Re: Effect of Rs. 500 / 1000 note ban on the Indian car industry 'Black Money' is imo a misnomer (for the most part.) Cash-ness or 'informal'-sector-ness is in no way the same as 'blackness'. Most 'money' labelled 'black' is in actual fact not black at all but 'grey' i.e., debatable whether it is white or black, indistinction reigns, since money is fungible!, and is the very foundation of why the so-called 'black economy' is completely and will-remain ir'repressible' which is NOT to say it cannot be reduced in other, non'fiat' ways.
Besides, most 'black money' is not money at all (if that means 'cash') but is already in 'asset' form (gold, property, foreign currency holdings etc and....political/bureaucratic/judicial/etc office itself including the very highest ones of the states and the country!)
The question is who settles the debate about whether particular peoples' cash-confessions/deposits are 'white' or 'black'? The government is trying to arrogate to itself the in-principle 'sovereign right' to decide that, with almost-in-principle perfect arbitrariness i.e., 'fiat', rather than as should be the case: leave it to professional, impersonal, non-arbitrary and universalist taxmen+CA-s+ especially the courts (which last are completely irrelevant: a ridiculous situation.)
Tax evasion is a slighter and far more difficult to solve problem than the easily soluble one of tax avoidance by current 'white' taxpayers via the infinite number of tax and company law etc etc loopholes, giveaways, canny legal structures, 'religious trusts' etc etc. In fact, tax evasion is usually/often indistinguishable from gaming i.e., from tax avoidance, which is why all large holdings of 'black assets' are in fact better characterised as 'grey' which is precisely why they cannot be 'arbitrarily and easily repressed' away by 'fiat'!
By publicly seeking to conflate 'blackness' with 'greyness', 'blackness' with large-'cashness'/'informality' the government is creating deep-uncertainty and distrust: fear, EVEN among the 'white'='grey' (debatable/disputable 'blackness', as i said) folks. i.e., demand will be dampened massively, all else equal, in all sorts of markets, not least of course: real estate and cars.
The sheer arbitrariness that has been introduced in terms of whose cash-deposits or expenditure on what in which way (cash v/s digital v/s cheque...) is deemed questionable and whose not is and will corrode, all else being equal, the propensity to buy-and-sell, i.e., the 'velocity of money', whether in the short, medium- or long-runs.
A very dubious cart-before-horse, short-cutting approach? Whatever the political 'gains' and 'losses' (pardon the pun!) it will imo be self-fulfillingly self-defeating, interms of additional government-revenues (tax(esp direct)-gdp ratio), in terms of consumption-or-financial savings-or-investment-or-credit-to-gdp ratios too. In aggregate, that is, rather than short-term 'distributionally' which imo seems the greater, more-real and therefore more contestable objective of this de-monetization 'policy'.
[All else, which is a lot, being equal: as the caveat.]
The auto industry will bear a major brunt here, esp used and 'premium/luxury', i fear, and there are the gst problems and the emissions/pollution-regs ones too looming already. |