andrel wrote:
> On 11-10-2009 19:43, Darren New wrote:
>> clipka wrote:
>>> Darren New schrieb:
>>>
>>>> How do people who don't have computers handle sending money through 
>>>> the mail, then?
>>>
>>> Why should they want to do that in the first place?
>>>
>>> In Europe (at least in Germany) it has been common practice for 
>>> decades to get money to John Doe by just ordering your bank to 
>>> transfer money from your account to John's.
>>
>> OK, so you call them on the phone or go in person to transfer stuff? 
>> Seems inconvenient.
> No, nowadays simply using your on-line bank account. 

And how do people who don't have computers (see above) handle that?

> Earlier by writing a check that you send to the *bank*. 

That's different.

>> We also have "money orders", where you go to the (government run) post 
>> office and give them cash money, and they give you something that 
>> works essentially like a check. So people who don't have a bank 
>> account can still pay people who are remote.
> 
> People without bank accounts?? Are you living in a third world country?

No, but we're next door to one. (No, not really, but apparently banks are 
not trustworthy institutions to people from some central/south american 
countries.)

We also have immigrants, tourists, and so on.

> I am not aware of a name for such a system here. I think that as long as 
> I can remember all payroll like things were handled by banks. I.e. it 
> has been virtually impossible to not have a bank account if you were 
> employed or received money from the state for at least 30 years.

Well, yes. We still have a mite bit more freedom than that in this country. 
:-)  People are still allowed to deal purely in cash if they want.

> Although it might have been possible to give cheques to a person I have 
> never done that, nor can I think of a reason to do that here.

I see. SO you can still send written instructions, but you send them to the 
bank, and if the person doesn't have a bank account, you're pretty much SOL.

>> If they claim never to have received it *and* they cash it, you know 
>> of course because the bank tells you and probably even gives you a 
>> picture of their signature on the back of the check.
> 
> As said, here checks never reach a person, so this can not happen at all.

That works.

> I think this German thing is for a single time.

You can do it a single time here too. It's generally just not worth setting 
up the payment instructions if you can just mail them a check.

> If it is a private person, I'd do that in cash. 

With the check, you have proof that you paid, for example. Otherwise, you 
still need to get a receipt, and you still can't mail the thing.

> These are probably the closest to your kind of cheques, except for the guarantee. 

Our checks come with guarantees in the sense that it's illegal to write a 
check when you don't have the money to cover it.

Otherwise, we have what are called "traveler's checks", which are like 
these, except they're designed so that if they get stolen they can't be used 
and can be refunded by the issuing bank.  You just buy them for cash, sign 
one side, and then you sign the other side when you turn it over to the 
merchant.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message