Wow. There is so much to learn and figure about monetary economics other than just inflation rates.
The Moneyness blog which has been a great source of education post 8 Nov 2016 has another post to think about. This one is on size of currency note. The blog says that India reducing size of the new Rs 500 and Rs 2000 note is in line with what practices elsewhere. He also points to this wonderful note which discusses various aspects of note design:
This week I want to examine another feature of Modi’s demonetization: the concurrent change in note sizing. The new series of ₹500 and ₹2000 notes are smaller in size than the ₹500 and ₹1000 series that they have since replaced. This has caused huge logistical problems. Since each cartridge in an ATM must be manually configured to handle a certain note size, ATMs were not equipped hold the newly issued ₹500s, ₹2000s, or additional ₹100s for that matter. Instead, they were forced to operate at a fraction of their capacity. Indians, desperate to replace their demonetized notes with good cash, were left on the lurch.
Let’s explore the reduction in banknotes size. I’d argue that independent of the decision to crack down on black money, the decision to go smaller makes a lot of sense. But twinning a banknote size reduction with a demonetization was a recipe for disaster.
Consider that the length of the current issue of rupee banknotes grows as the denomination increases, like this:
To Americans and Canadians, this may seem odd since all our money is the same size. However, a pattern of progressively longer notes is quite common in other countries. Euro banknotes, for instance, also increase in size as denomination rises as do Swiss francs and Japanese yen. Presumably this format is chosen to to make manual sorting easier.
Now if the Reserve Bank of India, the nation’s central bank, had continued to follow its traditional size progression, the newly issued 2000 rupee note would have had these measurements:
₹2000: 73mm x 187 mm
This would have been an awfully big note, one of the largest in the world by surface area. It would have clocked in 32% larger than a US$20 bill, for instance, and 43% larger than a 20 euro note. Not only would a note of this size have been expensive to print, but the combined costs of storage and handling incurred by hundreds of millions of Indians over time would have been quite large. Reducing the size would cut down on both expenses.*
The trend among central banks is to reduce the dimensions of banknotes. For instance, euro banknotes are quite a bit smaller than the francs, deutschmarks, and other notes that they replaced. The five euro note is one of the smallest notes in the world (see this pdf). When the Swiss began to introduce the ninth generation of Swiss banknotes in 2016, they lopped around 11 mm off the length of the 50 franc note and 4mm off its height (it now clocks in at 70 x 137 mm, down from 74 x 148). By doing so, the Swiss National Bank will be lowering manufacturing and handling costs of the currency. In the chart below, you can see the evolution of the dimensions of Swiss cash over time.
Though one aspect of all this size cutting is saving paper which we are told is special and costly. So this means a rise in seignorage as well as you save costs but get the same return on the note!
These are all aspects which are important in their own ways but we hardly pay any attention to them. This is a great time to learn basics as this blog keeps saying…