[vram22]

>The whole "demonetization" argument seemed blatantly propagandistic to me. The stated goal was to repatriate "black money" (theoretically large untaxed cash reserves held by rich Indians). Let's assume that "black money" is a real problem and not an overstated political bogeyman.

It is a very real thing, as every Indian knows and hears and sees (from generations past, probably even before independence. Hey, it even plays a part in Indian movies).

Please don't make assumptions. Check out the facts on the ground, preferably by coming to India and spending some time here, before talking about it. I see from your profile that you are scientific, but you are not really exhibiting that here.

>Let's ignore the fact that the last thing anyone with serious money is going to store wealth in is cash (especially not Rupees).

Maybe you are not from India (sounds like it) and don't understand the fact that infrastructure and conditioning and people's minds can vary a hell of a lot across countries (not even to start mentioning the differences between more and less developed countries). There have been reported (and exposed) labyrinthine schemes for evading tax and so on out here, maybe more than you can wrap your brain around (without knowing more).

Edit: to make it clear, I am not saying that the scheme is perfect. By reports in the papers as well as by my own experience, it has led to many issues. It could and should have been planned and handled better.

[wyager]

> It is a very real thing, as every Indian knows and hears and sees

How do you know it to be a problem? Governments love to overstate the seriousness of things for political leverage. Many people make incorrect conclusions from what they hear and see in pop culture.

> Hey, it even plays a part in Indian movies

If this is what you mean by "know and hear and see", then I think you need more evidence. Movie production culture (from Hollywood to Bollywood) loves to latch onto political and criminal tropes regardless of how true they are. For example, there are a number of laws passed by US congress and state governments that can be directly traced back to exaggerations in Hollywood movies. The banning of Switchblade knives can be traced back to Hollywood incorrectly depicting them as a popular tool for mafia activity. The banning of gun suppressors can be directly traced back to exaggerated Hollywood depictions of their effectiveness. Basically, you shouldn't trust everything you see in movies. "Black money" is a great narrative vehicle that is stuck in the Indian pop culture memeome, so it makes sense that Indian movies reference it.

[vram22]

>How do you know it to be a problem?

You seem to have not understood, or maybe I was not clear enough. It is not from the movies - those are secondary, reel life imitating real life. Neither is it based on what government says - though they do say it exists.

This is how (said earlier):

>It is a very real thing, as every Indian knows and hears and sees

That meant: from hearing from people one knows personally (and trust), who heard from others they know (ditto).

[wyager]

> from hearing from people one knows personally (and trust), who heard from others they know (ditto).

So what you're telling me is that you know the economic impact of this phenomenon from social gossip?

Like I said, you need actual evidence. For example, a survey from a reputable census data agency. "It is known" and "he said/she said" are not acceptable arguments.

[vram22]

Wow. What I said:

>>from people one knows personally (and trust)

vs. what you're imputing to me (i.e. interpreting/twisting my words as/into, or you didn't bother to read before replying):

>So what you're telling me is that you know the economic impact of this phenomenon from social gossip?

So, words from a person you trust (like a close friend or relative), are "social gossip" to you?

If a close friend or relative tells you: "I saw that road A on the way to your work is being repaired, so has a barrier, I suggest you take alternative road B today", do you dismissively tell them that you "need actual evidence. For example, a survey from a reputable census data agency"?

There is a continuum from scientific facts proven by experiments -> things you can be confident about from hearing from people you trust -> roadside gossip. (And for that matter, scientific "evidence" or "laws" can also be proven wrong, so how about your census agency?? how about biased surveys, relevant people not participating (oops, of course black money hoarders are going to answer truthfully to a survey that they hoard black money! /s) People believed the earth was flat and/or that the sun revolved around the earth, before Galileo / Copernicus etc. If you could show a computer or smartphone or even a car - while in use - to a Neanderthal, he would think it was magic. Knowledge, including science, evolves.) Or do you also ask for scientific evidence before you do anything at all?

And:

>"It is known" and "he said/she said" are not acceptable arguments.

Acceptable to whom? That's the key point. You don't need to believe what I do, nor vice versa.

I was trying to clarify a misconception you had, as a person who likely did not know the situation on the ground. Not interested in continuing this discussion further.

[wyager]

> So, words from a person you trust (like a close friend or relative), are "social gossip" to you?

Yes. Is that a serious question?

I also don't have any reason trust you or whichever random people you're citing as authoritative sources on large-scale socioeconomic phenomena.

> "I saw that road A on the way to your work is being repaired"

This is a straightforward factual claim that's not subject to misinterpretation or invalid inference. My criteria for evidence is therefore much lower.

Instead of getting mad that I called you out on making economic/sociological claims without any sort of non-anecdotal evidence, you could actually try to provide evidence. Maybe you tried that and gave up. But whatever, it's up to you.

> People believed the earth was flat and/or that the sun revolved around the earth

Probably because people they trusted told them as much. You should consider this when you accept "trusted" hearsay as evidence.

> I was trying to clarify a misconception you had

Thank you, but this typically involves introducing new information. I'm aware of the opinion of the average underqualified member of the Indian public. More anecdotes along the same lines doesn't clarify much.