Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Swedes turn against cashlessness

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 357 posts

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#111

Post by stale2002 »

freedomben wrote: post #44
jbob2000 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that this is good for the economy. Economies are strong when money is changing hands a lot. If people hoard all their pennies, then money isn't changing hands, business isn't growing, and the economy stagnates.

I disagree. There's certainly short term benefit to this Keynesian view, but long term it leads to wild volatility, partly because people are only one pay check away from ruin. When only the wealthy have a store of money to draw on in harder times (job or income source loss, broken appliances/vehicles/etc), it further harms the poor. It's a regressive policy because it disproportionately harms the poor. It forces peo…

It isn't even the Keynsian model!

People misinterprete it to this basterdized version a lot though.

The real Keynsian model is that we should spend more in bad times and LESS in good times to even out business cycles.

People always forget that second part...

It was NEVER about spending for the sake of spending or wasting money on things that we don't need to help the "economy".

People misinterpret it to the point where they believe the economy is some infinite motion machine, where you ad more motion and even more motion comes out.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#112

Post by brownbat »

ciocan42 wrote: post #20

From what I've seen here in London (UK), mostly tourists use cash. Everybody else uses contactless payments. You can pay with contactless cards or apple/android pay on the public transport or on your corner grocery store. And with the new fin-tech banks like Monzo, Starling or Revolut the banking apps are light years ahead of traditional banks.

I requested a contactless card in the US, it took some pleading, but it was the greatest decision.

About half the places I shop support Apple and Google pay, and those systems always seem to take the card, but it's far faster than my phone or watch.

Way faster than chip, of course.

No idea why it didn't take off here, contactless cards have been the best experience for me by a mile.

Maybe people have had better luck with phone payments, but the negotiations with those seem glacial to me now.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#113

Post by ghaff »

brownbat wrote: post #98
pilsetnieks wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of currency exchange fees that would be incurred by using cards or other options (although Sweden has the same problem.) Within the eurozone I don't even bother taking any extra cash with me.

In the US there are several cards marketed to travelers, so zero fees for intl transactions and competitive exchange rates are becoming common. Even so, most tourists may not know their card's terms, and probably couldn't immediately tell you if the cash advance fee would be preferable to the international transaction fee, and so choose poorly.

Yeah. I have a couple cards that don't have [foreign transaction] fees but they're both cards I pay for aimed at frequent travelers. I think I pay a fee with any of my free cards. As you say, I expect a lot of casual tourists just feel more comfortable paying cash--even if that does get into the whole "what the heck is this coin anyway?"

[UGGH. Fixed a bunch of confusing typos.]

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#114

Post by Tijdreiziger »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #50
1001101 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the nominal/real yield on that account? When savings rates are negative nominal (which cashless may presage) or negative real, the carry on hard assets becomes positive, making them more attractive.

Cash isn't getting any more valuable, either. What are you suggesting? Hoarding gold bars?

The ECB interest rates have already been negative since 2014. I'm pretty sure that if there was no risk of a bank run, banks would follow by also setting their interest rates to be negative.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#115

Post by troncjb »

nv-vn wrote: post #76

Wow. No comments on how crazy this viewpoint is? They're not just talking about eliminating cash, they want to nationalize all private banking. They're arguing that a monopoly of the state is better than a "monopoly" of four different companies, that private firms cannot be trusted to manage financial transactions despite the massive history proving they can, and that the state is somehow going to be able to handle t…

> despite the massive history proving they can

Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, HSBC, LIBOR for christ sake. If anything the private sector has proven that they will do their best to fleece main street to line their pockets.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#116

Post by xtrapolate »

nv-vn wrote: post #76

Wow. No comments on how crazy this viewpoint is? They're not just talking about eliminating cash, they want to nationalize all private banking. They're arguing that a monopoly of the state is better than a "monopoly" of four different companies, that private firms cannot be trusted to manage financial transactions despite the massive history proving they can, and that the state is somehow going to be able to handle t…

> "No comments on how crazy this viewpoint is?"

Lucky you're here!

> "The state is anti-innovation"

Not in Sweden, it isn't. Ad hominem all the way.

