Now it really begins by stealth...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Shaddam IV, Nov 5, 2019.

  1. systematic

    systematic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    6,834
    Likes Received:
    298
    Trophy Points:
    83
    A load of baloney when the banks are the money launderers ...

    "The Commonwealth Bank has agreed to pay the biggest fine in Australian corporate history for breaches of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws that resulted in millions of dollars flowing through to drug importers."

    "For a period of three years, the bank also failed to properly monitor transactions on 778,370 accounts to check for money-laundering red flags."

    read more at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06...-million-fine-money-laundering-breach/9831064
     
    leo25, willrocks, madaw1 and 2 others like this.
  2. Skyrocket

    Skyrocket Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    5,686
    Likes Received:
    631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Anyone that donates to Wikileaks is not only wise but also a good person in my books. I did.

    Yep, agree totally with the second bit too.
     
  3. willrocks

    willrocks Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    5,988
    Likes Received:
    857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hate to point out the obvious, and glaring, flaw in your logic. Speeding on a public road doesn't facilitate any type of privacy and also puts members of the public in real danger of actual physical harm. How is this in any way related to privacy or, more specifically, financial privacy?
     
  4. willrocks

    willrocks Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    5,988
    Likes Received:
    857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And therein lies the problem. Without privacy, everyone is automatically treated as if they're doing something illegal and suspicious. Guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

    You state that 'cash' is a public resource, but fail to address that banks are a private industry. And by removing people's ability to transact using the 'public' resource, governments are forcing people to use private industry.

    You fail to understand that although cash is not private, it has one unique benefit. That is, there is no middle man. No one to stop/block the transaction or to stop accounts being created.

    Banks enforce the state's policies. In a cashless society, if the government decides that a group of people cannot get bank accounts, they are effectively locked out of society. History is full of examples.

     
    GoldenEye likes this.
  5. SilverDJ

    SilverDJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,637
    Likes Received:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    The government have been providing a monetary asset for the citizens for countless generations, and it's always provided at least a decent level of "financial privacy" when you do business with another individual or non-government entity. Why should the advent of modern digital society take away that?
    Yes, "financial privacy" should be a given when you use cash, just like it always has been.
    Digital transactions between individuals should also be afforded the same level of privacy.
    We also have a self-assessment tax system, and that has always come with a balance of trust vs checking/auditing, I don't think that should change.
     
    willrocks likes this.
  6. willrocks

    willrocks Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    5,988
    Likes Received:
    857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We all know it won't be.
     
  7. Bullion Baron

    Bullion Baron Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Many black market activities facilitated with cash put members of the public in real danger of actual physical, financial or other forms of harm.

    If privacy was expected on the road with no interference, how would people speeding get caught? It is through monitoring their behaviour that people are caught speeding.

    Why should you have an expectation of financial privacy, but not privacy around personal movements, if you are using public infrastructure in both circumstances?
     
  8. SilverDJ

    SilverDJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,637
    Likes Received:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    A road and speeding analogy is silly. We have laws against and monitor speeding because the public can get injured or killed.
    No such public risks exists for cash transactions between two private parties.
    If you want to argue that there is some effect on the public because of potential loss of taxation then we already have laws and penalties for that, which is a more than adequate response to the magnitude of the problem.
    If you want to argue that black market cash can supply drugs or whatever then that's a just a silly road to go down.
    To take away the personal liberty of all individuals for the sake of catching some tax cheats or attempting to stop some drug dealers is a profoundly bad idea.
     
    willrocks likes this.
  9. willrocks

    willrocks Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    5,988
    Likes Received:
    857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The transaction itself isn't causing harm to others. What you're suggesting is that other crimes result from the transaction. If that's the case, then those crimes should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Not by making everyone guilty until they prove their innocence.

    Because I'm not automatically assumed to be guilty of anything by driving on the road. I can choose not to drive if I want. I don't need to open an account with a private cartel (bank). I don't need to have the bank approve my trip on the road. The roads are free to access, and freedom of movement is a constitutional right.

    There's also the fact that in many countries people who have money are targeted by criminals who have banking insiders. Thankfully Australia isn't there yet.

    I don't know which is worse. The fact that you're comparing apples with oranges. Or the fact that you don't know you're comparing apples with oranges.
     
    JOHNLGALT likes this.
  10. SilverDJ

    SilverDJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,637
    Likes Received:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Ok, let's ban cash then, you seem to be in favor of that, no problem.
    What happens now?
    The criminals causing all this "harm" disappear? Nope, won't happen.
    So what do they turn to?, crypto?
    How about we ban that too? Ok, let's do that.
    What happens next? Oh, they'll use gold or silver!
    Hey, let's ban those too!
    Bingo, I think we have finally hit a point where you aren't going to agree with the solution, am I right?
     
    willrocks likes this.
  11. Bullion Baron

    Bullion Baron Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Adelaide
    You can choose not to use cash.
    You are mixing issues. We were talking about cash. Physical cash.
     
  12. willrocks

    willrocks Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    5,988
    Likes Received:
    857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, and use the banking system where there is absolutely no privacy.

    You don't seem to get the inevitability of where this is all going. First they limit it to $10,000. Then they reduce that limit to $5,000 and impose the limit on person to person transactions too. Rinse and repeat until there is no cash.
     
  13. SilverDJ

    SilverDJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,637
    Likes Received:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    And you must ban cash entirely in order to prevent the "harm" that BullionBaron is saying cash use by criminals can cause.
    Does anyone think that putting a $10k cash transaction limit is going to prevent criminals from doing private transactions over $10k? In what universe would that happen? It will barely even stop Joe Average.
    So any argument that about putting cash limits in place based on prevention of harm or crime is just fundamentally naive.
     
    Silver260, leo25 and willrocks like this.
  14. ParanoidAndroid

    ParanoidAndroid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2015
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    S.E.Q
    To put the thread back on track. Kind of. Woolworths has just opened their first "Metro Go" micro supermarket (one aisle) in Strawberry Hills. It's their first cashess store in the network. And presumably at some point, first staffles store.
     
    willrocks likes this.

Share This Page