Slashdot Mirror
Sweden's Cash-Free Future Looms -- and Not Everyone Is Happy About It
HughPickens.com writes: Liz Alderman writes in the NYT that bills and coins now represent just 2 percent of Sweden's economy, compared with 7.7 percent in the United States and 10 percent in the euro area and this year only about 20 percent of all consumer payments in Sweden have been made in cash, compared with an average of 75 percent in the rest of the world. "Sweden has always been at the forefront of technology, so it's easy to embrace this," said Jacob de Geer, a founder of iZettle, which makes a mobile-powered card reader. In Sweden parishioners text tithes to their churches, homeless street vendors carry mobile credit-card readers, and even the Abba Museum, despite being a shrine to the 1970s pop group that wrote "Money, Money, Money," considers cash so last-century that it does not accept bills and coins. "We don't want to be behind the times by taking cash while cash is dying out," says Bjorn Ulvaeus, a former Abba member who has leveraged the band's legacy into a sprawling business empire, including the museum.
But not everyone is pleased with the process. Remember, Sweden is the place where, if you use too much cash, banks call the police because they think you might be a terrorist or a criminal. Swedish banks have started removing cash ATMs from rural areas, annoying old people and farmers. Credit Suisse says the rule of thumb in Scandinavia is: "If you have to pay in cash, something is wrong." Sweden's embrace of electronic payments has alarmed consumer organizations and critics who warn of a rising threat to privacy and increased vulnerability to sophisticated Internet crimes. Last year, the number of electronic fraud cases surged to 140,000, more than double the amount a decade ago, according to Sweden's Ministry of Justice. Older adults and refugees in Sweden who use cash may be marginalized, critics say, and young people who use apps to pay for everything or take out loans via their mobile phones risk falling into debt. "It might be trendy," says Bjorn Eriksson, a former director of the Swedish police force and former president of Interpol. "But there are all sorts of risks when a society starts to go cashless."
But not everyone is pleased with the process. Remember, Sweden is the place where, if you use too much cash, banks call the police because they think you might be a terrorist or a criminal. Swedish banks have started removing cash ATMs from rural areas, annoying old people and farmers. Credit Suisse says the rule of thumb in Scandinavia is: "If you have to pay in cash, something is wrong." Sweden's embrace of electronic payments has alarmed consumer organizations and critics who warn of a rising threat to privacy and increased vulnerability to sophisticated Internet crimes. Last year, the number of electronic fraud cases surged to 140,000, more than double the amount a decade ago, according to Sweden's Ministry of Justice. Older adults and refugees in Sweden who use cash may be marginalized, critics say, and young people who use apps to pay for everything or take out loans via their mobile phones risk falling into debt. "It might be trendy," says Bjorn Eriksson, a former director of the Swedish police force and former president of Interpol. "But there are all sorts of risks when a society starts to go cashless."
If you don't know why they're doing this, you haven't been paying attention.
This is how the government manages to track and control every aspect of your life, and I do mean every.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I thought all countries (in the developed world, at the very least) had laws stating in one wording or another that it is illegal for a business to refuse payment in the country's official currency?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
i just want to buy stuff - anonymously, without the shop-keeper knowing my name and other personal details just because i bought a fucking coffee or a hamburger or something.
lack of privacy and anonymity are the main reasons i dislike online shopping and use it only very rarely - delivery of the purchased goods requires that i give the vendor my personal details which they then immediately assume they are entitled to store in a database, use to spam me, and sell, trade, or give to third-parties.
even when they have a checkbox option saying "don't spam me" or similar, some arsehole in their marketing department will take it upon themselves to decide that i didn't really mean that, or make some exception for their super-important spam (spammers always say "my spam isn't spam") or their database will frequently have that field "accidentally" cleared.
There are kids around here who think nothing of hauling out a Plastic Card to buy a 50 cent Candy bar.
Typically, a Cashless Society has a lot of hidden overhead, and those who promote the concept the most tend to benefit from that overhead.
It's not a Conspiracy Against Freedom, it's the Triumph Of the Hidden Middlemen.
I'll always accept gold for anything I sell or as payment for any service. A card? Not fucking likely. I'd bet gold or something like bitcoin replaces cash. There will always be a place for some real type of currency.
I don't know how it is in other countries, but in the United States, accepting legal tender is mandatory only for repayment of "DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE". To avoid this, a shop can require prepayment for all goods and services so that the customer never incurs debt.
In that case, will it be a crime to buy something before becoming an adult? I was under the impression that only an adult could hold a bank account in his own name; anyone younger than 18 (or thereabouts depending on jurisdiction) has to make do with cash.
A cash-free society means the banks, and any business or government or person with juice, knows what everyone is doing. If you have no problem with this, build your next house with glass walls, and put a streaming camera and mic on your person.