> "They're arguing that a monopoly of the state is better than a "monopoly" of four different companies"

There are examples in recent history that support this model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Israel_bank_stock_crisis

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#117

Post by jiggunjer »

mieseratte wrote: post #92
nv-vn wrote: post #76

Wow. No comments on how crazy this viewpoint is? They're not just talking about eliminating cash, they want to nationalize all private banking. They're arguing that a monopoly of the state is better than a "monopoly" of four different companies, that private firms cannot be trusted to manage financial transactions despite the massive history proving they can, and that the state is somehow going to be able to handle t…

As a slight counter-point, an oligopoly similarly has little reason to innovate. Think about how slow adoption of "secure" methods of transaction are in the US and them having made fraud our problem and not their problem.

Also look at how little they innovated relative to the profits they were making. Hard to do worse.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#118

Post by DanBC »

jstanley wrote: post #64
mnw21cam wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be noted that in the UK, legal tender has a very narrow definition - it applies only to paying a debt at a court. It doesn't apply to your local shops. This is a common misconception.

But it's de facto the same in most shops. If you pick up some goods and walk out of the shop leaving some cash on the counter... what recourse do they have? OK, the shop might not be happy about it, but you owe them the value of goods, and you've paid them in legal tender to the correct amount.

In England that's theft. This is clear and unambiguous.

See for example thean who took cash from his company safe, and replaced the same value a week later, but who was convicted of theft because the notes were different. See R v Velyumi here: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/theft-cases.php

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#119

Post by jstanley »

ams6110 wrote: post #75
jstanley wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal tender doesn't mean "not just worthless paper". Legal tender is "Legally valid currency that may be offered in payment of a debt and that a creditor must accept." ( https://www.wordnik.com/words/legal%20tender )

There's not a debtor/creditor relationship in a private retail transaction, at least in the USA. It is an exchange of value, not an extension of credit. A retail store is perfectly permitted to have a "no cash accepted" policy. Even the public transit here generally has a "no cash" policy for fares.

There is a debtor/creditor relationship after you've walked out of the shop with the goods without paying. But if you left some money, you paid, so the debt is settled.

I don't know if this argument would hold up in court, as it can easily be gamed. But what are they going to have you do? Go and get the cash back and then pay it to the shopkeeper in court?

EDIT: On coming back to this, I agree with everything you said. I thought you had replied to my other comment in this thread where I proposed a way to pay with cash even where cash "isn't accepted", by just walking out of the shop "without paying", but leaving the correct amount of cash on the counter.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#120

Post by EastLondonCoder »

nv-vn wrote: post #76

Wow. No comments on how crazy this viewpoint is? They're not just talking about eliminating cash, they want to nationalize all private banking. They're arguing that a monopoly of the state is better than a "monopoly" of four different companies, that private firms cannot be trusted to manage financial transactions despite the massive history proving they can, and that the state is somehow going to be able to handle t…

"they want to nationalize all private banking." -

I'm not sure where you got that from. Whats on the cards is to create a central bank based system of payments. I'm personally not in favour of having to pay a fee to VISA every time I make a payment. I would envisage that this would work along side existing payments system.

"trusted to manage financial transactions despite the massive history proving they can" in peacetime yes. Beside that its a common good not under democratic control. Sweden as a state has small but very real risk of being invaded. There is a lot of work in Sweden at the moment to remilitarise the country. For example mandatory conscription has been introduced.

"For example, if only the state was allowed to process financial transactions, we never would have gotten credit/debit cards" - debatable conjecture. Still no one is looking to get rid of payment systems that are currently in place.

"If they had nationalized after this development, we would not have NFC payments or chips in cards" - again debatable conjecture.

"The state is anti-innovation (think about how slowly government infrastructure has developed) and anti-consumer (imagine the DMV in charge of your money). " - I'm not sure how to respond to this but I'll give a try. For an American example you can take a look at NASA, It is general acknowledged that you have something like a 14$ return on every dollar spent. This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies does not look like ant invention to me

"This whole notion of "the state knows everything" and "only the state cares about you" seems completely dystopian." Well in a functioning democracy the state has the potential to be serving its citizens. It works fairly well in Scandinavia, but less so in Russia or China.

Post reply on HN