Sweden Minister Says Cashless Society “Not Possible”; Elderly, Disabled People Blamed

It was just a little over a week ago when we reported that Sweden had begun a 5-year countdown to becoming a cashless utopia.

As The Local reported, “cash transactions today represent no more than two percent of the value of all payments made in Sweden, [and that estimate] will drop to below 0.5 percent within the next five years.”

According to Visa, Swedes use debit cards three times more than other Europeans. Even the homeless accept electronic payments. “The spread of debit cards has had a profound effect even on the street level with fruit and veg traders and even buskers and retailers of homeless magazines accepting cards or electronic payments using the popular Swedish smartphone app Swish,” The Local goes on to note.

As 65-year-old Stefan Wikberg told The New York Times in December, using SMS and mobile card readers effectively helped him climb out of homelessness after losing his IT job. He sells magazines for Situation Stockholm, a charitable organization and his sales rose 30% once he went digital. “Now people can’t get away,” he said. “When they say, ‘I don’t have change,’ I tell them they can pay with card or even by SMS.”

As The Times goes on to write, churches and museums now prefer cashless payments and “at more than half of the branches of the country’s biggest banks, including SEB, Swedbank, Nordea Bank and others, no cash is kept on hand, nor are cash deposits accepted.”

This may all sound rather surreal to some, but for Swedes it’s not only normal, but desirable.  “No one uses cash,” said Hannah Ek, a 23-year-old student at the University of Gothenburg. “I think our generation can live without it.”

Well Hannah, that’s probably because most people if your “generation” don’t understand exactly what it means to go cashless. This isn’t all an effort to make life more convenient. You might ask yourself if there’s any connection between your country’s rapid shift towards cashlessness and the Swedish central bank’s rapid descent into negative rates. You see, when you cannot withdraw any cash, the Riksbank can decide that banks should charge you for your deposits if the economy isn’t moving along fast enough. In other words, you may not want to spend your money today, but if you cannot resort to cash, then what’s to keep the bank from charging you 20% on your deposits in order to make you spend? Don’t think too hard: the answer is “nothing.” 

Removing cash removes the effective lower bound and then, central banks can centrally plan the entire economy unless and until people simply revert to a barter system. 

And remember, this phenomenon is spreading. Larry Summers has called for the abolition of the $100 bill and the ECB is all set to do away with €500 note (while apparently making a profit). 

But Sweden has run into a rather vexing problem in its relentless pursuit of cashlessness: old people.

“It’s important to many older people to be able to use cash,” Christina Tallberg, chairwoman of Swedish pensioners’ organization PRO, told Swedish Radio earlier this month.

Now that could be because the elderly aren’t particularly adept at using electronic means of payment or it could simply be that they are old enough and wise enough to realize when something is absolutely crazy – like removing legal tender and adopting negative interest rates. 

In any case, Ms. Tallberg isn’t the only one who has noticed this “problem.” On Wednesday, Financial Markets Minister Per Bolund told Bloomberg that Swedish banks shouldn’t expect “to get completely out of the business of handling cash.”

Why? Well because unfortunately, some citizens still use it “and will continue to do so.” 

“Sweden is not yet a cashless society, and we don’t see that we will be in the foreseeable future either,” he said, adding that “some people have trouble using electronic payment methods, including those who are elderly or have disabilities, and we have to make sure the economy works for everyone, and that everyone can choose the payment method that they prefer.”

This comes on the heels of comments by Riksbank governor Stefan Ingves who earlier today gave banks a slap on the wrist for removing cash from branches and suggested that Sweden should pass a law to force banks to provide cash services.

“Less than 5% of visits to our branches involves cash in some form,” Swedbank counters. Of course when you don’t hold any physical currency on hand, it’s pretty hard for visits to “involve cash.”

In any event, perhaps Ingves should reconsider begging lawmakers to force banks into holding cash. After all, rates are already at negative 55bps. Any lower and the country’s banks will have to start passing the cost onto depositors who will then begin demanding physical currency and curtailing the Riksbank’s ability to plunge further into NIRP.

After all, there’s another solution. Sweden could just ban old people.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1VdgrGu Tyler Durden

Wall Street Bankers and Lobbyists Move to Ensure Industry Continues to Regulate Itself

Screen Shot 2016-03-16 at 1.56.59 PM

Not content with continued prosecutorial immunity and trillions in taxpayer bailouts and backstops, Wall Street banksters are making moves to ensure they regulate themselves.

