There’s a principled Fourth Amendment argument against anti-money laundering laws. In this video, however, I mostly focus on the cost-benefit issue, explaining that the fight against crime will be more effective if law enforcement is not forced to look for a needle in a haystack.
Should Banks Be Forced by the Government to Spy on Consumers?
February 22, 2010 by Dan Mitchell
Posted in Big Government, Bureaucracy, Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Constitution, Crime, Drug War, Financial Privacy, Human Rights, Liberty, Money Laundering, Privacy, Regulation, Statism, Uncategorized, Video | Tagged AML, Banks, Constitution, Crime, Financial Privacy, Money Laundering, Privacy, Regulation | 16 Comments
16 Responses
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
-
Recent Posts
- Europe’s Politicians Learned the Wrong Lesson from Saint Augustine
- What’s the Better Role Model, France or Switzerland?
- Frankenstein’s Revenge
- Siding with the Heritage Foundation in the “Austerity” Fight with Paul Krugman and the Washington Post
- Ex-Communist Spy Chief Says Europeans Have a “Dependency Mentality”
Pages
Visitors (beginning December 23, 2010)
Tags
Big Government Bureaucracy Bureaucrats Class warfare Competitiveness Constitution Corruption Crime Debt Deficit Dependency Economics England Entitlements Europe Fiscal Policy Free Markets Government-run healthcare Government intervention Government Spending Government stupidity Government waste Gun control Health Care Higher Taxes Humor IRS Jobs Keynesian Economics Laffer Curve News Appearance Obama Obamacare Political Humor Redistribution Regulation Statism stimulus Taxation Tax Competition Tax Increase Tax Increases United Kingdom Welfare Welfare StateArchives
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
Recent Comments
Categories
- 2nd Amendment
- African-Americans
- Al Gore
- Alarmism
- Argentina
- Atlas Shrugged
- Ausrian Economics
- Australia
- Austrian Economics
- Ayn Rand
- Bailout
- Balanced Budget
- Barney Frank
- Baseball
- Bernanke
- Big business
- Big Government
- Bob Dole Award
- Boondoggle
- Brain drain
- Bulldogs
- Bureaucracy
- Bureaucrats
- Bush
- California
- Canada
- Capital Gains Tax
- cash for clunkers
- Cato Institute
- CBO
- Center for Freedom and Prosperity
- Central planning
- Centralization
- Charity
- Chile
- China
- Chris Christie
- Class warfare
- Climate change
- Clinton
- Cold War
- Collectivism
- Communism
- Competitiveness
- Congress
- Congressional Budget Office
- Constitution
- Corporate income tax
- Corporate tax
- Corruption
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Crime
- Cronyism
- Cuba
- Dan Hannan
- David Cameron
- Dawgs
- Death Tax
- Debt
- Deferral
- Deficit
- Delaware
- Democrats
- Dependency
- Deposit Insurance
- Discrimination
- Double Taxation
- Drug War
- Earmarks
- Easy money
- Economics
- Education
- Election
- Elitism
- Eminent Domain
- England
- Entitlements
- Environmentalism
- Estonia
- Euro
- Europe
- European Commission
- Executive pay
- Fair Tax
- Fannie Mae
- Fascism
- Fatal conceit
- Federal Reserve
- Federalism
- Financial Crisis
- Financial Privacy
- Finland
- Fiscal Crisis
- Fiscal Policy
- Flat Tax
- food nazi
- Food Stamps
- Foreign Aid
- Foreign Policy
- France
- Freddie Mac
- Free Markets
- Free Speech
- Free State Project
- Freedom
- Geithner
- General Motors
- Georgia
- Germany
- Gingrich
- Global Taxation
- Global warming
- Gordon Brown
- Government intervention
- Government Spending
- Government stupidity
- Government Thuggery
- Great Depression
- Greece
- Gross domestic product
- Gun control
- Harmonization
- Hayek
- Health Care
- Health Reform
- Higher Taxes
- Hong Kong
- Hoover
- Housing
- HUD
- Human Rights
- Humor
- Hypocrisy
- Iceland
- Illinois
- Immigration
- Income tax
- Inflation
- International bureaucracy
- International Criminal Court
- International Monetary Fund
- International Taxation
- Ireland
- IRS
- Italy
- Japan
- JCT
- Jobs
- John Stossel
- Joint Committee on Taxation
- Joker
- Jurisdictional Competition
- Kelo
- Keynes
- Keynesian
- KPMG
- Laffer Curve
- Lakers
- Leviathan
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Liechtenstein
- Lobbying
- Local government
- Marginal Tax Rate
- Media Bias
- Medicaid
- Medicare
- Migration
- Minimum Wage
- Mitchell's Golden Rule
- Mitchell's Law
- Monaco
- Monetary Policy
- Money Laundering
- Moral Hazard
- nanny state
- National Education Association
- National Sales Tax
- Netherlands
- New Jersey
- New York
- News Appearance
- North Korea
- Obama
- OECD
- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
- PATRIOT Act
- Patriotism
- Patriots
- Paul Ryan
- Paulson
- Pelosi
- Pets
- Philippines
- Podcast
- Political Correctness
- Political Humor
- Politicians
- Politics
- Polling Data
- Portugal
- Postal Service
- Poverty
- Price Controls
- Privacy
- Privatization
- Prohibition
- Property Rights
- Property Tax
- Prostitution
- Protectionism
- Public Opinion
