I arrived hungry, but with some anxiety at The Yellow Bittern on Caledonian Road, not far from London’s St Pancras Station. The small restaurant — seating about 16 diners — had been open for less than a week. From the street it looked like a bookstore, befitting its name, which is taken from a three-century-old Irish poem. The place is run by Hugh Corcoran, the Belfast-born chef who had made his reputation cooking in France and Spain.
I was not nervous about the food. I had had his game stew and a sumptuous dish of tripe a year ago at a pop-up in Dalston. However, there was a twist to this latest venture: The Yellow Bittern only takes cash.
As I looked at the chalkboard menu, I did arithmetic in my head to make sure the ￡100 (US$130) I had withdrawn from an ATM would cover me. While I have been to other cash-only restaurants, this was the first with expensive art on the wall (including what looked like a piece by Scots painter Peter Doig, whose work has gone for millions of US dollars at auction). What if I let my appetite get the better of me and ordered too much food and wine? I reluctantly averted my eyes from the sizeable guinea fowl/wood pigeon pie and stuck to the Dublin coddle instead (sausage, bacon and potatoes; delicious).
There is one big advantage to doing business in cash: Restaurants do not have to pay the fees imposed by credit card companies for their services. You also have immediate access to funds if you keep the money close at hand. However, there are disadvantages, too: The tax authorities are more likely to inflict audits on you and word of cash on the premises might attract thieves.
At The Yellow Bittern, you have to buzz to be let in. That is a good precaution. However, walking to banks to deposit envelopes of cash can also be hazardous. It all seems anachronistic in an age when finances can be zipped and zapped everywhere within seconds. I have my smartphone, so why should I even need cash in my wallet?
Over my solo lunch, though, it occurred to me that perhaps I had taken to my cash-free habits too blithely. Why did cash feel archaic? In London, I use my phone to pay for almost everything, from rides on the bus and the metro to purchasing books, coffee and dinner. It has been a rather recent and swift change in my behavior. Seven years ago, when I lived in New York, I made constant visits to ATMs to make sure I had enough cash to pay for the subway, taxis, snacks and after-work drinks.
The rest of the world has not yet caught up to the UK and countries such Denmark (even in London, the traditional black cabs prefer cash, although they would grumblingly take electronic payment if you insist). You may consider Japan to be the nation of the future, but most of its consumers and shops still prefer to use cash at point-of-purchase.
Many people retain a fetishistic attachment to paper money. That is because it is trust made visible — a certificate of value that governments and institutions promise to back up with their prestige and power (although not gold, which has not been a currency standard anywhere in the world for decades). It is not a contemporary virtue. Faith has been part of successful financial practice for centuries. The cross-border hawala system of middlemen in India and the Middle East — who parlay funds across hundreds, if not thousands, of miles — has been in place since at least the 14th century. As Time magazine’s news director, I used it to send money to reporters and staffers in post-Saddam Iraq, because it was impossible to get a US or Western bank to do so. It never failed me.
However, institutions and powerful governments can deteriorate. The Chinese invented paper money centuries ago, but they were also aware that the underlying principle was delicate. Archeologists continue to find jars full of coins stashed underground, apparently in preparation for the inevitable moment of dynastic decline, when rebellion, inflation corruption and upheaval would shake the empire’s authority — and the efficacy of paper. At the very least, the metal would retain a tincture of melt value.
That is a lot to chew over with lunch. However, there was more: A recent personal crisis involving trust emerged like a bad Proustian flashback. Last year, I foolishly believed a caller purporting to be from my bank warning me of an attempt to hack into my account. Alarmed, I followed his instructions, not suspecting the caller was in fact the scammer. After friends — at a restaurant — chided me for being too trusting, I discovered that tens of thousands of pounds from my savings had gone several ways across the world. My genuine bankers were sympathetic and, in time, restored my losses. However, it took just moments of misplaced trust to vaporize my money into electronic signals that sped out of my possession. In contrast, I had been mugged only once in New York — at gunpoint, which was terrifying — but the robber asked for my wallet only to remove whatever cash was in it, handing it back to me with my cards. I was shaken, but only out US$40.
I am not saying that makes cash king — maybe just that I am a fool with money, in any shape. I am now spooked by the phone thieves rampant in central London.
Money is a complicated thing — and lunchtime meditations do not come close to covering the way it permeates our lives. Its value depends on the willingness of you and me, as well as governments everywhere, to recognize it indeed has value. That is a scary circular argument — but we are living it. Do not let convenience lull you into complacency.
Oh, lunch came to ￡55. I left a ￡15 tip. I was so relieved to have enough cash.
Howard Chua-Eoan is a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion covering culture and business. He previously served as Bloomberg Opinion’s international editor and is a former news director at Time magazine.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS