[rescue] random babble

[Kurt Huhn]

"Tim H." <lists at pellucidar.net> wrote:
> When checks were invented they were as good as cash, and often traded as
> such.  They were often not even paid by a bank, but basically said John
> Doe says he has $X.xx for the bearer of this check, and it would
> circulate around based on John Does reputation until somebody actually
> cashed it with him.  Really, why is that worse than cash?  cash just
> says this paper is worth $X based on the reputation of X government.  At
> least the old checks could be traded for money with intrinsic value,
> unlike the cash of today.
> 

That sounds like a troll, but I'll humor you.

Checks are written *to* a person for security.  If I wrote a check to Adelphia Cable, and my neighbor grabbed it out of my outgoing mail box and cashed it, I have legal recourse to reclaim my money - as the check was not written to him.  Now, if all checks were treated as cash, what's to stop him from taking money that I intended for someone else?  That's as bad as sending a $100 in US greenbacks to Adelphia - someone could take it and I'd have no recourse.

It's all about ensuring that the intended recipient of a check has a highst possible chance (within economicly feasible means) of recieving the funds originally inteded for them.

-- 
Kurt                   "What me look like, ricecake monster?   
kurt at k-huhn.com         Me Cookie Monster!  Me need COOKIE!" --Cookie Monster