Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A cashless society- Yay or Nay?

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:24:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, India has launched a nationwide program involving the allocation of a Unique Identification Number (UID) to every single one of its 1.2 billion residents. Each of the numbers will be tied to the biometric data of the recipient using three different forms of information " fingerprints, iris scans, and pictures of the face. All ten digits of the hand will be recorded, and both eyes will be scanned.

The main aim is to ensure that all the welfare schemes reach their rightful recipients. Registering for AADHAR (the scheme) would automatically open up your bank account/ link your existing bank account with this digital ID code. Thus all welfare money directly reaches the bank accounts of the recipients. This will also weed out corruption, since all the transactions would be computerized.

The long term aim of this scheme is to have a cashless society, and have all the transactions computerized.

Infowars is having a field day.

I guess this would have a spurting on consumption, improve the Demand, and then in long term, supply. Also any savings would have to be in banks, (It would be really difficult to set a limit to your spending, I should think.) Really good as a very high percentage of savings would be invested.

Pro:
1. No corruption
2. No welfare scheme sabotage
3. Large investment-> (if productive)-> more capital-> high growth.

Cons:
1. THE GOVT. CAN SEE US, always. /Only a totalitarian form of government would desire this information; and only a very determined totalitarian government would actively work toward establishing it./, as infowars pointed out.

2. Identity theft?

What's your take?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:50:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
First off, this isn't an economics topic. It's politics, society, technology or philosophy.

Second, there is no possible pro that outweighs the con here.

I would shoot anyone who tried to ID me this way...on the spot.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:05:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:50:57 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
First off, this isn't an economics topic. It's politics, society, technology or philosophy.

I would say the implications of a cashless society is an economic question.

Second, there is no possible pro that outweighs the con here.

That's subjective. You think identity theft is as big of a problem to offset the leakages due to corruption?
I would shoot anyone who tried to ID me this way...on the spot.

Why?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:12:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 9:05:56 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:50:57 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
First off, this isn't an economics topic. It's politics, society, technology or philosophy.

I would say the implications of a cashless society is an economic question.

Second, there is no possible pro that outweighs the con here.

That's subjective. You think identity theft is as big of a problem to offset the leakages due to corruption?
I would shoot anyone who tried to ID me this way...on the spot.

Why?

Please read nineteeneightyfour and then get back to me with that question, as well as any others.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:14:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, what you're talking about is a currency-less society, not a cashless one.

Paper bills...numbers in a computer database - it's all the same, except the portability may be greater without physical currency. However, this option exists with the advent of the ATM, so the extra portability is irrelevant.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:17:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 9:12:06 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:05:56 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:50:57 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
First off, this isn't an economics topic. It's politics, society, technology or philosophy.

I would say the implications of a cashless society is an economic question.

Second, there is no possible pro that outweighs the con here.

That's subjective. You think identity theft is as big of a problem to offset the leakages due to corruption?
I would shoot anyone who tried to ID me this way...on the spot.

Why?

Please read nineteeneightyfour and then get back to me with that question, as well as any others.

k
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:27:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 9:14:31 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, what you're talking about is a currency-less society, not a cashless one.

Paper bills...numbers in a computer database - it's all the same, except the portability may be greater without physical currency. However, this option exists with the advent of the ATM, so the extra portability is irrelevant.

ATM's are not accessible to the poor. This is a step to improve economic inclusiveness. We're talking of India.

Also, it's not currency less. The numbers in the computer database become the new currency. Currency less implies that there is no exchange system in the economy.

Investopedia:

//Currency: A generally accepted form of money, including coins and paper notes, which is issued by a government and circulated within an economy. Used as a medium of exchange for goods and services, currency is the basis for trade. //
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 10:16:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 9:27:14 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:14:31 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, what you're talking about is a currency-less society, not a cashless one.

Paper bills...numbers in a computer database - it's all the same, except the portability may be greater without physical currency. However, this option exists with the advent of the ATM, so the extra portability is irrelevant.

ATM's are not accessible to the poor. This is a step to improve economic inclusiveness. We're talking of India.

