Imagine if every purchase you made had to be paid in cash—no cards, no apps. Would you spend less, think harder, or just get frustrated? This is exactly what Sammy Gecsoyler, a journalist from The Guardian did for a week, documenting his experience of living cash-only. His experiment offers a rare, firsthand look at the tangible and psychological effects of using cashMoney in physical form such as banknotes and coins. More, and it raises important questions about how paymentA transfer of funds which discharges an obligation on the part of a payer vis-à-vis a payee. More methods shape our behavior, our budgets, and even our emotions.
The article “My week of only using cash: could a return to notes and coins change my life?”, is a compelling anthropological inquiry into how a digital-native mobile maverick survives on cash in a hostile, cashless jungle, London. The adventure is not just a nostalgic trip but a serious inquiry into how cash shapes spending habits, emotional connections to moneyFrom the Latin word moneta, nickname that was given by Romans to the goddess Juno because there was a minting workshop next to her temple. Money is any item that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts, such as taxes, in a particular region, country or socio-economic context. Its onset dates back to the origins of humanity and its physical representation has taken on very varied forms until the appearance of metal coins. The banknote, a typical representati... More and people.
Honestly, the idea is not new and a simple internet search will show that going cash-only has been attempted before. Furthermore, for billions of people around the globe including in advanced economies such as the UK, this is their everyday experience, not just an experiment. However, besides from being well written the article highlights some of the key challenges and benefits.
One important limitation to the experiment is the anchoring bias, a cognitive bias where one relies heavily on one factor (the “anchor”) when making decisions. In this case, the anchor is the ability to pay cash, which becomes the sole reference point for spending. For example, the author describes paying cash for the London Underground—where digital payments are the norm—as excessively cumbesrome and ridiculously expensive, by design. This distorts the experiment and renders it significantly more challenging as most consumers would choose between cash, card, or mobile depending on the circumstances.
But the bias also highlights the central role of public transport in spending behaviour. The decision of Transport for London (TfL) to phase out cash in 2016, has played a massive role in the shift towards digital payments in London. The way TfL continues to overcharge and discriminate against cash users is hard to comprehend, as illustrated by the screenshot below.
Using cash introduces transparency in a spectacular way. Every transaction is tangible and immediate, making it easier to track spending and avoid hidden fees or subscriptions. The article highlights how cash options are often cheaper: the hipster « cashless » coffee costs £4.60, while the greasy spoon cafe charges £1.50; train tickets bought with cash cost £39.50 vs. £41.59 online.
The main takeaway: « I spent far less than I usually would and, more importantly, I really thought about every purchase. »
This transparency and cost savings are not just anecdotal. Cash works as a natural budgeting tool. A 2017 study by Martina Eschelbach from the Deutsche Bundesbank demonstrated that cash payments reduce the probability of unplanned purchases being considered unnecessary by about 10%. This disciplinary effect protects consumers from unnecessary spending and debt.
The tangible nature of cash imposes a natural discipline on spending, protecting consumers from unnecessary purchases and debt. Eschelbach’s study concludes that cash payments lead to more deliberate spending decisions, reducing wasteful consumption.
A significant issue highlighted by the experiment is how Big Tech and digital platforms discriminate against cash users. Companies like Lime, Uber, and Trainline do not offer cash payment options, despite a variety of technical solutions being available. This discrimination excludes unbanked or underbanked populations, limits consumer choice, and reinforces dependence on digital systems. Counterintuively, the old-fashioned local cash-accepting take-away is cheaper than the Uber variety.
This is a critical issue for economic inclusion and consumer rights. Advocating for policies that require platforms to accept cash or provide accessible alternatives is essential to ensure that everyone can participate in the digital economy.
The experiment also underscores the emotional value of cash. The author, a digital native, discovers the “pain to pay” effect—cash makes spending feel more real and emotionally significant, which can encourage healthier consumption. He demonstrates exceptional willpower and resists the temptation of purchasing an item on sale. Cash transactions create an emotional connection to purchases, fostering mindfulness and reducing impulsive spending.
This emotional value is well needed in a world where digital payments can make spending feel effortless and disconnected from reality. Cash is a universal, inclusive medium that doesn’t require technology or bank accounts, preserving autonomy and privacy.
The cash-only experiment isn’t just about nostalgia—it’s a reminder that how we pay changes how we think and live.
At a time, when transactional demand for cash is declining in the UK and in other economies, the value of the cash-only experiment is substantial, in terms of budget management, financial literacy but also encouraging merchants to accept cash and rewarding those who do. Most importantly, as Sammy Gecsoyler puts it : « Not only did I rein in my spending, but I had more face-to-face contact with people.» The key take-away : we should all try a cash-only day, or week.