My point was that the existing system (the banks) aren't trying to solve the problem so it's almost completely ineffective.
And the argument is that there comes a point when the drawbacks of trying to stop it becomes larger than the benefits we gain, and we should therefore do something else that gives us more benefits.
You might argue that we're not there yet, which is fine, but others will argue that it's time to try something else.
By doing "nothing", we gain other things such as financial privacy for everyone and making digital payments available for everyone. These are not insignificant things and if they're more valuable than the inefficient anti-laundering attempts then doing "nothing" would indeed be better.
Also we wouldn't truly be doing "nothing", we would only give up one traceability component and we can still chase crime in other ways, like requiring documents of where you got the money to buy this mansion.
- We agree money laundering is bad.
- We agree that the existing system is attempting to solve the problem, but isn't always effective.
- You're saying: throw it all out and let anyone launder anything they want.
- I'm saying that's strictly worse. Let's shore up the existing system and try and take it on.