They are becoming so with pre-paid cards like the ones they sell at Wal-mart (I'm not usually a fan of Wal-Mart, but their financial services targeted to poor people are actually a large service to the people who purchase them, and the margins that Wal-mart gets from these products are a lot less than the margins one gets raped with at a bank).

Plus, who cares? Portability of money only matters if you're traveling. Poor people can't usually afford to travel out of country, so it doesn't matter.

Also, it's not currency less. The numbers in the computer database become the new currency. Currency less implies that there is no exchange system in the economy.

Investopedia:

//Currency: A generally accepted form of money, including coins and paper notes, which is issued by a government and circulated within an economy. Used as a medium of exchange for goods and services, currency is the basis for trade. //

Yeah...that was my whole point with currency-less vs. cashless. Perhaps I should have said devoid of "hard" currency, but the point you're making here is exactly the same as the one I was trying to make.

The concept of money still exists, all it does is take a different form, and so from an economic standpoint, it's meaningless. The only thing to discuss here are the political and societal implications, not the economic ones.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 11:19:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 10:16:54 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:27:14 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:14:31 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, what you're talking about is a currency-less society, not a cashless one.

Paper bills...numbers in a computer database - it's all the same, except the portability may be greater without physical currency. However, this option exists with the advent of the ATM, so the extra portability is irrelevant.

ATM's are not accessible to the poor. This is a step to improve economic inclusiveness. We're talking of India.

They are becoming so with pre-paid cards like the ones they sell at Wal-mart (I'm not usually a fan of Wal-Mart, but their financial services targeted to poor people are actually a large service to the people who purchase them, and the margins that Wal-mart gets from these products are a lot less than the margins one gets raped with at a bank).

Wallmart doesn't exist in India. The closestto such schemes in grocery stores are reliance cards which offer a specific discount on all purchases... And I doubt they'll do the trick. Ser, the problem in India is its huge bureocratic structure that leads to welfare scams. So the money taken out from the taxes does not reach the intended poor, since the mechanism of distribution is still giving it out in cash, which is inefficient. This scheme would perform a dual function, open bank accounts for every person, hereby bringing financial inclusiveness, AND remove the middlemen distributing cash. The welfare money goes directly to the accounts, which is one thing taken care of. Personally, I though this was a really great scheme.

Plus, who cares? Portability of money only matters if you're traveling. Poor people can't usually afford to travel out of country, so it doesn't matter.

Its the matter of liquidity, I guess. People prefer cash. From a national pov, savings do matter though. That is one of the most direct influence of the scheme I see. Bank deposits increase, more investment, ???, profit!!!. Poor people often dont have the financial profile to open an account/ ask for loans, neither do they trust the banks, so this is one way to include them in the growth story.

Also, it's not currency less. The numbers in the computer database become the new currency. Currency less implies that there is no exchange system in the economy.

Investopedia:

//Currency: A generally accepted form of money, including coins and paper notes, which is issued by a government and circulated within an economy. Used as a medium of exchange for goods and services, currency is the basis for trade. //

Yeah...that was my whole point with currency-less vs. cashless. Perhaps I should have said devoid of "hard" currency, but the point you're making here is exactly the same as the one I was trying to make.

The concept of money still exists, all it does is take a different form, and so from an economic standpoint, it's meaningless. The only thing to discuss here are the political and societal implications, not the economic ones.

Not exactly. The consumption pattern changes with any new form of currency being introduced. There are social implications, I agree, but I am more interested in the economics of it.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 11:21:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:24:07 AM, Cermank wrote:
So, India has launched a nationwide program involving the allocation of a Unique Identification Number (UID) to every single one of its 1.2 billion residents. Each of the numbers will be tied to the biometric data of the recipient using three different forms of information " fingerprints, iris scans, and pictures of the face. All ten digits of the hand will be recorded, and both eyes will be scanned.

The main aim is to ensure that all the welfare schemes reach their rightful recipients. Registering for AADHAR (the scheme) would automatically open up your bank account/ link your existing bank account with this digital ID code. Thus all welfare money directly reaches the bank accounts of the recipients. This will also weed out corruption, since all the transactions would be computerized.

People will find a way to fake the data. Get copies of eye scans from the vulnerable welfare recipient. Get their fingerprints, etc.

