11–20 of 24 posts
This makes more sense economically. Physical products in general degrade in value over time. Cash by itself does not degrade in value over time. Using cash to represent products is a sort of mismatch. If the products' value degrades so should the value of the instrument representing said product. I don't know why they use negative savings interest rates when the government can provide the same service through QE or l…
Bitcoin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? You are not forced to pay electronically. You just have an option to cash. The only time I use cash would be if I buy something from the swedish equivalent of craigslist, or in a farmers market. And even there it would be common to use Swish/Square.
I read that statement more as, "If you refuse to pay electronically" than "if you have no electronic means of payment." I know it's contrary to the literal meaning, but it feels like the unstated assumption is that you would only pay in cash if you must , not out of a general preference for privacy.
Also contrary to reality (source: me, being Swedish), and logic; A retailer will hardly refuse to accept cash (although buses do refuse cash to avoid the risk of robbery), while you might avoid buying if you need to handle cash.
> Credit Suisse says the rule of thumb in Scandinavia is: "If you have to pay in cash, something is wrong." I hope people don't start talking like this in the US. Something about that statement is very disturbing.
How? You are not forced to pay electronically. You just have an option to cash. The only time I use cash would be if I buy something from the swedish equivalent of craigslist, or in a farmers market. And even there it would be common to use Swish/Square.
But also, what's wrong with cash? Why is it a problem if you have to use it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read that statement more as, "If you refuse to pay electronically" than "if you have no electronic means of payment." I know it's contrary to the literal meaning, but it feels like the unstated assumption is that you would only pay in cash if you must , not out of a general preference for privacy.
> I know it's contrary to the literal meaning Also contrary to reality (source: me, being Swedish), and logic; A retailer will hardly refuse to accept cash (although buses do refuse cash to avoid the risk of robbery), while you might avoid buying if you need to handle cash.
Bitcoin.
Injecting foreign cash back into the cashless SEK economy amounts to selling these foreign banknotes at any, available exchange point. They cannot reasonably ban these transactions, because foreigners bring these foreign bank notes along with them when they visit Sweden.
If they insist on addressing that issue anyway, they will end up introducing Venezuela-style, self-defeating, absurdistan regulations that will make the situation only worse. They will be up against a growing number of people trading against them, in order to defeat such regulations, and to make money in the process of doing so. As always, it will be full of opportunities to thoroughly bleed them while making a killing.
So, a Swedish economy without SEK bank notes is possible, but not necessarily one without cash. If that is the situation that materializes, they will have made the situation worse for them (foreign cash) instead of better (Swedish cash). You cannot outsmart economic fundamentals, because there will always be lots of money in punishing off such attempts.
This makes more sense economically. Physical products in general degrade in value over time. Cash by itself does not degrade in value over time. Using cash to represent products is a sort of mismatch. If the products' value degrades so should the value of the instrument representing said product. I don't know why they use negative savings interest rates when the government can provide the same service through QE or l…
Economically, these are uncharted waters.
This makes more sense economically. Physical products in general degrade in value over time. Cash by itself does not degrade in value over time. Using cash to represent products is a sort of mismatch. If the products' value degrades so should the value of the instrument representing said product. I don't know why they use negative savings interest rates when the government can provide the same service through QE or l…
Cash can "degrade", it's called inflation.
Additionally if you read further you'd see that I addressed inflation. Interest for loans and QE are all methods the government uses to inflate cash.