SEPARATING EQUILIBRIUM?

There's at least one burger joint in Chicago's downtown college town that no longer accepts cash.  That might be a way to conserve on transaction costs (no more counting change, no more breaking open a roll of pennies or quarters, or having to beg for singles and fives after the noon rush had a lot of people straight from the ATM).  Or it might be a prudent response to life in Chicago, where the aggressive panhandlers hang out near the ATM sites, and where a cash register is a tempting target for a local miscreant, and where an armored car service to get the cash to the bank is a prudent expenditure.

Going cashless, however, is contrary to the interest of the Chicago politicians' base.  "New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and San Francisco are all mulling legislation that would outlaw the practice on grounds that it unfairly discriminates against the poor and unbanked."  It's an opportunity for politicians whose re-election depends on a poor and dependent constituency to signal their virtue.

"You don't have a credit card, well you can go to 7-Eleven," said [Philadelphia] Councilman Bill Greenlee, who supported the legislation. "With all due respect to 7-Eleven, that salad might have been sitting there for two days in a carton but that's OK for you because they'll accept cash, but we don't. If it's not discrimination, its elitism and government has a place to get involved in it."

Apparently Philadelphia can enforce its regressive pop tax, but convenience store operators get to skate on fresh food labelling laws.  That's what you might expect from a politician who thinks the Federal Constitution, or the Commonwealth's Constitution, empowers government to get involved in elitism.  What's next, selling the public golf courses?

What amuses about the story is that Amazon, which operate some virtual-money-only stores, is reluctant to locate in cities that don't ban cashless stores.  It's only Tuesday, and the weird goes on.