<p>"Cash" is an emergent phenomenon of human economic organization. It exists for lots of reasons, as a provider of economic anonymity, a low transaction cost solution to the double-coincidence of wants, a portable medium of exchange, and a tool of economic accessibility for all including those in the informal economy, foreigners, the unbanked, and those with poor credit, among others. </p>

<p>A country can make it difficult to use cash in the interest of thwarting anonymity and convenience, usually to prevent money laundering and tax evasion. They can do so by taxing the use of cash, failing to enforce contracts calling for cash, refusing to make more, even criminalizing the possession of cash. </p>

<p>But cash is unlikely to die easily. We know from the experience with drug and alcohol prohibition as well as the international ivory and rhino horn trades that while the regulation can can certainly influence prices and thereby quantities demanded, it is awfully difficult to destroy a market for a valuable product. For a more specific example, possession of money is forbidden to US convicts. Nevertheless, they have developed internal monetary economies based around <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122290720439096481" rel="nofollow noreferrer">canned fish</a>, <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/honey-buns-sweeten-life-for-florida-prisoners/1142687" rel="nofollow noreferrer">shelf-stable pastries</a>, as well as <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/02/with-cigarettes-banned-in-most-prisons-gangs-shift-from-drugs-to-smokes.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">cigarettes and stamps</a>. Cigarettes also emerged as money in <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2550133?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" rel="nofollow noreferrer">WWII P.O.W. camps</a>, showing that even the Nazis couldn't keep a monetary economy from forming.</p>

<p>Sweden in particular has a significant additional obstacle to keeping currency out of their economy. They share boarders with Norway and Finland, each with their own currency. Go to practically any boarder region or tourist spot around the world and you'll see tellers happy to take dollars, euros, or yen in addition to the local currency. It is especially difficult to ditch cash when other sources of cash are available. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2016-02-01T15:09:22.097Z
2019-07-18T13:38:17.453Z
2019-07-18T13:38:17.453Z
BKay
<p>Some countries (e.g. Sweden and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/comment/11602399/Ban-cash-end-boom-and-bust.html" rel="noreferrer">Denmark</a>) plan to abolish physical cash in the future and restrict the use of cash to electronical deposits. One of the reasons for this is to prevent hoarding / boost spending of money, which could be achieved by introducing negative interest rates on deposits far below zero.</p>

<p>However, as far as I know, <a href="https://mises.org/library/multiple-currencies-and-gresham%E2%80%99s-law-zimbabwe" rel="noreferrer">in times of hyperinflation, people resorted to substitute currencies</a> (either foreign currencies or commodities like cigarettes). Wouldn't the same happen if cash was abolished?</p>