In case you’re still wondering who the real owners of this country are…

The Wall Street Journal reports:

ORLANDO, Fla.—Wall Street’s top lobbying group wants a closer relationship with the policy makers that oversee its member firms.

John Rogers, chairman of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and a top official at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., on Tuesday called for a standing body made up of bankers and regulators to discuss developments in policy, examination and enforcement. A key responsibility for the panel would also involve regularly providing guidance on postcrisis rules and other issues to financial firms.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/1UgsR0L
via IFTTT

“We Choose The Nominee, Not The Voters” – Republican Party Split Looms

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

A Republican Party split is looking much closer after Tuesday. Trump won Florida, Rubio’s home state, and that led Rubio to drop out. However, Trump was denied a victory in Ohio, which was won by its own sitting governor, John Kasich. This will make it very difficult for Trump to win the necessary delegates for a first ballot in the Republican Convention. This Ohio victory doesn’t make Kasich a likely nominee in the least; it is just a spoiler to help the establishment pick who they want to be their nominee and that is certainly not Trump. Kasich has now won just one state so it appears that Ohio has sealed the fate of the Republican Party.

Without Ohio’s 66 delegates, Trump now faces an extremely difficult path to reach the majority of delegates he needs to avoid a “contested” GOP convention. So the establishment looks like it will win and no candidate will enter the convention with a majority of delegates locked up. So after the first ballot, they are free to vote for whoever the establishment wants. It looks like the computer may be right after all. This is beginning to appear to be a very insane situation. The last time no candidate had the required amount for a nomination was 1976. Under the rules of the GOP, all these primaries were pointless. Delegates can choose one of the candidates who ran, or someone else entirely – Romney?

With the people voting for Trump, the Republican Party may have to face a huge, strong anger backlash from his supporters.

We are more likely to see a third party candidacy from Trump himself. The establishment will not have an outsider in that office so Trump might as well run third party to illustrate the corruption.

The Republicans prefer Hillary to Trump any day of the week.

The establishment fears ending elections that cannot be bought by their supporters, for their families might get fired from cushy jobs. Trump would not just sign whatever bill was put before him.

Obama has been a joke. Obama misses more than 50% of the morning briefings. Ever since Bush was in office and Dick Cheney actually ran the country, those in power have preferred a stooge as president. That way, they get to do whatever they want while the “boss” actually does nothing. As the joke goes, when Russia invaded Georgia, someone ran in to tell President Bush. He said, “Really? Well I didn’t win that state anyhow. Texas would be a different matter.”

Someone like Trump presents a huge threat to the establishment. They would have to assassinate him because he got in their way. The establishment might try blaming Cuba again or someone else they really do not like. The talk behind the curtain is clear— hand it to Hillary and everything remains intact.

So a Republican split is looking more likely. They have drawn the line in the sand. By no means will they accept Trump. He might as well begin forming a third party. What is going to be exposed is that we do not live in a Democracy. As long as the people vote for their groomed candidates, the pretense is fine. Now when it threatens their existence, well it’s time to bring the grapes of wrath down upon everyone.

Their mistake: they assume this will all blow over. Where they are wrong is that to defeat Trump, they must expose the truth. It’s their game and they make the rules. Your vote really means nothing to them. I suspect this is step one in what the computer warns will be an entirely new political system ahead.

*  *  *

Still in denial at just how little yout vote counts… Watch this stunning admission by an RNC member…"The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That's the conflict here," Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday. He even questioned why primaries and caucuses are held.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Rn574G Tyler Durden

Former Fed Employee Avoids Jail, Gets $2,000 Fine For Stealing Fed Secrets On Behalf Of Goldman Sachs

One of the biggest scandals at the end of 2014 was the dramatic confirmation courtesy of 48 hours of declassified tapes by former NY Fed staffer Carmen Segarra that not only Goldman Sachs controls the New York Fed (headed by former Goldman managing director Bill Dudley), but that disturbingly one of Goldman Sachs’ then-employees, former NY Fed regulator, then 29-year old Rohit Bansal was routinely being provided with confidential NY Fed documents.

As the NYT reported then, “from his desk in Lower Manhattan, a banker at Goldman Sachs thumbed through confidential documents — courtesy of a source inside the United States government. The banker came to Goldman through the so-called revolving door, the symbolic portal that connects financial regulators to Wall Street. He joined in July after spending seven years as a regulator at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the government’s front line in overseeing the financial industry. He received the confidential information, lawyers briefed on the matter suspect, from a former colleague who was still working at the New York Fed.

The “colleague”, and source of the stolen information, was another NY Fed employee, Jason Gross, whose official role was “bank examiner” (“bank leaker” would have been more appropriate).

