Quote from article: 'It all changed when Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine. Realising that reliance on an electronic payment system left Sweden vulnerable to blackouts or sabotage, the Riksbank – Sweden's central bank – urged civilians to keep 1,000 Swedish kronor (£80) per adult at home. The government issued a brochure entitled "If Crisis or War Comes" to every household, advising Swedes to use cash regularly to "strengthen preparedness".'
It seems melodramatic right until Russia blows up your bank's data center, and their digital payment system goes down for days or weeks just as you're out buying groceries.
1. What could a nation state with $1b to spare achieve if they paid marginalised people $10k a piece to carry out '''random acts'''?
2. Do any nations have the means, motive and opportunity to do this?
The answers isn't necessary yes or no, but more of a percentage chance. That percentage chance needs to be baked into systems as insurance and mitigation. However, the West seems to see this risk as free wealth to be extracted rather than a real threat.
You should have cash in a drawer somewhere just in case you lose your card / wallet / phone. A lot of people talk about totalitarian societies and being cut off from payment at a click of a switch, but the reality is more mundane.
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.
Being cut off from payment at a click of a switch is already happening. I can name at least 3 people off the top of my head that have been de-banked in western countries (USA, UK, Italy) simply for speaking out in favour of the "wrong" cause.
Democratic states need to constitutionally enshrine the right to banking, if they insist on being called democratic.
I used to pay attention to politics and freedom of speech issues etc. While there is a problem with democratic societies (any society really) curtailing freedom of speech. That often isn't what is happening with "debanking". 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 poltical grifters online when they said they are debanked or whatever.
The Payment Accounts Directive already mostly does that in the EU (as does the UK's Payment Accounts Regulations).
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.
How have we even arrived to a point where all payments go through Visa/Mastercard duopoly and to pay people hectically unlock, reconnect, and reinstall stuff on their smartphones?
Cashless society in Sweden is very much built around a Swish, a local service that I don't think has much to do with Visa/Mastercard as it communicates directly with your bank.
The bank still charges 2 SEK / transaction (~$0.2). This is a free handout to the banks, which already profit from you keeping your savings in their books. It's also a fee that affects mostly small vendors.
On the other hand, the closest equivalent in the rest of the Nordics (Denmark/Norway/Finland) is Vipps/MobilePay, and you must have a Visa or Mastercard card to use it.
Most EU countries have widely used alternatives. In Poland you can pay with Blik in basically every card terminal and use it intead of your card at ATM, and for online payments it serves 70% of transactions.
The only reason I need a debit card is paying subscription to American companies.
And to the extent that even when you pay with cards with a Visa/Mastercard logo odds are high that it will go via a national network domestically.
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.
Imagine becoming a dissident in a totalitarian society where you can be cut off from all commercial transactions with the click of a button (i.e. cash has a broader purpose).
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.
how can you be prohibited from crossing schengen border when there is nobody to check you? he should have no problem to get to switzerland/germany border crossing
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).
if he is Swiss citizen then not sure why they mention in article whether he is Swiss resident, it is completely irelevant information, surely Switzerland can't deny entry to their own citizen regardless of his current residence status, which is matter of one application in some bureau, I am also citizen of other country having permanent residence in second country, which has still nothing to do with my citizenship and it is absolutely irelevant for my return to my home country, I have no obligation to country where I have permanent residence
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)
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
Banks are also afraid of repercussions from US if they have customers that are on some US list, refer to case of Karim Khan, the Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC)
It is rather ironic that you excuse and rationalize the tyrannical state.
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.)
A cursory look up of the dude very quickly turned up links with far-right terrorist and Christchurch shooter Brenton Tarrant, including receiving money from him, so I don't think it's the "opinion" that's the issue.
No wonder you used a literal “throwaway” account considering how dishonest and manipulative your comment is.
It’s an insult to everyone’s intelligence with these laughable desperate lies twisting reality. It is so immoral, such primitive simplistic lies, purely tyrannical.
