4 ms·

UK got one thing right: it is not only beneficial, but also rightful to help other people part with dirty money. Pretending that all money can fit some "clean"

UK got one thing right: it is not only beneficial, but also rightful to help other people part with dirty money. Pretending that all money can fit some "clean" model and fully feed the economy at the same time, like (part of) EU tries to do, is a dangerous fallacy. Switzerland got that too, but they fell prey to US long before that banking privacy defeat. So now, like in old good times, UK plays on par with US.

Barrin92 6y ago
It's neither beneficial nor rightful. First, it's not rightful because laundering money for corrupt states aids their oligarchy or corrupt regimes, which directly harms the people in said countries. I'm not sure what moral standards you have that somehow sees supporting corruption as good. Secondly, it's not beneficial to the UK in the mid and long term because this money flows into assets like London real-estate without providing any actual jobs or innovation, thus not providing any value to ordinary British citizens while pricing them out of the city. It's endemic corruption on both sides, and a direct result of the lack of British competitiveness in most other fields for decades now. The UK is well on its way from being the world's most inventive nation to an oversized Canary Islands.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  > Secondly, it's not beneficial to the UK in the mid and long term because this money flows into assets like London real-estate without providing any actual jobs or innovation, thus not providing any value to ordinary British citizens while pricing them out of the city. So, it will increase rents for the landlords. Good for the UK overall? No. Good for people on the real-estate business (a lot of them very well connected politically)? You bet)
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Foreign investors aren't renting apartments. They are buying them and this means they are the landlords.
    - raverbashing 6y ago
      Yes, that's what I'm saying > it will increase rents (received by) the landlords might be a better wording

Barrin92 6y ago

It's neither beneficial nor rightful. First, it's not rightful because laundering money for corrupt states aids their oligarchy or corrupt regimes, which directly harms the people in said countries. I'm not sure what moral standards you have that somehow sees supporting corruption as good. Secondly, it's not beneficial to the UK in the mid and long term because this money flows into assets like London real-estate without providing any actual jobs or innovation, thus not providing any value to ordinary British citizens while pricing them out of the city. It's endemic corruption on both sides, and a direct result of the lack of British competitiveness in most other fields for decades now. The UK is well on its way from being the world's most inventive nation to an oversized Canary Islands.

raverbashing 6y ago
> Secondly, it's not beneficial to the UK in the mid and long term because this money flows into assets like London real-estate without providing any actual jobs or innovation, thus not providing any value to ordinary British citizens while pricing them out of the city. So, it will increase rents for the landlords. Good for the UK overall? No. Good for people on the real-estate business (a lot of them very well connected politically)? You bet)
- imtringued 6y ago
  Foreign investors aren't renting apartments. They are buying them and this means they are the landlords.
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    Yes, that's what I'm saying > it will increase rents (received by) the landlords might be a better wording