
Swedes turn against cashlessness - kawera
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/03/being-cash-free-puts-us-at-risk-of-attack-swedes-turn-against-cashlessness
======
dalbasal
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 firms relative to small ones who pay lower fees for
better service, and continues the trend to bigger firms. How does a cashless
lemonade stand work?

Most transactions _already are_ cashless, and all the rules around these are
run by the banking-regulator-government complex. They wield tremendous
control, and decide a lot about how businesses should run.

Remember paypal confiscating aid money, kickstarters and such... to be
released gradually and when paypal was convinced that it should be? They
basically decide which transactions should happen. This does not work on an
innocent-until-guilty basis.

We've had a lot of financial regulation recently, bleeding way past the
financial sectors. AML or whatnot. The lawyers love it because it's lawyerly,
and demands lawyers. Governments love it because it because it makes
everything auditable, in theory. Tax evasion, funding terrorism, buying grass
become impossible. The big financial firms (especially CCs) love it because it
entrenches their oligopolies. Big regular firm love it because they are good
at bureaucracy and incumbents are not.

The bitcoin failure (I think it is) teaches something. People don't really
give each other money. It's kind of illegal. Money is supposed to move between
people and companies or companies and companies, not between people. There is
no demand for Peter-pays-Paul.

I don't see any upside at all for, dare I say... we the people.

~~~
Symbiote
1\. Can your cash do this? [1] A breakdown of spending by my internet bank, by
category.

4\. In Sweden, and some other European countries (and China?) a lemonade stand
works by person-to-person bank transfers, initiated using a mobile phone app.
The Swedish one is called Swish, but I link to the Danish one [2] as they have
an English explanation.

People really do use these apps for things like lemonade stands. I've seen an
unattended garage sale, where everything was priced and a sign gave a phone
number for payment.

It's also commonly used person-to-person, e.g. if a friend owes me for a spare
concert ticket, part of a restaurant bill or whatever.

[1] [http://i.imgur.com/Smkim6Vr.png](http://i.imgur.com/Smkim6Vr.png)

[2] [https://mobilepay.dk/da-dk/Pages/The-story-in-
English.aspx](https://mobilepay.dk/da-dk/Pages/The-story-in-English.aspx)

~~~
deaddodo
> 4\. In Sweden, and some other European countries (and China?) a lemonade
> stand works by person-to-person bank transfers, initiated using a mobile
> phone app. The Swedish one is called Swish, but I link to the Danish one [2]
> as they have an English explanation.

The United States has this via Venmo. But Venmo doesn't replace business
transactions, only personal ones.

~~~
bckygldstn
Unlike Venmo, Swish lets you transfer money instantly between bank accounts.
There are no social features like profile pictures, emojis, or public
transactions. And it uses proper authentication, rather than typing your
banking password into a third-party app.

Venmo falls well short of the transfer apps in most countries.

------
nearmuse
Looks like most people in this comments section are afraid to pass for a
luddite if they don't support cashless transactions. But the argument about
centralized system watching every payment you make is still valid. Why are
people so eager to jump off something and irreversibly lose its good
properties (anonymity, decentralization and reliability in case of analogue
money) and that just for the sake of minor comfort? The idea of all that data
about my shopping habits and credit history being held and possibly judged by
someone makes me cringe. Apparently all this recent Facebook business and all
similar cases teach people nothing. They hope that being a good boy/gal and
having nothing to hide is all they and subsequent generations need, forever.

~~~
Viliam1234
It's not just "centralized system watching every payment you make", but also a
possibility that it could veto your payment.

The crude option is when 'undesirable' citizens will not be given credit
cards, or if all their cards 'accidentally' stop functioning the same day to
teach them a lesson. When no shop sells you food for money, your options are
to beg, steal, or starve.

A more sophisticated option could be 'intelligent' credit cards that only
allow you to buy approved stuff (otherwise the payment will fail); with the
approval being general, or individual for each citizens, or depending on
social class or whatever. This wouldn't happen overnight, but we can get there
gradually... it may start by politically acceptable stuff like "you can't buy
alcohol or guns using welfare money" and progress slowly.

~~~
geomark
When China starts going cashless we will get a look at exactly this scenario
since it will very likely link with their citizenship score which is already
implemented.

------
mfringel
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."