That and what malcolmxy said, invasion of privacy and such.

The long term aim of this scheme is to have a cashless society, and have all the transactions computerized.

Infowars is having a field day.

I guess this would have a spurting on consumption, improve the Demand, and then in long term, supply. Also any savings would have to be in banks, (It would be really difficult to set a limit to your spending, I should think.) Really good as a very high percentage of savings would be invested.

Pro:
1. No corruption
2. No welfare scheme sabotage
3. Large investment-> (if productive)-> more capital-> high growth.

Cons:
1. THE GOVT. CAN SEE US, always. /Only a totalitarian form of government would desire this information; and only a very determined totalitarian government would actively work toward establishing it./, as infowars pointed out.

2. Identity theft?

What's your take?

Cons outweigh the Pros. Identity theft IS corruption AND welfare scheme sabotage, so PRO1 and PRO2 are negated. A large investment in a potentially non-productive system that is rife with corruption is not a PRO, so PRO3 is negated. Only the CONs are left.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 11:46:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 11:21:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:24:07 AM, Cermank wrote:
So, India has launched a nationwide program involving the allocation of a Unique Identification Number (UID) to every single one of its 1.2 billion residents. Each of the numbers will be tied to the biometric data of the recipient using three different forms of information " fingerprints, iris scans, and pictures of the face. All ten digits of the hand will be recorded, and both eyes will be scanned.

The main aim is to ensure that all the welfare schemes reach their rightful recipients. Registering for AADHAR (the scheme) would automatically open up your bank account/ link your existing bank account with this digital ID code. Thus all welfare money directly reaches the bank accounts of the recipients. This will also weed out corruption, since all the transactions would be computerized.

People will find a way to fake the data. Get copies of eye scans from the vulnerable welfare recipient. Get their fingerprints, etc.

It has to collaborate with the data though. How ID stealth presently occurs is by making up fake identities, ghost people if you will. With AADHAR card becoming a identity proof, the single ID proof, backed by a unique iris scan and finger print scan, you can't make two cards for one person. You can't invent people. How would it lead to ID theft?

That and what malcolmxy said, invasion of privacy and such.

The long term aim of this scheme is to have a cashless society, and have all the transactions computerized.

Infowars is having a field day.

I guess this would have a spurting on consumption, improve the Demand, and then in long term, supply. Also any savings would have to be in banks, (It would be really difficult to set a limit to your spending, I should think.) Really good as a very high percentage of savings would be invested.

Pro:
1. No corruption
2. No welfare scheme sabotage
3. Large investment-> (if productive)-> more capital-> high growth.

Cons:
1. THE GOVT. CAN SEE US, always. /Only a totalitarian form of government would desire this information; and only a very determined totalitarian government would actively work toward establishing it./, as infowars pointed out.

2. Identity theft?

What's your take?

Cons outweigh the Pros. Identity theft IS corruption AND welfare scheme sabotage, so PRO1 and PRO2 are negated. A large investment in a potentially non-productive system that is rife with corruption is not a PRO, so PRO3 is negated. Only the CONs are left.

I put a question mark after ID theft because I don't actually see it happening. Poor won't have any incentive to give up their identity. The scheme is widely discussed, especially at local DD channels and radios, so there's enough informtion about the scheme.

Uhh.. Corruption exists, but its not eating through the investment. The corporate sector is pretty robust right now. The logic here is flawed. Most of the inflationary pressures in India right now are due to supply constraints. This is one of the resons they are after the FDI. Investments would cater to that perticular need. Granted, there is corruption, but that is more on a bureocratic level. The country isn't disfunct due to the corruption. Indians just like to make a lot of noice.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 12:07:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't understand. Is India going toward complete state-socialism? Why do they need all 1.2 billion people to register for this program, if 1.2 billion people do not need welfare?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 1:03:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 11:46:47 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/8/2013 11:21:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:24:07 AM, Cermank wrote:
So, India has launched a nationwide program involving the allocation of a Unique Identification Number (UID) to every single one of its 1.2 billion residents. Each of the numbers will be tied to the biometric data of the recipient using three different forms of information " fingerprints, iris scans, and pictures of the face. All ten digits of the hand will be recorded, and both eyes will be scanned.

