[MattPalmer1086]

So if, according to the stats plucked out of thin air, KYC isn't doing enough to stop things they presumably think are bad, I assume the article author wants even stricter controls?

Oh wait, they don't. Just ditch it and let anyone move money around with no controls. I'm sure that would work out fine.

[hobobaggins]

> Just ditch it and let anyone move money around with no controls. I'm sure that would work out fine.

It did, for thousands of years. The only thing that's new is the ability to track every penny and person from cradle to grave and the incessant and ever-growing desire for those in power to control those who aren't.

[MattPalmer1086]

Hmmmm... I think carrying a lot of gold around and limited transport and security put certain limits on who could do that easily...

[roenxi]

One of the reasons people use gold is because carrying it around is actually pretty easy. Eg, wandering the streets with a few million in gold bars is no challenge. You can carry it in a bag and the odds of someone checking your bag for millions of dollars in hard assets is low.

Not to mention that if the gold is banked then it probably didn't need transport because it was being transported too and from a bank.

[rokkitmensch]

Ultra-infrequent use case. Hawala and European credit networks largely mooted it.

[MattPalmer1086]

Well, the OP did say thousands of years. But I take your point, money transfer without moving physical gold has been possible for hundreds of years for sure.

[madsbuch]

We are taxing more complex transactions (eg. VAT, income, profits, etc.). ie. the vector for laundering is much bigger.

no tax, no control (look at The Emirates).

However, as it gets easier and easier to accrue wealth on behalf of others, the taxing schemes are probably needed, and so is the control.

[namdnay]

> It did, for thousands of years

and for thousands of years the rich did pretty much what they wanted, and the rest of us lived barely above subsistence level.. fair taxation is one of the building blocks of modern society

[danaris]

> It did, for thousands of years.

That's like saying going without vaccinations, clean water, or adequate medical care "worked out fine" for thousands of years.

Sure, the human race survived. Many individuals even thrived. But I don't think it's really disputable that life with them is massively better than life was before we had them (or, in fact, than life is now for the far too many who still lack them in a reliable way).

[chrismcb]

I assume you are being sarcastic. But what you are suggesting is exactly what we need. Why did it be a problem for people to move money around willy nilly? Why do we need controls? We do it mainly to help find criminals, but there are other ways to do that.

[MattPalmer1086]

No, we don't do it to help find criminals. We do it to make profiting from crime more difficult and expensive, and to help stop funding terrorism.

[chrismcb]

We also do it to help find criminals. And if the only reason we do it is to stop people from legally moving money around, then we need to stop it. Will criminals and terrorists benefit? Sure, but they can also benefit from other legal things as well, like cell phones and the Internet

[namdnay]

> Why did it be a problem for people to move money around willy nilly?

because they could avoid paying their taxes?

[chrismcb]

Ok. And is the a reason to cripple our entire financial system? People can avoid paying taxes already. Most legal forms of income are already tracked, outside of kyc.