~~~
staplers

      Cashless transactions require a third party
    

Cryptocurrency.. (miners are decentralized and don't require you to trust
them)

~~~
brownbat
The network is still the third party.

With cash, or bottle caps, or any physical token, all you need are two people
that agree it has value. Possession is the ledger.

~~~
ricardobeat
The network can still run between those two people alone (if consolidation is
solved).

~~~
Paperweight
Nature has an elegant solution to the double-spending problem for physical
commodities.

If only there was a way to timestamp digital transactions without a write-only
ledger...

~~~
jacobush
Yes... I wonder how Nature implemented that...

~~~
mioelnir
By dropping transmutative alchemy from the sprint, allowing the implementation
of a capability system on top of a now unforgeable subset of existing
resources...

~~~
Paperweight
Sounds like the whitepaper for this week's hottest ICO!

------
imartin2k
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.

~~~
mrmekon
The second sentence corrects the sensational headline: "the small but growing
number of Swedes anxious about their country’s rush to embrace a cash-free
society."

It must be very small. The only person I've ever heard complain about it is...
myself. Not for the reasons this article gives, though. I'm more upset about
Visa and Mastercard skimming 1% of profit off of the entire country's retail
commerce. Maybe if they weren't simultaneously terrible, but they also have
unimaginably bad fraud detection, and push their own fraud problems onto local
businesses.

~~~
imartin2k
I see your point, but I have a slight correction: The EU has regulated the
interchange fee, which is since then capped at "0.2% of the transaction value
for Visa and Mastercard consumer debit cards" and "0.3% of the transaction
value for Visa and Mastercard consumer credit cards."
([https://www.adyen.com/blog/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-
eu...](https://www.adyen.com/blog/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-eu-
interchange-cap))

However, I am not a payment expert, so there might be an additional fee
imposed by the credit card networks which I am not aware of?

This percentage does seem a bit more reasonable for the services offered by
Visa and Mastercard, in my eyes.

~~~
mrmekon
Well, true, that's somewhat better. But it's the principle of a privately-
owned monopoly or oligopoly skimming profits off of a nation's economy that
bothers me, not the absolute amount.

As the other response to my comment said, cash itself has an overhead cost,
too. But that cost is paid to our government at break-even cost, instead of to
a private company for profit.

If Visa and Mastercard had plenty of competition, it wouldn't be so bad. Swish
is nice to have, despite its problems. Maybe we'll get there.

~~~
imartin2k
Yeah I tried to find the rates that Swish charges to businesses but didn't
find them (although didn't look to thoroughly either). But can it really be
even below the 0,2% of cap for debit cards?

~~~
Annorax
Swish is 1 to 2 SEK (2 being the list price that can be negotiated) per
transaction. Then swish has a daily cap of payments you as user can do of 150k
SEK (system limit, not a soft cap that the user can remove).

~~~
StudentStuff
That is an extremely low limit for any noteworthy business, equating to $500k
USD a month total. Most small grocers here in Seattle do more than that in
credit/debit monthly.

~~~
kungtotte
The Swish limit is for outbound payments, not total transactions.

So a grocer that accepts Swish payments will in no way be hindered by this
limit, unless they for some ungodly reason are also swishing money back to
customers.

------
Cbasedlifeform
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".

~~~
jbob2000
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.

~~~
SllX
Pointlessly spending more money than necessary probably isn't good for your
health as an individual though, and arguably the push to get more people to
spend more money more often isn't good for a society. It might be good for
their economy, but economy ≠ society.

If you really just want to inflate the amount of money being spent, there's
always room for more rent-seekers and debt collectors.

~~~
jacobush
Also, it may be "good for the economy" if "good" is "more money being spent".
But that's too valueless for my taste. A stupid utility function. If you by
"economy" mean as a metric for other utility in the society, then, spending
money on stupid stuff, is just akin to digging holes and then filling them
again.