All this, contrast to corporations and governments. Corporations aren't people, so you can't really spy on those. Corporations are now freeer, and now don't even have to declare a nationality. Their banking is private, if they desire. Derivative markets are untrackable and untaxed. They don't pay taxes. Yet they demand we give it all up to them, because ???? we're idiots.
Governments? The US, UK, Australia and NZ are frothing at the mouth to destroy any whistleblowers who rat them out. Assange is STILL in jail, no charges other than trying to get away from retribution. Wikileaks supporters have problems flying in airplanes and crossing borders. And the governments have no problem spying on everyone else and demanding that right. And the Cayman Islands secret banking system is left alone, because the CIA, the mob, and corporations like their privacy.
... is a bitch.
I wonder what kind of measures the Sweden have against losing it. And if I'm not mistaken most payments go through the Internet and of course the Internet is supposed to be 100% reliable ... oh, wait.
P.S. George Orwell wasn't a science fiction writer 'cause he actually (fore)saw the future. The future where everything you do is logged and categorized.
https://www.treasury.gov/resou...
"This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. "
this is to prevent things like a Brainless Git paying a US$25.00 bill in pennies or somebody stripping a businesses safe by using large bills to pay for small transactions.
in short if it would be a problem to handle cash (or some subset thereof) its all fair game. (but its common to post a sign to warn clients)
Aren't 'marginalizes old people and refugees' and 'makes racking up consumer debt ever easier' typically considered features, rather than bugs, in payment systems?
'"Sweden has always been at the forefront of technology, so it's easy to embrace this," said Jacob de Geer, a founder of iZettle, which makes a mobile-powered card reader'.
In other news, sharks were in favour of sea bathing.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
If the rest of the world has 75% of transactions being paid in cash ( seems legit, if maybe even a tad low ) how will people that come to Sweden for tourism pay for anything?
Seems like a great way to insulate yourself from the rest of the world and have your economy grow stagnant to me...
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
They get a slice of the transaction when you pay via plastic (the trader pays 1-3%). They get a bit when you pay in cash since the retailer will have to pay the bank a bit (cash handling charge) when they pay in at the end of the day. However bankers get nothing on many payments: the man who mows the lawn, the baby sitter, the window cleaner, ... many of these will spend what they earn as cash - so several transactions that the banks do not get the chance to bacon slice.
OK: this might not be a large part of the economy, but all those free transactions must be annoying them!
This was an *extremely* annoying aspect of visiting the ABBA museum in Stockholm: they refuse to accept cash at all. Neither for admission nor for the gift shop. At least in 2013 when I was there, signs were posted with an explanation by Bjorn who mentioned his son's apartment being robbed and how the burglars made away with some cash. So... "ban all cash" because my kid left some in his apartment and it got burgled. For an otherwise smart and talented guy, this has to be one of the most fatuous rationales ever.
Anybody want a peanut?
the founders of the US explicitly rejected, but their great-grandchildren stupidly have adopted. Central Banks provide paper money in place of something of real inherent value like gold or silver, and in doing so provide a means of manipulating and robbing the public by inflating or deflating the value of that paper money by printing more of it or taking some of it out of circulation. Going cashless, where the individual no longer has ANY physical thing but rather just some digits stored in a computer will only further enable the corruption and resulting hazard for the individual. Consider:
The founders of the US rejected the idea of a Central Bank because such banks were one of the mechanisms that the governments of Europe had used to rob the average citizen. First, government ordered the people to use money printed by their Central Banks, then they had the Central Banks print lots of fiat currency to pay for wars and palaces etc, which allowed the leaders to buy what they wanted but diluted the value of each unit of currency. This functioned as a huge hidden tax on the general public. The founders of the US rejected this hidden form of taxation/robbery and thus rejected the Central Bank idea as the primary enabler of it. Sadly, the US now has a Central Bank - The Federal Reserve Bank, which is a private entity whose owners and managers are extremely secretive and capable of using their power to manipulate the government or be manipulated by the government with little or no oversight or insight by the public.
The "Cashless society" is simply a further bite into the rotten apple of Central Banks. Once the individual has no actual physical currency, the banking and governing interests can completely manipulate the value of a unit of currency and even make it appear or disappear directly in bank accounts with ZERO transparency, ZERO accountability, and without the public even knowing if, perhaps, the Central Bank is doing something hyper-evil like manipulating the currency of only members of certain political parties, or people who frequent certain establishments, etc. In a cashless society, freedom and liberty must necessarily disappear - as users become concerned that various actions they take leave them vulnerable to having their individual assets manipulated, they will naturally find that they must go all-in on political correctness for the safety of their families. If you are shocked by governments ordering ISPs to turn over the records of users and ordering those ISPs to not tell their users, just imagine a world where those same governments order a bank to manipulate somebody's account and not tell anybody they are doing it...