 

Prior to joining the Fed, had had worked as a private CPA for two and a half years, and prior to that at Deutsche Bank for 4 years as a controller according to his LinkedIn profile we captured at the time.

 

And while both Bansal and Gross lost their jobs, we very much doubted any material consequence would befall the two conspirators for engaging in activity which would have led to lenghty prison fines for any other “mere mortal.” Back in November 2014, we concluded our post on this story as follows:

Will anything change? Of course not. After all it is Goldman that runs the United States of America. Expect this latest scandal to be swept under the rug within days.

The scandal was indeed swept under the rug virtually overnight and there was just one loose end: what would be the fate of Mr. Gross who was “sharing” top secret Fed information with Goldman Sachs, specifically would he end up in prison.

We now have the answer.

As Reuters reports, Jason Gross was the latest former banker to make a mockery of the US judicial system when he was spared prison on Wednesday, “disappointing prosecutors who said his leaking of confidential documents to a friend at Goldman Sachs Group justified time behind bars.

Instead Gross, 37, was fined $2,000 by U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein in Manhattan and sentenced to a year of probation with 200 hours of community service after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of theft of government property.

Prosecutors had sought six to 12 months in prison for Gross, who in November admitted to providing confidential information to Rohit Bansal, his former supervisor at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York who had left to work at Goldman Sachs.

According to Judge Gorenstein getting away with just a fine and some community service had already sent “a powerful message to others.”

The message for those unaware, is that go ahead and steal Fed data and share with whatever bank you want, and if you are caught not only will you not go to prison and may a token fee, but once absolved of all evil, that same bank will most likely hire you to “compensate” you for your troubles.

In court, Bruce Barket, Gross’s lawyer, said Gross in providing Bansal the documents thought he was doing a favor for a friend who had already seen them and even created some. “I don’t think he thought much of it,” Barket said. Or perhaps he thought just enough of it, hoping that he too would land a lucrative career at Goldman in exchange for his crime.

Goldman has said that after discovering Bansal obtained the confidential supervisory information, it notified regulators and fired him and a more senior employee who failed to take further action. The New York Fed also fired Gross.

As for the other co-conspirator, Bansal, who also pleaded guilty in November to theft of government property, he is scheduled to be sentenced on Tuesday. We expect he too will avoid prison time.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/22l77Ws Tyler Durden

Donald Trump and The Authoritarian Moment (New at Reason)

Donald Trump is “an authoritarian,” says Washington Post columnist and Fox News contributor George Will. “He believes that government we have today is not big enough and that particularly the concentration of power not just in Washington but Washington power in the executive branch has not gone far enough.”

Will spoke with Reason’s Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch at the International Students for Liberty Conference, a gathering of nearly 2,000 libertarians from all over the globe. The Pulitzer Prize winner also talked about the shortcomings of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and other leading candidates—and outlined areas where he thinks freedom is still advancing.

To watch the interview now, click above. To read a full transcript and get other links and resources, click below.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Rliicq
via IFTTT

Uber Seems to Be More Efficient Than Taxis in Time Spent Ferrying Passengers

For those irked by the thought of cars just wasting time and gas not performing a vital public service, you just might have some extra reason to cheer the rise of smartphone app ridehailing services such as Uber over old fashioned taxis.

This is the conclusion of a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, conducted by Judd Cramer and ALan B. Krueger of Princeton.

They examine “Capacity utilization” in the competing means of getting hired rides, which is “measured either by the fraction of time that drivers have a farepaying passenger in the car or by the fraction of miles that drivers log in which a passenger is in the car.”

The authors admit their results are provisional, as they were only able to find reliable data for Boston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Seattle. They are comparing the “UberX” brand of Uber, the one that most people use, which summons not limos but private drivers in private cars.

They find from the Current Population Survey that there were in 2015 an approximately equal numbers—half a million each—of taxi drivers and chauffeurs and drivers for Uber and its largest competitor Lyft. “Uber drivers, however, work about half as many hours per week as taxi and limo drivers.”

The heart of their (tentative) findings are that “On average, the capacity utilization rate is 30 percent higher for UberX drivers than taxi drivers when measured by time, and 50 percent higher when measured by miles….”

One reason for the tentativeness of the conclusions is they were not always able to get precisely matching reliable data about time and mile measurements for taxis in all five studied cities. And in some cases, the taxi data they were able to get were somewhat earlier times. But they believe that wrinkle would likely only bias the results for taxis seeming to have better capacity utilization: “that the taxi data pertain to a period before Uber made significant inroads into the market likely raise the capacity utilization rate for taxis compared to Uber drivers, as the taxis had less competition for passengers at that time.”

