I sometimes wish more states would build state-controlled basic financial infrastructure and cut out the established financial services companies from the low end of the market -- whether that is the big card companies or the big banks or the big insurers or the big mortgage lenders. These financial services organisations make staggering amounts of money for providing services that almost everyone depends on to function in society, yet with very little real accountability and rarely serving the little guy well, and with a long track record of fighting against any state-led efforts to improve the situation on either count. I'm not generally a fan of over-centralising government and infrastructure, but in this case I suspect there are now strong arguments for providing basic state-run financial services that look much the arguments for having currency and the lender of last resort run by the state and not for private profit.

The use of card payment schemes as a mechanism for sanctions in this case demonstrates external political influence. Maybe in this specific case some would agree with that, given Russia's recent track record. But just imagine the response if Russia could do the same to the US or the major economies of Western Europe. Or consider a more ethically dubious example, like the UK invoking terrorism legislation to freeze assets when Iceland was in financial difficulty not so long ago. More than the political influence, these measures demonstrate the rather arbitrary nature of the services these big companies provide, or don't provide, particularly across borders. For any first world national economy in the 21st century to remain vulnerable to some big commercial interest getting upset and taking the ball home, whatever the underlying reason, seems unwise on the part of the corresponding government.