Slashdot Mirror
Paypal Reverses Payments Made To Indians
bhagwad writes "Beginning January 28, Paypal has been reversing the payments made to any Indian provider of services. In addition, Indian users have been unable to withdraw their money to their bank accounts. As a result, a large number of Indian Paypal accounts have negative balances running into the thousands of dollars. The worst part is that users weren't informed beforehand — the funds were just whisked away. Indian providers have gone ballistic, with over 2,000 posts on a thread on the reversal of payments and over 700 posts on this thread about the delay in transfers. Paypal hasn't given any explanation to this behavior other than they're looking into it. Although Paypal claims in the above blog post that payments made for 'Services' are not being reversed, this is not true. All payments not made for 'Goods' with a shipping address have been reversed — in fact, the Paypal e-mail tells the Indian sellers to encourage their clients to lie and claim that they're paying for goods with a shipping address instead."
Why anyone trusts PayPal with their money.
Banking reform in the US should include subjecting PayPal to all the rules and regulations that apply to banks. I find it strange how they've managed to avoid being classed as a bank all these years in the first place. Current regulations leave a lot to be desired, but making PayPal adhere to them would be a good first step.
Who will be manning the call centers to handle the complaints?
Should say loosing hundreds and thousands, yes I am an idiot for not reviewing the post first.
This is due to some change in the regulations by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) regarding offshore money transfers. I read somewhere that RBI is demanding some documents form PayPal to make them eligible to transfer money to and from Indian Banks. Apparently PayPal hasn't been able to furnish those documents.
loosing?
He's getting his fleet of hundreds of thousands underway by loosing the sails.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
I think PayPal is run by cowboys.
Currently hooked on AMP
Please do the needful!
Got Code?
Why PayPal needs to be regulated as a bank, and why I refuse to use it.
Where would you hide a tree? In a forest of course. Every time there is a new technology is found, the terrorists and criminals use it first and the law enforcement is way behind and always plays catch up. The Mumbai attackers were using prepaid satellite phones and VOIP routed through New Jersy to get constant feed back while they were on their rampage inside the Taj hotel. Wait for a day or two, and you will see that angle will be mentioned. Whether sincerely or as a diversionary tactic by Paypal or by RBI I don't know. But it is a well known fact the terrorists use havala trading systems very effectively and Paypal would not be a big step for them.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
http://www.paypalsucks.com/
I got burned by these bozos once. Make sure you read the terms and conditions carefully. They refund only under very tight circumstances. If there was an alternative, i'd use them instead. ... I got bitten for several hundred dollars once...
I had no problems on about 50 transactions
Seriously, PayPal sucks...
Seller terms
The seller must legally be able to do business in the US, and have a US bank account (since Google is US-based).
The buyer does not have to be in the US.
No you are completely and utterly wrong. There is a very authoritative document from the Fed that explains how banks expand the money supply, but a simple starting point for you would be the wiki page on Fractional Reserve Banking.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
Too late for lose/loose. It seems to be viral, perhaps intentionally to drive boomers nuts. Also on the 'endangered' list: affect/effect; their/there/they're; dissent/descent; and the biggie-- your/you're.
The cracks first started years ago when traffic crossings started omitting the apostrophe in "DONT WALK" signs decades ago. I knew things were pointing downhill even then.
Never saw a mixup of sales and sails, tho.
You don't understand how the regulation was sold. The regulation was needed because banks lend (you call it creating and destroying money, others call it lending). This allows a bank to fail. Paypal *can't* fail from that. They hold money, but don't lend or borrow against it. So I understand your point. But, from how the regulation was sold to the people, you are 100% wrong. It was never sold as "banks create and destroy money, so they need regulation." It was sold as "banks have your money, and to make sure that they give you your money when you ask for it, they need to be regulated." From the manner in which banking regulation is sold to the America public, Paypal is a bank and should be regulated like one.
I understand that your argument is that the sale of that regulation was a lie, and the banking industry isn't about holding money (but borrowing and lending against it), but I think you are wrong.
Not to mention, you are begging the question. You assume that they don't lend against the money they hold. Even if I agreed with your logic (and I don't) you have assumed a premise that has never been addressed. When you prove Paypal doesn't lend money (and I consider buying stock or bonds to be lending money, for this exercise, as one could default on that debt and have the same result), then we can address the logic I don't agree with.
Learn to love Alaska
"Actually what caused the great depression is that the market started getting rocky, so everyone pulled their money out at the same time... something which the banks were unable to do"
BECAUSE OF.....
" * You deposit $100 at the bank.
* The bank sets $10 aside as a reserve
* The bank loans $90 to bob, with interest
Now, while you still have your $100 (its in the bank), there is someone else running around with $90"
The banks couldn't give people their money back because they already fucked up loaning it out to other people. This is basic history, not even fucking economics.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You're only allowing for one iteration! I put $100 in bank A, the bank loans out $80 to you. What do you do with it? Burn it? Probably not. Probably you spend it. Wherever you spend it, it ends up in a bank account. Now bank B (or maybe bank A) has $80, and so at 20% reserve, they can loan out $64 more. That $64 end up in bank A, B, or C, and they can lend out 80% of that, too. sum (i = 1 .. infinity) ($100 x 80%^i) = $400. The "wrong" number of $900 is what happens to the sum if the reserve rate is 10% not 20%. $400 or $900, the banks are still creating many times more fictional money than they actually have. Now, some money does get lost, some money gets spent buying things that goes to employees that goes to cash that maybe doesn't all end up in a bank. But it's pretty damn close. In fact, in the link you said doesn't support the $900 number, they cite a bank operating on a ratio of about 11.5%. Meaning that just every $100 in an account that was cash, there is $850 that is fictional.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
As a result, a large number of Indian Paypal accounts have a negative balances running into the thousands of dollars.
Does anyone else see that as a good opportunity to cease their relationship with PayPay (for those stupid enough to have kept using them anytime in the past, oh, decade)?
Remember - Not a bank, by their own maneuverings. You can't actually owe PayPal money, because they don't sell anything or provide any (direct for-cost) services. Sure, you can owe their other customers money, but PayPal itself?
Negative balance? Yeah, time to close that account. Thanks, PayPal, but you can keep "my" negative money. Funny thing, about forced arbitration clauses - You can stack the system as much in your favor as you want, but to get government sponsored armed thugs to go shake down your clients, you need to step in to a real court of law and risk setting some seriously unfavorable precedents.