Despite all the caveats, the economists offer four tentative guesses as to why the Uber model might lead to more efficient use of car services as applied to actually moving passengers:

1) Uber’s more efficient driver-passenger matching technology; 2) Uber’s larger scale, which supports faster matches; 3) inefficient taxi regulations; and 4) Uber’s flexible labor supply model and surge pricing, which more closely match supply with demand throughout the day.

From Cramer and Krueger’s conclusion, for possible policy implications:

….differences in utilization rates have implications for resources other than passengers and drivers. For example, for every mile that taxi drivers in Los Angeles drives with a passenger in the car, they drive 1.46 miles without a passenger; the comparable figure for UberX drivers is 0.56 mile. This difference likely translates to greater traffic congestion and wasteful fuel consumption.

Lastly, our results bear on the literature on occupational licensing. Although occupational licensing can provide many benefits for consumers, workers and society, it could also reduce efficiency and distort markets. Occupational licensing has grown even in fields where there is little public safety or other societal benefit from licensing restrictions. Given that vested interests that benefit from occupational licensing (including the jurisdictions that collect licensing fees) have made it difficult to repeal occupational licensing, one way in which inefficient, unnecessary and counterproductive occupational licensing can be reduced is through disruptive change, such as brought about by a new technology.

Keep that in mind, occupational licensers! Though I think they already know. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Rliicn
via IFTTT

ACLU of Rhode Island Slams ‘Sex Trafficking’ Cops for Focusing on Consenting Adults

Props to the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island (RIACLU), which is speaking out against old-fashioned prostitution stings disguised as “human trafficking busts.” After 31 people were arrested in a recent sting operation around the city of Cranston, the RIACLU condemned the fact that “no fewer than eight law enforcement agencies were involved” in an operation that’s chief result was the arrest of 14 people for “procuring sexual conduct for a fee” and 14 others on prostitution charges. In addition to Rhode Island police departments, the operation involved the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the Rhode Island Human Trafficking Task Force.

“Law enforcement stings like this one often end up having little to do with trafficking, but a lot to do with embarrassing and penalizing consenting adults engaged in sexual conduct for a fee,” said RIACLU Policy Associate Hillary Davis in a statement. “Conflating prostitution with trafficking does nothing to help the trafficking victims who remain ensnared while consenting adults are pursued and arrested.” 

“By humiliating and charging johns for seeking consensual sex” and giving people “arrest records in the name of ‘helping’ them,” operations like these mainly serve to make sex workers’ lives “more difficult and dangerous, driving sex work even deeper into the shadows,” Davis added. “We emphatically reject the notion that the only way these individuals can be helped is if they are first put into handcuffs.”

The Cranston operation, like so many across the country, involved police posing as either sex workers or potential clients on the Internet and arresting those they reeled in. The people charged with trying to pay for sex had their names and pictures publicized widely by police. In total, agents from the Cranston Police Department, Homeland Security, and the rest of the vice supergroup arrested 14 sex workers, 14 “johns,” and three individuals on other charges, including pandering and an outstanding bench warrant.

The remaining arrest was a 21-year-old female, who was charged with both prostitution and “human trafficking,” according to a police press release. There is no specific charge of “human trafficking” in the Rhode Island criminal code, but because the alleged victim was a 16-year-old, the specific charged would likely be “sex trafficking of a minor.” Cranston police did not respond to my call for more information Wednesday. But because the 21-year-old was charged with prostitution herself, it’s a safe bet she was offering sexual services alongside the teen, also a female, rather than “trafficking” her in any meaningful way. Patch Cranston reports that both the 21-year-old and the teen arrived together at the sting location, where police were pretending to be a potential client; there is no mention of coercion or force. 

It’s relatively common for barely-legal-themselves sex workers who work alongside teens to be charged under human trafficking statutes, since most states define sex trafficking a minor to include knowingly helping them sell sex in any way. There’s no requirement for force, fraud, or coercion to come into play. Sex worker rights activists complain that this prevents young women from working in pairs for safety and actually increases the chances that vulnerable teens will wind up exploited by manipulative or violent traffickers. 

