For the past 3,000 years, when people thought of money they thought of cash. From buying food to settling bar tabs, day-to-day d

admin2021-06-15  2

问题         For the past 3,000 years, when people thought of money they thought of cash. From buying food to settling bar tabs, day-to-day dealings involved creased paper or clinking bits of metal. Over the past decade, however, digital payments have taken off—tapping your plastic on a terminal or swiping a smartphone has become normal. Now this revolution is about to turn cash into an endangered species in some rich economies. That will make the economy more efficient—but it also poses new problems that could hold the transition hostage.
        Countries are eliminating cash at varying speeds. But the direction of travel is clear, and in some cases the journey is nearly complete. In Sweden the number of retail cash transactions per person has fallen by 80% in the past ten years. Cash accounts for just 6% of purchases by value in Norway. Britain is probably four or six years behind the Nordic countries. America is perhaps a decade behind. Outside the rich world, cash is still king. But even there its dominance is being eroded. In China digital payments rose from 4% of all payments in 2012 to 34% in 2017.
        Cash is dying out because of two forces. One is demand—younger consumers want payment systems that plug seamlessly into their digital lives. But equally important is that suppliers such as banks and tech firms (in developed markets) and telecoms companies (in emerging ones) are developing fast, easy-to-use payment technologies from which they can pull data and pocket fees. There is a high cost to running the infrastructure behind the cash economy—ATMs, vans carrying notes, tellers who accept coins. Most financial firms are keen to abandon it, or deter old-fashioned customers with hefty fees.
        In the main, the prospect of a cashless economy is excellent news. Cash is inefficient. In rich countries, minting, sorting, storing and distributing it is estimated to cost about 0. 5% of GDP. But that does not begin to capture the gains. When payments dematerialize, people and shops are less vulnerable to theft. Governments can keep closer tabs on fraud or tax evasion. Digitalisation vastly expands the playground of small businesses and sole traders by enabling them to sell beyond their borders. It also creates a credit history, helping consumers borrow.
        Yet set against these benefits are a bundle of worries Electronic payment systems may be vulnerable to technical failures, power blackouts and cyber-attacks—this week Capital One, an American bank, became the latest firm to be hacked. In a cashless economy the poor, the elderly and country folk may be left behind. And eradicating cash, an anonymous payment method, for a digital system could let governments snoop on people’s shopping habits and private titans exploit their personal data.
        These problems have three remedies. First, governments need to ensure that central banks’ monopoly over coins and notes is not replaced by private monopolies over digital money. Rather than letting a few credit-card firms have a stranglehold on the electronic pipes for digital payments, as America may yet allow, governments must ensure the payments plumbing is open to a range of digital firms which can build services on top of it. They should urge banks to offer cheap, instant, bank-to-bank digital transfers between deposit accounts, as in Sweden and the Netherlands. Competition should keep prices low so that the poor can afford most services, and it should also mean that if one firm stumbles others can step in, making the system resilient.
        Second, governments should maintain banks’ obligation to keep customer information private, so that the plumbing remains anonymous. Digital firms that use this plumbing to offer services should be free to monetise transaction data, through, for example, advertising, so long as their business model is made explicit to users. Some customers will favour free services that track their purchases; others will want to pay to be left alone.
        Last, the phase-out of cash should be gradual. For a period of ten years, banks should be obliged to accept and distribute cash in populated areas. This will buy governments time to help the poor open bank accounts, educate the elderly and beef up internet access in rural areas. The rush towards digital money is the result of spontaneous demand and innovation. To pocket all the rewards, governments need to prepare for the day when crumpled bank notes change hands for the last time.
Which of the following is the correct understanding of the two forces that are "making cash die out"?

选项 A、Few people could catch up with the trend of the wide use of online payments.
B、Cash economy is bringing high cost comparing to the cashless economy.
C、Most financial firms prefer to use cash in the transactions of buying and selling.
D、One of the forces is the new generation of consumers who are eager for using online payments because they suggest cash is causing sanitary problems.

答案B

解析 细节题。题干:下列哪项是对“淘汰现金”的两种推动力的正确理解?题干关键词是forces,根据关键词定位到第三段,该段中提到两个推动力。根据“One is demand—younger consumers want payment systems that plug seamlessly into their digital lives.(其中一个推动力是需求——年轻的消费者想使用电子支付系统,因为这能和他们的电子生活无缝衔接)”可知,在线支付方式在年轻人当中是很受欢迎的,年轻消费者希望使用在线支付是因为他们认为支付方式数字化能使生活更便捷。故A项“很少有人能赶上广泛使用在线支付的趋势”与D项“其中一种推动力是新一代消费者,他们渴望使用在线支付,因为他们认为现金正在造成卫生问题”与文章意思不符。B项“与无现金经济相比,现金经济带来了更高的成本”,选项关键词为cost,根据第三段倒数第二句“There is a high cost to running the infrastructure behind the cash economy—ATMs,vans carrying notes,tellers who accept coins.(现金经济背后的基础运行设施即自动取款机、运钞车和接收硬币的出纳员成本很高)”可知,银行运行有助于现金流通的基础设施的成本很高,故B项与文章意思相符。C项“大多数金融公司更喜欢在买卖交易中使用现金”,选项关键词为financial firms,定位到第三段最后一句“Most financial firms are keen to abandon it,or deter old- fashioned customers with hefty fees.(大多数金融公司都热衷于抛弃现金,或者用高额的费用来阻止那些老派的客户)”由此可知,大多数金融公司并不喜欢使用现金,故C项表述与原文意思不符。故本题选B。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/gjMc777K
0

最新回复(0)