Okay, perhaps the title of this post is not quite as memorable as Charlton Heston’s famous line from Planet of the Apes, but it certainly captures my sentiments after reading an article in Slate that calls for the elimination of the $100 bill. The author, Timothy Noah, says that large bills are only for “criminals and sociopaths.” Here’s the crux of his argument.
…why does the U.S. continue to print C‐notes…? Technological change has reduced much further the plausible need of any law‐abiding American to carry a C‐note in his wallet or to stash a pile of C‐notes in his mattress.
Noah’s argument is unconvincing for several reasons. First, he is underestimating the degree to which “law‐abiding” Americans use “Benjamins.” And with higher inflation almost certainly around the corner, one can safely expect that $100 bills will become even more common in the future. Second, his entire argument rests on the statist assumption that government should restrict honest people because this will somehow make life more difficult for criminals. Yet he debunks his own anti‐money laundering argument by noting that the government already has stopped printing larger bills, such as the $500 note. Has that stopped the drug trade? Hello? Anyone? Bueller?
Like much of what government does, the campaign against money laundering is a costly exercise with very few tangible benefits. This video examines the cost‐benefit issues.
I actually think the moral arguments against anti‐money laundering laws are even more powerful. As Americans, we should have a presumption of innocence in our daily lives. What business is it of government whether we want to carry $20 bills or $100 bills? And think about the implications of these laws. What if the government said we need to ban cars, or put government‐monitored homing devices in all vehicles, because bank robbers occasionally use automobiles as getaway vehicles? In this case, there is a theoretical benefit to the policy, just like there is a somewhat plausible case for anti‐money laundering laws, but presumably we would reject such a policy as too intrusive.
Anti‐money laundering laws are a classic case of bad policy leading to more bad policy. The government passes drug laws that create huge profits for criminals. But rather than getting rid of victimless crimes, the government imposes policies that make life more difficult and costly for everyone else.