I don't have a horse in this race and didn't even know who this noname Austrian firebrand was prior to this discussion but the evidence is not exactly hard to find. By all means feel free to deny, shoot the messenger, call me names, etc. Won't change anything, people can just fact check stuff themselves
> though I do hope that your principled opposition to state debanking also extends to muslims).
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.
That's the whole point, which you obviously didn't understand.
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.
> 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".
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.
> 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".
> 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?
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.
The nerve to even attempt to equate this with "racists and whatever freaks", and to invoke Niemöller without even giving him credit.
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.
After quoting Niemöller? What? Even I would say I laid it on a bit thick, teetering on the edge of self-righteousness if not having falled of it, but "oh no, a nazi comparison"? If you can't compare anything to the Nazis, never speak of them again. They're not to be put behind glass, as something magically different from all other things, some unique anomaly in space time.
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. And that fits the way they try to muddy waters or hijack discussions, and then run off. It's weirdos with shit childhoods all the way down. That is beginning, middle and end. They didn't study what they are, so they have no fucking clue. People who know the OG beast have no time for this afterbirth of pocket calculator level parrots, no qualms, no mercy. They don't even have the right to have mercy.
I tried searching for what exactly he is accused of, and all I can see is he supports the extradition of illegal migrants to their home countries according to the existing law, but the "elites" and "the ones in power" decided to ignore.
I didn't find any direct reference to him supporting anything like athletic cleansing.
I don't disagree, I just don't like hidden greyzone punishments. The state should come out and show their hand in public based on the rule of law and arrest such people if they don't like it.
Chipping away at people from the shadows (i.e. taking away their banking) isn't how a civilized society should act.
I also think it's a very very dangerous path if we let banks, tech companies, etc decide what rights we're allowed in society.
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.
Sorry I will decline to provide specific examples. This is common knowledge. You can read about things that the Chinese authoritarian government does, you can search in Google for things like China’s social credit score, and more.
You don’t have to imagine; it has been done many times now against dissidents in the USA through the never before crossed lines of “debanking” in the partial digital currency American economy, the tyrannical cases of the EU sanctioning and effectively turning Jacques Baud and Hüseyin Doğru into 1984 style unpersons, the even more abusive and seemingly tyrants’ template in the targeting of Martin Sellner, where the EU has been targeting him personally across even non-member states in the most tyrannical way. And there are several other smaller, less prominent cases.
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.
I was debanked about 26 years ago. I had one too many issues with returned bad checks, and a report was filed with an agency called ChexSystems. For years afterwards, I was prohibited from holding a legitimate checking account anywhere in the US.
A shame that this took the threat of war to be taken seriously, rather than the reality of disenfranchisement faced by the elderly, immigrants, the homeless and the unbanked for whom cash remains a lifeline.
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.
The tax service here takes money laundering quite seriously so there's been a lot of regulation added for businesses handling cash, most affecting is probably the requirements of "certified tellers" that shot up the price for many smaller businesses (some even closing down or just switching to Swish).
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.
The rules for laundering - know your customer - are ridiculous, governments don't need to turn banks in quasi-state actors to squash laundering if they really wanted to stop it.
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.
That stuff can be not very good at doing what is intended. If I want to make a legit regulated transfer they now ask where the money came from and a lot was inherited forty years ago for which the records generally don't exist anymore. Meanwhile the actual criminals still manage to circumvent the system. It mostly creates hassle and expense for the law abiding.
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.
I sold a property earlier in August, my solicitor had to “verify my identity” this time even though she acted as my solicitor when purchasing said product.
Now tell me how intelligent the system is in that scenario.
Especially after Swedbank and Danskebank got busted for laundering Russian money. But the banks now have numerous checkboxes to fill in when money comes from overseas, as if people receiving like 5000sek are laundering. (case in point, my dad wired me some money for my birthday, US->Sweden, Swedbank had to do a thorough check out of my dad, a University prof.)
That said, I have heard of some system in place whereby people use a word-of-mouth banking system—mostly islamic communities, perhaps only that, to transfer money to and from overseas, so it's completely off the books. I don't remember what it's called, though.
