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

211–220 of 357 posts

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#211

Post by germanier »

reaperducer wrote: post #203
skrause wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2 - Cards are an duopoly, layered onto an oligopoly. Cashless gives this system a 2% tax on all spending (+ fraud, which retailers pay for). Not in the European Union where this fee is capped to 0,3%.

When it's free in the EU, then you'll have a point. Until then you're not addressing his argument.

The fee is a bit higher than 0.3% (which only is the regulated interchange – there are a few other costs as well) but the rate was decided upon after evaluating the cost of cash transactions (which aren't actually free – consider insurance against robbery, time spent counting every evening, transport to the bank, bank fees, and similar).

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#212

Post by reaperducer »

dragonwriter wrote: post #95
greggarious wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Note that apart from privacy issues and technical problems (Puerto Rico blackout, anybody?) numerous studies indicate that people spend less money when using cash instead of credit cards. This is one of the reasons why casinos use chips rather than actual currency.

> This is one of the reasons why casinos use chips rather than actual currency. It's one of the reasons they use digital vouchers (scannable paper or loaded onto cards) instead of either, increasingly.

>It's one of the reasons they use digital vouchers (scannable paper or loaded onto cards) instead of either, increasingly.

Only at slot machines. Table games are all chips.

When playing roulette, sometimes I'll see some drunk person throw a bunch of cash on the table and yell something like "Put it all on black!" It gets thrown right back at him until he gets chips from the cashier or has his money changed at the table at the appropriate time and in the customary fashion.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#213

Post by arcticfox »

reaperducer wrote: post #203
skrause wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2 - Cards are an duopoly, layered onto an oligopoly. Cashless gives this system a 2% tax on all spending (+ fraud, which retailers pay for). Not in the European Union where this fee is capped to 0,3%.

When it's free in the EU, then you'll have a point. Until then you're not addressing his argument.

But surely the effective "tax" of moving cash around, losing it, practically unusably small amounts of change etc. is greater than 0.3% for the vast majority of use cases.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#214

Post by fallingfrog »

bobthechef wrote: post #132
fallingfrog wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might have something to do with them being used to having a government that isn't utterly dysfunctional from top to bottom. Such a thing is possible, believe it or not. Their health systems are certainly less complicated and bureaucratic than US systems, despite being public.

Yes, and Sweden's population is 3% of the US's, and the country is very homogenous ethnically. There are other factors I'm sure, but these factors are very important. In any event, I detect the unmistakable tendency of many in the American Left to view the Nordic countries as something approaching utopia[0]. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/stop-the-scandimania...

Utopia is probably not the right word- but when you start reading about places in the world where things actually work in a non-corrupt way, there is a certain point where it hits with the power of a revelation. You suddenly go, wait, politicians that take bribes get in trouble for it? Corporations that abuse their power have to account for it? What kind of crazy world is this? You suddenly realize that there is a higher standard out there, and all the shoulder-shrugging non-explanations of "well that's just how government is" start to look pretty flimsy. It's not that I expect utopia; it's that I think we can do better than complete and total failure.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#215

Post by skrause »

reaperducer wrote: post #203
skrause wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2 - Cards are an duopoly, layered onto an oligopoly. Cashless gives this system a 2% tax on all spending (+ fraud, which retailers pay for). Not in the European Union where this fee is capped to 0,3%.

When it's free in the EU, then you'll have a point. Until then you're not addressing his argument.

I wasn't addressing his argument because I actually agree. I was just pointing out that the 2% is far off in Europe.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#216

Post by [deleted] »

imartin2k wrote: post #153

I live in Sweden. No one I know uses cash. I haven't had the need for nor used cash for years. Even if headlines often are overblown, this feels particularly misleading, as it implies that there would be some bigger trend. Considering that many people only read headlines, I'd support a movement for becoming more accurate even with headlines. "In Sweden, some worry about the cashless society" would be way more apt.

[deleted]

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#217

Post by dsign »

I can't get enough of cashless, paper money and coins are about the most inconvenient thing people have had to put up with for thousands of years.

Yes, giving control to the banks, private or run by the government, it's a bad idea. But if nothing else, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies we have proven that it's possible to have digital money that is not controlled by a single central bank, or by any bank at all. We just need to make it a few orders of magnitude more convenient...

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#218

Post by monocasa »

reaperducer wrote: post #201
dalbasal wrote: post #173

Good. The cashless drive gives me the creeps. 1 - First, I like cash. It's tactile and gives me a feel for my spending. 2 - Cards are an duopoly, layered onto an oligopoly. Cashless gives this system a 2% tax on all spending (+ fraud, which retailers pay for). 3 - Government control is creepy too. Liberty reasons, privacy reasons, single-point-of failure reasons. Just simple competency reasons. 4 - It advantages big…

> How does a cashless lemonade stand work? In my neighborhood, with Square. Or at least that's how the kids a couple of streets over did it last year. With great big cartoony Visa and MasterCard logos on posterboard.

And I've heard of beggars with WeChat QR codes in China.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#219

Post by rhacker »

dalbasal wrote: post #173

Good. The cashless drive gives me the creeps. 1 - First, I like cash. It's tactile and gives me a feel for my spending. 2 - Cards are an duopoly, layered onto an oligopoly. Cashless gives this system a 2% tax on all spending (+ fraud, which retailers pay for). 3 - Government control is creepy too. Liberty reasons, privacy reasons, single-point-of failure reasons. Just simple competency reasons. 4 - It advantages big…

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Seriously

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#220

Post by cantrevealname »

dalbasal wrote: post #173

Good. The cashless drive gives me the creeps. 1 - First, I like cash. It's tactile and gives me a feel for my spending. 2 - Cards are an duopoly, layered onto an oligopoly. Cashless gives this system a 2% tax on all spending (+ fraud, which retailers pay for). 3 - Government control is creepy too. Liberty reasons, privacy reasons, single-point-of failure reasons. Just simple competency reasons. 4 - It advantages big…

In addition, I like the finality of a cash transaction. For anything other than cash, I have to keep records in case something goes wrong. Example: A hotel might double-bill my credit card, and this has actually happened twice to me. If you pay cash, it's impossible to be double billed at some future point. Perhaps you still want a receipt, but you never need to check it against statements.

The finality of cash avoids having to keep, organize, and verify a lot of paper records if you don't really need the receipts.

Post reply on HN