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

91–100 of 357 posts

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#91

Post by improbable22 »

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…

"For example, if only the state was allowed to process financial transactions, we never would have gotten credit/debit cards."

Does this idea apply to small countries? It's possible that democratic pressure, by people who know what's available in Denmark etc. just across the border, would mean the country could end up getting credit cards, and then paypass, not much later than elsewhere. But nationalising the equivalent sector of the US banking system in 1950 would, as you say, leave everyone writing checks forever.

For the same reason, communism worked much better at catch-up industrialisation (just steal the blueprints for a steel mill, and build it) than for subsequent consumer products (where you need to experiment and feel the way).

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#92

Post by mieseratte »

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.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#93

Post by 8note »

staplers wrote: post #77
mfringel wrote: post #31

Cashless transactions require a third party to give permission for the transaction, typically in real-time. It's completely normal to be "basically okay" with that... I use cards/apps to pay on a regular basis. However, it's a long haul between "okay with cashless transactions being a popular payment method", and "eliminating cash."

Cashless transactions require a third party Cryptocurrency.. (miners are decentralized and don't require you to trust them)

you still need permission to do it, even if you don't need to trust the permission granter.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#94

Post by jacquesm »

optimusrex wrote: post #2

As an American, now living in Europe I cannot understand the pushback against cashless systems. In Germany almost every cafe, restaurant, or bar requires you pay with cash. I understand there is a slight charge to the vendor when charging to a credit or bank card, but the amount of time and energy saved by having "exact change" every transaction should increase productivity enough to cover any costs.

> In Germany almost every cafe, restaurant, or bar requires you pay with cash.

I suspect it is to some extent because it is easier to cook the books when you are receiving a large chunk of your income in cash, much less easy if it flows into your company through your bank account.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#95

Post by dragonwriter »

greggarious wrote: post #70
Cbasedlifeform wrote: post #7

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. That's one reason for the big push by the banks, shops, restaurants, and media to "go cashless".

>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.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#96

Post by Tijdreiziger »

toyg wrote: post #59
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.

But there is a jump from there to saying "cash should be eliminated". It's like saying that, because Amazon is light-years ahead of traditional retail, all traditional shops should be made illegal.

But this is a movement being driven by consumers themselves. In an age where the vast majority of customers pay by card, I can't blame business owners for deciding cash isn't worth it anymore.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#97

Post by rahikainen »

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…

Not surprised by this at all. Swedes have never been exactly the sharpest pencils in the drawer and their recent politics heavily support this. (anti-freedom of speech, no interest to tackle rising violence and sexual crimes etc.)

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#98

Post by brownbat »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #48
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.

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.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#99

Post by fallingfrog »

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…

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.

Re: Swedes turn against cashlessness

#100

Post by gsnedders »

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…

> that private firms cannot be trusted to manage financial transactions despite the massive history proving they can

Can they? We saw a decade ago multiple countries having to each provide over 500 billion USD to such private firms to stop them from going bankrupt… that doesn't seem like a "massive history proving" they can manage private banking.

Post reply on HN