[wpietri]

> Is it really though?

It really is. People flee high-crime/high-corruption countries for good reason. They also have demonstrably worse economies over the long term. KYC/AML efforts are only part of the difference, of course. But we've ended up with KYC/AML because it's one of the least intrusive ways of keeping crime in check.

If you think otherwise, I encourage you to go live in a high-crime/high-corruption country and let me know how much you're enjoying the "freedom".

[eadmund]

Was the U.S. before these KYC/AML laws (within our lifetimes) a high-crime/high-corruption country? If so, are the KYC/AML laws responsible for the reduction? If so, is the cost of these laws less than, approximately equivalent to or greater than the money saved by reduction?

I can honestly see that this could be the case. But I can honestly see that it might not be. A related situation would be occupational licensing: maybe it saves society money, maybe it costs society money; how certain are we that we are at the correct balance?

[dsfyu404ed]

You know how we can be pretty sure that the NSA's data haystack hasn't done much to prevent terrorism because if it did they'd be shouting it from the rooftops?

Well occupational licensing is the same way. If there was even a shred of a farcical bad-faith argument that it saved money they'd be happy to spout it. The fact that the proponents don't even have that and instead shove appeals to emotion in your face tells you everything you need to know.