Why Sweden is abandoning its cashless society
uk.news.yahoo.com
uk.news.yahoo.com
It is of great convenience to governments that digital payments require registered accounts on easily-tracked systems.
Just let people buy vegetables without becoming a cell in a Borgesian spreadsheet.
Not entirely sure if those rules were relaxed, but the state and banks with higher cash handling fees did have a fair share in pushing cash out.
Good on Sweden for going against the trend of ever increasing digitisation which is only going to be used against their citizens in bad ways.
I actually invested in a kyc business after being a bit horrified by the scam compounds in Cambodia but was disappointed when I heard a presentation of their successes which were mostly fines for legit people filling the forms wrong. Meanwhile the scam compounds got closed by raiding them and imprisoning or executing the criminals. I think the latter works much better than the former.
Now tell me how intelligent the system is in that scenario.
On the one hand the disenfranchisement is real. On the other hand many of these people are able to learn lots of new technologies if properly incentivized. It's generally an opt-out of society that's enabled by workarounds being available.
Should we forego on convenience because we have a bunch of naysayers?
Forget about cash, try living life in de Randstad area without a smartphone and half a dozen apps setup, configured and tuned for you life. It's definitely possible, but you will be living at a different level of velocity than if you have all the tools at your disposal.
It wasn’t so convenient during the Iberian power blackout last year when all the electronic payment machines were out of action.
Cyberattacks on infrastructure are increasing.
National resilience/contingency is worth thinking about too.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/rogers-debit...
Besides this, people should be rewarded for using cash for purchases, as they both forego convenience for helping build a resilient society, and are more likely to be funding local businesses than large multinationals.
It would be straightforward to establish the right to a free basic bank account (with transaction limits) for the homeless & (formerly) unbanked.
In my experience, the elderly can forget or mixup their card pins frequently enough to be annoyed by the ordeal. They are also more prone to expose their pins to others and be the target of theft.
>It would be straightforward to establish the right to a free basic bank account (with transaction limits) for the homeless & (formerly) unbanked.
The whole point is that in a cashless society the dependence on digital bank accounts is considered a single point of failure even for the banked, never mind the unbanked. The elderly and the homeless are also less equipped in knowing how to resolve problems that require digital solutions compared to the others.
The point of failure around scams with pins and such is very valid, see gift cards.
A little too trusting believing that, no? Hairdressers are famous for cheating on their taxes, and cash is an excellent way to do it.
https://www.sverigesradio.se/artikel/hairdressers-evading-ta...
"An ongoing audit of the hairdressing industry that the Swedish Tax Agency is currently conducting shows that virtually all hairdressing companies audited by the authority are involved in some form of tax evasion [...] The most common tax avoidance discovered in the audits of around fifty hairdressing companies so far is undeclared income"
I don't miss cash at all, and in many ways I will be happy if I never have to carry it on me again.
I never has a fee for any bank for depositing cash, even up to a few thousand. I really doubt that will happen unless you walk in with millions. In that case you will have more to worry about that fees.
Banks in the US will charge you additional monthly fees for cash handling if you deposit a lot of cash (don’t quote me, but I’m quite sure of > ~5k/d threshold).
I had cash and zero problems. Many had no cash and many problems.
You specifically mentioned banking as a problem and I mentioned a specific solution. Based in real life, not fantasy.
I am arguing your point and you are attacking me rather than making a point of your own.
It's not a fair characterisation that cash is useless without electricity because once you have it(presumably before the electricity stops) then you can still transact with it.
It is helping a little bit, but the benefits of this kind of preparedness are overstated.
In a shorter term crisis, I can absolutely imagine smaller grocery stores near me using a cashbox for takings and recording purchases with a pen and paper. Any government would be highly supportive of this as it would be essential to prevent anarchy.
When something like that comes, you find a way or the business goes elsewhere. Taxes? Count the cash - that's what you sold during the power out. Multiply by the tax rate, and call it square.
They don't have a piece of paper and a calculator as backup?
Two power outages where I live told me that.
Western governments have a tendency to try and change their publics rather than be changed by the public. They even have a name for it, "psychological nudging".
It is sort of amazing what california does. For example the power of california to tax people, even after they've left california. Or pay sales tax on a car ignoring a trade-in.
And even in cases like Maduro who is a wanted criminal and I believe would be easily proven to have committed crimes against humanity, the lack of public indictment and backlash against the United States for bringing that piece of shit to justice discredits the ICC. It can’t be an organization where it applies universal human rights declarations only when Israel is involved. That’s stupid and that’s exactly why the organization is a failure.