The main aim is to ensure that all the welfare schemes reach their rightful recipients. Registering for AADHAR (the scheme) would automatically open up your bank account/ link your existing bank account with this digital ID code. Thus all welfare money directly reaches the bank accounts of the recipients. This will also weed out corruption, since all the transactions would be computerized.

People will find a way to fake the data. Get copies of eye scans from the vulnerable welfare recipient. Get their fingerprints, etc.

It has to collaborate with the data though. How ID stealth presently occurs is by making up fake identities, ghost people if you will. With AADHAR card becoming a identity proof, the single ID proof, backed by a unique iris scan and finger print scan, you can't make two cards for one person. You can't invent people. How would it lead to ID theft?

You can fake the card, and get copies of the eye scan and fingerprints. You can bribe the guy at the terminal to look the other way while you input this "unique" data by the binderful.

That and what malcolmxy said, invasion of privacy and such.

The long term aim of this scheme is to have a cashless society, and have all the transactions computerized.

Infowars is having a field day.

I guess this would have a spurting on consumption, improve the Demand, and then in long term, supply. Also any savings would have to be in banks, (It would be really difficult to set a limit to your spending, I should think.) Really good as a very high percentage of savings would be invested.

Pro:
1. No corruption
2. No welfare scheme sabotage
3. Large investment-> (if productive)-> more capital-> high growth.

Cons:
1. THE GOVT. CAN SEE US, always. /Only a totalitarian form of government would desire this information; and only a very determined totalitarian government would actively work toward establishing it./, as infowars pointed out.

2. Identity theft?

What's your take?

Cons outweigh the Pros. Identity theft IS corruption AND welfare scheme sabotage, so PRO1 and PRO2 are negated. A large investment in a potentially non-productive system that is rife with corruption is not a PRO, so PRO3 is negated. Only the CONs are left.

I put a question mark after ID theft because I don't actually see it happening. Poor won't have any incentive to give up their identity. The scheme is widely discussed, especially at local DD channels and radios, so there's enough informtion about the scheme.

The poor have EVERY incentive to give up their identity. They are vulnerable and marginalized. Are you saying that the rich have more incentive than the poor to give up their identity? Think about that.

Uhh.. Corruption exists, but its not eating through the investment. The corporate sector is pretty robust right now. The logic here is flawed. Most of the inflationary pressures in India right now are due to supply constraints. This is one of the resons they are after the FDI. Investments would cater to that perticular need. Granted, there is corruption, but that is more on a bureocratic level. The country isn't disfunct due to the corruption. Indians just like to make a lot of noice.

I'm not talking about corruption in general, but corruption specific to the hypothetical of this program you are proposing (links would be nice, BTW).

The poor are especially vulnerable and subject to all kinds of coercion from those that are not poor. They would be especially vulnerable to tricks that would advertently or inadvertently give up their identity.

Given that cash is on the line, this would be a very easy target for some sort of criminal syndicate to advantage themselves of. Corruption would be rife in such a system, IMHO.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 9:39:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:50:57 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
First off, this isn't an economics topic. It's politics, society, technology or philosophy.

Second, there is no possible pro that outweighs the con here.

I would shoot anyone who tried to ID me this way...on the spot.

this
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 10:11:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 12:07:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I don't understand. Is India going toward complete state-socialism? Why do they need all 1.2 billion people to register for this program, if 1.2 billion people do not need welfare?

Because one of the biggest problem in distribution of welfare funds is targetting inefficiencies. They have people below poverty line excluded from schemes and those above included in it. This scheme aims to correct the targetting by getting the transaction records firsthand and correcting the specific problem.

Also, this isn't compulsory in traditional sense. The scheme is voluntary initially, but it is predicted that most of the services would require an aadhar card, it would be increasingly inconvenient to not have one. Which makes it compulsary implicitly.

It is a sort of IDing scheme, basically. Doesn't really signal a state centered socialism, I think.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 10:13:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
How would I buy drugs on the street with no cash?? no way Jose.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 10:14:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 9:39:41 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:50:57 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
First off, this isn't an economics topic. It's politics, society, technology or philosophy.

