Obviously, assorted FedGoons(tm) dislike untraceable money. Nasty
terrorists, child pornographers, drug dealers, and other horsemen could
hide their "profits" then...
But is there a *legitimate* reason to have anti-money-laundering laws? I
can't think of any, but perhaps I'm being naive.
On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, Black Unicorn wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >
> >> This was and is rather expensive. Each CTR (currency
> >> transaction report)
> >> costs a bank between $5 and $25 to process.
>
> [...]
>
> Any other questions?
Why aren't the banks lobbying he
At 6:44 PM -0800 on 3/6/00, bram wrote:
> Why aren't the banks lobbying heavily to get rid of those laws so they can
> save money? Or do they appreciate the increased barriers to entry to their
> industry?
Yes, and yes. :-).
Remember what Milton Friedman said, regulations only benefit the reg
>Why aren't the banks lobbying heavily to get rid of those laws so they can
>save money? Or do they appreciate the increased barriers to entry to their
>industry?
Viewing banks as something different from the entrenched power structures
is a fallacy (very similar to the "free market" fallacy.)
At 12:04 PM 3/7/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>All this ranting about payer/payee privacy and anon e-cash and so on is
>pointless bit generation by sedated minds. It can happen only in your head.
You're ripping off McNealy's "there is no privacy, so bend
over and enjoy it" shrugging...
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, Black Unicorn wrote:
>
>> This was and is rather expensive. Each CTR (currency
>> transaction report)
>> costs a bank between $5 and $25 to process.
[...]
>> That's $150 dollars spent in CTRs to appropriate
>> a single dollar of "evil" money. Those are just the stats fo
At 10:43 PM 03/04/2000 -0600, Black Unicorn wrote:
>What money laundering laws _have_ done is make it much easier to coerce and
>convict a host of smaller and more harmless crimes. They have also given
>investigators (private and public) much greater access to the financial
>habits and dealings
On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, reject wrote:
> Obviously, assorted FedGoons(tm) dislike untraceable money. Nasty
> terrorists, child pornographers, drug dealers, and other horsemen could
> hide their "profits" then...
>
> But is there a *legitimate* reason to have anti-money-laundering laws? I
> can't
> From: reject [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Purpose of anti-laundering laws?
>
>
> Obviously, assorted FedGoons(tm) dislike untraceable money. Nasty
> terrorists, child pornographers, drug dealers, and other horsemen could
> hide their &quo
On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, reject wrote:
>
> Obviously, assorted FedGoons(tm) dislike untraceable money. Nasty
> terrorists, child pornographers, drug dealers, and other horsemen could
> hide their "profits" then...
>
> But is there a *legitimate* reason to have anti-money-laundering laws? I
> ca
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, Black Unicorn wrote:
> This was and is rather expensive. Each CTR (currency transaction report)
> costs a bank between $5 and $25 to process. From 1987-1996 U.S. banks filed
> more than 77,000,000 million Currency Transaction Reports at a cost to
> consumers of over 1.2 bi
On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > Did you make it up?
>
> Not at all. All in (among other places) the Congressional Record.
> Any other questions?
Nope, thanks for the vector.
The future is dow
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> At 6:44 PM -0800 on 3/6/00, bram wrote:
>
> > Why aren't the banks lobbying heavily to get rid of those laws so they can
> > save money? Or do they appreciate the increased barriers to entry to their
> > industry?
>
> Yes, and yes. :-).
>
> Remem
13 matches
Mail list logo