<p>For example, suppose the bank charges 20% or more on deposits and you can't withdraw your money in cash (since there is no cash), and you don't want to buy stocks or property for some reason (it's risky or hard to liquidate) and suppose other people have the same problems. Wouldn't it be reasonable then to create and use some alternative currency, like cigarettes or maybe a local currency, which you can store physically?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T13:22:28.353Z
By abolished, what do you mean specifically? Sweden stops minting physical krona? Sweden forbids merchants from accepting paper currency of any kind? Sweden gradually allows paper currency to be irrelevant by keeping denominations fixed and allowing inflation to erode their purchasing power? Sweden criminalizes the possession of cash or any currency?  Sweden forbids enforcement of contracts requiring payment in cash?
BKay
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T13:33:48.483Z
Honestly, I do not know how they are planning to do this, but I don't think that is relevant for the question. I assume they will stop printing paper money and minting coins.
proskor
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T13:40:05.233Z
@proskor Is there any reason to think people will not use money (electronic currency on their bank accounts) instead of cash?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T13:47:30.860Z
@proskor I think BKay's questions are highly relevant to the question, as they do provide boundaries to what the responses could/would be
410 gone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T13:49:28.630Z
Suppose the bank charges you 20% annually for your deposits in order to promote more spending, would that not be a reason to keep your money elsewhere?
proskor
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T14:11:07.863Z
@proskor Like another bank maybe? Perhaps take the suggestions of the other users and describe the exact details of what is happening.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T14:14:11.293Z
@Bkey, EnergyNumbers I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. Perhaps a better way to formulate my question could be: is a scenario, in which it is not possible to store money physically (cash), realistic?
proskor
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T14:47:03.000Z
@BKay I updated my question and provided an example of what I have in mind. Since there are countries which are seriously considering abolition of cash, I assume there is an error in my reasoning or I simply do not know or understand something important. It would be great if you could just point out what it is.
proskor
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T14:57:37.733Z
@proskor This might provide some insight: http://www.wsj.com/articles/alternative-currencies-flourish-in-greece-as-euros-are-harder-to-come-by-1439458241
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T15:09:33.260Z
@denesp Thanks. Unfortunately, I can't read the whole article because I don't have a subscription. :(
proskor
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T15:12:30.533Z
@proskor Me neither. Strange, it was working 15 minutes ago. Perhaps by just registering you get a free article a month? I recommend getting your hands on this article as it seems very relevant to your question.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T15:46:25.483Z
It's a little bit horrifying to see governments use the term "hoarding" to describe *savings*, the accumulation of which should be a very important goal of any responsible citizen!
Mason Wheeler
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T15:55:12.210Z
I don't know if they use the term "hoarding" or not; I just took Sweden as an example. However, I too would consider "saving" large amounts of money under the mattress to be hoarding. But that's a different issue. :)
proskor
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T21:16:38.050Z
@immibis: That's a horrendously oversimplified principle on which to base policy decisions, which is unfortunate because it's all too frequently *actually used to base policy decisions on.*  Everyone is going to spend on their needs, because... well, they're *needs*.  And even frugal people spend beyond that, to improve their quality of life.  What savings means is that they have surplus beyond what's needed to live comfortably, and a "cushion" to hedge against future disasters.  And if that cushion is not there, the societal cost of cleaning up the disaster rises disproportionately fast!
Mason Wheeler
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T21:18:30.293Z
(ie. a severe illness that might have cost me $10,000 to deal with will generally end up costing the social safety net much more than that if I don't have the 10K to take care of it.)  Therefore, if everyone saves lots, it *is* a great situation, over the long run if not necessarily in the short term.
Mason Wheeler
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-01T21:54:00.400Z
This question from personal finance is somewhat related:  http://money.stackexchange.com/questions/55495/how-to-rescue-my-money-from-negative-interest
Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight
<currency><monetary-policy><money><regulation>
Wouldn't abolition of cash give rise to a substitute currency?
proskor
# Wouldn't abolition of cash give rise to a substitute currency?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-02-01)

Some countries (e.g. Sweden and [Denmark](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/comment/11602399/Ban-cash-end-boom-and-bust.html)) plan to abolish physical cash in the future and restrict the use of cash to electronical deposits. One of the reasons for this is to prevent hoarding / boost spending of money, which could be achieved by introducing negative interest rates on deposits far below zero.

However, as far as I know, [in times of hyperinflation, people resorted to substitute currencies](https://mises.org/library/multiple-currencies-and-gresham%E2%80%99s-law-zimbabwe) (either foreign currencies or commodities like cigarettes). Wouldn't the same happen if cash was abolished?

For example, suppose the bank charges 20% or more on deposits and you can't withdraw your money in cash (since there is no cash), and you don't want to buy stocks or property for some reason (it's risky or hard to liquidate) and suppose other people have the same problems. Wouldn't it be reasonable then to create and use some alternative currency, like cigarettes or maybe a local currency, which you can store physically?