Second, there is no possible pro that outweighs the con here.

I would shoot anyone who tried to ID me this way...on the spot.

this
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 11:05:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 1:03:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/8/2013 11:46:47 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/8/2013 11:21:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:24:07 AM, Cermank wrote:
So, India has launched a nationwide program involving the allocation of a Unique Identification Number (UID) to every single one of its 1.2 billion residents. Each of the numbers will be tied to the biometric data of the recipient using three different forms of information " fingerprints, iris scans, and pictures of the face. All ten digits of the hand will be recorded, and both eyes will be scanned.

The main aim is to ensure that all the welfare schemes reach their rightful recipients. Registering for AADHAR (the scheme) would automatically open up your bank account/ link your existing bank account with this digital ID code. Thus all welfare money directly reaches the bank accounts of the recipients. This will also weed out corruption, since all the transactions would be computerized.

People will find a way to fake the data. Get copies of eye scans from the vulnerable welfare recipient. Get their fingerprints, etc.

It has to collaborate with the data though. How ID stealth presently occurs is by making up fake identities, ghost people if you will. With AADHAR card becoming a identity proof, the single ID proof, backed by a unique iris scan and finger print scan, you can't make two cards for one person. You can't invent people. How would it lead to ID theft?

You can fake the card, and get copies of the eye scan and fingerprints. You can bribe the guy at the terminal to look the other way while you input this "unique" data by the binderful.


That and what malcolmxy said, invasion of privacy and such.

The long term aim of this scheme is to have a cashless society, and have all the transactions computerized.

Infowars is having a field day.

I guess this would have a spurting on consumption, improve the Demand, and then in long term, supply. Also any savings would have to be in banks, (It would be really difficult to set a limit to your spending, I should think.) Really good as a very high percentage of savings would be invested.

Pro:
1. No corruption
2. No welfare scheme sabotage
3. Large investment-> (if productive)-> more capital-> high growth.

Cons:
1. THE GOVT. CAN SEE US, always. /Only a totalitarian form of government would desire this information; and only a very determined totalitarian government would actively work toward establishing it./, as infowars pointed out.

2. Identity theft?

What's your take?

Cons outweigh the Pros. Identity theft IS corruption AND welfare scheme sabotage, so PRO1 and PRO2 are negated. A large investment in a potentially non-productive system that is rife with corruption is not a PRO, so PRO3 is negated. Only the CONs are left.

I put a question mark after ID theft because I don't actually see it happening. Poor won't have any incentive to give up their identity. The scheme is widely discussed, especially at local DD channels and radios, so there's enough informtion about the scheme.

The poor have EVERY incentive to give up their identity. They are vulnerable and marginalized. Are you saying that the rich have more incentive than the poor to give up their identity? Think about that.

Uhh.. Corruption exists, but its not eating through the investment. The corporate sector is pretty robust right now. The logic here is flawed. Most of the inflationary pressures in India right now are due to supply constraints. This is one of the reasons they are after the FDI. Investments would cater to that particular need. Granted, there is corruption, but that is more on a bureaucratic level. The country isn't disfunct due to the corruption. Indians just like to make a lot of noise.

I'm not talking about corruption in general, but corruption specific to the hypothetical of this program you are proposing (links would be nice, BTW).

The poor are especially vulnerable and subject to all kinds of coercion from those that are not poor. They would be especially vulnerable to tricks that would advertently or inadvertently give up their identity.

Given that cash is on the line, this would be a very easy target for some sort of criminal syndicate to advantage themselves of. Corruption would be rife in such a system, IMHO.
Okay, let's get this in a step by step manner, and you point out what you think is the fallacy?

We'd have two cases, either you argue that the rich take place of the poor, and take their ID cards, OR they steal their IDs, so that they have two IDs.

In the first case, the rich don't really have any incentive. They would have to give up their own money income to steal the welfare which isn't that much in the first place.

