47 ms·

Swedes turn against cashlessness

386 points by kawera 9y ago

optimusrex 9y ago
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.
- jmnicolas 9y ago
  Maybe you're not used to pay with cash but for people that are used to it, it's not slower than using plastic. And sometimes it's even faster, when the card or the card reader don't work, the customer is old etc.
  - optimusrex 9y ago
    With the new addition of Pay Wave where you can simply tap a card on a sensor, I do not see how paying with cash and then waiting for the teller to sort of the bills and provide the right change can be faster. I understand I need to become more accustomed to the culture that I immigrate too, but that does not mean that there are not more efficient solutions compared to "the way its always been". As for the card reader not working, this is usually only a problem with older machines or places without a strong internet connection.
    - StavrosK 9y ago
      > I do not see how paying with cash and then waiting for the teller to sort of the bills and provide the right change can be faster. You have to wait for the transaction to verify. That usually takes more than three seconds (at least here), which is roughly the amount of time it takes to get change.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        I don't think it's a good reason to push for cashless, but three seconds on average for both buyers and sellers? Only if Swedes are much faster than citizens across the rest of Europe. Giving the money, inputting the amount into the POS so it can open the register, then choosing the bills and coins - 3s seconds is about the best case scenario, in my experience.
        StavrosK 9y ago
        You have to input the amount into the POS so it can start the transaction as well. Sellers here (Greece) are so used to this (they do it thousands of times a day) that it takes them almost no time to give change back. It helps that change is always segregated into proper trays/slots. Even with contactless, I always feel kind of bad to be paying by card at the super market because I'm slowing the queue down. If the amount goes over 20 euros or so and I have to enter my PIN, it's even slower. It's not even a contest compared to cash.
        icebraining 9y ago
        You have to input the amount into the POS so it can start the transaction as well Where are you buying that has payment queues but doesn't scan the products? I only see people inputting the amount manually in restaurants/bars.
        StavrosK 9y ago
        Where are you buying that you have to enter the amount into the POS to open the drawer but not to start the card transaction? You can't consider the time it takes to enter the amount only in the case that suits you. If you have to enter the amount for cash, you have to enter it for the card as well.
        icebraining 9y ago
        You have to enter the amount the person is actually delivering... If the total is 18.45€, I'll probably be paying with a 20€, which the cashier has to input. Now that I think of it, I guess not all POSs require that (the cashier does the calculation for the change in their head), but in my experience they aren't common.
    - Karlozkiller 9y ago
      And the inevitable rise in wireless card skimming that would ensue? OK maybe not inevitable but it's made a lot easier with wireless cards etc. And I do expect 'thugs' to catch on. Plus, you can only do that on lower sums. If I pay a higher sum than allowed for wireless pay where I live (Sweden) I'd still need chip and pin, and often in restaurants I am told to enter the total sum plus whatever tip I want to give, then confirm, then enter pin. So I'd say cash can be quicker in some cases, slower in other, but my main concern is in the area of privacy and security both of my cash, and my ability to pay in force majura-cases.
    - baud147258 9y ago
      I'm always taking lunch with a handfull of other devs from where I'm working. All the other pay cash, I'm always paying with a contactless card and I'm always taking more time, even when I don't have to enter the PIN.
    - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
      > With the new addition of Pay Wave where you can simply tap a card on a sensor, I do not see how paying with cash and then waiting for the teller to sort of the bills and provide the right change can be faster. Have you seen the automated checkouts a lot of stores are installing? There is no cashier. You scan your items and insert bills in the slot. The change is calculated by a computer and returned immediately.
      - notahacker 9y ago
        This still takes more time than touching a wallet to a sensor
        AnthonyMouse 9y ago
        > This still takes more time than touching a wallet to a sensor How? The machines will literally take an entire stack of bills at once, read them and make change in the same time it takes to verify an electronic transaction. You would need a stopwatch with sub-second precision to even tell the difference. Which one is faster is down more to the specific model of payment processing machine than the payment method. And even if the card was theoretically faster, we're no longer talking about waiting for some high school kid to fumble around for 30 seconds. A difference of 300 milliseconds one way or the other is just pedantry.
        tigershark 9y ago
        It’s at least a 30 seconds difference. You need to read the amount, extract your wallet, check if you have the exact amount of money to avoid filling your wallet with useless coins, 90% of the time you realise that you don’t have it and you start fumbling between your notes to find the correct amount that can give you a reasonable change. At that point you can start to have fun fighting with the machine that won’t accept some of your notes because are too old/crumpled. Even in the unlikely case that it accepts all your notes now you still need to wait for the change and retrieve all of it, with some coin that will invariably be stuck somewhere. Or instead of paying with your sweat and your blood using cash you can simply put your hand in your pocket, retrieve the phone and tap it on the sensor.
    - SllX 9y ago
      A good cashier can process cash sometimes quicker than even the fastest card readers I've seen, and not all card readers are nearly that fast. A lot of them are slow, painfully so. If you have to sign, that's also slow, another step in the transaction. What it works out to be is that sometimes it's better to use card and sometimes it is better to use cash if speed is a factor. Someone that takes too long because they are fumbling for cash are just as likely to be the type of person that would have to fumble around for their card or have other issues operating the terminal. Cash is quick and painless with only the most minimal amount of mental arithmetic necessary to give someone their change, not that your typical register won't spit it back out at you anyway. If it is a sit down restaurant with table service though, there's no real positives or negatives to using either besides whatever is most convenient for you. So all in all, all I see in any push to go cashless is the illusion of progress. It's all theater and it is strictly speaking, completely unnecessary to go cashless with considerable downsides if society is forced to.
  - EADGBE 9y ago
    Then every cash handler must not be inept when it comes to breaking bills and making change. Unfortunately, that’s already a trend we’ve been seeing in the US youth for the past 20 years.