Only that, the holes are very elaborate. (Like perfumes or stupid shit like a
metric crap ton of TVs nobody uses anyway because we are busy staring at a
much smaller screen in our palm.)

~~~
padobson
_spending money on stupid stuff_

The problem here, as with any economic ideas, is properly defining "stupid
stuff". Value has to be defined on an individual basis. If someone gets more
entertainment from digging holes and filling them with dirt than using their
phone, then hole digging doesn't seem like such pointless endeavor. The hole
digger will probably end up in better health than the phone user, too, so it's
not like there endeavor is altogether pointless.

Taking options away (like cash) is a bad idea if you're optimizing society
around individual autonomy. We should want as many options as possible.

~~~
jacobush
I agree, though I think we have plenty of real problems left to solve still.
We are not quite at Star Trek level economy, where hole digging might make
even more sense.

------
hashmush
This is confusing. I thought it was just a couple of friends and I that
thought that cashless is a horrible idea. Seems like we at least have older
people on our side.

> Yet Sweden is divided into two camps: the first says "we love the new
> technology", while the other just can’t be bothered, Skarec says.

Also, it is scary that people think like this. Everyone is in such a rush to
digitize everything and implement new tech that we don't think about the
consequences of our actions. E.g the scandal from last year where
Transportstyrelsen (Swedish Transport Agency) outsourced work to a company in
the Czech Republic and gave people without security clearance access to the
database. That included access to details concerning military vehicles and two
different police registers.

~~~
kqr
This is an uncanny coincidence. Just today I (being a Swede in the largest
city) wanted to deposit some old bills, and found out my primary bank went
completely cashless _years_ ago, and my secondary bank never dealt in cash to
begin with.

This sounded so weird to me so I had to google it while on the phone with the
support rep. Turns out it's a big shift where at some point around ten years
ago, the government released control and now almost every big private actor is
moving away from cash, despite the fact that it goes against the
recommendation of nearly every expert in the field.

It worries me hugely, and I am considering switching banks to the only big
bank that is actively in favour of dealing in cash: Handelsbanken. I know this
will come at some cost to me, but if the alternative is sticking with a bank
that does not even offer one of the core services of banking---even society---
that will have to be worth it.

~~~
StudentStuff
Is a bank that has no physical cash trustworthy? Who holds their cash, and
what other core functions have they outsourced or stopped offering?

------
ciocan42
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.

~~~
pilsetnieks
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.

~~~
brownbat
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.

~~~
ghaff
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.]

~~~
EADGBE
The exoticism of a foreign currency also probably has something to do with it.

------
alkonaut
I'm all for the idea of cash being accepted and remaining. But as a swede I'm
also completely over cash. I haven't even _seen_ the latest incarnation of our
bills. I haven't touched cash even for buying a flea market hockey stick or a
hotdog in a stand, for years. And it's damn comfortable (The mobile payments
is used a LOT, so is at least as big as cards for small transactions and
individual-to-individual transactions).

But the questoin is: if we just want cash to "be around" because in times of
crisis it would be handy - who will pay for maintaining it? If you mandate it
by law, chances are that businesses will just have some appearance of cash
handling, but no idea how to do it in an actual crisis. Likewise, people who
only need to use cash once in a crisis, aren't going to _have_ cash on them,
if there is a crisis

One of the reasons I don't have cash is because we are also hellbent on
expiring our banknotes - the validity period of banknotes here is probably
around 20 years on average. So unlike the US where you might be allowed to pay
with a 50 year old green one, in Sweden you can't put a few thousand Kronor in
a box in the basement for a crisis. It won't be accepted if that crisis is too
far away - and I fear forgetting where I put the money and realize it's no
longer valid. (Note that money can always be exchanged at the central bank for
modern notes after they are expired - they aren't turned worthless - but that
is probably not an option in times of crisis).

So while I agree with the idea of cash being a vital infrastructure in society
- how to you encourage it enough to actually be a working system _when_ it's
needed, if it's not always needed? There is no way you'll convince the swedes
to use a more cumbersome payment system than the least cumbersome one, because
"it's good to support it". Mandating that everyone accept cash also seems like
pretty bad idea (It will cost consumers a LOT).