> the reality of disenfranchisement faced by the elderly, immigrants, the homeless and the unbanked for whom cash remains a lifeline
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.
I live in a country with sky high tax evasion where cashless is conveniently out of order / broken most of the time. Despite the drawbacks you highlight, I really really really wish for a cashless society, so the evaders are forced to declare EVERYTHING. The net benefit would be incredible, for everyone.
Wouldn't it be better just to collect taxes at more manageable points; where scale starts making ripples?
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.
"More likely" is key here. Cash, by virtue of its physicality, is more likely to stay in the local area and prop up local jobs.
The act of handing cash over to someone heavily implies they're getting a cut of that.
The moment we introduce a card payment, 2% or whatever has instantly evaporated. Card payments are likely to be done online, too, which means further evaporation.
You only have to take a walk around UK towns to see the damage which digital transactions are doing to communities. They're devoid of life, and full of drugs.
I'd love to see an experiment of what'd happen if just legalised tax-free cash transactions in retail. Why bother paying tax at this level if the transaction itself it helping communities? It's far more efficient than letting % drift upwards to central government before being allocated back downwards.
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.
Usually, tap to pay triggers randomized PIN requests too, which is even worse for elderly - entering a PIN only once every 100 transactions than every time.
In Germany we like to mimic things from other western countries a lot. Especially the nordics (including Sweden) and the US. Problem, we do this with a delay of 5-10 years. Right now we are in the transformation process of becoming cashless.. Like our role model Sweden. Hmm, something feels wrong.. :-)
This isn't the worst practice, however. Wait for the early adopters to test new ideas and implement the best ones. Maybe the cashless rollout in Germany might be curbed now.
Germany is also still waiting if 4G or Fibre internet to homes are a good thing... Or if the government should use the internet to make things easier for their citizens.
It isn't mimicking as such, it's your federal government signing up to various international agreements on everything under the sun. The international agreement in question here is called "the Fourth Industrial Revolution", and you can bet they're all in on it. Just like they are with Digital ID, ID gated internet and so on.
If that means businesses will accept a card without grumbling (or at all) I'm all for it. Feels strange to come from a supposedly less-developed country to Germany and having to pay cash.
The united states has something similar. New laws enacted by California are adopted by other states quite regularly.
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.
Sweden still feels very cashless in practice. My barber went back from swish to cash because of the charges for businesses but that is the only non-swish/non-card shopping I do these days and my haircut is literally the only thing I’ve paid cash for since well before covid. Even market stalls etc take swish. I never have cash on my normally.
"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"
Might also be easier for money laundering when you can claim you're a cash-only business, and thus have no digital proof of where these 30 million in monthly car washes comes from.
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.
Swish is always 2 SEK not matter the amount, for party-to-party without the "checkout" feature, it's always free - which is why private persons use it on fairs and markets.
And yes, it's a TINY amount. Stripe/Paypal charge several %
> …from swish to cash because of the charges for businesses
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).
Any "central payment system"(like e.g. obsession with Paypal)
is a single-point-of-failure vulnerability. Cash is decentralized
and independent of any technology failing.
people find this the hard way during electric blackouts,
that credit cards are useless without electricity, but somehow
still think "electronic payment" is worth completely switching over.
This doesn't help that much because cash today is also useless without electricity. You can't go to a bank anymore to get cash from an actual person. The machines run on electricity.
That's a fair point to make that for 90% of us we get cash from a machine that requires electricity.
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.
Just because it wouldn’t help with a long-term crisis, there’s no need to overlook the benefit for a short-term crisis. Especially as the latter is far more likely.
So there's no electricity. But you were prepared, you have cash. You go to the shop to buy something with cash, and their cash register doesn't work, they can't record your purchase or calculate taxes, so you cannot buy anything anyway.
It is helping a little bit, but the benefits of this kind of preparedness are overstated.
Where I live, any taxes are built-in to the sticker retail price.