**Tags:** currency, monetary-policy, money, regulation

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: By abolished, what do you mean specifically? Sweden stops minting physical krona? Sweden forbids merchants from accepting paper currency of any kind? Sweden gradually allows paper currency to be irrelevant by keeping denominations fixed and allowing inflation to erode their purchasing power? Sweden criminalizes the possession of cash or any currency?  Sweden forbids enforcement of contracts requiring payment in cash?  
> **username_0**: Honestly, I do not know how they are planning to do this, but I don't think that is relevant for the question. I assume they will stop printing paper money and minting coins.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Is there any reason to think people will not use money (electronic currency on their bank accounts) instead of cash?  
> **username_3**: @username_0 I think username_1's questions are highly relevant to the question, as they do provide boundaries to what the responses could/would be  
> **username_0**: Suppose the bank charges you 20% annually for your deposits in order to promote more spending, would that not be a reason to keep your money elsewhere?  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Like another bank maybe? Perhaps take the suggestions of the other users and describe the exact details of what is happening.  
> **username_0**: @Bkey, EnergyNumbers I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. Perhaps a better way to formulate my question could be: is a scenario, in which it is not possible to store money physically (cash), realistic?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I updated my question and provided an example of what I have in mind. Since there are countries which are seriously considering abolition of cash, I assume there is an error in my reasoning or I simply do not know or understand something important. It would be great if you could just point out what it is.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 This might provide some insight: http://www.wsj.com/articles/alternative-currencies-flourish-in-greece-as-euros-are-harder-to-come-by-1439458241  
> **username_0**: @denesp Thanks. Unfortunately, I can't read the whole article because I don't have a subscription. :(  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Me neither. Strange, it was working 15 minutes ago. Perhaps by just registering you get a free article a month? I recommend getting your hands on this article as it seems very relevant to your question.  
> **username_4**: It's a little bit horrifying to see governments use the term "hoarding" to describe *savings*, the accumulation of which should be a very important goal of any responsible citizen!  
> **username_0**: I don't know if they use the term "hoarding" or not; I just took Sweden as an example. However, I too would consider "saving" large amounts of money under the mattress to be hoarding. But that's a different issue. :)  
> **username_4**: @immibis: That's a horrendously oversimplified principle on which to base policy decisions, which is unfortunate because it's all too frequently *actually used to base policy decisions on.*  Everyone is going to spend on their needs, because... well, they're *needs*.  And even frugal people spend beyond that, to improve their quality of life.  What savings means is that they have surplus beyond what's needed to live comfortably, and a "cushion" to hedge against future disasters.  And if that cushion is not there, the societal cost of cleaning up the disaster rises disproportionately fast!  
> **username_4**: (ie. a severe illness that might have cost me $10,000 to deal with will generally end up costing the social safety net much more than that if I don't have the 10K to take care of it.)  Therefore, if everyone saves lots, it *is* a great situation, over the long run if not necessarily in the short term.  
> **username_5**: This question from personal finance is somewhat related:  http://money.stackexchange.com/questions/55495/how-to-rescue-my-money-from-negative-interest  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-02-01. Score: 13 | Accepted answer

"Cash" is an emergent phenomenon of human economic organization. It exists for lots of reasons, as a provider of economic anonymity, a low transaction cost solution to the double-coincidence of wants, a portable medium of exchange, and a tool of economic accessibility for all including those in the informal economy, foreigners, the unbanked, and those with poor credit, among others.

A country can make it difficult to use cash in the interest of thwarting anonymity and convenience, usually to prevent money laundering and tax evasion. They can do so by taxing the use of cash, failing to enforce contracts calling for cash, refusing to make more, even criminalizing the possession of cash.

But cash is unlikely to die easily. We know from the experience with drug and alcohol prohibition as well as the international ivory and rhino horn trades that while the regulation can can certainly influence prices and thereby quantities demanded, it is awfully difficult to destroy a market for a valuable product. For a more specific example, possession of money is forbidden to US convicts. Nevertheless, they have developed internal monetary economies based around [canned fish](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122290720439096481), [shelf-stable pastries](http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/honey-buns-sweeten-life-for-florida-prisoners/1142687), as well as [cigarettes and stamps](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/02/with-cigarettes-banned-in-most-prisons-gangs-shift-from-drugs-to-smokes.html). Cigarettes also emerged as money in [WWII P.O.W. camps](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2550133?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), showing that even the Nazis couldn't keep a monetary economy from forming.

Sweden in particular has a significant additional obstacle to keeping currency out of their economy. They share boarders with Norway and Finland, each with their own currency. Go to practically any boarder region or tourist spot around the world and you'll see tellers happy to take dollars, euros, or yen in addition to the local currency. It is especially difficult to ditch cash when other sources of cash are available.


---