- dmos62 9y ago
  > The Riksbank governor, Stefan Ingves, called for new legislation to secure public control over the payments system, arguing that being able to make and receive payments is a “collective good” like defence, the courts, or public statistics. > “Most citizens would feel uncomfortable to surrender these social functions to private companies,” he said. > “It should be obvious that Sweden’s preparedness would be weakened if, in a serious crisis or war, we had not decided in advance how households and companies would pay for fuel, supplies and other necessities.”
  - optimusrex 9y ago
    The first two points involve the way the citizens "feel" and not is actually most productive. As for the preparedness of a nation to handle a cashless economy during a time of war, wouldn't a electronic ledger be must safer and reliable than if the government say just started printing more money leading to inflation problems. This has happens numerous times throughout times of history during war and could be avoided with a cashless economy.
    - hawski 9y ago
      More reliable? We are not living in a world where every roof is covered with solar panels. Our network is not a wireless mesh. During a war power plants will get bombed. Network and power cables will get bombed. Roads, railroads and bridges will get bombed, so power plants wouldn't even get fuel.
      - jacobush 9y ago
        Heck, if they wanted to be really surgical, they could just bomb the power lines entering the power plants. The effect would be total shock and aw but much easier to reconnect afterwards when they have the new puppet regime in place.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Inflation has nothing to do with whether the currency is electronic. Maybe you're confusing it with cryptocurrencies? That's not what cashless means in this context - most Swedes are not paying with Bitcoin, but with electronic krona.
- heavenlyhash 9y ago
  Maybe there are other factors than obsession with the speed and "productivity" effect of the money-transfer part of a transaction. Your meal and beer entering your mouth probably took 100x as long as the difference between counting change and swiping a card. So why not puree them together? And damn anyone who thinks it was important to keep them separate; incomprehensible.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    I think that's an unnecessarily hostile viewpoint. Basically your argument boils down to "some things take longer to do than other things, so there's no point in making things easier/faster/more efficient". I don't think anyone would argue that since cars are bigger than cell phones, that we should make our cell phones as big as cars (it's incomprehensible to think that cars and cell phones should be different sizes). So why should we use a slower and less efficient payment method just because food takes more time to cook and prepare? I don't think anyone would argue that since humans can only walk ~3mph, that airplanes should be limited to the same speed (it's incomprehensible to think that airplanes and humans should travel at different speeds). So why should we use a slower and less efficient payment method just because humans walk slower than an airplane flies? Do you see what I'm getting at here? The speed at which you eat your food does not impact the speed of the payment method you prefer to use. All the payment method impacts is how much stuff you have to carry in your pockets, and how much can be stolen from you at any given moment.
    - heavenlyhash 9y ago
      > Basically your argument boils down It does not, in fact. My insinuation is that perhaps some people have a preference against going cashless which has nothing to do with speed.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
      > I think that's an unnecessarily hostile viewpoint. Basically your argument boils down to "some things take longer to do than other things, so there's no point in making things easier/faster/more efficient". I think what the parent means is that there are several other reasons, and at the same time makes a case against the main argument in favor of card transactions. Many people simply feel they don't want to give up control over their cash, over information how they spend it, and basically: how they live their lives. As history shown us, once you give up this control, it's gone forever, and here are many actors eager to take over this information, not necessarily to the benefit of the citizen.
- sveme 9y ago
  > In Germany almost every cafe, restaurant, or bar requires you pay with cash. We must be living in very different Germanys.
  - sleepyhead 9y ago
    Cash is the norm at all casual places in Berlin.
  - carlmr 9y ago
    I'm living in optimusrex Germany, too. You might be alone in cashless Germany.
    - sveme 9y ago
      Maybe different cities? I‘m in Munich.
      - carlmr 9y ago
        Stuttgart reporting in.
- EarthMephit 9y ago
  Smaller resturants prefer cash, because it allows them to evade taxes by underquoting their profits. The same reason that builders quote less for "cash only" prices This is one of the main reasons that governments are pushing for cashless systems, because there is less evetax evasion and increased revenue
  - gnopgnip 9y ago
    It is incredibly rare that a builder would accept physical cash, they will be paid by check or bank transfer. Builders quote less because there is less risk of finance delays, and a greater chance of completing the project for cash buyers than those that depend on a draw and continued credit from a bank.
    - EarthMephit 9y ago
      Here in Australia there are plenty of builders that will openly offer you quotes and then take off the 10% GST/sales tax if you pay in all cash The builders benefit because they then wont pay any income tax on the job
  - iamatworknow 9y ago
    Along those same lines if I'm going out to eat somewhere that accepts credit cards I will almost always pay the bill with the card and tip the server in cash. They can just pocket the cash and as far as the restaurant knows they didn't receive a tip (that would otherwise be taxed).
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      If you don't add a tip to the credit receipt, the IRS will estimate a tip value for tax purposes. I don't know the exact amount, but I think it's around 10%. If you are intent upon helping service staff evade taxes, the optimal strategy would therefore be to put 10% on the receipt and drop the remainder on the table in cash. This also means that if you stiff your server and leave no tip, they are still getting taxed as though you left 10%. If you really want to be a jerk, be slightly less of a jerk by leaving a $0.01 tip on the receipt. This will also allow them to post it to outrage-fueled social media for a tiny bit of temporary fame. Most people aren't that invested into stigginit to da Man, or at least not just via their restaurant tips. You'd be better off paying cash for everything, no-receipt requested, and not involving the electronic point-of-sale till at all.
- phil21 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      >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.
  - amorphid 9y ago
    It's a money loser to not accept credit cards, too. I don't like carrying cash. I'm likely to skip a cash only restaurant even if I want to eat there because I want to charge purchase & I don't have cash.
