Harvard Economist Is Trying to Kill Cash

Re:Harvard Economist Is Trying to Kill Cash by pdkl95 on Saturday September 10, 2016 @09:58AM (#12469205)

Red flags only happen if the transaction was illegal. We legalized all kinds of creative accounting when we deregulated entire industries over the last several decades. Reporting requirement haven't stopped offshore accounts and other havens, tricks, and tax avoidance schemes.

The point is that you don't need an anonymous transaction when you payment or bribe is (technically) legal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Harvard Economist Is Trying to Kill Cash by tomrod on Sunday September 11, 2016 @09:50AM (#12473324)

I think we're going to disagree here. Red flags happen on individually legal transactions as indications that could indicate larger patterns of illegal behavior.

Deregulation of industries (say, electricity [0]) did not happen just to introduce creative or legal accounting fraud. Do you have any sources for your claims, or just hearsay/personal thoughts?

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation_of_the_Texas_el...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Harvard Economist Is Trying to Kill Cash by pdkl95 on Sunday September 11, 2016 @01:37PM (#12474516)

You're still thinking about the wrong kind of transaction. Try "Super PAC" and other forms of paying for access/influence, or the popular practice of giving someone a $250,000 speaking fee or well-paying job they don't have to attend. These are obviously bribes, which would have been a scandal 50+ years ago, but we legalized them.

I'll assume you're already familiar with the legal, quasi-legal, and illegal ways money is moved into offshore accounts. The details change over time as regulators catch up, and I believe there has been some progress in recent years at stopping some of these practices.

> just to introduce

Of course not. There were many (profitable) reasons deregulation happened.

[ Parent | on HN ]