a convenient alternative. When some people then use that alternative, the supermarket can cite that as evidence of a change in customer behaviour, which they then use to justify a reduction in checkout employees. This in turn makes it more inconvenient to use the checkout staff, which in turn makes customers more likely to use the machines. They slowly wean you off staff, and “nudge” you towards self-service.
Financial institutions, likewise, are trying to nudge us towards a cashless society and digital banking. The true motive is corporate profit. Payments companies such as Visa and Mastercard want to increase the volume of digital payments services they sell, while banks want to cut costs. The nudge requires two parts. First, they must increase the inconvenience of cash, ATMs and branches. Second, they must vigorously promote the alternative. They seek to make people “learn” that they want digital, and then “choose” it.
We can learn from the Marxist (Actually many would argue that he was more an anarchist than a Marxist) philosopher Antonio Gramsci in this regard. His concept of hegemony referred to the way in which powerful parties condition the cultural and economic environment in such a way that their interests begin to be perceived as natural and inevitable by the general public. Nobody was on the streets shouting for digital payment 20 years ago, but increasingly it seems obvious and “natural” that it should take over. That belief does not come from nowhere. It is the direct result of a hegemonic project on the part of financial institutions.
We can also learn from Louis Althusser’s concept of interpellation. The basic idea is that you can get people to internalise beliefs by addressing them as if they already had those beliefs. Twenty years ago nobody believed that cash was “inconvenient”, but every time I walk into London Underground I see adverts that address me as if I was a person who finds cash inconvenient. The objective is to reverse-engineer a belief within me that it is inconvenient, and that cashlessness is in my interests. But a cashless society is not in your interest. It is in the interest of banks and payments companies. Their job is to make you believe that it is in your interest too, and they are succeeding in doing that.
July 27, 2018
It’s no secret that President Trump and his administration are hostile to transgender people, even if Caitlyn Jenner only came to that realization after supporting Trump during the campaign. Trump famously decided to ban transgender people from serving in the military by declaring it on Twitter, and has aggressively resisted any effort by the courts to block him.
This administration has also pursued policies that endanger the safety of trans students in public schools and trans people in federal prisons. But now there is reason to believe that Trump isn’t just attacking trans people for who they are — though he is definitely doing that — but also exploiting prejudice against this marginalized minority to launch a broad attack on women’s rights.
Last week, the Sunlight Foundation released an extensive report on changes to the language on the Health and Human Services (HHS) website regarding the issue of sex discrimination. These changes were made in the summer of 2017 and discovered by the National Women’s Law Center, which has filed requests under the Freedom of Information Act (yet to be fulfilled), to find out why. But the fear is that soon the administration will release a rule that guts enforcement of a major provision in the Affordable Care Act meant to prohibit sex discrimination.
The provision is called Section 1557, which prohibits discrimination in health care based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability. Under Barack Obama, HHS codified the enforcement rules so that sex discrimination was understood as discrimination based not just on gender but also on pregnancy status, gender identity or sex stereotyping. In December 2016, in response to a lawsuit from a a religious hospital, Texas district court judge Reed O’Connor issued an injunction that undid those rules, in effect permitting discrimination based on gender identity or pregnancy termination.
The HHS website was updated shortly after that to reflect this injunction. As the Sunlight Foundation report shows, a few month later the agency took a wrecking ball to the language on the site about sex discrimination, altering far more than the passages that had addressed gender identity and pregnancy termination.
“There was widespread removal on the pages related to Section 1557 simply defining sex discrimination,” Rachel Bergman, who helps run the Web Integrity Project at Sunlight, told Salon. “We were a bit puzzled as to why the language removals were as expansive as they are.”
Specifically, the language regarding discrimination based on sex stereotyping, which is barred by the law, was removed from the website. For instance, an illustrative example of illegal sex stereotyping — in which a male patient is subject to harassment because nursing home staff perceive him as effeminate — was removed. Language explaining that sex stereotyping is “discrimination based on stereotypical ideas about gender” was also removed. Throughout the site, Sunlight’s researchers found, any reference to sex stereotyping — which again, was not an issue covered in O’Connor’s injunction — was taken down.
“When we saw these changes to the website, it was troubling because it was one part of what we expect to see, which is a general rollback” of rules against sex discrimination, explained Kelli Garcia, director of reproductive justice initiatives at the National Women’s Law Center. Her organization opposes the rollback of protections for trans people in itself, but Garcia suggested that the administration may be looking to open the door to other forms of sex discrimination as well.
“The Supreme Court has clearly recognized that you can’t discriminate against someone because they fail to meet your stereotypes about what one’s sex or one’s gender is supposed to be,” Garcia explained, citing a 1989 decision in which the court determined that it was sex discrimination to demand that women dress in a feminine fashion or to hold them to a different standard of behavior than male employees.