Is it even a analysis?
or just throwing figures..
From the embedded transcript ... notice how this so called analysis begins
00:13] On this special occasion I would like to show you my analysis on demonetisation.
00:17] Here I've analysed it's positives and negatives.
00:21] I've also analysed those positives which are told to be positives but are actually not.
This person starts by assuring the viewers that he is going to analyse both the positives and the negatives. BUT he immediately makes clear his aim is to paint everything as negative. Propaganda no matter what the data and he is upfront about it too.
03:48] This is true that an increase was seen in the cashless economy during demonitisation
03:53] but as the cash started to return, people started reducing the cashless transaction.
03:59] This you can see very well in this graph
04:04] How there was a significant growth in the cashless transactions and by February March, it again dropped down to where it was prior to demonetisation.
Lets assume that the chart [@4:04] is genuine and from bloomberg based on data from RBI. It does shows that digital payment waned as cash started coming back into the economy.
Anyone who has followed the demonetization/digitization saga even a bit is well aware that digital payment indeed got a push from even a casual reading of the various news reports published in the past 1 year. So why is it not visible in the attached graph? Something is wrong.
As I have stated before, one can use genuine facts/data but change the frame/context to conclude the exact opposite of the truth. It is a fairly common trick employed in various fields but especially marketing. The same trick that has been employed here. This is where this person "assumes" that no one will notice the detail but his opening gambit had given his game away.
Notice, the x-axis. The Chart has a note "Note ban announced" at the start, therefore the Nov on the chart must be Nov of 2016, the Dec must be December of 2016, the Jan must be January of 2017 and the Feb must be the February of 2017. Assuming that this chart genuine and there was a dip in digital transaction by February of 2017. So what is the trickery here?
It is the framing, the context setting that is the trick. This so called analysis was published on Sep 8, 2018 about 2 years after demonetization. So the question is why use a chart for the first 4 months when one could analyze at least 1.5+ years worth of data?
Because it supports a narrative that this person is trying to push. A 1.5+ year chart would not support the narrative so he uses the first 4 months chart. Slice the data/frame of reference/context such that it supports a narrative rather than put all the data in and let it deliver its message.
This is not a mistake but a deliberate choice that he has made, same as in the statue of unity video on cost comparison. Exactly what I would expect from a propagandist. https://www.livemint.com/Technology/ACH ... scape.html
The top five trends in India’s digital payment landscape [Oct 01 2018]
The last 24 months have seen amazing shifts in the digitization of payments in India. Demonetization provided a strong impetus for consumers to move to non-cash payment methods, and while the transaction levels seen in the months immediately post demonetization have not sustained, a new normal has been found. Increase in adoption of digital instruments has been aided by the increase in merchant outlets, as well as proliferation of UPI that provides a simple and convenient way to transfer money across bank accounts. The number of merchants accepting card payments has more than doubled in the last two years to cross 3 million, and the number of UPI transactions almost touched 250 million in June 2018. Overall, the proportion of cash transactions in the total consumer spending in the country has come down from 78% in 2015 to 68% in 2017 (Source: Euromonitor).
To avoid confusion let me put this down explicitly, the propagandist that I am talking about is Dhruv Rathee.