    - 1337biz 9y ago
      As soon as you are offering some form of card payment somebody can calculate what % is usually in that kind of business transacted via credit cards, therefore knows how realistic the reported revenue is.
- vegardx 9y ago
  Simple, it's easier to pocket some money when you do it in cash. Going on a limb here, the cafes and bars you've frequented aren't the well established with a long history-kind.
- dmitriid 9y ago
  Germans are very paranoid about giving their details to anyone: government, banks, corporations, other people. Paying with cash is viewed as a safer way to pay without any number of Big Brothers watching over your shoulder. (The reason for paranoia is the history of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi)
  - mioelnir 9y ago
    There is also another german word in the realm of centralization - Gleichschaltung. It is nowadays exclusively used to describe the centralization of government functions and bodies during the beginning of the 3rd Reich. Big central government offices, their tracking capabilities and emerging network effects were one of the required precursors for what came later. It is why many parts of the modern/post-war German bureaucracy were intentionally set up inefficient and why we still dislike any "central databases" for anything, from law enforcement to tax collection. Slow, decoupled government systems slow down unwanted usage patterns much more than valid ones, are generally harder to game (try explaining your urgent need for some data to a rural bavarian city hall employee) and easier to monitor/verify for citizens.
- mdekkers 9y ago
  I cannot understand the pushback against cashless systems I am deeply comfortable with the idea that I have the option to keep my spending habits private, and not subject to data mining. I also like the idea of not being tracked all the time, and I like the idea of general anonymity. I don't like the idea that my options are being removed form me, with no discernible benefit to me. You like paying by card? Excellent, go right ahead. I like to have the option, sometimes cash, sometimes electronic.
- superkuh 9y ago
  I see the opposite here in the USA in rural areas. People are constantly holding up the lines because of the chip/pin updates or other failures and confusions. With cash it is always just simple and quick. And I know it doesn't matter but when you pay with a credit card or third party payment service you are not paying. Some other entity is.
  - EADGBE 9y ago
    It doesn’t help that card terminal/chip card rollout in the US has been catastrophic.
    - sowbug 9y ago
      I live in the U.S. and haven't noticed anything catastrophic about it. Am I living in a bubble?
      - EADGBE 9y ago
        Possibly not for you, but I noticed a long roll-out of switching from stripe to chip. Then, a lot of card readers in major retail stores not "allowing" chip transactions and having to switch. Still even now, most fast-food places disallow chip transactions. Most recently, I have a repeatable bug in Walgreens where my newly issued credit card (old expired) will not run chip transactions. Their system requires me to attempt a chip transaction first (of which I must do three times) before it will allow me to finally swipe (and work). If I attempt to swipe at first it will require a chip transaction (and on, and on, and on...) However I can't completely blame Walgreens on it; they're the only one that's reproducable 100% of the time (3-5x now since card was issued). I've also had to re-do transactions with that card at Target but that's hit-and-miss.
- jasonkostempski 9y ago
  "but the amount of time and energy saved by having "exact change" every transaction should increase productivity enough to cover any costs." I doubt that's the case, especially since fees are usually percent based. Someone accepting, making change for, and depositing $1000 vs. $1 takes about the same amount of effort, but $1000 charged will cost them much more than $1 charge. Maybe if the fees were flat or something like 0.001%, but they're always much higher.
- lorenzhs 9y ago
  There's a very detailed Bundesbank report on popularity of means of payment in Germany that was recently updated: https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/EN/Topics/2018/2018_02_14_zahlungsverhalten.html https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/EN/Topics/2018/2018_02_1... -- the full report (in German only, sorry) is at https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/Veroeffentlichungen/Studien/zahlungsverhalten_in_deutschland_2017.pdf?__blob=publicationFile https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/Veroeffentl...
- marktangotango 9y ago
  It’s the transaction fees, Germans are “thrifty”.
- mkesper 9y ago
  You're legally obliged to accept cash in Germany so offering any other means of paying must be well worth it (fees, readers etc.).
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > 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.
- EADGBE 9y ago
  Agreed, when statistically someone is willing to “overspend” on non-cash, the nominal 2-3% transaction fee seems, well, nominal.
- herbst 9y ago
  This is on one side for tax avoidance reasons. But on the other side everyone I know working in gastronomy rages about Americans and their aggressive credit card usage, how slow usually the process is (these people are trained with cash, plus nearly anywhere in Europe you round the sum to something easy to give out anyway as a tip). From what I can tell these people simply prefer cash. I just asked and my gf said it's just a lot faster to do it by hand.
- ionised 9y ago
  It's not all about productivity.
Cbasedlifeform 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.
  - TangoTrotFox 9y ago
    And I'd argue there that, to some degree, it's a matter of breadth of spending and not just depth. Money may or may not trickle down, but it certainly gushes upward. So as an obvious example a thousand people selling something for $10 a piece instead of 1 person selling something for $10,000 is obviously much more desirable. I'd speculate that tactics like this won't really increase the breadth of spend, but only the depth - so you simply accelerate the upward flow of income. That could hypothetically be a good thing, invoking my inner Milton Friedman, if those on top then use that groundswell of 'free' money to then reinvest in their business and everybody moves upward. However in this case, as opposed to general supply side economics at large, you need to show that that subsequent trickle down is more beneficial than what was removed from those at the bottom. I think that's going to be improbable, especially as the merit of supply side economics itself becomes ever more debatable.
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    On the other hand, back to talking about real people, the less you feel like you have a sufficient buffer to last until your next paycheck, the more stressed you are. If we psychologically manipulate people into spending more than they’re naturally comfortable with, we’re creating a society that’s worse off for the people in it.
    - 9y ago
rumcajz 9y ago
I wonder what effect would cashless society have on saving habits. Would more people buy gold? Stocks? Bitcoin?
- duality 9y ago
  Couldnt people still save "cash" electronically in a savings account, say?
