Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[scriver]

by banning cash, and by only allowing transactions through one single state-owned bank, they hope to be able to avoid the creation and subsequent blowing up of financial soap bubbles, and prevent future economic crises from affecting their country too much.

why does this sound like socialism

Socialism proper would have no money whatsoever, but I know what you're getting at. This is pretty much word for word what Soviet Bloc countries would do, single state-owned bank and all.

I don't think it means there will be only one bank. It means all payments have to pass through one bank.

Almost all countries have a state-owned bank, by the way.

[Sergarr]

by banning cash, and by only allowing transactions through one single state-owned bank, they hope to be able to avoid the creation and subsequent blowing up of financial soap bubbles, and prevent future economic crises from affecting their country too much.

why does this sound like socialism

Socialism proper would have no money whatsoever, but I know what you're getting at. This is pretty much word for word what Soviet Bloc countries would do, single state-owned bank and all.

I don't think it means there will be only one bank. It means all payments have to pass through one bank.

Almost all countries have a state-owned bank, by the way.

But that bank usually doesn't control all money transactions. That's not what state banks usually do.

[martinuzz]

While it does sound left-ish, I believe the reason behind it right now is of nationalist conservative origin.
After the European banks crashed, and a lot of them had to be saved with taxpayers money, having (a single) state-owned bank(s) is now as much of a nationalist-populist conservative thing as it is a socialist thing.

[Erkki]

http://rg.ru/2015/05/19/tanki-site-anons.html


Russia, wtf is it again? The Paris treaty was broken by Finland in the early 1990s(when the USSR fell, there was nobody to have a treaty with any more, basically) already. Nobody cared back then. All tanks and a good part of armored vehicles not produced domestically were already of German origin any way.

edit: notice the first comment. Putinbot trolling their own paper, heh.

[RedKing]

Because they might be secret Nazi tanks, waiting 70 years to unleash their master plan of invading Russia through Karelia. Or something.

[Sergarr]

http://rg.ru/2015/05/20/house-site.html

this doesn't look like a high-quality news site to me

just saying

[Erkki]

http://rg.ru/2015/05/20/house-site.html

this doesn't look like a high-quality news site to me

just saying

Its the government's own official daily newspaper.

[Sergarr]

http://rg.ru/2015/05/20/house-site.html

this doesn't look like a high-quality news site to me

just saying

Its the government's own official daily newspaper.

Like I've said, doesn't look high-quality to me.

[smjjames]

by banning cash, and by only allowing transactions through one single state-owned bank, they hope to be able to avoid the creation and subsequent blowing up of financial soap bubbles, and prevent future economic crises from affecting their country too much.

why does this sound like socialism

Socialism proper would have no money whatsoever, but I know what you're getting at. This is pretty much word for word what Soviet Bloc countries would do, single state-owned bank and all.

I don't think it means there will be only one bank. It means all payments have to pass through one bank.

Almost all countries have a state-owned bank, by the way.

I know, but not all countries have ONLY that one state owned bank.

[notquitethere]

If most places refuse to accept cash in Denmark, could cause massive problems for homeless people who cannot obtain a debit card (and, of course, tourists).

[Loud Whispers]

All these drives to make cashless economies really rustle me the wrong way :|

[Zangi]

All these drives to make cashless economies really rustle me the wrong way :|

It would be easier for the gov't to track and stop cash flow, to create more monies out of nowhere and most importantly tax every transaction.  Well, in short, it will give the gov't even more control over its citizens and those who do business with their people.

[Sergarr]

If government controls all transactions and they're all digital, it doesn't fucking need to tax anyone, it can simply spawn money out of its ass and nobody will notice because it's all controlled by government.

[Graknorke]

Yes, nobody would notice an increase in the supply of money. That's definitely the reason they don't print literal money now, because people would see them printing it.

[scriver]

I don't think it means there will be only one bank. It means all payments have to pass through one bank.

Almost all countries have a state-owned bank, by the way.

I know, but not all countries have ONLY that one state owned bank.

And once again, I don't think there is any indication that Denmark will only allow that one bank to exist.