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.
I once went on a date where we hit a state-wide power outage. (Let's just say that the date did not go as planned.) We wound up eating at this restaurant, two towns over, that we saw a bunch of cars parked at. Turns out they had gas grills. They were working by flashlight and candlelight, they were cash only, they were adding up the bill on a hand calculator, they couldn't do shakes or french fries, they were pouring soda by hand out of bottles, but wow, were they ever doing business.
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.
I think it stops at “after 2 hours the fire alert system stops working and anyway it’s too dark inside so any accident would not be covered by insurance hence we should wait it out”. Cash helps but it’s really overstated.
Ukraine's admin life is extremely well digitized, moreso than most developed countries. You can do pretty much anything with the Dia app. Most amazingly it's a very recent development
Funny that Sweden abandoned its 200-year neutrality and joined NATO in the name of security and yet security situation for Sweden has only deteriorated since then. Shows how short sighted and brainwashed Swedish politicians are.
The headline is preposterous. The article itself says less than 5 percent people used cash last year compared to 10% 2023. How is that abandoning its cashless society? The only thing is the government asking people to have roughly a $100 worth of cash at home for emergencies like total blackouts.
Yup, its nonsense, nobody to very few is going back to cash but may keep some cash at home as recommended. I've actually had $100 in my wallet for 3 years that I haven't used because I never pay with cash, sold a table to an american couple and they didn't have Swish.
Both sides are acting in quite a restrained capacity, tbh, with the front lines being relatively contained.
I remember reading experiences of the war in Bosnia, and how barter was absolutely key in survival. Even the most basic skills and resources became invaluable. Think I remember the guy speaking about how being able to refill gas for lighters kept him fed.
I think China is cashless society but not relying on internet servers. Beggars and street vendor have printed-out QR-code and no phone. You scan the code with Alipay-app and show the confirmation screen to the seller. This is not a real-time transaction. It is executed when the server is available.
Youtube-girl Qingyunji bought some water on remote mountain road using QR-on-cardboard and that is what I assume happened.
Not a good analogy. The seller sees his own name and account number on the customers phone. Which means that the QR-code is read correctly and the money is in secured transit into his account.
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.
A few years ago, where I live in Sweden an entire mall lost its internet connection (but not electricity). Apparently someone had accidentally cut an internet cable during road work.
You can imagine the chaos, long queue etc... Fortunately I'm one of the few that keep cash on me, so I could purchase and walk home.
Even after this most people here would defend cashless! "it's so much more convenient" people say even here on HN but why? Is carrying an extra paper / foldable wallet THAT annoying? If you're a woman forced to use a purse then fine. But otherwise, I can't see how inconvenient it is (and I lived in Japan and they have even smaller coins!)
And the cost of "convenience" is not just a weak system: it's centralized power (that is not even YOUR government) being able to ruin your entire life in a second.
A ex-NRM (far right neonazi group in Sweden) got locked out of the banking system [1] because USA designated the organization as a terrorist group. The man in his 50s claimed that he have been out of the organization for years, but doesn't matter.
His bank stopped working, which means BankID (digital identification) stopped working. This locks him out of even health care and signing of even gym membership.
We cry now over ICJ judge losing her Microsoft account but this has been possible for a decade, we just didn't care about the victim (and I hold absolutely zero sympathy for NRM, but I belive that people can change)
138 comments
[ 0.71 ms ] story [ 77.0 ms ] thread* the Balkan Wars (Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo)
* various parts of the former Soviet Union (several in the Caucasus, Ukraine)
* the Troubles in Northern Ireland (which came close to being a civil war)
* the Basque Insurgency
* Cyprus
* Greek troubles
* Mafia wars in southern Italy. Trouble in Sardinia and Corsica next door too.
Sweden hasn't seen war in more than two hundred years, it's good to be reminded what to do just in case.
1. What could a nation state with $1b to spare achieve if they paid marginalised people $10k a piece to carry out '''random acts'''?