  - 1001101 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      Cash isn't getting any more valuable, either. What are you suggesting? Hoarding gold bars?
      - Tijdreiziger 9y ago
        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 9y ago
        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 9y ago
        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.
Overtonwindow 9y ago
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 9y ago
  The cash premium already exists, since you can get some of the money from each purchase back on your credit card.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    Only in some places; credit cards are relatively rare in Sweden (everyone uses debit cards), and rewards are generally mediocre at best.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    On the other hand, some places offer discounts for cash, since they don't have to pay the credit card fee on the transaction.
ciocan42 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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 9y ago
        The exoticism of a foreign currency also probably has something to do with it.
  - mrnobody_67 9y ago
    Haven't found a fee free travel card for canadians... in fact our major bank (TD) just increased FX fees from 2.5% - > 3.5% on foreign transactions, on top of a super unfavourable exchange rate. I usually bring stacks of cash on my trips.
mfringel 9y ago
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 9y ago
  Cashless transactions require a third party Cryptocurrency.. (miners are decentralized and don't require you to trust them)
  - brownbat 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      The network can still run between those two people alone (if consolidation is solved).
      - Paperweight 9y ago
        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 9y ago
        Yes... I wonder how Nature implemented that...
        mioelnir 9y ago
Fnoord 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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 9y ago
        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.
      - stordoff 9y ago
        Dishonestly would be a key factor there. If you believe you have the legal right to do that, or you believe that the owner of the goods would have consented, then you have not acted dishonestly, and there is no theft. If you do so to as you believe that the owner would not accept cash, you have acted dishonestly and thus there is a theft.[1] Note that Velumyl was an appeal on the grounds that the defendant did not intend to permanently deprive, thus the money being different was relevant as he permanently deprived the owner of that specific property. Had the defendant contented there was no dishonestly -- that he intended to return equivalent funds and believed that the company would consent -- the decision may well have been different. [1] Theft Act 1968 s.2(1) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/2
callesgg 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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-financial-system/payments/does-sweden-need-an-e-krona/the-e-krona-projects-first-interim-report/ https://www.riksbank.se/en-gb/financial-stability/the-financ...
  - deletesweden 9y ago
    So, the only people who are okay with it are younger people? Do they happen to be the ones who use smartphones instead of computers, listen to dubstep instead of music, and so on? The people who watch fucking Let's Plays? Oh well. One day we'll look back at that generation, laugh our asses off, and change the subject.
  - callesgg 9y ago
    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.
nv-vn 9y ago
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.
- draw_down 9y ago
  Pick your dystopia!
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  I imagine the rants when issuing currency was restricted to a state monopoly were pretty similar, and pretty similarly misguided.
- ddingus 9y ago
  Maybe it's more about risk management, in particular, mixing investment banking in where the public ends up on the hook.
- improbable22 9y ago
  "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).
yxhuvud 9y ago
> 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.
linkmotif 9y ago
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.
imartin2k 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.
  - 87812487 9y ago
    I think it is a interesting question. Before using a payment gateway, what is the cost of using cash? It would be covered by tax. If the whole society is abandoning cash, it is effectively meant raising sales tax by X%, where X is transaction cost of each payment. A cashless country should just use the tax money on cash printing factories to cover the cost of transaction.
  - imartin2k 9y ago
    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-interchange-cap https://www.adyen.com/blog/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-eu...) 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.
harshgupta 9y ago
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.
hashmush 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    Is a bank that has no physical cash trustworthy? Who holds their cash, and what other core functions have they outsourced or stopped offering?
dalbasal 9y ago
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.
- sitharus 9y ago
  Cashless transactions don’t have to go through the card networks. Here in New Zealand around 2/3rds of all retail transactions are done via cards because many years ago the reserve bank mandated free inter-bank transactions. This means direct bank-to-bank transactions via the local EFTPOS network are free for both parties (with exceptions for some low-use plans, and businesses typically rent the terminals). Also the local eBay equivalent TradeMe gained its popularity on this network. Given somebody’s bank account number I can transfer money to their account within an hour (used to be overnight until a few years ago). There’s no reversal for this so it’s safe for the seller, and since it’s a real bank there’s no way to freeze it without a court order. The banks being banks of course are trying to ruin this, since using the big card networks gives them free revenue.
nearmuse 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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.
  - Faark 9y ago
    So many requirements for digital cash - You want control to fight fraud/bad actors - You don't want to much control for a single party (incl gov) - It should work without necessary global communications (e.g. post disaster; global consensus like Bitcoin won't help there) - Users want privacy - Usual stuff like no double spending - Transparency would be nice to verify correctness and no abuse by your bank - Easy to use We'll have a hard time finding a replacement satisfying them all. I wonder what we'll be willing to give up.
pasbesoin 9y ago
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".
mmagin 9y ago
(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.
dsign 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.
skookumchuck 9y ago
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.
HIPisTheAnswer 9y ago
We haven't used cash since before the second Great War.
laacz 9y ago
Isn't premise of the article that the problem is centralisation of cashless system, not cashlessnes itself?
alkonaut 9y ago
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).

