6 ms·

I fail to see how Sweden in this case is enforcing the cashless trends through surveillance or coercion.

by yellow_postit 8y ago

edoceo 8y ago
Maybe the near monopoly of the payment network is the coercion?
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  "either use Swish or go without food/water/travel/etc" is coercion by any definition
  - o-o- 8y ago
    Food is payed with VISA och Mastercard. Water is payed through the online banking service. Travel with VISA/Mastercard (even local buses accept credit cards). "Etc" is also payed with VISA or Mastercard. Swish is a mere conveniency for transferring money without having to log onto your online banking service. I use it once a month tops.
    - fouc 8y ago
      What happens if you don't have visa/mastercard or even a bank account?
      - icebraining 8y ago
        What happens if you don't have cash? Answer: you get cash, because most shops won't barter. Same thing here.
      - petre 8y ago
        What jappens when the electricity is out? In a Katrina or Maria (hurricanes) scenario.
    - jandrese 8y ago
      I think not having a bank account is unthinkable in a place like Sweden. Thanks to the strong social safety net and extremely restrictive immigration policy they don't have abject poor. At worst you're lower middle class and can get a bank account. It does seem to be a bad deal for tourists however. I'm surprised that companies are apparently so quick to ditch traditional credit cards.
      - ptr 8y ago
        But companies aren’t ditching credit cards, we’re just using “contact less”/Apple Pay/etc. more. When Swish is used by a company (I’ve only seen a couple), they’re either super-cheap or gimmicky.
- dane-pgp 8y ago
  Some people would say that consumers are free to avoid vendors that don't accept cash, but in practice this "freedom" is actually a huge cost, in terms of time and mental overhead and lack of choice. The danger is that society as a whole ends up making sub-optimal decisions because each person is (selfishly / rationally) choosing to avoid these extra costs. Powerful entities (even those falling short of absolute monopolies) probably get away with a lot more societal harm than they would if we were more aware of this "coercion of convenience".
dysan819 8y ago
You have a severe lack of imagination. You must be fun at parties. There are a myriad of ways Sweden can and probably is enforcing cashless trends through surveillance and coercion. Encouraging banks and retailers to refuse cash services, as referenced in the article, is likely done by the government. This enhances their ability to track and control all monetary transactions for any number of reasons (nefarious or otherwise).
- irascible 8y ago
  Sound like you have an overactive imagination, and are probably Not fun at parties. I imagine you said the same thing about email, and continue to hand write all your correspondence to keep it out of the gubmints hands? Physical money is disgusting. Might as well use poo sticks as currency...
- monochromatic 8y ago
  > You must be fun at parties. Can we, as a society, just stop saying that?
  - adobeeee 8y ago
    > you're a sexless virgin Fake quote but also something I'd like to see removed from meaningful discussions
- dang 8y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this again.
belorn 8y ago
The primary cited reason for the cashless trend is the security against money laundering. My government has done every policy and regulative action they can to guarantee that all money transaction is recorded and a bank liable if anything is not clean.
- FabHK 8y ago
  It is worth noting that the article describes how private sector decisions are crowding out cash, how the government (specifically the central bank) is concerned about this, and considering to deliver a solution (namely digital cash issued by the central bank).
  - incompatible 8y ago
    The system is still based on central bank currency in the background. What is being lost is direct consumer access to central bank currency: they must rely on private-sector intermediaries.
- o-o- 8y ago
  The primary cited reason for the cashless trend is the ability for shops to simply say no. Anti-money laundry laws trickle down from EU level.
  - dr_dshiv 8y ago
    And the most obvious reason for the cashless trend is that cashless is easier and more fruitful for buyer and seller. Buyer just touches their card/phone to the machine. Who likes dealing with cash? (Answer: Germans)
    - eftychis 8y ago
      Also Greeks, Italians and most the Europeans I know. Cashless is a Northern European thing I would say. Edit: Please comment if things are different in your non-Swedish country (considering Europe here, but curious about other countries of course).
coldtea 8y ago
Lots of oppressive regimes and policies throughout 20th century had large popular support too, and people opted-in to them.
- lapinot 8y ago
  Exactly, this is not stated enough. We have to grow up with our relationship with political systems, authoritarianism even dictatorship: it happens because of some population dynamics which we may or may not be currently be participating in or regularly encounter. So sure, the question of why cashless has taken off there is interesting, but maybe more importantly we need to think about the current state, what could be the next moves (the consequences), do we want to influence it and targeting what? ... But thinking about currencies and economy in europe is always kinda doomed because the euro is double-locked. No national economic policy actually has a meaning since at most your gonna leverage some power to influence the ECB, but you're never gonna be the one to actually decide. So there is a complicated combat to do cross european countries saying ok we have to re-found the mission and the organization of the ECB, the relationship with national economies. How do we want to keep down inflation: just maintain growth in face of other world economies that actually grow or make ourselves more independent, what do we do when countries have diverging interests, how do we make sure it's regulated and we keep control on it? I would vouch for a system where euro exists but is restricted to cross-country corporate business and easy traveling: common credit card system where you can transparently withdraw any participating national money at the current nation negociated exchange rate (eg federating by having a star topology instead of a complete graph for exchange rates: "we treat all the others the same"). Additionally the BCE should have a second decision instance (two-chamber-like) basically being the european budget commission but elected by people, not chosen by governments, to ease cross-country political action. And on a more technical/practical level we have to rethink about wire transfers. I don't know much about how SEPA works but it's probably interesting to take a look.
  - pmontra 8y ago
    Every country in your system would have to use their own currency again because if banknotes are the same and (example) the German Euro is stronger than the French one (that would mean everything on Germany is cheaper than in France), the French would hoard all the Euro banknotes they can get their hands on and buy stuff in Germany. Traveling to Germany is not for everybody but there would be companies doing mass transfers of money and goods for the rest of the population. By the way, this is why the Eurozone authorities try to make every country align on debt, growth, etc, which is pretty hopeless given so many governments with different pools of voters and agendas. Like having the USA with a powerless president (who knows who's the EU president), camera and senate and governors trying to agree on everything with basically no cross country political party. It also looks a little like those countries with their own national currency but also everyone accepting USD. Tourists can carry dollars, lose a little by unfavorable rates at every payment, maybe end up with change in the local currency to use in the next shop. I remember that on vacation in Uzbekistan.
ErikVandeWater 8y ago
All regulations that are enforced are coercive by definition. The regulations that create a de facto monopoly are coercive. I would guess some surveillance is involved in terms of audits of banks, but it might not fit the technical definition of surveillance.
- kalleboo 8y ago
  In this case it's a lack of regulation though. Stores are not coerced into accepting cash, so they choose what's most practical to them.
rs23296008n1 8y ago
Actually, if use of cash can be denied, then yes, coercion for using cards could be established. Are Swedish businesses allowed to reject cash? I think I read they can in that article. Coercion: "To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel." So if I'm down the street and cash won't let me get on a bus, the movie tickets can't be purchased, food can't be bought etc. There's the basis for pressure. Can't buy food without card, ok you go hungry. There's the threat. I'm sure that intimidation will turn up in a lot of little ways. Public ostracism / humiliation (even at subtle levels) due to not having a card could be seen as real enough to count. The network effects of not having a card will likely cause serious inconvenience. If "you can't do anything without a card" then you are compelled to get one. Sounds like coercion to me.

