4 ms·

Interesting. The summary is that this non profit prints and distributes these things that look like money that they call the "Zero Rupee Note" -- it's like bill

Interesting. The summary is that this non profit prints and distributes these things that look like money that they call the "Zero Rupee Note" -- it's like bill with a zero on it. Poor people can give these to corrupt officials to protest the bribes they want. A priori, I would have thought this was worse than pointless, because giving corrupt officials these notes is sort of biting sarcasm. Wouldn't it be better to just say no? Well, according to the article, they work. The reason, agains according to the article, is that officials can potentially get in a lot of trouble for taking bribes, so they are likely to cave to someone who doesn't play ball. The difference between refusal to pay and paying with the fake bill is that the people actually /use/ the fake bill since the perception is that they have the backing of this large non profit, versus them fighting back alone. If the article is accurate, the whole concept is quite interesting.

sethg 17y ago
I am reminded of the tradition in Chicago that when you bribe an alderman or judge to do you a favor, you put the dirty money in an envelope and put the envelope on the table. It seems that even among public servants who are as crooked as a dog’s hind leg, there is some residual shame at taking bribes, which expresses itself as an unwillingness to touch the bribe with bare hands. (But maybe I’m reading too much into that tradition: last year, a Boston city councillor was videotaped by the FBI stuffing cash into her bra.)
- roc 17y ago
  I don't think it's shame; just practicality. If I'm about to hand someone a large sum of cash, it's generally not practical to carry that in my wallet. Plus, that money likely came from, or is going to, someone who also doesn't want that money mingling with "their" money. (likely someone who will be dealing with several such envelopes) And, in general, you don't want to have more money than you owe in front of you, while you count out a criminal's portion. If you do, you'll quickly find that prices go up. There's also plausible deniability. Stacks of cash attract more attention and aren't as easy to explain away as envelopes. And envelopes of cash have the hallmark of the legitimate proceeds of a cash-only business 'on its way to the bank'. If the money is mingled with your own, that's a harder argument to make.
pageman 17y ago
imagine going to an official's office and seeing these bills scattered around ... :)

sethg 17y ago

I am reminded of the tradition in Chicago that when you bribe an alderman or judge to do you a favor, you put the dirty money in an envelope and put the envelope on the table. It seems that even among public servants who are as crooked as a dog’s hind leg, there is some residual shame at taking bribes, which expresses itself as an unwillingness to touch the bribe with bare hands. (But maybe I’m reading too much into that tradition: last year, a Boston city councillor was videotaped by the FBI stuffing cash into her bra.)

roc 17y ago
I don't think it's shame; just practicality. If I'm about to hand someone a large sum of cash, it's generally not practical to carry that in my wallet. Plus, that money likely came from, or is going to, someone who also doesn't want that money mingling with "their" money. (likely someone who will be dealing with several such envelopes) And, in general, you don't want to have more money than you owe in front of you, while you count out a criminal's portion. If you do, you'll quickly find that prices go up. There's also plausible deniability. Stacks of cash attract more attention and aren't as easy to explain away as envelopes. And envelopes of cash have the hallmark of the legitimate proceeds of a cash-only business 'on its way to the bank'. If the money is mingled with your own, that's a harder argument to make.

pageman 17y ago

imagine going to an official's office and seeing these bills scattered around ... :)