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?
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?
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
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