386 points by kawera 9y ago

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.

jmnicolas 9y ago
Maybe you're not used to pay with cash but for people that are used to it, it's not slower than using plastic. And sometimes it's even faster, when the card or the card reader don't work, the customer is old etc.
- optimusrex 9y ago
  With the new addition of Pay Wave where you can simply tap a card on a sensor, I do not see how paying with cash and then waiting for the teller to sort of the bills and provide the right change can be faster. I understand I need to become more accustomed to the culture that I immigrate too, but that does not mean that there are not more efficient solutions compared to "the way its always been". As for the card reader not working, this is usually only a problem with older machines or places without a strong internet connection.
  - StavrosK 9y ago
    > I do not see how paying with cash and then waiting for the teller to sort of the bills and provide the right change can be faster. You have to wait for the transaction to verify. That usually takes more than three seconds (at least here), which is roughly the amount of time it takes to get change.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      I don't think it's a good reason to push for cashless, but three seconds on average for both buyers and sellers? Only if Swedes are much faster than citizens across the rest of Europe. Giving the money, inputting the amount into the POS so it can open the register, then choosing the bills and coins - 3s seconds is about the best case scenario, in my experience.
      - StavrosK 9y ago
        You have to input the amount into the POS so it can start the transaction as well. Sellers here (Greece) are so used to this (they do it thousands of times a day) that it takes them almost no time to give change back. It helps that change is always segregated into proper trays/slots. Even with contactless, I always feel kind of bad to be paying by card at the super market because I'm slowing the queue down. If the amount goes over 20 euros or so and I have to enter my PIN, it's even slower. It's not even a contest compared to cash.
        icebraining 9y ago
        You have to input the amount into the POS so it can start the transaction as well Where are you buying that has payment queues but doesn't scan the products? I only see people inputting the amount manually in restaurants/bars.
        StavrosK 9y ago
        Where are you buying that you have to enter the amount into the POS to open the drawer but not to start the card transaction? You can't consider the time it takes to enter the amount only in the case that suits you. If you have to enter the amount for cash, you have to enter it for the card as well.
        icebraining 9y ago
        You have to enter the amount the person is actually delivering... If the total is 18.45€, I'll probably be paying with a 20€, which the cashier has to input. Now that I think of it, I guess not all POSs require that (the cashier does the calculation for the change in their head), but in my experience they aren't common.
  - Karlozkiller 9y ago
    And the inevitable rise in wireless card skimming that would ensue? OK maybe not inevitable but it's made a lot easier with wireless cards etc. And I do expect 'thugs' to catch on. Plus, you can only do that on lower sums. If I pay a higher sum than allowed for wireless pay where I live (Sweden) I'd still need chip and pin, and often in restaurants I am told to enter the total sum plus whatever tip I want to give, then confirm, then enter pin. So I'd say cash can be quicker in some cases, slower in other, but my main concern is in the area of privacy and security both of my cash, and my ability to pay in force majura-cases.
  - baud147258 9y ago
    I'm always taking lunch with a handfull of other devs from where I'm working. All the other pay cash, I'm always paying with a contactless card and I'm always taking more time, even when I don't have to enter the PIN.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > With the new addition of Pay Wave where you can simply tap a card on a sensor, I do not see how paying with cash and then waiting for the teller to sort of the bills and provide the right change can be faster. Have you seen the automated checkouts a lot of stores are installing? There is no cashier. You scan your items and insert bills in the slot. The change is calculated by a computer and returned immediately.
    - notahacker 9y ago
      This still takes more time than touching a wallet to a sensor
      - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
        > This still takes more time than touching a wallet to a sensor How? The machines will literally take an entire stack of bills at once, read them and make change in the same time it takes to verify an electronic transaction. You would need a stopwatch with sub-second precision to even tell the difference. Which one is faster is down more to the specific model of payment processing machine than the payment method. And even if the card was theoretically faster, we're no longer talking about waiting for some high school kid to fumble around for 30 seconds. A difference of 300 milliseconds one way or the other is just pedantry.
        tigershark 9y ago
        It’s at least a 30 seconds difference. You need to read the amount, extract your wallet, check if you have the exact amount of money to avoid filling your wallet with useless coins, 90% of the time you realise that you don’t have it and you start fumbling between your notes to find the correct amount that can give you a reasonable change. At that point you can start to have fun fighting with the machine that won’t accept some of your notes because are too old/crumpled. Even in the unlikely case that it accepts all your notes now you still need to wait for the change and retrieve all of it, with some coin that will invariably be stuck somewhere. Or instead of paying with your sweat and your blood using cash you can simply put your hand in your pocket, retrieve the phone and tap it on the sensor.
  - SllX 9y ago
    A good cashier can process cash sometimes quicker than even the fastest card readers I've seen, and not all card readers are nearly that fast. A lot of them are slow, painfully so. If you have to sign, that's also slow, another step in the transaction. What it works out to be is that sometimes it's better to use card and sometimes it is better to use cash if speed is a factor. Someone that takes too long because they are fumbling for cash are just as likely to be the type of person that would have to fumble around for their card or have other issues operating the terminal. Cash is quick and painless with only the most minimal amount of mental arithmetic necessary to give someone their change, not that your typical register won't spit it back out at you anyway. If it is a sit down restaurant with table service though, there's no real positives or negatives to using either besides whatever is most convenient for you. So all in all, all I see in any push to go cashless is the illusion of progress. It's all theater and it is strictly speaking, completely unnecessary to go cashless with considerable downsides if society is forced to.
- EADGBE 9y ago
  Then every cash handler must not be inept when it comes to breaking bills and making change. Unfortunately, that’s already a trend we’ve been seeing in the US youth for the past 20 years.
dmos62 9y ago
> The Riksbank governor, Stefan Ingves, called for new legislation to secure public control over the payments system, arguing that being able to make and receive payments is a “collective good” like defence, the courts, or public statistics. > “Most citizens would feel uncomfortable to surrender these social functions to private companies,” he said. > “It should be obvious that Sweden’s preparedness would be weakened if, in a serious crisis or war, we had not decided in advance how households and companies would pay for fuel, supplies and other necessities.”
- optimusrex 9y ago
  The first two points involve the way the citizens "feel" and not is actually most productive. As for the preparedness of a nation to handle a cashless economy during a time of war, wouldn't a electronic ledger be must safer and reliable than if the government say just started printing more money leading to inflation problems. This has happens numerous times throughout times of history during war and could be avoided with a cashless economy.
  - hawski 9y ago
    More reliable? We are not living in a world where every roof is covered with solar panels. Our network is not a wireless mesh. During a war power plants will get bombed. Network and power cables will get bombed. Roads, railroads and bridges will get bombed, so power plants wouldn't even get fuel.
    - jacobush 9y ago
      Heck, if they wanted to be really surgical, they could just bomb the power lines entering the power plants. The effect would be total shock and aw but much easier to reconnect afterwards when they have the new puppet regime in place.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Inflation has nothing to do with whether the currency is electronic. Maybe you're confusing it with cryptocurrencies? That's not what cashless means in this context - most Swedes are not paying with Bitcoin, but with electronic krona.
heavenlyhash 9y ago
Maybe there are other factors than obsession with the speed and "productivity" effect of the money-transfer part of a transaction. Your meal and beer entering your mouth probably took 100x as long as the difference between counting change and swiping a card. So why not puree them together? And damn anyone who thinks it was important to keep them separate; incomprehensible.
- freehunter 9y ago
