3 ms·

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

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.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> wouldn't a electronic ledger be must safer and reliable than if the government say just started printing more money leading to inflation problems No. Aside from the added vulnerability of the infrastructure needed to maintain and interact with an electronic ledger, such a system either still allows a government to issue new tokens (and thus has no effect on the issue you raise) or requires blunter, higher overhead means at serving the same national functions that wartime money printing serves, which means either (or both) more internal disruption or greater probability of losing the war.

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.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> wouldn't a electronic ledger be must safer and reliable than if the government say just started printing more money leading to inflation problems No. Aside from the added vulnerability of the infrastructure needed to maintain and interact with an electronic ledger, such a system either still allows a government to issue new tokens (and thus has no effect on the issue you raise) or requires blunter, higher overhead means at serving the same national functions that wartime money printing serves, which means either (or both) more internal disruption or greater probability of losing the war.