In the second case, you'd have two different cards, with two different set of fingerprints and eye scans, but your photo on both of them. The corrupt would get some meagre amount (according to his consumption pattern/ income pattern) in exchange for an extra identity. Any crime committed by the poor one would frame him. (Remember these cards are your IDs, no license card, PAN number, Voter ID nothing. This becomes the centralized Identity card.)

The poor give up their identity AND their source of welfare. You say they are marginalized. True. Vulnerable. True. But why would they willingly give up their source of free income? Something that would actually help them out of their crushing reality?

The only reason I can think of is if they committed some crime or something, again, which gives no reason for the rich to steal his identity. That's just inviting trouble.

http://www.economist.com...

^For more information regarding the scheme and its necessities.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 11:15:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 10:14:10 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:39:41 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:50:57 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
First off, this isn't an economics topic. It's politics, society, technology or philosophy.

Second, there is no possible pro that outweighs the con here.

I would shoot anyone who tried to ID me this way...on the spot.

this

Not trying to sound bitter, but what exactly does 'this'sing it imply?

Malcolmxy did not present any argument.

He came on stage, and responded to a completely legitimate argument with a big 'YOU'RE WRONG'.

And people are then cheering him on.

Mental.

This is why I can respect wrichcirw. He did not agree with the OP, so he presented his own argument. Even if I don't agree with him, he's 'debating'.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 12:07:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 11:05:02 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/8/2013 1:03:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/8/2013 11:46:47 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/8/2013 11:21:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:24:07 AM, Cermank wrote:

Okay, let's get this in a step by step manner, and you point out what you think is the fallacy?

We'd have two cases, either you argue that the rich take place of the poor, and take their ID cards, OR they steal their IDs, so that they have two IDs.

In the first case, the rich don't really have any incentive. They would have to give up their own money income to steal the welfare which isn't that much in the first place.

In the second case, you'd have two different cards, with two different set of fingerprints and eye scans, but your photo on both of them. The corrupt would get some meagre amount (according to his consumption pattern/ income pattern) in exchange for an extra identity. Any crime committed by the poor one would frame him. (Remember these cards are your IDs, no license card, PAN number, Voter ID nothing. This becomes the centralized Identity card.)

No, we do not have two cases, at least not the cases you drew out.

I don't argue that "the rich take place of the poor". I argue that CRIMINALS take place of the poor, because it would be profitable to do so. I argue that criminals would not stop at two IDs, but maybe 2000, or 200,000.

The poor give up their identity AND their source of welfare. You say they are marginalized. True. Vulnerable. True. But why would they willingly give up their source of free income? Something that would actually help them out of their crushing reality?

The only reason I can think of is if they committed some crime or something, again, which gives no reason for the rich to steal his identity. That's just inviting trouble.

You're not thinking creatively enough. What if someone said that you could earn MORE by inadvertently surrendering your ID? Senior citizens in this country are perennially tricked into do this through telemarketing schemes.

Think about the last email you got from "someone who had won the lottery" who "named you as an heir" or some ridiculous BS like that. These phishing schemes only need to catch one or two victims to earn thousands, and they send millions of emails per day.

Whatever scheme a criminal syndicate would devise for your proposal would have to be cost-effective enough to overcome the technological barriers in acquiring the ID info. However, if it became cost-effective, you can pretty much assume there's a sucker born every minute, and it will be subject to this form of abuse. Also considering the egregious violations to privacy that such collection of such data would entail by the government, it is simply not a good idea going forward.

There need not be criminality involved by the victim, only sheer ignorance and vulnerability, which the poor would have in large quantities.

http://www.economist.com...

^For more information regarding the scheme and its necessities.

Thanks.

I want to point out that what this article points out is rampant identity theft by the middlemen due to the poor not even having an identity when they should have one. Generally, some system would be better than no system.

In your article, these middlemen are engaging in criminal behavior. It is theft, pure and simple.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 12:13:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 12:07:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/9/2013 11:05:02 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/8/2013 1:03:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/8/2013 11:46:47 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/8/2013 11:21:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:24:07 AM, Cermank wrote:

In your article, these middlemen are engaging in criminal behavior. It is theft, pure and simple.

I also want to point out a point I keep making here on this website, which is that the ENFORCEMENT of a law is what makes it valid, not necessarily the morality behind the law.