------
Fnoord
I don't know about Sweden or EU but in The Netherlands cash is legal tender.
If a shop does not clearly communicate cash isn't accepted, you can consider
your transaction finalized. Its the problem of the business; not the customer.

~~~
mnw21cam
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.

~~~
jstanley
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.

~~~
DanBC
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](https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/theft-cases.php)

~~~
jstanley
Replacing it _a week later_ is quite different to leaving the cash before
you've left the shop.

Taking cash from a safe is also quite different to taking goods that are
explicitly for sale. Especially if you gave them the right amount of money.

------
skookumchuck
The trouble with cashless is when someone in power decides they don't like
you, they can just turn it off for you.

I've had accounts and credit cards frozen before. It's pretty alarming when
you're traveling, for example. With cashless, what are you going to do?

It's like getting stuck on the "no-fly" list, but infinitely worse.

------
mmagin
(I live in the USA.)

I have two credit cards (and one debit card, but I only use it as an ATM card
to get cash, since you're still out the money until a problem is resolved). I
mostly only use credit cards for online purchasing and gasoline -- because to
pay cash there is inconvenient. And yet, I see to experience some kind of
credit card fraud about once every couple years -- this is primarily why I
have two credit cards, there's always a backup.

And besides that inconvenience -- changing all kinds of saved payment info
when a card is replaced, given the extent to which (at least in this country)
banks are free to share incredible amounts of information, you don't have to
have "something to hide" to be interested in not sharing your entire
purchasing history with these entities.

------
optimusrex
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.

~~~
phil21
Personally it's because I think a cashless state is "evil" in that now all
spending is gatekept by someone - usually a government or large business. Plus
tracking every dollar you spend is also problematic for me as well.

So I spend cash whenever possible simply to "vote" that I am willing to deal
with a little more hassle in the name of freedom. I also don't like that some
private party has effectively inserted themselves into the economy skimming
1.5% or whatever off the top of practically all consumer spending. It's only a
cost savings if you literally do away with cash - and that's a dystopia I
don't want to live in.

~~~
wil421
What you just described can be applied to banks just like payment transaction
companies. They both exist to make our lives easier and prevent us from having
to hoard cash under our mattresses. They also provide a safe means of doing
business.

We live in a digital age and it’s only going to evolve faster. Money is
nothing more than numbers in a system.

~~~
pixl97
>Money is nothing more than numbers in a system.

Heh, and someone would say that Facebook posts don't say much about you, but I
bet really quickly how and where you spend money give a good profile of who
you are.

------
harshgupta
One of the issues that nobody seems to address is when entire societies shift
to cashless, there are network operators who are still milking their first
mover advantages. A product that is worth x, is now priced at 1.01x to pay for
transaction networks. Europe is definitely ahead than US, but there needs to
be better regulations around this.

------
linkmotif
Cash is the only simple anonymous way to transact. I think it'll get to the
point where I won't be able to enter most stores because I don't want to get
doxed for the privilege of shopping.

------
yxhuvud
> But an opinion poll this month revealed unease among Swedes, with almost
> seven out of 10 saying they wanted to keep the option to use cash, while
> just 25% wanted a completely cashless society

Sigh. I guess that is one way to show that result. Unless they can claim that
the numbers have been higher for cashless, then I doubt any claim can be made
that people are turning against it.

That isn't to say that cashlessness doesn't have any issues, but I find it
amazing that as many as a quarter of us Swedes actually want to strive towards
a fully cashless society.

------
pasbesoin
Simplistic statement, but stop and think about it:

In a truly cashless society, where every transaction is tracked and has the
potential to be controlled, nothing is fungible.

Sure. There might be a thousand identical widgets in inventory. But if _you_
are not allowed to purchase one, or sell your inventory...

Cashless: The guise of easing transactions and security. The trojan horse of
_controlling_ transactions through "security".

------
Overtonwindow
If businesses prefer cashless transactions, what about allowing cash but with
a premium? Similar to how some American businesses give a discount if you use
cash. I also wonder what the transaction fees in Sweden are, compared to the
rest of the world.