The Cranston police chief told Patch that if even one young person was saved, any number of sex-worker or john arrests are worth it. But it’s a false dichotomy. There’s no reason why helping underage victims requires arresting adult sex workers who are just trying to make a living and men whose only criminal acts involve communicating with the Cranston police. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1RlihW6
via IFTTT

Merrick Garland on Citizens United, the First Amendment, and Campaign Finance Regulation

In 2010 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a unanimous en banc opinion in the case of SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission. At issue was the constitutionality of federal campaign finance regulations controlling the actions of independent groups that expressly advocate for and against political candidates. David Keating, the president of SpeechNow.org, a nonprofit, argued that the First Amendment prevented Congress from forcing his group to go through the costly and burdensome process of registering as a “political committee.” Keating also maintained that the First Amendment barred Congress from prohibiting individuals from contributing more than $5,000 to groups like his.

The D.C. Circuit upheld the registration requirements. However, in a notable First Amendment victory, the D.C. Circuit struck down the contribution limits. Why? “Because of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the analysis is straightforward,” the D.C. Circuit wrote. According to Citizens United, “independent expenditures do not corrupt or give the appearance of corruption as a matter of law.” That means “the government can have no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to independent expenditure-only organizations,” the D.C. Circuit observed. “No matter which standard of review governs contribution limits, the limits on contributions to SpeechNow cannot stand.”

Notably, the D.C. Circuit rejected the FEC’s attempt to distinguish Citizens United, which struck down an expenditure limit, from the SpeechNow case, which dealt with a contribution limit. In other words, the D.C. Circuit had an opportunity to accept the federal government’s narrowing analysis of Citizens United and it rejected that narrowing analysis. Among the judges who joined the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in SpeechNow.org v. FEC was Merrick Garland, who is now President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Earlier today I wrote that Garland’s record in criminal justice and wartime government powers cases may “come as a disappointment to many progressives.” Garland’s vote in SpeechNow may also come as something of a disappointment to his would-be progressive supporters.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Vdb222
via IFTTT

Goldman Does It Again: Dollar Plummets After Goldman FX Says “Dollar Rally Far From Over”

Goldman’s Robin Brooks has to be a sadist: that is the only way we can explain his ability to crush the greatest number of Goldman clients at every possible opportunity.

First, of course, it was his call to go very short the EURUSD ahead of the December ECB meeting, which however led to the biggest EURUSD surge since the announcement of QE1.

Then, last week, ahead of the ECB meeting he “doubled down” on calls to short the EUR ahead of the ECB, the result again was a EUR super surge, the biggest since December.

And then, as we reported first thing this morning, Robin Brooks released a note titled the “The Dollar Rally Is Far From Over” in which he said the following:

Today brings the latest FOMC meeting. We expect the Fed to signal that it wants to continue normalizing policy, which means three hikes this year and four in 2017, with the statement referring to the risks as “nearly balanced,” reverting to phraseology used in October, just before December lift-off. Overall, our sense is that the outcome will be more hawkish than market pricing, in particular given that the FOMC may leave open the option of tightening at the April meeting. 

Wrong on every account. But Brooks did not stop there.This is what he predicted woudl happen today:

Implicitly, our estimates for Dollar strength are largely a reflection of the divergence between our Fed call and what markets are pricing. And there is admittedly a genuine tension there. On the one hand, some Fed speakers have recently flagged the importance of financial conditions in their decision making process. On the other hand, labor market slack is steadily diminishing and core PCE is rising towards two percent. Today’s FOMC will be an important marker in resolving this tension. Ultimately, we believe that the Dollar rally is far from over.

Well, the FOMC certainly resolved this tension. Here is how:

So much for that dollar rally, and for all those who were stopped out for the third time in a row after listening to Brooks, you will get no sympathy from us. This is what we said this morning:

Given the fact that i) Brooks’ calls are generally about as accurate as Gartman’s, and ii) Goldman is one for six so far on its Top Trades for 2016, you might want to go with the market’s view on this one to avoid getting the muppet treatment.

So to all those who once again listened to Goldman, well… assume the position.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Pcl2kS Tyler Durden

The Fed Decision Explained In 1 Simple Chart

Tumbling US unemployment and surging US inflation is not what really matters to ‘Global’ Janet. She knows what happened the last time “market” expectations were so disclocatedly bullish relative to “economic” expectations… and doesn’t want to be driving the current bus off the great-er depression cliff…

A ‘hold’ in Sept – rally; a ‘hike’ in Dec – plunge; and this time ‘hold’ because everything is so decoupled…

 

“Boxed In” much? “Global uncertainty” is a suddenly very convenient truth – The Fed knows that any move to tighten ripples through the entire world’s collateral chains; and with the global economy already bleeding its deflationary collapse into US economic expectations, a hike is simply piling on – i.e. no moar rate hikes.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1nOTpYP Tyler Durden