6 ms·

Why should it be stopped? I think most economists would see that as a huge mistake. Dirty money coming in does not need to be functionally different from clean

by FDSGSG 5y ago

Why should it be stopped? I think most economists would see that as a huge mistake. Dirty money coming in does not need to be functionally different from clean money. Only thing that matters is what it's spent on. Why should a country refuse "dirty" foreign investment?

WastingMyTime89 5y ago
“Slavery is fine as long as I don’t see it.”
- FDSGSG 5y ago
  This has nothing to do with slavery. Most countries allow you to import products of slave labour, even the US only banned this a few years ago. Many western countries seem to be okay with slavery they can see too, read the thirteenth amendment of the US constitution for an example.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>Why should a country refuse "dirty" foreign investment? Because you are encouraging corruption which is a net loss for everybody apart from the perpetrators and their banks.
- libertine 5y ago
  Plus it triggers a race to the bottom, ends up becoming a zero sum game for countries, with the perpetrators getting better and better terms.
- FDSGSG 5y ago
  Why refuse? If the money turns out to be ill-gotten you can just prosecute the owners and seize the money.
belter 5y ago
Memo from your friendly family office in Luxembourg: -------------------------------------------------------- The secretary of Mr. Alexander Lukashenko called. It seems they are quite interested in discussing new business opportunities. The would like to meet as soon as possible. It seems he is quite busy, so he suggested to meet in a house of a friend: Ilham Aliyev in London. It seems there are some well know VIPs in the UK that can help facilitate this: https://newrepublic.com/article/120691/tony-blair-does-pr-repressive-azerbaijan-kazakhstan-autocracies https://newrepublic.com/article/120691/tony-blair-does-pr-re... Do not forget the call with Mr. Putin on Tuesday morning. He wants to sell his Monaco flat. PS: We have some old accounts that used to belong to Robert Mugabe but they are a pain to manage. I suggest we close those and take our losses. --------------------------------------------------------
- FDSGSG 5y ago
  This doesn't really seem like a convincing counterargument. These people are criminals who should have their day in court, but I don't understand how that is supposed to justify financial mass surveillance. Instead of complaining about money laundering, why doesn't the EU send their goons to render Putin & co and put them on trial if they're so bad? (Oh yeah, it's because that's not something they actually want to do) E: HN throttled my reply to belter so I'll just put it here. Corrupt oligarchs wasting their money on London real estate still injects money into the economy, and is likely to transfer those "dirty" funds to developers owned by more pleasant people than Lukashenko. Those people will presumably use them for nicer purposes than propping up their dictatorships.
  - belter 5y ago
    Sorry, but that does not square with your previous comment :-) "...Only thing that matters is what it's spent on. Why should a country refuse "dirty" foreign investment?..."
  - TomSwirly 5y ago
    > I don't understand how that is supposed to justify financial mass surveillance. No one's advocating financial mass surveillance - only surveillance of the 1% richest people and corporations. And this is the rational results of generations of criminality, tax evasion, money laundering, and outright bribery of public officials from this group.
TomSwirly 5y ago
> Why should it be stopped? I think most economists would see that as a huge mistake. Are you really claiming that most economists think criminality is to be encouraged? Your stance is morally wrong. Law-abiding people and countries should not be facilitating crimes by laundering their proceeds.
- FDSGSG 5y ago
  How did you get there from my comment? I never suggested that criminality should be encouraged. These people should be prosecuted, but financial surveillance isn't the solution. Money laundering isn't the problem, the actual crimes are.

by FDSGSG 5y ago

WastingMyTime89 5y ago

“Slavery is fine as long as I don’t see it.”

FDSGSG 5y ago
This has nothing to do with slavery. Most countries allow you to import products of slave labour, even the US only banned this a few years ago. Many western countries seem to be okay with slavery they can see too, read the thirteenth amendment of the US constitution for an example.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

>Why should a country refuse "dirty" foreign investment? Because you are encouraging corruption which is a net loss for everybody apart from the perpetrators and their banks.

libertine 5y ago
Plus it triggers a race to the bottom, ends up becoming a zero sum game for countries, with the perpetrators getting better and better terms.
FDSGSG 5y ago
Why refuse? If the money turns out to be ill-gotten you can just prosecute the owners and seize the money.

belter 5y ago

Memo from your friendly family office in Luxembourg: -------------------------------------------------------- The secretary of Mr. Alexander Lukashenko called. It seems they are quite interested in discussing new business opportunities. The would like to meet as soon as possible. It seems he is quite busy, so he suggested to meet in a house of a friend: Ilham Aliyev in London. It seems there are some well know VIPs in the UK that can help facilitate this: https://newrepublic.com/article/120691/tony-blair-does-pr-repressive-azerbaijan-kazakhstan-autocracies https://newrepublic.com/article/120691/tony-blair-does-pr-re... Do not forget the call with Mr. Putin on Tuesday morning. He wants to sell his Monaco flat. PS: We have some old accounts that used to belong to Robert Mugabe but they are a pain to manage. I suggest we close those and take our losses. --------------------------------------------------------

FDSGSG 5y ago
This doesn't really seem like a convincing counterargument. These people are criminals who should have their day in court, but I don't understand how that is supposed to justify financial mass surveillance. Instead of complaining about money laundering, why doesn't the EU send their goons to render Putin & co and put them on trial if they're so bad? (Oh yeah, it's because that's not something they actually want to do) E: HN throttled my reply to belter so I'll just put it here. Corrupt oligarchs wasting their money on London real estate still injects money into the economy, and is likely to transfer those "dirty" funds to developers owned by more pleasant people than Lukashenko. Those people will presumably use them for nicer purposes than propping up their dictatorships.
- belter 5y ago
  Sorry, but that does not square with your previous comment :-) "...Only thing that matters is what it's spent on. Why should a country refuse "dirty" foreign investment?..."
- TomSwirly 5y ago
  > I don't understand how that is supposed to justify financial mass surveillance. No one's advocating financial mass surveillance - only surveillance of the 1% richest people and corporations. And this is the rational results of generations of criminality, tax evasion, money laundering, and outright bribery of public officials from this group.

TomSwirly 5y ago

> Why should it be stopped? I think most economists would see that as a huge mistake. Are you really claiming that most economists think criminality is to be encouraged? Your stance is morally wrong. Law-abiding people and countries should not be facilitating crimes by laundering their proceeds.

FDSGSG 5y ago
How did you get there from my comment? I never suggested that criminality should be encouraged. These people should be prosecuted, but financial surveillance isn't the solution. Money laundering isn't the problem, the actual crimes are.