[charlesdm]

Less privacy, once again. If you look at all the legislation that has been put into place over the last two decades to combat money laundering and terrorism financing -- was this really necessary? Did it really have an impact? I still hear about terrorists blowing themselves up every day.

Yes, high level political corruption is bad and this assassination is tragic. It should be fought. But do you think that by just introducing another body, things will be much better?

People will be people. Corruption, dealmaking and scheming, together with greed, is as old as mankind. It will happen regardless, and it happens in Western countries as well (Belgium, France, the UK, etc); just in a different way.

[pas]

Less privacy? Privacy is already lost. It'd be much better if we'd gain something for this loss.

Currently there is at least one EU member state that is playing dirty, basically stealing money from its people. (State guaranteed profits for friends' companies.) And unsurprisingly Hungary doesn't want to participate in the EU Prosecution ( http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/... )

So, how do you know there wouldn't be more terrorist acts without those regulations? Of course, the burden of proof should be on those who proposed the regulations in the first place to argue for the effectiveness of the regulations, but your framing of the problem remains inefficient.

Furthermore, yes, people are people, and greed is universal. But we can measure corruption (and fraud), and we see that in states/countries with certain institutions failing (or absent) result in more fraud/corruption.

And it's very much like herd immunity. Our banking privacy is already lost ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Reporting_Standard ) it'd be good to have something keeping those tax authorities in check. (And who will watch the watchers, yes. I know.)

[charlesdm]

Yes, obviously in countries with absent or failing institutions there is more fraud and corruption. But high level political corruption is literally everywhere. You're right on low level corruption, though.

Do you think there is less high level political corruption in France, Belgium, the UK or Germany? There is definitely less fraud going on, and the corruption is less obvious, but it's still there.

One simple example: go to any western EU country. Take an entrepreneurial family that, say, employs 500+ people in a country. It is almost certain they will get 1) better tax rulings, and 2) the tax authority will be more lenient when dealing with them. They will get away with more.

And if an overeager civil servant doesn't understand that, the case will likely be taken away from him and moved to someone who does. Because political connections matter and that's what happens. If you're part of the "elite" of any country, there's a lot that can be done by knowing the right people.

[pas]

> Do you think there is less high level political corruption in France, Belgium, the UK or Germany?

I don't know, but it's not "unknowable".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#R...

There are known ways to minimize corruption. Transparency and public accountability, public tenders, well documented public procurement workflow, mandatory conflict of interest disclosures, and so on.

It's not rocket science.

And yes, I know. There are always favorites, friends, family. That's the thing that a well functioning judiciary should be able to post-correct. (Similarly how EU market liberalization must be coupled with enforcement of no-most-favored-nation, the same treatment should apply to local family owned and non-local non-family owned companies.)

Of course, the populace has to be the driving force, to elect people who promulgate these equality ideas from the top.