All organisations are made up.
There is absolutely no risk of him or any American president being arrested by the ICC lol.
If "the electronics" break down, shops usually can't accept any form of payment at all, because that would be illegal with their on-line cash registers being offline...
Or are you thinking more of a "farmer" as someone selling individual artisan carrots?
That's the trust of established relations.
Col. Jacques Baud is living it right now. He's been cut off from his pension and bank accounts completely in Belgium and is prohibited from crossing borders.
So he can't even return to Switzerland.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/foreign-affairs/former-swiss-in...
also article you link: "It is unclear if Baud is a resident of Switzerland."
so not sure why he should be returning to switzerland
In several interviews about his predicament he talked about the ban on crossing borders to go back to Switzerland, where he still has funds. Switzerland is not part of Schengen, so I guess he would be intercepted and then persecuted for trying to escape this medieval punishment.
Right now in Belgium he can't even buy food, as his EU accounts have been locked. He's been fed by friends and neighbours (who might also find themselves in trouble).
as for ban on crossing border, I still fail to see what is he charged with (Google results says nothing), if he is not charged with breaking some law or detained, there is no lawful way to stop him from crossing the border legally, let alone don't understand why he just doesn't flee and doesn't cross border illegaly (I mean can you even cross border illegaly when entering your own country? I guess it could be illegally exiting Germany)
I also found this sanctions tracker information
https://data.europa.eu/apps/eusanctionstracker/subjects/1802...
seems to be guy with same name born in 1995? though pictures I found everywhere show guy in 50-60s, so I guess they can't even properly write sanctions since they are for 40 years younger man?
and I still dont get why anyone would be sanctioned for being:
"Jacques Baud, a former Swiss army colonel and strategic analyst, is a regular guest on pro-Russian television and radio programmes. He acts as a mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda and makes conspiracy theories, for example accusing Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion in order to join NATO."
what is illegal about EU citizens talking to Russian TVs/radios, being mouthpiece of whatever propaganda or making consipiracy theories, all of those seem like pretty ridiculous reasons to put sanctions on someone, they can sanction then like 1/3rd of Bulgarian or Slovak population
He could always go skiing in Vallorcine, France. It's quite easy to end up in Switzerland if you take the wrong turn.
Prophecy: some people here may argue that's a good thing, and we should differentiate between a good and bad debanking.
Edit: as expected, if you want to push for more autocracy and control, you need to find the right bogeyman. And suddenly, people claiming they are liberal and pro freedom will start supporting authoritarian policies, but "just in some cases", whether those people are terrorists, "far rights" or paedophiles.
IMHO it's obvious that there should be a limited minimum/basic account provided by the state unconditionally, and that the current practice of using AML regulations to effectively ban people from having bank cards and bank accounts goes against the spirit of due process.
it's quite farcical that private banks are used as mandatory designated sin-eaters (scapegoats) for this. they don't want to and mostly can't comment on the specifics (because SAR - suspicious activity reporting - and the various national equivalents, usually immediately triggers the requirement to play dumb, since that's the only way to ensure that the bank cannot be later dragged in front of whatever authority for not cooperating with the investigation) but everyone knows it, since it's in the fucking news.
and the actual legal actions tend to be overturned.
all of which in total end up helping these organizations (and these politicians) to farm reputation.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/various/entry-ban-for-austrian-...
You think that “actual legal actions tend to be overturned” is an acceptable state of affairs?? Think about what you said right there? Read it again. And then again!
It’s astonishing you would say such a thing. You think you would somehow be immune from the tyrant you support?
i am using that as support for my claim that this extralegal proscription of access to financial services would likely also not survive the courts.
my position on this is simple. if the state claims there's something illegal then they should charge him/them, if not then pressuring private parties to stop exercising their freedom of assembly and association obviously goes against the spirit of civil rights and the rule of law.
(and I know the problem is convoluted, hard and obviously a realpolitik minefield, but ... again, obviously whatever the last 20 years of elected governments were/are doing did not solve the problems.)
Replying to your edit: this is not a discussion about whether debanking or state control of the financial system is good or bad in general. I don't have a much opinion on such a complex topic (though I do hope that your principled opposition to state debanking also extends to muslims). What I replied to is your allegation of that he was debanked for his "opinions", which is categorically false. He was put on some sort of list, rightly or wrongly, because he had links with a far-right terrorist* who shot and killed dozens of people at a mosque. You omitting that fact and crying about authoritarianism when confronted leads me to think that you are not arguing in good faith.
