The link you posted explicitly states "
85% of sweden's population has access to electronic banking".
This means: 15% of sweden's unbanked demographic
will suffer if a cashless society is implemented.
I would be curious to know, what part of this is a "conspiracy".
As pawel7777 has said before....really? It states exactly that explicitly?
About the conspiracies....
I think its safe to say a cashless society would only benefit less than 1% of the population. Everyone else would suffer as a result of cashlessness.
The 1% elitists that brush their teeth with caviar while the rest of the population works in slavery..bla bla bla..
Imagine there is an island city with two bridges. One bridge can be utilized by anyone as the cash/paper money bridge. The other bridge requires a bank account or access to electronic transactions to use. The owners of the electronic transaction bridge want to shut down the cash/paper money bridge so everyone is forced to use the bridge they themselves own & have control over. This would grant them a monopoly or centralized market which they could then leverage for their own gain. It is a good move for the owners of the single bridge, for everyone else is it likely a bad arrangement.
When in human history has a monopoly or single option ever been preferable to having multiple options? From this precedent alone it might be derived that having less options translates to increased suffering due to the higher potential for abuse and exploitation. That appears the rational and natural precedent which can be projected from known circumstances. Feel free to share your own conclusions.
Not for everyone else. I couldn't give an f-word about the cash bridge. I don't like to use cash, I don't want to use cash and when there is a guy counting bills and coins ahead of me at the store and taking forever I sometimes feel the urge to hit him with the POS.
As for the alternatives.... if cryptos would eliminate fiat...would that be a monopoly?
But, back to the questions, I've asked you and you elegantly decided to bypass:
So, everybody is suffering in Sweden? Are they seeing a diminishing GDP, less spending?
Has any of that come true in the last decade since Sweden has taken this cashless path?