The Indian government cannot enforce the laws of theft here because it's extremely difficult to show that a crime has been committed. Who did the middlemen steal from? What is the identity of the victims?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 12:26:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 11:15:46 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/9/2013 10:14:10 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:39:41 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:50:57 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
First off, this isn't an economics topic. It's politics, society, technology or philosophy.

Second, there is no possible pro that outweighs the con here.

I would shoot anyone who tried to ID me this way...on the spot.

this

Not trying to sound bitter, but what exactly does 'this'sing it imply?

Malcolmxy did not present any argument.

He came on stage, and responded to a completely legitimate argument with a big 'YOU'RE WRONG'.

And people are then cheering him on.

Mental.

This is why I can respect wrichcirw. He did not agree with the OP, so he presented his own argument. Even if I don't agree with him, he's 'debating'.

The "this" was more directed to the bold. If you wanna debate this, I'm game just send me a challenge.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 12:31:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 12:26:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/9/2013 11:15:46 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/9/2013 10:14:10 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:39:41 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:50:57 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
First off, this isn't an economics topic. It's politics, society, technology or philosophy.

Second, there is no possible pro that outweighs the con here.

I would shoot anyone who tried to ID me this way...on the spot.

this

Not trying to sound bitter, but what exactly does 'this'sing it imply?

Malcolmxy did not present any argument.

He came on stage, and responded to a completely legitimate argument with a big 'YOU'RE WRONG'.

And people are then cheering him on.

Mental.

This is why I can respect wrichcirw. He did not agree with the OP, so he presented his own argument. Even if I don't agree with him, he's 'debating'.

The "this" was more directed to the bold. If you wanna debate this, I'm game just send me a challenge.

What are your main complaints over the identification system?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 12:47:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 12:31:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2013 12:26:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/9/2013 11:15:46 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/9/2013 10:14:10 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:39:41 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:50:57 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
First off, this isn't an economics topic. It's politics, society, technology or philosophy.

Second, there is no possible pro that outweighs the con here.

I would shoot anyone who tried to ID me this way...on the spot.

this

Not trying to sound bitter, but what exactly does 'this'sing it imply?

Malcolmxy did not present any argument.

He came on stage, and responded to a completely legitimate argument with a big 'YOU'RE WRONG'.

And people are then cheering him on.

Mental.

This is why I can respect wrichcirw. He did not agree with the OP, so he presented his own argument. Even if I don't agree with him, he's 'debating'.

The "this" was more directed to the bold. If you wanna debate this, I'm game just send me a challenge.

What are your main complaints over the identification system?

I know, if you're not doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to worry about
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 4:22:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Digital currency is a beautiful thing.

But it's future will not lie in the hands of government.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 4:33:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 4:22:14 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Digital currency is a beautiful thing.

But it's future will not lie in the hands of government.

It's future will lie in the hands of whomever is powerful enough to get their hands on it.

Getting rid of tangible currency, as outmoded as it may seem to retain it, is the beginning of the nightmare.

Also, don't mistake cache for currency...they're not the same.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 4:36:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 4:33:44 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
It's future will lie in the hands of whomever is powerful enough to get their hands on it.

Getting rid of tangible currency, as outmoded as it may seem to retain it, is the beginning of the nightmare.

Also, don't mistake cache for currency...they're not the same.

I'm talking about decentralized currency like bitcoin.

It may not be bitcoin specifically that does it but, in my opinion, government is powerless against the domination of a system like it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 4:44:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 4:36:31 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:33:44 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
It's future will lie in the hands of whomever is powerful enough to get their hands on it.

Getting rid of tangible currency, as outmoded as it may seem to retain it, is the beginning of the nightmare.

Also, don't mistake cache for currency...they're not the same.

I'm talking about decentralized currency like bitcoin.

It may not be bitcoin specifically that does it but, in my opinion, government is powerless against the domination of a system like it.

Watch the fate of Iran over the course of the next 5 years as they attempt to put an end to the stranglehold of the US dollar as the instrument with which the world trades goods and services and then get back to me with your thoughts at that time.