*in the strictest definition of the word: openly subscribing (and self-describing) to far-right ideologies, and committing acts of terror
Of course. With the restriction that Muslims in non-Muslim countries are not entitled to Islamic banking if no bank provides it, as well as non-Muslims in Muslim countries are not entitled to non-Islamic banking.
Back to Sellner. If he is a far-right terrorist, arrest him for God's sake. Don't leave it to banks to emulate justice in their own internal processes.
Are you really trying to point at some racist freak that advocates for ethnical cleansing via mass deportations as an example of debanking being bad?
Because you are actually convincing me of the opposite.
It's unfortunate that many people, including you, would support authoritarian methods and reducing of human rights like free speech, privacy, etc, as long as that is framed against "bad" people, and not "good".
Of course, that same totalitarian regime may tomorrow decide you are "bad", or at least not "good enough".
I'm not arguing about Sellner, I picked him because I knew it would provoke this kind of response.
But if he did something illegal, state should arrest him, bring him to court, and put him in jail. Legally and fine, that's why we pay taxes.
But since he is not convinced, and not jailed, harassing him because some people don't like him is pure tyranny. Approved by the people who think they are better than North Korea.
This would only be unfortunate if I believed that free speech is an absolute right, which I definitely don't. And reducing it to an authoritarian view is not going to advance this discussion.
I view society as a compromise. By living in a society I actively choose to curtail many freedoms that I would (or should) otherwise have. Some of those are imposed by the state as laws and regulations, some are imposed by societal norms. In other words, if I show up for a job interview wearing only a thong, I will not get that job.
Following your rationale, any law or regulation is tyrannical as it curtails freedom. Whether this is true or not, that is not something I am willing to settle. I would still prefer to live in a tyrannical society (by what you seem to believe is tyranny) than in a chaotic anarchy.
And part of that compromise that society enforces is limitations on speech. If a racist freak is allowed to spread his advocacy for ethinical cleansing, is it a slippery slope to believe he might succeed in his goals? Let us remember that the Final Solution of Nazi Germany was final because it was the not the original solution. Initially the idea was a mass deportation based on ethnicity. Should we allow those seeds to root again based on some misguided idea of "it will be tyrannical to not allow this bullshit to be advocated for freely"?
Perhaps he should be trialed and properly convicted for his advocacy. If the laws are not in place for it, I am fine with debanking this asshole.
Wouldn't it be better to update the laws than let the corporation do self-justice by punishing "assholes" who didn't do anything illegal?
If corporations like banks are allowed to do self-justice, why not individuals? And what is an appropriate punishment for someone who is an asshole, but didn't do anything illegal? Debanking? Fine. Removing from social media? Fine. Not allowing to rent a place to live? Fine? Beating? Not fine. A little beating, just an "appropriate" amount of beating? Maybe also fine?
I'd rather have a state properly process and handle these cases than big corps or some "society".
Generally, yes.
> If corporations like banks are allowed to do self-justice, why not individuals? And what is an appropriate punishment for someone who is an asshole, but didn't do anything illegal? Debanking? Fine. Removing from social media? Fine. Not allowing to rent a place to live? Fine? Beating? Not fine. A little beating, just an "appropriate" amount of beating? Maybe also fine?
Perhaps this will be news to you, but being socially ostracized is not exactly new.
While I don't exactly think this is the best course of action, I will not pretend this is unprecedented.
And you know, we are taking about some hypothetical here. Banks may have found it complicated to handle donations that he was receiving.
People in general, thankfully, find views such as "let's mass deport certain ethnicities in an ethinical cleansing" a view that is too repulsive and would prefer not to be anywhere close to it.
> I'd rather have a state properly process and handle these cases than big corps or some "society".
No need for scary quotes around society. You likely live in one, its all around you, and it's what the government generally is meant to represent.
First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
First the people who despise democracy and plurality, the people you belittle as "racists or whatever freaks", came for one group, then the next. And that is why people who come for Nazis also become Nazis in the same way an oncologist who cuts out cancer becomes cancer: not at all.