- Race
- Rahn Curve
- Rand
- Rankings
- Reagan
- Recession
- Redistribution
- Regulation
- Republicans
- Roman Polanski
- Romney
- Roosevelt
- Russia
- Sales Tax
- Savings
- School Choice
- Singapore
- Sleaze
- Slovakia
- Snow
- Soccer
- Social Security
- Social Security Privatization
- Socialism
- Softball
- South Korea
- Sovereignty
- Spain
- Spending
- States
- Statism
- stimulus
- Subsidies
- Supercommittee
- Supply-side economics
- Supreme Court
- Swedem
- Switzerland
- Tax avoidance
- Tax Competition
- Tax Compliance
- Tax evasion
- Tax Harmonization
- Tax Haven
- Tax Increase
- Tax Reform
- Taxation
- Taxpayer Ripoff
- Tea Party
- Territorial Taxation
- Terrorism
- Texas
- Thanksgiving
- Third party payer
- Tobacco
- Tobin Tax
- Toilet Paper
- Trade
- TSA
- Uncategorized
- Underground Economy
- Unemployment
- Union Bosses
- United Kingdom
- United Nations
- United States
- Value-Added Tax
- VAT
- Video
- Vouchers
- Walter Williams
- Waste
- Weekly Economics Lesson
- Welfare
- Welfare State
- World Bank
- Worldwide Taxation
- Yankees
[...] Gallup just released a poll showing that 46 percent of Americans view the federal government as an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans. My first reaction was to wonder why the number was so low. After all, we have a political elite that wants to do everything from control our health care to monitor our financial transactions. [...]
[...] Gallup just released a poll showing that 46 percent of Americans view the federal government as an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans. My first reaction was to wonder why the number was so low. After all, we have a political elite that wants to do everything from control our health care to monitor our financial transactions. [...]
[...] Gallup just released a poll showing that 46 percent of Americans view the federal government as an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans. My first reaction was to wonder why the number was so low. After all, we have a political elite that wants to do everything from control our health care to monitor our financial transactions. [...]
[...] I have no idea whether Mr. Stio is a good guy or a crook. But I know that the government shouldn’t be allowed to grab his money without convicting him of a crime. Especially for a supposed offense against absurdly foolish and ill-conceived anti-money laundering laws. [...]
[...] I have no idea whether Mr. Stio is a good guy or a crook. But I know that the government shouldn’t be allowed to grab his money without convicting him of a crime. Especially for a supposed offense against absurdly foolish and ill-conceived anti-money laundering laws. [...]
[...] I have no idea whether Mr. Stio is a good guy or a crook. But I know that the government shouldn’t be allowed to grab his money without convicting him of a crime. Especially for a supposed offense against absurdly foolish and ill-conceived anti-money laundering laws. [...]
[...] just one specific part of the regulatory burden. Banks and other financial firms must deal with a costly array of laws and regulations as part of the government’s war on money laundering. This video explains the [...]
[...] the video I narrated on the general topic of money laundering laws. I think it makes very good points, but I wish this data had been available when I did the video so [...]
[...] the video I narrated on the general topic of money laundering laws. I think it makes very good points, but I wish these data had been available when I did the video [...]
[...] But Mayor Booker is right. Like Ron Paul, Pat Robertson, Richard Branson, and Gary Johnson, he’s figured out that the Drug War is mostly a vehicle to expand the size and power of government. It’s why we have fascist asset forfeiture laws and costly money laundering laws. [...]
[...] I’ve already explained how anti-money laundering rules are ineffective – or perhaps even counterproductive – in the fight against crime, largely because they [...]
[...] I’ve already explained how anti-money laundering rules are ineffective – or perhaps even counterproductive – in the fight against crime, largely because they generate [...]
[...] laundering laws, for instance, require banks (at great expense) to snoop on the financial transactions of customers in the theory that a few bad guys might get caught. As even the World Bank has noted, totally [...]
[...] course, sometimes the government actually requires us to spy on each other, as is the case with money laundering laws that criminalize innocent behaviors in a costly, intrusive, and ineffective effort to reduce [...]
[...] sounds good, but the evidence shows that these laws have become very expensive and intrusive, yet they’ve had no measurable impact on crime [...]
[…] the evidence, however, shows that these laws are a costly failure. The invade our privacy, hurt the poor, impose high regulatory costs, and have little or no impact on underlying […]