It's a beautiful dream, and you're a beautiful dreamer, but it's going to create a nightmare, trust me (or don't trust me and read up on it).
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:53:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 12:07:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/9/2013 11:05:02 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/8/2013 1:03:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

No, we do not have two cases, at least not the cases you drew out.

I don't argue that "the rich take place of the poor". I argue that CRIMINALS take place of the poor, because it would be profitable to do so. I argue that criminals would not stop at two IDs, but maybe 2000, or 200,000.

The poor give up their identity AND their source of welfare. You say they are marginalized. True. Vulnerable. True. But why would they willingly give up their source of free income? Something that would actually help them out of their crushing reality?

The only reason I can think of is if they committed some crime or something, again, which gives no reason for the rich to steal his identity. That's just inviting trouble.

You're not thinking creatively enough. What if someone said that you could earn MORE by inadvertently surrendering your ID? Senior citizens in this country are perennially tricked into do this through telemarketing schemes.

You forget that this is the ONLY form of Identity, payment and the means of measuring endowment. You have EVERYTHING you have stored in this card. Suppose a person says he's going to give you a lot of money if you give him your AADHAR card. He can't. The AADHAR card IS your money, in a very broad sense.

Suppose we bring in the vulnerability factor. Suppose you and I indulge in a transaction and I don't have the money to pay you. (let's think of a typical moneylender debtor arrangement) You ask for my AADHAR card in exchange for exemption from the debt. After I give you the card, I have nothing. No means to earn money, no means to start my life again. You can promise me subsistence, but none of us has any guarantee, no contract, nothing. I become a slave, in crude terms.

Why would this be preferable than being indebted to anyone?

Think about the last email you got from "someone who had won the lottery" who "named you as an heir" or some ridiculous BS like that. These phishing schemes only need to catch one or two victims to earn thousands, and they send millions of emails per day.

Whatever scheme a criminal syndicate would devise for your proposal would have to be cost-effective enough to overcome the technological barriers in acquiring the ID info. However, if it became cost-effective, you can pretty much assume there's a sucker born every minute, and it will be subject to this form of abuse. Also considering the egregious violations to privacy that such collection of such data would entail by the government, it is simply not a good idea going forward.

Technology is not static. You can be sure that once such a technology develops, the anti-thesis would develop. If there exists a loophole in the given technology, you can be sure that there exists a loophole in the hacker's.

Also, we're not arguing utopia. Cashless society =/= utopian. There would be some contradiction. The main question is whether it would be better than the existing one. For India AND the global world.

Is this a progress or degeneration of the present economic system.


There need not be criminality involved by the victim, only sheer ignorance and vulnerability, which the poor would have in large quantities.

http://www.economist.com...

^For more information regarding the scheme and its necessities.

Thanks.

I want to point out that what this article points out is rampant identity theft by the middlemen due to the poor not even having an identity when they should have one. Generally, some system would be better than no system.

In your article, these middlemen are engaging in criminal behavior. It is theft, pure and simple.

I didn't post an article....
At 3/9/2013 12:13:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/9/2013 12:07:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/9/2013 11:05:02 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/8/2013 1:03:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/8/2013 11:46:47 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/8/2013 11:21:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:24:07 AM, Cermank wrote:

In your article, these middlemen are engaging in criminal behavior. It is theft, pure and simple.

I also want to point out a point I keep making here on this website, which is that the ENFORCEMENT of a law is what makes it valid, not necessarily the morality behind the law.

True. I'd say there's no thing as a good policy and poor implementation. A good policy should provide positive incentives to everyone to act in a way that makes the objective of the scheme fulfilled. Removing the previously inefficient system of handing out money is a positive evolution of the law- making.

Also, one more thing, one of the opposition of the proposal has been on the theme of government becoming the big brother.

It works under the assumption that presently, the government gives you privacy. A false proposition.

The Indian government cannot enforce the laws of theft here because it's extremely difficult to show that a crime has been committed. Who did the middlemen steal from? What is the identity of the victims?

The government stole from a person that was promised a dole of bread under the present law. The person does not have a legal identity, but he still exists.

And having an identity would then be a progression, wouldn't it? Now the government would have to give him the welfare funds.