[greenhorn]

Originally Posted by vishnurp99

I hear that master and Visa is worried

They should be. Rupay is a very credible alternative and the govt should push for it. Even better if govt makes it mandatory. Having your entire payment infrastructure at the mercy of two international corporations is not a good idea. Rupay's fees are far better, and this whole card payment charges mess could have been avoided if everyone was using rupay.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by Samurai

.....Governments are rarely known to do what the electorate want, once their are elected. So you can't attribute vendor/client relationship to them.....

Ironic, isn't it? We humans go around demanding accountability at every minor or major transaction we're involved personally in, but give a free pass all too easily when it comes to governance.

A corporate entity that fails to keep promises or hold its end up of a bargain gets dragged over coals (this forum is replete with examples), but a renegade government sees no consequences except the hope that enough people will have the sense not to re-elect them, which is a rarity by itself.

I was on an escalation call at work yesterday, and the question came down to why a meticulously planned initiative wasn't working as intended, and the unsavory answer was people at various levels weren't being held accountable for their responsibilities.

IT Vs. Governance may not be an apples to apples comparison, but the principles of accountability are universal.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

IT Vs. Governance may not be an apples to apples comparison, but the principles of accountability are universal.

No, the relationship between people and government is not the same as client and vendor. Instead, it is same as principal and agent. That is why principal-agent problem is rampant in government.

Principal-agent relationship is different than client-vendor relationship, which is why IT industry examples are wrong comparison.

[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

They should be. Rupay is a very credible alternative and the govt should push for it. Even better if govt makes it mandatory. Having your entire payment infrastructure at the mercy of two international corporations is not a good idea. Rupay's fees are far better, and this whole card payment charges mess could have been avoided if everyone was using rupay.

At the end of the day it boils down to a few simple factors:

1. Acceptability. Rupay was touted as a way for the very small account holder (Jan Dhan) to get a card. They would not have qualified / got a Visa or MC Card. I do not carry the Rupay and unless forced I will not.

The behemoths have global acceptability. We may have some information from France which was pushing its own Carte Blanche as a substitute for the Biggies in the 1970's. In many cases the card acceptability has to be global.

Today acceptability also includes the merchant establishments.

2. Redressal mechanisms: How efficiently are disputes addressed. It will have the bank as the front end, but does require some inputs from the agency and the 'other' bank.

3. Limits: I have fairly high limits on my cards, and intend to keep it that way. As it stands one of the Perks I get is 'no forex charges'.

As for fuel is concerned why did our OMCs not do a deal with the card firms, for reduced rates, as is the case worldwide. They were typically complacent and sleeping. At the end of the day if you want service, you have to pay for it. Incidentally, the global boss of MC Mr Banga is a good old Indian Sardarji, who was earlier CEO of StanChart.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by Samurai

No, the relationship between people and government is not the same as client and vendor. Instead, it is same as principal and agent. That is why principal-agent problem is rampant in government.

Principal-agent relationship is different than client-vendor relationship, which is why IT industry examples are wrong comparison.

One, I already said it's not a like for like comparison and have no intent to equate the two. All I said was accountability in transactional relationships is universal, no matter the context.

Two, the principal-agent problem exists in the client-vendor relationship too. Business is for profit, not for love of the customer and businesses routinely make decisions to benefit themselves over their customers, same as governments do with the gen-pop once they get elected as you rightly mentioned.

The major difference: I can weigh my options and walk away from a bad client-vendor relationship, but choosing my govt. can neither be an individual decision nor an immediate one, if ever.

P.S. One can always argue that governments not being for-profit is a critical difference, but that's just academic in truth as most governments are for-profit in everything but their stated aim.

[sachinpk]

Originally Posted by benbsb29

Let's not forget here that the dates specified were stated when the move was announced, and not something people just believed it should be as per their convenience.

My understanding was that Govt announced this move on 8th Nov, and the dead line to deposit old notes was till Dec 30th. And it did stick to that dead line right? They did not advance or change the dates. What happened was that there were set of frequent new instructions which were getting issued. One thing was that after around 25th Dec, the banks were only asked to collect Rs.5000 and then stop allowing money to be pushed into the same account. This caused confusion and many people said they were waiting for the very last day to deposit money.

How about the innocents caught out with legitimate money who aren't in a position to deposit the money owing to genuine circumstances and who believed in the timelines listed during the announcement?

What time lines changed? Notes of old denominations were collected till the very last day announced (Dec 30th). I am not saying people were inconvenienced, but to say that a vast majority of the people were all innocents who had truck loads of legitamate money, but waited for the last to deposit them does not seem to be very convincing. Any body who had noble intentions would have ensured that his own hard earned money reaches a bank account ASAP. The only excpetions can be people who remained sick & bed ridden all the way, or was totally incapacitated. Or people who did not have a single bank account (so they had to open that first and then dump the cash).

Originally Posted by greenhorn

They should be. Rupay is a very credible alternative and the govt should push for it.

Agree with you. Infact Rupay was launched at least a couple of years bank. The government(s) did not follow through, and banks were also happy to be with VISA and MasterCard. VISA and MasterCard are global players and in a corrupt country like India they would jolly well know how banks can be coerced to downplay Rupay.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by sachinpk

What time lines changed? Notes of old denominations were collected till the very last day announced (Dec 30th). I am not saying people were inconvenienced, but to say that a vast majority of the people were all innocents who had truck loads of legitamate money, but waited for the last to deposit them does not seem to be very convincing. Any body who had noble intentions would have ensured that his own hard earned money reaches a bank account ASAP. The only excpetions can be people who remained sick & bed ridden all the way, or was totally incapacitated. Or people who did not have a single bank account (so they had to open that first and then dump the cash).

This is based on your "gut instinct"?
If one was given time to deposit all their money, why should it concern any Tom dick or harry as to when he deposits it, or how much he deposits. How do you define these as ignoble intentions, and on what empirical basis?
Did the "PM" say on the 8th of November that their is a moral weightage allocated which decreases as they got closer to dec 30th? That those who deposited on the 8th nov were truly pious, and those who came to the bank in the last week of december were "obviously" cheats and thieves (its a feeling)?
Did he or did he not say that after the 30th, anyone can go to the RBI and deposit?
Try and stop assuming stuff about who is depositing when an where. Its getting deposited. Its the "government's" job to now figure who was the liar and cheat, hopefully not based on "I feel....".

[Samurai]

Meanwhile, demonetization still finds new fans..

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/...eate-economist

[binand]

Originally Posted by mayankk

Did he or did he not say that after the 30th, anyone can go to the RBI and deposit?

He didn't.

He said "You will have 50 days to deposit your notes and there is no need for panic".

He further said "There may be some who, for some reason, are not able to deposit their old 500 or 1,000 rupee notes by 30th December 2016. They can go to specified offices of the Reserve Bank of India up to 31st March 2017 and deposit the notes after submitting a declaration form."

So what has transpired is that the only acceptable "some reason" is "I was out of the country". I find that quite reasonable. Further, the "specified offices" of the RBI do not include major metros like Bangalore and Hyderabad, which I admit is a problem for a lot of people.

I am quoting the PM's speech from this transcript.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by sachinpk

My understanding was that Govt announced this move on 8th Nov, and the dead line to deposit old notes was till Dec 30th. And it did stick to that dead line right? They did not advance or change the dates.


What time lines changed? Notes of old denominations were collected till the very last day announced (Dec 30th).

Not only have they stopped accepting old notes from resident Indians before the deadline (ie March 31st), they have also made it illegal to hold old notes before the deadline (ie March 31).

People are conveniently forgetting the deadline of March 31st. Dec 30th, according to PM's speech, was the deadline only for banks accepting old notes, not 'the deadline'.

PM speech

Minimum Rs 10,000 fine for holding old notes

From PM's speech :

9. There may be some who, for some reason, are not able to deposit their old five hundred or thousand rupee notes by 30th December 2016.

10. They can go to specified offices of the Reserve Bank of India up to 31st March 2017 and deposit the notes after submitting a declaration form.

[pramodkumar]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

People are conveniently forgetting the deadline of March 31st. Dec 30th, according to PM's speech, was the deadline only for banks accepting old notes, not 'the deadline'.
Minimum Rs 10,000 fine for holding old notes

Actually my sister had 2 X 500 rupee notes which she got as part of her first salary and gave it to my mother, who now keeps this 1000 rs with her with great adoration and care, I know that this amount wont brand her a criminal for illegal possession, I know some people who are old and used to get 500/1000 Rs from people who used to visit them, kids/relatives etc, they are old people and usually paranoid with their money, my wife's own grand mother is a perfect example, during her good days she had 5-6 goats, which she sold once she was old, she doesn't feel comfortable to give this money to someone and is old enough, not to understand what demonetization is, even a 2 hour lecture wont make her understand, reason she gets her constant dose of cynicism from daily soaps. She has at-least 45-50k with her, I didn't even ask my wife if her GM had changed her notes. So having a talk with her based on my gestimate would be a disaster, I am sure the last thing a senior citizen what's is a case for illegally possessing demonetized currency. Ideally they should have let everyone to freely exchange the currency and only caught the ones hat could not give a good enough reason. this way 99% of currency would have come back and everyone above 2.5 lacs could have been scrutinized by IT dept.

Think of families who support such old people and if the family is not well to do they will definitely eye on these savings. I am not sure what will happen to these savings.

Pramod

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by binand

He didn't.

He said "You will have 50 days to deposit your notes and there is no need for panic".

He further said "There may be some who, for some reason, are not able to deposit their old 500 or 1,000 rupee notes by 30th December 2016. They can go to specified offices of the Reserve Bank of India up to 31st March 2017 and deposit the notes after submitting a declaration form."

So what has transpired is that the only acceptable "some reason" is "I was out of the country". I find that quite reasonable. Further, the "specified offices" of the RBI do not include major metros like Bangalore and Hyderabad, which I admit is a problem for a lot of people.

I am quoting the PM's speech from this transcript.

How I read it is as that if you do not feel comfortable for ANY reason whatsoever, or are unable due to ANY circumstance, to visit a bank till the 30th of dec, you can go to an RBI office, and deposit YOUR 500 and 1000 rupee notes.
That reason could be your being out of the country, or maybe a dog dancing on your head. No? Was there a metric for the reasonableness of this reason?
Instead we got, "Oh, we forgot, we changed this..."
Its like the running man!

[jraj]

Originally Posted by binand

He didn't.

He said "You will have 50 days to deposit your notes and there is no need for panic".

He further said "There may be some who, for some reason, are not able to deposit their old 500 or 1,000 rupee notes by 30th December 2016. They can go to specified offices of the Reserve Bank of India up to 31st March 2017 and deposit the notes after submitting a declaration form."

So what has transpired is that the only acceptable "some reason" is "I was out of the country". I find that quite reasonable. Further, the "specified offices" of the RBI do not include major metros like Bangalore and Hyderabad, which I admit is a problem for a lot of people.

I am quoting the PM's speech from this transcript.

Yeah right - the transcript which doesnt mention "cashless economy" even once and yet thats the sales pitch right now.All that was for moving towards a "cashless economy".

Lets not even go to what was said on Nov 8th ,please

[benbsb29]

Originally Posted by pramodkumar

I know some people who are old and used to get 500/1000 Rs from people who used to visit them, kids/relatives etc, they are old people and usually paranoid with their money, my wife's own grand mother is a perfect example

My grandmother who is in her 90s and bedridden would be another perfect example. I myself have given her Rs 500 notes multiple times when i visited her after i started working. I know for sure that she wouldn't have bothered depositing these in a bank owing to the effort involved, and these would remain in her kitty for her personal expenses when required. A person like her now in possession of old notes is apparently a law-breaker.

[binand]

Originally Posted by jraj

Yeah right - the transcript which doesnt mention "cashless economy" even once and yet thats the sales pitch right now.All that was for moving towards a "cashless economy".

Lets not even go to what was said on Nov 8th ,please

What is your point? That since "cashless economy" was not mentioned on 8/11 it should not ever be mentioning in subsequent days?

The question is whether there were deviations from what was announced on 8/11 in terms of policy objective and implementation details. I don't see the objective has changed at all; but I do agree the implementation details have been altered. But that is not surprising; the PM himself said in his 29/12 interview that these details had to change to keep one step ahead of those who wanted to game the system. Anyone who has ever been in charge of a project implementation would agree with him there.