Conclusions Summing up, our results imply that there might be considerable cost savings to be made by the banks through a more transparent and cost-based pricing This is because such a pricing strategy would lead to changes in the pattern of demand. Consumers would have economic incentives to shift to those instruments that are less costly to produce. According to our cost estimates, they would use debit cards more and credit cards and cash less and they would increase their use of electronic credit transfers and direct debits at the cost of paper-based credit transfers. A more cost-based price strategy would result in private customers facing transaction fees on paperbased and electronically-initiated credit transfers and in the introduction of transaction fees for cash withdrawals. Fees for acquiring services would have to decrease. The fact that Swedish banks do not take any fees whatsoever for cash withdrawals, while such fees can be observed in the other Nordic countries, may very well be the explanation for our greater use of cash and lesser use of card payments. Based on the data on variable costs and volumes, the banking sector could lower their variable costs by around 560 million Swedish kronor annually if bank customers replaced charge and credit cards and cash with debit card payments. The shift from paper-based to electronically-initiated credit transfers could result in a further reduction in the banking sector’s variable costs of almost 200 million Swedish kronor annually. One interesting issue to consider is the reason for this pricing strategy.

The impact that changes in Fed policy can have beyond our borders has led to calls for us to do more to internalize those impacts, or even that policymaking be internationally coordinated. As I’ve already noted, Fed policies have significant effects internationally, given the central place of U.S. markets in the global financial system and the dollar’s status as the leading global reserve currency. In pursuing our policy responsibilities, we seek to conduct policy transparently and based on clear principles. We are mindful of the global effects of  2  BIS central bankers’ speeches  Fed policy. Promoting growth and stability in the U.S., I believe, is the most important contribution we can make to growth and stability worldwide. There is, of course, the argument that Fed policy has been too accommodative for too long, creating risks for financial stability worldwide. Here, I think, it’s important to consider carefully the counterfactual. Would countries beyond our borders really have been better off with a weaker U.S. economy? The fundamental issue is whether U.S. monetary policy has helped support our dual objectives of stable prices and maximum sustainable growth and whether this is consistent with a healthy global economy. Moreover, it is far from clear that explicitly coordinated policy would produce better outcomes for the global economy generally, or the EMEs specifically. Central banks have challenges enough in tailoring policies to their domestic circumstances. I believe that it would be taking on too much to attempt to collectively fashion policy in reference to global conditions.