I fail to see how Sweden in this case is enforcing the cashless trends through surveillance or coercion.

edoceo 8y ago

Maybe the near monopoly of the payment network is the coercion?

eeZah7Ux 8y ago
"either use Swish or go without food/water/travel/etc" is coercion by any definition
- o-o- 8y ago
  Food is payed with VISA och Mastercard. Water is payed through the online banking service. Travel with VISA/Mastercard (even local buses accept credit cards). "Etc" is also payed with VISA or Mastercard. Swish is a mere conveniency for transferring money without having to log onto your online banking service. I use it once a month tops.
  - fouc 8y ago
    What happens if you don't have visa/mastercard or even a bank account?
    - icebraining 8y ago
      What happens if you don't have cash? Answer: you get cash, because most shops won't barter. Same thing here.
    - petre 8y ago
      What jappens when the electricity is out? In a Katrina or Maria (hurricanes) scenario.
  - jandrese 8y ago
    I think not having a bank account is unthinkable in a place like Sweden. Thanks to the strong social safety net and extremely restrictive immigration policy they don't have abject poor. At worst you're lower middle class and can get a bank account. It does seem to be a bad deal for tourists however. I'm surprised that companies are apparently so quick to ditch traditional credit cards.
    - ptr 8y ago
      But companies aren’t ditching credit cards, we’re just using “contact less”/Apple Pay/etc. more. When Swish is used by a company (I’ve only seen a couple), they’re either super-cheap or gimmicky.
dane-pgp 8y ago
Some people would say that consumers are free to avoid vendors that don't accept cash, but in practice this "freedom" is actually a huge cost, in terms of time and mental overhead and lack of choice. The danger is that society as a whole ends up making sub-optimal decisions because each person is (selfishly / rationally) choosing to avoid these extra costs. Powerful entities (even those falling short of absolute monopolies) probably get away with a lot more societal harm than they would if we were more aware of this "coercion of convenience".

dysan819 8y ago

You have a severe lack of imagination. You must be fun at parties. There are a myriad of ways Sweden can and probably is enforcing cashless trends through surveillance and coercion. Encouraging banks and retailers to refuse cash services, as referenced in the article, is likely done by the government. This enhances their ability to track and control all monetary transactions for any number of reasons (nefarious or otherwise).

irascible 8y ago
Sound like you have an overactive imagination, and are probably Not fun at parties. I imagine you said the same thing about email, and continue to hand write all your correspondence to keep it out of the gubmints hands? Physical money is disgusting. Might as well use poo sticks as currency...
monochromatic 8y ago
> You must be fun at parties. Can we, as a society, just stop saying that?
- adobeeee 8y ago
  > you're a sexless virgin Fake quote but also something I'd like to see removed from meaningful discussions
dang 8y ago
Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this again.

belorn 8y ago

The primary cited reason for the cashless trend is the security against money laundering. My government has done every policy and regulative action they can to guarantee that all money transaction is recorded and a bank liable if anything is not clean.

