The Indian government is set to endorse Universal Basic Income

> Explain to me again how the move was a success.

Because you are confusing demonetization with remonetization and post-remonetization. All are different. Demonetization ended on December 31st. The move was a success as no riots or coups took place. Why should I take that factor to gauge success? If you look at the history of demonetization, with the exception of Britain, 5 other countries either had large-scale riots or the Government's fell due to coups. The remonetization phase did not even commence and in some instances demonetization was also rolled back. Demonetization is just declaring currency as no longer legal tender. It has nothing to do with implementation or the after-effects. The actual implementation of replenishing cash is called "remonetization" and post-remonetization is the real impact.

Now is remonetization a success? What about post-remonetization? Only the RBI final report as well as Income Tax assessment of those deposits made during November 8th to December 31st will be able to explain. This will take some time to come out. You are assuming that all money deposited in the banks are automatically converted to white. That is where your assumptions are wrong. The Tax authorities have already started auditing these deposits and are actively catching culprits who deposited huge amount of cash during the remonetization phase (see Mayawati's brother as well as her party being investigated for depositing 104+ crores). They'll start with the big fish and then catch the smaller fish.

> You are assuming that all money deposited in the banks are automatically converted to white. That is where your assumptions are wrong.

What? Where did I say this?

Well, I think advocates of UBI arguing that it would encourage growth by stimulating spending are ignoring the fact that a tax-funded UBI would take money from elsewhere. It doesn't necessarily matter what advocates of UBI say about its suppose growth-boosting effects or what have you - the parent post was saying that Econ 101 understanding affirms that redistributive policies increase inflation, and I disagree. I should definitely qualify that with the caveat that I'm talking about Monetarist Econ 101, where V is stable in the long run, and Q is determined by overall productivity. Therefore P is roughly proportional to M. Sure, there's short-term effects, but over the long run, by Monetarist Econ 101, a UBI, if funded out of tax revenues, shouldn't cause inflation.

> Yet you used that data point to call the move a categorical success.

No I did not. I only countered a point that was made by the OP who said demonetization was a failure because 100 people died by citing a point that the Opposition parties in India made during the demonetization phase (about large-scale riots).

> No, I'm not trying to tie anything. I'm just trying to make you understand the fallacy that might have inadvertently crept into your reasoning (happens to the best of us!) Also I'm not comparing demonetization to pollution, I'm comparing the policy of demonetization to the policy response against pollution. Or to make it even simpler, I'm comparing the government policy to curb corruption to government policy to curb pollution, or the government policy to prevent deaths during the partition. Just because one policy response led to more deaths than another, doesn't mean that the former response wasn't as flawed as the latter. Especially since there are so many differences between the initial conditions that existed during the partition and the conditions that exist today. I will repeat here that simply saying that "less people were affected yet more people died during partition in contrast to demonetization where more people are affected but less people died" is an incomplete argument. Apples and oranges my friend.

So you can explain this to the OP of the post who said that demonetization was a failure because 100 people had died. Do you now understand why I'm countering this specific point? Because it makes no sense to compare an economic move with deaths. Apples and oranges indeed.

> Unfortunately not. Will this data ever be publicly available? No. Did a black market exist? Most definitely.

Of course it will be. You are assuming that the RBI will not publish data on remonetization. You are also assuming that the Income Tax department automatically accepts every deposit made between November 8th and December 31st as white money without conducting an audit. In fact, I'll argue that it has become so much more easier now for the Government to easily audit deposits as they have entered the formal system to catch evaders and bring them to book than to go after those who had hoards of cash stacked in their secret lockers.

> What if I don't agree with some of the articles of the constitution? Can I exercise my free speech rights to criticize the said articles without being charged with sedition?

You have already done it.

> Can I express those free speech rights by not standing up for the national anthem and not be charged for an offence?

If you are in India you are duty bound to stand. It is part of fundamental duties of every citizen of India. If you don't like it you can give up your Indian citizenship and adopt citizenship of another country.

> I am being instructed by legislation to sit or stand or perform some other body movement to uphold the legitimacy of a document, or an ideology, which I may or may not agree with. That was true for the Nazi salute as well.

No both are different. When you sit or stand, you do it for the concept of India and not for an ideology. The Nazi salute was a salute for an ideology that only catered to one section of society. The Constitution of India has a place for all except those who question the very ethos of India's existence. If you do not agree with the legitimacy of document you have no business accepting citizenship under the very document. That is highly hypocritical don't you think?

> There are very very subtle points that deal with things like burning the national flag and not "respecting" the national anthem. I urge you to check out the first amendment of the american constition and US supreme court rulings regarding their national anthem and national flag and what constitutes disrespect and what constitutes a criminal offence. Its fascinating stuff. The Indian constitution and the our Supreme court have a long way to go!

No we don't have a long way to go. India is a Sovereign Nation. Just because the US has a particular constitution doesn't mean we need to adopt the same. Would you be happy if we adopted the Second Amendment as well? It's ridiculous to compare constitutions. These are documents that are made based on historical as well as cultural differences. The United States is not as diverse as India. It's constitution would wreak havoc in an already fragile Indian society.

> So a few hundred crores of black money were caught in raids. That is a drop in the ocean. A hundred times more than that is caught in regular tax raids every year.* It has done absolutely nothing to curb future corruption.

You are assuming that this is the be-all and end-all of this scheme. You are assuming that the Income Tax authorities won't look at and audit the deposits made in the banks when you declared that "It has done absolutely nothing to curb future corruption".