Skip to main content

The anti-cash animus in Sweden

Image result for Sweden

All that wonderful seeming social democracy exhibited by certain of the nations in Europe, Sweden notable among them, can come along with a frightening degree of social control. Gold-plated chains are still chains.

And the degree of anti-cash animus now exhibited by the government of Sweden is an outstanding example of the clinking of such chains.

  Jim Edwards for Business Insider reports:

I'll say no more.


  1. Christopher,

    I had not previously encountered the term "negative interest rate." Logically, it must mean that the lender pays the borrower instead of vice versa. If interest rates are negative, then it still might pay to lend your money to a bank for safe keeping.

    But the link you provide states, "If banks charge customers negative rates of interest in a cashless society, those customers are not able to withdraw their money as cash to shield it, under their putative mattresses. Consumers’ only choice in such a scenario is to spend it or let the bank take it."

    How does "a cashless society" come into this? It seems to be a concept that is separate from negative interest rates. And, does "let the bank take it" mean "let the bank hold it until you spend it? If so, why "take," which is usually used to mean "keep"?

  2. A negative interest rate applies not just to lenders and borrowers as usually understood, but to banks and depositors. (Depositors = lenders.) You can have a savings account, but it doesn't accumulate money -- in fact you're paying the bank for the privilege of letting them hold on to your money. So you are letting the bank "take" your savings, even though only by relatively small increments.

  3. Thanks. That answers my "take" question. But why can't the depositor withdraw his money in cash?

    And a new question: If you google "negative interest rates," you'll see that Janet Yellen promises them. What's going on in the United States? You mentioned only Sweden.

  4. That's the whole point of the disappearance of cash-dispensing ATMs from some regions in Sweden and other govt inspired move toward a cashless society. If you COULD withdraw cash, you'd be able to serve as you own bank, with an interest rate of 0. But the goal of the social experiment is a society in which they only way to get money out of a bank account is to do something else wit it: transfer it to another bank, or buy something. Anybody who wants to save will have to use their krona to buy another currency, euros or dollars or whatever, and keep them in bank accounts in other countries. OR ... buy valuable things, that could be used for re-sale in the future, and that may even appreciate in value in the meantime, getting one's self back to an approximation of positive interest rates.

    The idea is that hoarding is a bad thing, that an economy is stimulated as people buy and invest rather than putting money 'aside for a rainy day,' so the latter should be impeded. In part, the idea is also that people with cash (and savings) are probably up to no good.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …