6 ms·

Your comment is going to be an underrated comment. However, there's also the notion of "tracking corruption". China apparently is a cashless society (accordin

Your comment is going to be an underrated comment. However, there's also the notion of "tracking corruption". China apparently is a cashless society (according to a Chinese person I interacted with recently). I'd imagine that if it's good for China, it's good for India. (Indian here.)

manquer 6y ago
Lot of countries are effectively going cashless by design or by market forces. It is convenient and cheaper for everyone. It is not necessarily better for privacy or human rights, it can be better for taxation and other government functions. Whether anyone likes it or not, the world is moving towards this model. It is better to have controls and regulations on how the data will be used rather fighting about keeping cash.
- MisterSandman 6y ago
  > It is convenient for everyone Maybe in a semi-ideal world, but not in a country like India. Less than 30% of Indians own a Smartphone, which is where a lot of the "convenience" of going cashless comes from. The Indian government made a recent (superficial) push to get up to 80% of Indians a bank account (up from ~50% form a few years ago), but it doesn't take a FAANG engineer to realize that the majority of these people don't have easy access to banks, banking apps and especially something like crypto. Going "cashless" has tremendous negatives for the world's poorest. India's demonetization push, which forced people to exchange their old notes for new ones, is a clear case study of how major change to currency has a disproportionate impact on the poor. source for the bank account stuff: https://scroll.in/article/923798/over-80-now-indians-have-bank-accounts-how-many-are-actually-using-them https://scroll.in/article/923798/over-80-now-indians-have-ba...
  - manquer 6y ago
    I don't like the Modi government's policies any more than the next person, however India will benefit immensely cashless precisely because of the problems of under banking to the population you talk about. You don't seem understand how difficult the average rural person has it because the country runs on cash. I have worked in Micro finance in India ~2010-2013. I have spent some time studying and trying to solve this problem. The logistical challenges to provide banking for smaller communities is immense and costly. Despite government owning 69% of the banking sector and having mandates for unprofitable rural branches. Microfinance was getting demand despite predatory interest >24% ? Why? Because there are no viable competitors offering less with less friction. Traditional loan sharks charge even more. State Banks and various coops are inefficient in their processes. Banks need a lot of documentation starting from PAN, salary and deeds which only landowners have, The banks are so far off physically for the rural workers, even if they could get financing the risk of multiple days of wages lost is too mush. Most banks expect you show to regular income to get any kind of loan. If your bank is 10 km away and you make wages daily/weekly, it is not feasible to deposit and withdraw cash every time you need to, you are never going to be approved for the loan. Indian banking system is simply not working for rural poor users, expecting a daily wage worker or NREGA beneficiary to go 10+ KM to withdraw cash from an ATM that they cannot read instructions is not viable. The traditional model of having middle men disburse cash is extremely corrupt and actual beneficiary gets a small fraction of the money. Yes smart phone penetration is less ( although I suspect it is bit more than you say, given the number of WhatsApp users in India) If we need a chance in hell to be able to service poorer part of the country, banking needs to be cheap and that is not going to happen at a branch and it has paperless as possible. Cash is an expensive luxury the country cannot afford.

manquer 6y ago

Lot of countries are effectively going cashless by design or by market forces. It is convenient and cheaper for everyone. It is not necessarily better for privacy or human rights, it can be better for taxation and other government functions. Whether anyone likes it or not, the world is moving towards this model. It is better to have controls and regulations on how the data will be used rather fighting about keeping cash.

MisterSandman 6y ago
> It is convenient for everyone Maybe in a semi-ideal world, but not in a country like India. Less than 30% of Indians own a Smartphone, which is where a lot of the "convenience" of going cashless comes from. The Indian government made a recent (superficial) push to get up to 80% of Indians a bank account (up from ~50% form a few years ago), but it doesn't take a FAANG engineer to realize that the majority of these people don't have easy access to banks, banking apps and especially something like crypto. Going "cashless" has tremendous negatives for the world's poorest. India's demonetization push, which forced people to exchange their old notes for new ones, is a clear case study of how major change to currency has a disproportionate impact on the poor. source for the bank account stuff: https://scroll.in/article/923798/over-80-now-indians-have-bank-accounts-how-many-are-actually-using-them https://scroll.in/article/923798/over-80-now-indians-have-ba...
- manquer 6y ago
  I don't like the Modi government's policies any more than the next person, however India will benefit immensely cashless precisely because of the problems of under banking to the population you talk about. You don't seem understand how difficult the average rural person has it because the country runs on cash. I have worked in Micro finance in India ~2010-2013. I have spent some time studying and trying to solve this problem. The logistical challenges to provide banking for smaller communities is immense and costly. Despite government owning 69% of the banking sector and having mandates for unprofitable rural branches. Microfinance was getting demand despite predatory interest >24% ? Why? Because there are no viable competitors offering less with less friction. Traditional loan sharks charge even more. State Banks and various coops are inefficient in their processes. Banks need a lot of documentation starting from PAN, salary and deeds which only landowners have, The banks are so far off physically for the rural workers, even if they could get financing the risk of multiple days of wages lost is too mush. Most banks expect you show to regular income to get any kind of loan. If your bank is 10 km away and you make wages daily/weekly, it is not feasible to deposit and withdraw cash every time you need to, you are never going to be approved for the loan. Indian banking system is simply not working for rural poor users, expecting a daily wage worker or NREGA beneficiary to go 10+ KM to withdraw cash from an ATM that they cannot read instructions is not viable. The traditional model of having middle men disburse cash is extremely corrupt and actual beneficiary gets a small fraction of the money. Yes smart phone penetration is less ( although I suspect it is bit more than you say, given the number of WhatsApp users in India) If we need a chance in hell to be able to service poorer part of the country, banking needs to be cheap and that is not going to happen at a branch and it has paperless as possible. Cash is an expensive luxury the country cannot afford.