> Though we are aware that the might of National Socialism must be broken militarily, we seek to achieve a revival of the deeply wounded German spirit from within. However, this rebirth must be preceded by a clear confession of all the guilt the German nation has incurred and by a ruthless battle against Hitler and his too-numerous helpers’ helpers, Party members, Quislings, et al. The chasm between the better part of the nation and everything connected with National Socialism must be brutally forced open. There is no punishment on this earth that is adequate for the deeds of Hitler and his followers. Out of love for the generations to come, we must make an example [of them] after the conclusion of the war so that no one will ever have the slightest desire to attempt something similar.
-- The White Rose
They also called Nazis "subhumans", by the way. And that is perfectly fine by me, I think those leaflets have aged perfectly well.
How about this: drones that fly up to people and tell them "isn't Hitler great" or whatever, and when that person grins and their pupils dilate, and some follow-up tests also succeed, they get zapped on the spot. Just turned to ash. Deal? That would be actually honouring what people in those times were saying.
No single Nazi murdered millions or started a war, they all just did a bunch of things with a few others, and before you know it, a continent is on fire and tens of millions are murdered. None of them wanted that (some actually didn't, I bet you; they may have been fine with murder and conquest but not Auschwitz and Germany in ashes), and that is why when we see this disease (and I really think it's a sort of mental illness produced by mass society), we already know the infected people will not take responsibility for the whole group. They will not actually lift their eyes and view all their peers in the context of all of history. They will, again, just do a few things each, and then, again, be completely fucking useless when it comes to cleaning up their mess, and mourning the dead they owe. They didn't study what they are, so they have no fucking clue. And knowing that, we have no right to let them.
You don't get to invoke Godwin when the subject matter is already nazi-adjacent.
I didn't find any direct reference to him supporting anything like athletic cleansing.
He also has the right to rule of law, a fair trial, etc. Banks shouldn't be the ones playing the roles of juries and judges.
If he's not good for society, lock him up / execute / stone / cane / exile / etc him.
We're basically sleepwalking into a social credit system.
But if we are going to view the government as the enemy in this context and thus cash is a way to avoid “control” it also follows that the same are espousing avoidance of paying taxes and the control government and taxes have over you as well.
It’s interesting to see folks talking about the “disadvantaged” such as immigrants (presumably illegal because legal immigrants have varying levels of bank access) who of course deserve to use cash as a moral imperative against the totalitarian government but then if someone says well I disagree with and don’t want to pay taxes (give me cash) because of that same anti-totalitarian point of view they’d be labeled all sorts of negative things like being a non-contributor or something similar.
We have to align on consistent moral claims. If you want to argue well so and so is part of the totalitarian government apparatus then all you are doing is creating an “other” who uses cash to avoid “totalitarianism” and in which case the so-called “totalitarian” apparatus is justified in its hostility toward entities which seek to destroy it.
As you described, one click cut off from commercial transactions and in the cases of the EU sanctioning its own citizens where even helping them feed themselves or their children is an illegal act.
And most people are totally oblivious to most of these massive shifts in the fundamental assumptions of democratic society, and may even support the tyranny they presumably must believe will never be turned on them, even though no one knows more what a loathsome person a traitor is than those who the traitor has served in his betrayal.
Brazil has Pix. Though if Bolsonaro wins the election he'll sell the financial system to the US, even though Brazilians love Pix.
These are not fringe payment systems, either. They're really big where they are.
EU is working on something similar, and I think it's launched in a couple of countries.
We're literally in the middle of the election Bolsonaro is winning.
But you're right. I should have stayed with actual corruption and country destroying policies such as selling out Pix. There's plenty of that.
Maybe that he says he'll pardon his father, who had a documented[1] plan to murder the winner of the last election, and others.
And yet people vote for these crime families.
[1] for those who don't know: yes, they did write down their plans to overthrow the government and kill political opponents, and partially implemented said plan.
Why can't it be both? Both are a problem politically for different reasons. Pretend you make crass comments to the wrong world leader and suddenly your trade deal is in the toilet.
> They want people to focus on the former to take attention away from the latter. (And it works.)
It always works. The most salacious things are the things that media will concentrate on.
Most main stream political discussions are extremely shallow.
Moreover most main stream politics can be boiled down to nothing other than tribalism especially in countries where there are typically two parties swapping in and out of government every few years.
What you have perhaps overlooked is that many average people are also fairly crass, and they see these traits as “relatable”. In current US culture, and perhaps Brazil as well, decorum is only important to a narrow slice of society.
I agree about your comment on tribalism.
The penis exposure I would have imagined would have worked quite well in the 60s.