FabHK 8y ago
It is worth noting that the article describes how private sector decisions are crowding out cash, how the government (specifically the central bank) is concerned about this, and considering to deliver a solution (namely digital cash issued by the central bank).
- incompatible 8y ago
  The system is still based on central bank currency in the background. What is being lost is direct consumer access to central bank currency: they must rely on private-sector intermediaries.
o-o- 8y ago
The primary cited reason for the cashless trend is the ability for shops to simply say no. Anti-money laundry laws trickle down from EU level.
- dr_dshiv 8y ago
  And the most obvious reason for the cashless trend is that cashless is easier and more fruitful for buyer and seller. Buyer just touches their card/phone to the machine. Who likes dealing with cash? (Answer: Germans)
  - eftychis 8y ago
    Also Greeks, Italians and most the Europeans I know. Cashless is a Northern European thing I would say. Edit: Please comment if things are different in your non-Swedish country (considering Europe here, but curious about other countries of course).

coldtea 8y ago

Lots of oppressive regimes and policies throughout 20th century had large popular support too, and people opted-in to them.

lapinot 8y ago
Exactly, this is not stated enough. We have to grow up with our relationship with political systems, authoritarianism even dictatorship: it happens because of some population dynamics which we may or may not be currently be participating in or regularly encounter. So sure, the question of why cashless has taken off there is interesting, but maybe more importantly we need to think about the current state, what could be the next moves (the consequences), do we want to influence it and targeting what? ... But thinking about currencies and economy in europe is always kinda doomed because the euro is double-locked. No national economic policy actually has a meaning since at most your gonna leverage some power to influence the ECB, but you're never gonna be the one to actually decide. So there is a complicated combat to do cross european countries saying ok we have to re-found the mission and the organization of the ECB, the relationship with national economies. How do we want to keep down inflation: just maintain growth in face of other world economies that actually grow or make ourselves more independent, what do we do when countries have diverging interests, how do we make sure it's regulated and we keep control on it? I would vouch for a system where euro exists but is restricted to cross-country corporate business and easy traveling: common credit card system where you can transparently withdraw any participating national money at the current nation negociated exchange rate (eg federating by having a star topology instead of a complete graph for exchange rates: "we treat all the others the same"). Additionally the BCE should have a second decision instance (two-chamber-like) basically being the european budget commission but elected by people, not chosen by governments, to ease cross-country political action. And on a more technical/practical level we have to rethink about wire transfers. I don't know much about how SEPA works but it's probably interesting to take a look.
- pmontra 8y ago
  Every country in your system would have to use their own currency again because if banknotes are the same and (example) the German Euro is stronger than the French one (that would mean everything on Germany is cheaper than in France), the French would hoard all the Euro banknotes they can get their hands on and buy stuff in Germany. Traveling to Germany is not for everybody but there would be companies doing mass transfers of money and goods for the rest of the population. By the way, this is why the Eurozone authorities try to make every country align on debt, growth, etc, which is pretty hopeless given so many governments with different pools of voters and agendas. Like having the USA with a powerless president (who knows who's the EU president), camera and senate and governors trying to agree on everything with basically no cross country political party. It also looks a little like those countries with their own national currency but also everyone accepting USD. Tourists can carry dollars, lose a little by unfavorable rates at every payment, maybe end up with change in the local currency to use in the next shop. I remember that on vacation in Uzbekistan.

ErikVandeWater 8y ago

All regulations that are enforced are coercive by definition. The regulations that create a de facto monopoly are coercive. I would guess some surveillance is involved in terms of audits of banks, but it might not fit the technical definition of surveillance.

kalleboo 8y ago
In this case it's a lack of regulation though. Stores are not coerced into accepting cash, so they choose what's most practical to them.

rs23296008n1 8y ago

Actually, if use of cash can be denied, then yes, coercion for using cards could be established. Are Swedish businesses allowed to reject cash? I think I read they can in that article. Coercion: "To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel." So if I'm down the street and cash won't let me get on a bus, the movie tickets can't be purchased, food can't be bought etc. There's the basis for pressure. Can't buy food without card, ok you go hungry. There's the threat. I'm sure that intimidation will turn up in a lot of little ways. Public ostracism / humiliation (even at subtle levels) due to not having a card could be seen as real enough to count. The network effects of not having a card will likely cause serious inconvenience. If "you can't do anything without a card" then you are compelled to get one. Sounds like coercion to me.