[ethbr1]

Can we note the absurdity of one part of the government banning too much cash, while another part of the government notes that some cash is essential?

Also, prepper realism: a week's worth of cash at hand goes a long way towards handling the most likely disaster scenarios (which are all well short of Road Warrior).

[OJFord]

Is that absurd? It's not inconsistent.

[danudey]

1. Having spare cash around is important to be able to acquire necessities in case of a temporary failure of electronic banking.

2. Making a 3000 euro cash transaction in this day and age is suspicious and we'd like to know about it if it happens to ensure everything is above-board.

I don't see the absurdity. They're not saying don't have cash, they're saying don't use cash for large purchases but keep some around for necessities. Even if you have 10k stashed under your bed in case of ~situation~, you're unlikely to be making a 3000 euro purchase in an emergency situation.

[GoblinSlayer]

Electronic banking also has preferences which cards it handles.

[soco]

Let's not omit that a large reserve of cash will be very unlikely spent all at once, so we are talking different use cases here. You won't buy a car (probably) in a disaster scenario, but water and food from here and there.