~~~
kazagistar
The cash premium already exists, since you can get some of the money from each
purchase back on your credit card.

~~~
gsnedders
Only in some places; credit cards are relatively rare in Sweden (everyone uses
debit cards), and rewards are generally mediocre at best.

------
callesgg
What a click-bait title, swedes as a people has said nothing like this.

As a swede i see no indication of it at all. It i more like the exact
opposite, most people seam to hate cash and take every opportunity to move
away from it.

~~~
hsson
This is my experience in Sweden as well. The only people I've heard
complaining about the move away from cash are older generations (65+) —
everyone else loves it. The e-krona initiative could solve the problem of
allowing a cashless system while still giving control to the Riksbank [1].

[1] [https://www.riksbank.se/en-gb/financial-stability/the-
financ...](https://www.riksbank.se/en-gb/financial-stability/the-financial-
system/payments/does-sweden-need-an-e-krona/the-e-krona-projects-first-
interim-report/)

~~~
callesgg
Sounds cool.

I have seen the software that the public sector buys and builds. It would seam
like they go out of their way to get the worst software they could get.

I have zero confidence in the public sectors capability of creating good
technology.

------
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...

~~~
mi100hael
I think it varies.

For small, daily transactions like coffee, lunch, etc., I definitely prefer
cashless.

But there's definitely something to be said for the convenience & anonymity of
just handing over a wad of cash if you're buying a used lawnmower or whatever
on Craigslist.

I'd hate to not have the option.

------
rumcajz
I wonder what effect would cashless society have on saving habits. Would more
people buy gold? Stocks? Bitcoin?

~~~
duality
Couldnt people still save "cash" electronically in a savings account, say?

~~~
1001101
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.

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

~~~
Tijdreiziger
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.

~~~
1001101
ECB also banned 500 euro notes, which may also be another leading indicator.
Sweden's housing market is in a downturn right now. If it starts looking like
the early 90s, deeper negative rates might seem attractive (they are currently
at -0.5% in SE).

~~~
Tijdreiziger
Ah, I didn't know that there are already banks with negative interest rates.
I'm surprised Swedes haven't started keeping sums of cash in their homes.

In the Netherlands, they had been going down until the +0.05% mark, where they
have now stayed for some time.

------
laacz
Isn't premise of the article that the problem is centralisation of cashless
system, not cashlessnes itself?

------
HIPisTheAnswer
We haven't used cash since before the second Great War.

------
nv-vn
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 these types of transactions despite all
the evidence against this claim. For example, if only the state was allowed to
process financial transactions, we never would have gotten credit/debit cards.
If they had nationalized after this development, we would not have NFC
payments or chips in cards. The state is anti-innovation (think about how
slowly government infrastructure has developed) and anti-consumer (imagine the
DMV in charge of your money). This whole notion of "the state knows
everything" and "only the state cares about you" seems completely dystopian.

~~~
mapgrep
>The state is anti-innovation

Let's look at "innovation" in consumer banking:

-Debit and credit cards physically show numbers that give full access to the accounts 40 years after modern public key cryptography was invented

-A very modest improvement to this system, known as PIN and chip, came to the U.S. recently after years in Europe and Asia; the Wall Street Journal has called this very basic change a "nightmare" more than a year into implementation, doubling average transaction times to 13 seconds (!!) in an informal test. Only 28 percent of merchants supported the technology.

-Checks physically show numbers that give full access to accounts

-The standard consumer "friendly" way of moving money electronically, ACH, involves banks FTP-ing massive text files to one another, batch processing them overnight, and clearing transactions in 24 hours or more.

-There is no used standard for peer to peer consumer electronic transfer

-Massive data breaches by banks have become incredibly common

-The response to endemic fraud is to revoke cards and mail new ones and/or to repair and monitor credit on an ad hoc basis

~~~
fvdessen
> A very modest improvement to this system, known as PIN and chip, came to the
> U.S. recently after years in Europe and Asia.

Chip and PIN is a private initiative. I don't know why it took off in
Europe/Asia and not in the USA, but it has little to do with the state.

~~~
mcguire
That would be mapgrep's point, I believe.