  I think that's an unnecessarily hostile viewpoint. Basically your argument boils down to "some things take longer to do than other things, so there's no point in making things easier/faster/more efficient". I don't think anyone would argue that since cars are bigger than cell phones, that we should make our cell phones as big as cars (it's incomprehensible to think that cars and cell phones should be different sizes). So why should we use a slower and less efficient payment method just because food takes more time to cook and prepare? I don't think anyone would argue that since humans can only walk ~3mph, that airplanes should be limited to the same speed (it's incomprehensible to think that airplanes and humans should travel at different speeds). So why should we use a slower and less efficient payment method just because humans walk slower than an airplane flies? Do you see what I'm getting at here? The speed at which you eat your food does not impact the speed of the payment method you prefer to use. All the payment method impacts is how much stuff you have to carry in your pockets, and how much can be stolen from you at any given moment.
  - heavenlyhash 9y ago
    > Basically your argument boils down It does not, in fact. My insinuation is that perhaps some people have a preference against going cashless which has nothing to do with speed.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
    > I think that's an unnecessarily hostile viewpoint. Basically your argument boils down to "some things take longer to do than other things, so there's no point in making things easier/faster/more efficient". I think what the parent means is that there are several other reasons, and at the same time makes a case against the main argument in favor of card transactions. Many people simply feel they don't want to give up control over their cash, over information how they spend it, and basically: how they live their lives. As history shown us, once you give up this control, it's gone forever, and here are many actors eager to take over this information, not necessarily to the benefit of the citizen.
sveme 9y ago
> In Germany almost every cafe, restaurant, or bar requires you pay with cash. We must be living in very different Germanys.
- sleepyhead 9y ago
  Cash is the norm at all casual places in Berlin.
- carlmr 9y ago
  I'm living in optimusrex Germany, too. You might be alone in cashless Germany.
  - sveme 9y ago
    Maybe different cities? I‘m in Munich.
    - carlmr 9y ago
      Stuttgart reporting in.
EarthMephit 9y ago
Smaller resturants prefer cash, because it allows them to evade taxes by underquoting their profits. The same reason that builders quote less for "cash only" prices This is one of the main reasons that governments are pushing for cashless systems, because there is less evetax evasion and increased revenue
- gnopgnip 9y ago
  It is incredibly rare that a builder would accept physical cash, they will be paid by check or bank transfer. Builders quote less because there is less risk of finance delays, and a greater chance of completing the project for cash buyers than those that depend on a draw and continued credit from a bank.
  - EarthMephit 9y ago
    Here in Australia there are plenty of builders that will openly offer you quotes and then take off the 10% GST/sales tax if you pay in all cash The builders benefit because they then wont pay any income tax on the job
- iamatworknow 9y ago
  Along those same lines if I'm going out to eat somewhere that accepts credit cards I will almost always pay the bill with the card and tip the server in cash. They can just pocket the cash and as far as the restaurant knows they didn't receive a tip (that would otherwise be taxed).
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    If you don't add a tip to the credit receipt, the IRS will estimate a tip value for tax purposes. I don't know the exact amount, but I think it's around 10%. If you are intent upon helping service staff evade taxes, the optimal strategy would therefore be to put 10% on the receipt and drop the remainder on the table in cash. This also means that if you stiff your server and leave no tip, they are still getting taxed as though you left 10%. If you really want to be a jerk, be slightly less of a jerk by leaving a $0.01 tip on the receipt. This will also allow them to post it to outrage-fueled social media for a tiny bit of temporary fame. Most people aren't that invested into stigginit to da Man, or at least not just via their restaurant tips. You'd be better off paying cash for everything, no-receipt requested, and not involving the electronic point-of-sale till at all.
phil21 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    >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.
- amorphid 9y ago
  It's a money loser to not accept credit cards, too. I don't like carrying cash. I'm likely to skip a cash only restaurant even if I want to eat there because I want to charge purchase & I don't have cash.
  - 1337biz 9y ago
    As soon as you are offering some form of card payment somebody can calculate what % is usually in that kind of business transacted via credit cards, therefore knows how realistic the reported revenue is.
vegardx 9y ago
Simple, it's easier to pocket some money when you do it in cash. Going on a limb here, the cafes and bars you've frequented aren't the well established with a long history-kind.
dmitriid 9y ago
Germans are very paranoid about giving their details to anyone: government, banks, corporations, other people. Paying with cash is viewed as a safer way to pay without any number of Big Brothers watching over your shoulder. (The reason for paranoia is the history of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi)
- mioelnir 9y ago
  There is also another german word in the realm of centralization - Gleichschaltung. It is nowadays exclusively used to describe the centralization of government functions and bodies during the beginning of the 3rd Reich. Big central government offices, their tracking capabilities and emerging network effects were one of the required precursors for what came later. It is why many parts of the modern/post-war German bureaucracy were intentionally set up inefficient and why we still dislike any "central databases" for anything, from law enforcement to tax collection. Slow, decoupled government systems slow down unwanted usage patterns much more than valid ones, are generally harder to game (try explaining your urgent need for some data to a rural bavarian city hall employee) and easier to monitor/verify for citizens.
mdekkers 9y ago
I cannot understand the pushback against cashless systems I am deeply comfortable with the idea that I have the option to keep my spending habits private, and not subject to data mining. I also like the idea of not being tracked all the time, and I like the idea of general anonymity. I don't like the idea that my options are being removed form me, with no discernible benefit to me. You like paying by card? Excellent, go right ahead. I like to have the option, sometimes cash, sometimes electronic.
superkuh 9y ago
I see the opposite here in the USA in rural areas. People are constantly holding up the lines because of the chip/pin updates or other failures and confusions. With cash it is always just simple and quick. And I know it doesn't matter but when you pay with a credit card or third party payment service you are not paying. Some other entity is.
- EADGBE 9y ago
  It doesn’t help that card terminal/chip card rollout in the US has been catastrophic.
  - sowbug 9y ago
    I live in the U.S. and haven't noticed anything catastrophic about it. Am I living in a bubble?
    - EADGBE 9y ago
      Possibly not for you, but I noticed a long roll-out of switching from stripe to chip. Then, a lot of card readers in major retail stores not "allowing" chip transactions and having to switch. Still even now, most fast-food places disallow chip transactions. Most recently, I have a repeatable bug in Walgreens where my newly issued credit card (old expired) will not run chip transactions. Their system requires me to attempt a chip transaction first (of which I must do three times) before it will allow me to finally swipe (and work). If I attempt to swipe at first it will require a chip transaction (and on, and on, and on...) However I can't completely blame Walgreens on it; they're the only one that's reproducable 100% of the time (3-5x now since card was issued). I've also had to re-do transactions with that card at Target but that's hit-and-miss.
jasonkostempski 9y ago
"but the amount of time and energy saved by having "exact change" every transaction should increase productivity enough to cover any costs." I doubt that's the case, especially since fees are usually percent based. Someone accepting, making change for, and depositing $1000 vs. $1 takes about the same amount of effort, but $1000 charged will cost them much more than $1 charge. Maybe if the fees were flat or something like 0.001%, but they're always much higher.
lorenzhs 9y ago
There's a very detailed Bundesbank report on popularity of means of payment in Germany that was recently updated: https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/EN/Topics/2018/2018_02_14_zahlungsverhalten.html https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/EN/Topics/2018/2018_02_1... -- the full report (in German only, sorry) is at https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/Veroeffentlichungen/Studien/zahlungsverhalten_in_deutschland_2017.pdf?__blob=publicationFile https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/Veroeffentl...
marktangotango 9y ago
It’s the transaction fees, Germans are “thrifty”.
mkesper 9y ago
You're legally obliged to accept cash in Germany so offering any other means of paying must be well worth it (fees, readers etc.).
jacquesm 9y ago
> 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.
EADGBE 9y ago
Agreed, when statistically someone is willing to “overspend” on non-cash, the nominal 2-3% transaction fee seems, well, nominal.
herbst 9y ago
This is on one side for tax avoidance reasons. But on the other side everyone I know working in gastronomy rages about Americans and their aggressive credit card usage, how slow usually the process is (these people are trained with cash, plus nearly anywhere in Europe you round the sum to something easy to give out anyway as a tip). From what I can tell these people simply prefer cash. I just asked and my gf said it's just a lot faster to do it by hand.
ionised 9y ago
It's not all about productivity.