Paper money was the initial dangerous step. Digital money is the final dangerous step to enabling every evil thing governments desire.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson
"If ever again our nation stumbles upon unfunded paper, it shall surely be like death to our body politic. This country will crash." - George Washington
“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it’s issuance.” - James Madison
When I travel, I have the local currency.
Sometimes, you need it for something simple, like when the mobile card reader in the cab doesn't work (I was with my boss who puts everything on cards, so I had to bail him out with my cash, and expense it later.)
I also don't relish the idea of running my card for every meal - increasing the odds of some skimmer screwing the card up and getting a fraud alert put on it, just when I need it most. (I know, a lot of places, especially in Europe, bring there card reader to you, rather than the USA standard of you letting your numbnutz waiter wander off with your card, where he can fondle it in private...)
I prefer to use cash, while traveling and domestically for any transaction under about $100. It is more convenient for me, since I am someone who actually looks at my credit card bill, and *gasp* balances my checkbook, unlike kids these days who just glance and say "that looks about right".
I did actually find a case where my bank cashed the same check twice! About 5 months apart. No, they couldn't explain it, and they couldn't deny it, and returned the money, no questions asked. I am just glad it wasn't the check I had written about the same time for my car...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
An offer under an invitation to treat is not a sale. However, once accepted by the one offering the invitation to treat, it creates mutual obligations which, if not met, leaves the one defaulting in debt to the other, either for specific performance, damages, or both. Any transaction that is not gratuitous in nature will always have the potential to create debt, just as a fraudulent invitation to treat will. Also, either the offer may specify sequential performance, and/or sequential payment terms, in any tender (these are actually quite common). Both create future obligations (aka debts to the other party).
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I'd expect there's some way of tracking that, to some extent, still. Being able to exchange cash for something illicit is a good thing, no? It's fairly common knowledge that I may, on occasion, partake in illicit substances and I don't really hide that. However, it might be traceable if there's a log on someone's phone. While I'm willing to admit certain behaviors, I'm not liking the idea of giving them additional information with which they can use for the purposes of prosecution.
In other words, I'm not so paranoid that I'll lie and say that I don't do such things. At the same time, I'd still rather not give them anything that can be used as a specific instance which might be capable of being submitted to a court of law. Generic statements do not provide probable cause about specific incidents and thus will be unlikely to subject me to a warrant. Generic statements and a specific provable interaction in which cash was exchanged and no legal product received may well be enough for a "reasonable person" to convict.
That's one such instance. Another would be that I sometimes find stuff like cool automobiles for sale. I've not bought any on this trip, well not for me, but there's something nice about bargaining and being able to go to our car, open the trunk, and pull out a stack of bills with which to entice the seller. I sometimes tip people who don't normally get tips. I sometimes give money to panhandlers and to buskers. I sometimes give some extra money, beyond the on-record tip, to waitresses and I know they're not paying taxes on it but I'm okay with that.
I don't normally do any of these things but if I wanted to hire a hooker or go to a strip show then I might not be happy with that being tracked and then getting the resultant spam that indicates that's a usual purchase habit - even though I may have been doing so to enable a friend to enjoy such services.
So, I guess there's some bit in there that's wanting to be hidden (thanks for making me think about it more clearly and force me into making a less generic statement) but other stuff I just don't want tracked. I've been mugged before and pulled the cash out of my wallet and handed it to the mugger. They told me to give them my wallet and I told them that I could not do that. If I'm going to have something stolen then I'd like to minimize it and not have to give up a phone, wallet full of cards, etc...
Mostly, however, I just want to be able to remain pseudo-anonymous if I want to. There are a small number of people who know who I am, in the real world, and will have certain expectations if they know this. I've accumulated a few bucks and may wish to keep that hidden and not have my name associated with transactions because people may feel inclined to try to make me pay more than others. It's not a huge concern but it's one of a number of reasons that I can think of to prefer some relative anonymity.
Will something like Bitcoin mitigate all of those issues? Maybe. You tell me? Will it have the same value in an emergency when the infrastructure is unavailable? Not long ago, I had someone here tell me that the Internet and Cellular is ubiquitous. Yet, when I go home, I can drive for about thirty minutes and then have neither of those two things for a good two more hours worth of driving. There are a whole lot of variables that need to be considered and I don't know if we've got the resources (currently) to even get started on this sort of thing.
I dunno? I really don't but I prefer how it is and I see no compelling reasons to alter the situation. The majority of what I see (some of which is security related) are negatives. I see very little positive in this and that makes me less inclined to want something like this. The pros and cons list seems to be heavily on the favor of "cons" instead of "pros" so I really can't think of a reason to switch and I sure as hell don't like the idea of BTC-esque systems which are not actually anonymous - in fact, it's their lack of anonymity that makes them function (as I understa
"So long and thanks for all the fish."