2. Do any nations have the means, motive and opportunity to do this?
The answers isn't necessary yes or no, but more of a percentage chance. That percentage chance needs to be baked into systems as insurance and mitigation. However, the West seems to see this risk as free wealth to be extracted rather than a real threat.
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.
I wouldn't believe any of the poltical grifters online when they said they are debanked or whatever.
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.
Brazil has Pix. Though if Bolsonaro wins the election he'll sell the financial system to the US, even though Brazilians love Pix.
EU is working on something similar, and I think it's launched in a couple of countries.
The only reason I need a debit card is paying subscription to American companies.
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.
And in stationary shops it depends on the shop network - I usually pay with Blik and I had to return stuff in Lidl once and they did it no problem.
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.
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.)
It’s an insult to everyone’s intelligence with these laughable desperate lies twisting reality. It is so immoral, such primitive simplistic lies, purely tyrannical.
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/christchurch-atte...
I don't have a horse in this race and didn't even know who this noname Austrian firebrand was prior to this discussion but the evidence is not exactly hard to find. By all means feel free to deny, shoot the messenger, call me names, etc. Won't change anything, people can just fact check stuff themselves
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. And that fits the way they try to muddy waters or hijack discussions, and then run off. It's weirdos with shit childhoods all the way down. That is beginning, middle and end. They didn't study what they are, so they have no fucking clue. People who know the OG beast have no time for this afterbirth of pocket calculator level parrots, no qualms, no mercy. They don't even have the right to have mercy.
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.
We all have to take stances.
Some choose to think about the rights of the people victimized by racist ethnonationalist freaks.
Some choose to think about the the right of people to be racist ethnonationalist freaks without any inconvenience.
Chipping away at people from the shadows (i.e. taking away their banking) isn't how a civilized society should act.
I also think it's a very very dangerous path if we let banks, tech companies, etc decide what rights we're allowed in society.
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.
NYT: https://archive.ph/pkJYp
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.
The act of handing cash over to someone heavily implies they're getting a cut of that.
The moment we introduce a card payment, 2% or whatever has instantly evaporated. Card payments are likely to be done online, too, which means further evaporation.
You only have to take a walk around UK towns to see the damage which digital transactions are doing to communities. They're devoid of life, and full of drugs.
I'd love to see an experiment of what'd happen if just legalised tax-free cash transactions in retail. Why bother paying tax at this level if the transaction itself it helping communities? It's far more efficient than letting % drift upwards to central government before being allocated back downwards.
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.
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.
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.
And yes, it's a TINY amount. Stripe/Paypal charge several %
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).
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.
I say, if there's no electricity, nobody owes any taxes to this government.
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.
I remember reading experiences of the war in Bosnia, and how barter was absolutely key in survival. Even the most basic skills and resources became invaluable. Think I remember the guy speaking about how being able to refill gas for lighters kept him fed.
Youtube-girl Qingyunji bought some water on remote mountain road using QR-on-cardboard and that 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.
You can imagine the chaos, long queue etc... Fortunately I'm one of the few that keep cash on me, so I could purchase and walk home.
Even after this most people here would defend cashless! "it's so much more convenient" people say even here on HN but why? Is carrying an extra paper / foldable wallet THAT annoying? If you're a woman forced to use a purse then fine. But otherwise, I can't see how inconvenient it is (and I lived in Japan and they have even smaller coins!)
And the cost of "convenience" is not just a weak system: it's centralized power (that is not even YOUR government) being able to ruin your entire life in a second.
A ex-NRM (far right neonazi group in Sweden) got locked out of the banking system [1] because USA designated the organization as a terrorist group. The man in his 50s claimed that he have been out of the organization for years, but doesn't matter.
His bank stopped working, which means BankID (digital identification) stopped working. This locks him out of even health care and signing of even gym membership.
We cry now over ICJ judge losing her Microsoft account but this has been possible for a decade, we just didn't care about the victim (and I hold absolutely zero sympathy for NRM, but I belive that people can change)
[1] https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/wgOAoA/terrorstamplades...