Cbasedlifeform 9y ago

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 9y ago
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.
- TangoTrotFox 9y ago
  And I'd argue there that, to some degree, it's a matter of breadth of spending and not just depth. Money may or may not trickle down, but it certainly gushes upward. So as an obvious example a thousand people selling something for $10 a piece instead of 1 person selling something for $10,000 is obviously much more desirable. I'd speculate that tactics like this won't really increase the breadth of spend, but only the depth - so you simply accelerate the upward flow of income. That could hypothetically be a good thing, invoking my inner Milton Friedman, if those on top then use that groundswell of 'free' money to then reinvest in their business and everybody moves upward. However in this case, as opposed to general supply side economics at large, you need to show that that subsequent trickle down is more beneficial than what was removed from those at the bottom. I think that's going to be improbable, especially as the merit of supply side economics itself becomes ever more debatable.
- vertex-four 9y ago
  On the other hand, back to talking about real people, the less you feel like you have a sufficient buffer to last until your next paycheck, the more stressed you are. If we psychologically manipulate people into spending more than they’re naturally comfortable with, we’re creating a society that’s worse off for the people in it.
  - 9y ago

rumcajz 9y ago

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

duality 9y ago
Couldnt people still save "cash" electronically in a savings account, say?
- 1001101 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    Cash isn't getting any more valuable, either. What are you suggesting? Hoarding gold bars?
    - Tijdreiziger 9y ago
      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 9y ago
        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 9y ago
        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.