Generally the media likes to take credit for things after the fact. If people's sons were coming back in body bags in some foreign war that isn't going to be popular. I remember when the reality of the Iraq war started affected people here. People were unhappy about the Iraq war when people they knew started coming back to the UK in coffins.
The problem often with a lot of modern media is that because it is often partisan they will often ignore their own side's wrong doings. So the only thing they often can go after without exposing their own side wrong doings is the crass stuff and other surface level shite that isn't important.
Generally the media is shit anyway (and I guarantee it was crap then). One of the BBC reports I saw recently were "The Conservatives disagree with Labour on X", as if they were ever going to say the other people were doing the correct thing. Why even bother reporting it? What is the value? There is none.
> What you have perhaps overlooked is that many average people are also fairly crass, and they see these traits as “relatable”. In current US culture, and perhaps Brazil as well, decorum is only important to a narrow slice of society.
Decorum/Etiquette is dependant on the company you typically keep. Usually different between different social castes (working, middle, upper, elite). What is and isn't acceptable is different depending on who you are around, their age group etc.
And before Blik most people used online direct transfers for online payments, not cards anyway. It is funny how the leapfrogging works.
The only reason I need a debit card is paying subscription to American companies. I really wish they integrated better.
E.g. in Norway, BankAxept handles 80% of in-store card payments in Norway - essentially nearly all debit card payments, despite the fact most debit cards are also Visa cards. The Visa/Mastercard part typically only gets used outside of Norway.
BankAxept is also owned by the same group of banks that owns Vipps, and MobilePay that dominate the mobile payments market in Norway and Denmark as well, with smaller user bases in Sweden and Finland.
And many of these European payment providers (including Blik and Vipps/MobilePay) are moving towards being part of the European Payments Alliance to make these systems interoperable across Europe as well, which would take Visa and Mastercard out of a significantly larger proportion of European payments. Some of those cross border payments are already in place.
Chargeback is also one of the reasons why you pay (directly or indirectly) for Visa or Mastercard.
Either way these are small change, and thanks to the slow but persistent reduction, many places refuse to accept cash and/or don't even have the facilities to deal with it!
Sweden hasn't seen war in more than two hundred years, it's good to be reminded what to do just in case.
Cash is a good backup and is easy to give to someone else e.g. I recently moved house and my brother was driving my car (while I drove the moving van). I left £60 in cash in the cubby box, so he could refill. No need to mess around with apps/bank transfers, just leave the notes/coins in the compartment.
Democratic states need to constitutionally enshrine the right to banking, if they insist on being called democratic.
Often banks have to apply different rules/laws to people that are politically exposed and/or these people are doing something shady etc.
I wouldn't believe any of the political grifters (left/right/whatever) online when they said they are de-banked/cancelled unless they show definitive proof.
It's not truly universal, as people who are money laundering or financing terrorism can still be excluded, but it does allow those who've been "debanked" based on other risk metrics (such as financial vulnerability or political exposure) to have basic payment accounts.
Those complaining in the media about being debanked are generally talking about not being able access credit, do large international bank transfers, or use sophisticated banking products. Normal day-to-day spending is not affected.
The cash register rejected about a third of the bills I had been keeping in my wallet, simply because they had become so battered from sitting there.
That's the state of cashless in Sweden today.
Nevertheless it is certainly a good idea to think about fallbacks tho.
Youtube-girl Qingyunji bought some water on remote mountain road using QR-on-cardboard and this is what I assume happened.
There is only one situation when the system faults. And that is when the customers phone is destroyed before updating the server. But these are just virtual pennies for small everyday purchases.
EDIT: crazybonkersai: Your comment below has been flagged (not by me), so I'll reply here: At no point have I suggested there is nothing strategic about Putins decisions - that is entirely a strawman. That does not mean there isn't reason for neighbours to be concerned for their safety. A full scale invasion of Finland or Sweden would've been unlikely even without NATO membership (not least given how Finland did last time), but Russia has an extensive and recent history of testing and probing the readiness of their neighbours, and not being concerned about infringing on their sovereignty if they believe it serves their other interests. The more likely scenario affecting Finland and Sweden would be if Putin decided he wanted to attempt going into the Baltic states, and saw a need to impose control over the Baltic Sea as part of the process.
Ukraine was neutral until Russia invaded it. I guess Sweden and Finland saw that and figured relying on being neutral didn't work so good.
Dunno if the Swedes are "short sighted and brainwashed" so much as familiar with Russia's centuries of aggression and invasion?