Slashdot Mirror
Sweden Tries To Halt Its March To Total Cashlessness (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: A key committee of Swedish lawmakers wants to force the country's biggest banks to handle cash in an effort to halt the nation's march toward complete cashlessness. Parliament's Riksbank committee, which is in the process of reviewing the central bank law, proposed making it mandatory for banks to offer cash withdrawals and handle daily receipts. The requirement would apply to banks that provide checking accounts and have more than 70 billion kronor ($8 billion) in deposits from the Swedish public, according to a report.
The lawmakers said there needs to be "reasonable access to those services in all of Sweden," and that 99 percent of Swedes should have a maximum distance of 25 kilometers (16 miles) to the nearest cash withdrawal. The requirement doesn't state how banks should offer those services, and lenders can choose whether to use a third party, machines or over-the-counter services. The move is a response to Sweden's rapid transformation as it becomes one of the most cashless societies in the world. That's led to concerns that some people are finding it increasingly difficult to cope without access to mobile phones or bank cards. There are also fears around what would happen if the digital payments systems suddenly crashed.
The lawmakers said there needs to be "reasonable access to those services in all of Sweden," and that 99 percent of Swedes should have a maximum distance of 25 kilometers (16 miles) to the nearest cash withdrawal. The requirement doesn't state how banks should offer those services, and lenders can choose whether to use a third party, machines or over-the-counter services. The move is a response to Sweden's rapid transformation as it becomes one of the most cashless societies in the world. That's led to concerns that some people are finding it increasingly difficult to cope without access to mobile phones or bank cards. There are also fears around what would happen if the digital payments systems suddenly crashed.
Less than month ago Sweden told its people to prepare for disasters, including possible war with Russia. One of the first thing the Ruskies will do is cyber attacks on infrastructure, which includes the financial system.
Yes it's great when it WORKS.
But really dumbfuck, I've experienced more than once that there been a system failure and you can't even purchase a fucking package of milk because there is NO fallback what so ever in Sweden, they don't process debitcards offline AT ALL.
An average person in Sweden should be expected to be able to legally open and use a bank account?
Including an average child?
So every bank account would be connected to a real Swedish citizen. A person allowed to be in Sweden who has the correct ID.
In addition to Swedish citizens, "persons allowed to be in Sweden" include citizens of other EU countries and immigrants on a work visa.
No low amount of spending would be blocked.
Good luck with that when both the EFT and credit networks charge several cents per transaction.
Is Sweden expecting the lack of grid power?
This can happen and has happened.
How do prostitutes handle a cashless economy?
In civilised countries where we don't bother criminalising prositutes, they accept electronic payments like any other business.
I suspect you are confusing the US with a modern country.
The government to see if the money is getting spent legally.
Cash acts as a check on the government's power to shrink over time the set of things on which money can be "spent legally." With the threat of a black market eliminated, what keeps countries from adding 666% more totalitarian restrictions on what can be bought and sold?
In addition, even without electronic payment countries can restrict and have restricted what each part of a paycheck can be used for: see Cuban convertible and non-convertible pesos. That's as if the vast majority of most people's paycheck was paid in scrip (like food stamps) instead of dollars. A shift to completely electronic payment would give the government even more fine-grained (read: intrusive) control over private citizens' private lives. Why is this outcome desirable?
Nobody in Sweden has written a cheque in at least 20 years. The banks here cannot even process them any more, basically.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You're missing the point by projecting US values on Sweden. There are major differences:
1. Government isn't the enemy of the people, nor is it seen as one. It's overwhelmingly seen as organisation for the people, by the people. This is common in Nordics because here it isn't the government that was the major oppressive force on people. It was the extremely harsh climate. Government was the means to counter this major oppressive force, and actually survive to modernity.
2. Things like tax collection are widely seen primarily as civic duty, not as a burden. That's why we have "omg your tax rate is WHAT?!?!?!" reaction from North Americans migrating here. As well as "your government fully funds WHAT?!?!?!?!" when they have to go to the hospital, take their children to daycare, or take a university class while living on their own.
This however makes the reality of not being able to handle payments while living in the rural areas a reality during things like winter storms, when it's really critical for survival that payment is possible. Reminder of the historic reasons for #1 applies here. So government has noticed that there is a genuine problem in rural areas with cashlessness, and is now acting within its primary mandate of ensuring that backup systems work regardless of how it disadvantages the bureaucracy in Stockholm.
It is how Nordic government works as a matter of principle, and the main reason why most people from other cultures have such massive hurdles comprehending just why many things they're used to "being left to their own devices" "just work" here. It's the way citizenry and state interact with one another in a region where both had to support one another against the primary common enemy that is Nordic winter.
Not true, the leading app would be Swish ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) and that is owned jointly by the large nordic banks. It has not been sold.
That touches on my main worry about cashless: power concentration. You don't feel it until a bit later when this concentrated power decides to use it .
- Let's introduce negative interest rates
- from now on we don't want you to pay to fund organisations of type X
- from now on it is impossible to do trade with person Y
Checks and balances, there's a reason for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The laws on prostitution in Sweden make it illegal to buy sex, but not to sell the use of one's own body for such services. Procuring and operating a brothel remain illegal.
Let's not forget, actual physical cash is essential, in a modern society, as back-stops to underpin two of the things we tell eachother we value: privacy and freedom.
Without cash, we are forced to compromise our privacy. Want to buy a birthday gift for a loved one that cannot be traced? Want to make a donation to a cause you care about, but do so anonymously? What to give something to that homeless person so they can get a hot meal? You need cash for all of these things.
Without cash, we are forced to compromise our freedom. [ And yes, I know this is a large chunk of "The Net", but it doesn't make it less true]. Want to be able to function in the face of a technological meltdown at your bank? [ Just look at what has just been happening to TSB customers in the UK recently ].
Any attempt to take away cash is an attempt to take away both privacy and freedom. It is the beginning of a slippery slope that leads to a very dark place indeed...
Err....something like CASH?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That touches on my main worry about cashless: power concentration. You don't feel it until a bit later when this concentrated power decides to use it . - Let's introduce negative interest rates - from now on we don't want you to pay to fund organisations of type X - from now on it is impossible to do trade with person Y
Checks and balances, there's a reason for it.
Yes, and these reasons are why, once you go cashless, they have you by the balls. No more private or anonymous transactions. You will be forced to keep your money in the bank; where else could it be? There will be a record of every transaction; data mining on steroids. Unfortunately, most people only see the convenience, and don't have the foresight or imagination to understand all of the implications.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Huh? How do you give someone (not a business) a large amount of money ? Say for renting a vacation place ? Even more so, how do you give a warranty cheque, you know, the kind that you can tear up at the end ?
The same way you do it all of the civilized world, with a bank transfer. Why write cheques? Most people under 60 have ever had a checking account outside of the US, because the rest of the world is not stuck with WW2 banking technology.