Overtonwindow 9y ago

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 9y ago
The cash premium already exists, since you can get some of the money from each purchase back on your credit card.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  Only in some places; credit cards are relatively rare in Sweden (everyone uses debit cards), and rewards are generally mediocre at best.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  On the other hand, some places offer discounts for cash, since they don't have to pay the credit card fee on the transaction.

ciocan42 9y ago

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 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      The exoticism of a foreign currency also probably has something to do with it.
- mrnobody_67 9y ago
  Haven't found a fee free travel card for canadians... in fact our major bank (TD) just increased FX fees from 2.5% - > 3.5% on foreign transactions, on top of a super unfavourable exchange rate. I usually bring stacks of cash on my trips.

mfringel 9y ago

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 9y ago
Cashless transactions require a third party Cryptocurrency.. (miners are decentralized and don't require you to trust them)
- brownbat 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    The network can still run between those two people alone (if consolidation is solved).
    - Paperweight 9y ago
      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 9y ago
        Yes... I wonder how Nature implemented that...
        mioelnir 9y ago

Fnoord 9y ago

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 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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.
    - stordoff 9y ago
      Dishonestly would be a key factor there. If you believe you have the legal right to do that, or you believe that the owner of the goods would have consented, then you have not acted dishonestly, and there is no theft. If you do so to as you believe that the owner would not accept cash, you have acted dishonestly and thus there is a theft.[1] Note that Velumyl was an appeal on the grounds that the defendant did not intend to permanently deprive, thus the money being different was relevant as he permanently deprived the owner of that specific property. Had the defendant contented there was no dishonestly -- that he intended to return equivalent funds and believed that the company would consent -- the decision may well have been different. [1] Theft Act 1968 s.2(1) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/2

callesgg 9y ago

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 9y ago
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-financial-system/payments/does-sweden-need-an-e-krona/the-e-krona-projects-first-interim-report/ https://www.riksbank.se/en-gb/financial-stability/the-financ...
- deletesweden 9y ago
  So, the only people who are okay with it are younger people? Do they happen to be the ones who use smartphones instead of computers, listen to dubstep instead of music, and so on? The people who watch fucking Let's Plays? Oh well. One day we'll look back at that generation, laugh our asses off, and change the subject.
- callesgg 9y ago
  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.

nv-vn 9y ago

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.

draw_down 9y ago
Pick your dystopia!
dragonwriter 9y ago
I imagine the rants when issuing currency was restricted to a state monopoly were pretty similar, and pretty similarly misguided.
ddingus 9y ago
Maybe it's more about risk management, in particular, mixing investment banking in where the public ends up on the hook.
improbable22 9y ago
"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).

yxhuvud 9y ago

> 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.

linkmotif 9y ago

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.

imartin2k 9y ago

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 9y ago
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.
- 87812487 9y ago
  I think it is a interesting question. Before using a payment gateway, what is the cost of using cash? It would be covered by tax. If the whole society is abandoning cash, it is effectively meant raising sales tax by X%, where X is transaction cost of each payment. A cashless country should just use the tax money on cash printing factories to cover the cost of transaction.
- imartin2k 9y ago
  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-interchange-cap https://www.adyen.com/blog/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-eu...) 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.

harshgupta 9y ago

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.

hashmush 9y ago

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 9y ago
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 9y ago
  Is a bank that has no physical cash trustworthy? Who holds their cash, and what other core functions have they outsourced or stopped offering?

dalbasal 9y ago

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.

sitharus 9y ago
Cashless transactions don’t have to go through the card networks. Here in New Zealand around 2/3rds of all retail transactions are done via cards because many years ago the reserve bank mandated free inter-bank transactions. This means direct bank-to-bank transactions via the local EFTPOS network are free for both parties (with exceptions for some low-use plans, and businesses typically rent the terminals). Also the local eBay equivalent TradeMe gained its popularity on this network. Given somebody’s bank account number I can transfer money to their account within an hour (used to be overnight until a few years ago). There’s no reversal for this so it’s safe for the seller, and since it’s a real bank there’s no way to freeze it without a court order. The banks being banks of course are trying to ruin this, since using the big card networks gives them free revenue.

nearmuse 9y ago

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 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.
- Faark 9y ago
  So many requirements for digital cash - You want control to fight fraud/bad actors - You don't want to much control for a single party (incl gov) - It should work without necessary global communications (e.g. post disaster; global consensus like Bitcoin won't help there) - Users want privacy - Usual stuff like no double spending - Transparency would be nice to verify correctness and no abuse by your bank - Easy to use We'll have a hard time finding a replacement satisfying them all. I wonder what we'll be willing to give up.

pasbesoin 9y ago

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".

mmagin 9y ago

(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.

dsign 9y ago

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 9y ago
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.

skookumchuck 9y ago

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.

HIPisTheAnswer 9y ago

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

laacz 9y ago

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

alkonaut 9y ago

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).