The authors write that it's "counterintuitive " that in states with low crime and efficient beaurocracies, the uberrich tend to conceal or relocate their wealth more. See:
"This suggests a counterintuitive result: use of offshore finance is driven not only by negative political conditions such as corruption and lack of civil justice, but by positive conditions, such as regulatory enforcement and civil justice."
But it's not counterintuitive at all. Those people aren't concerned about getting mugged and they're definitely not concerned about how long it takes to get a construction permit in a corrupt country. They're concerned about state-sponsored expropriation.
Given so many of the comments here about tracking the offshore accounts down and confiscating the contents, it's no surprise.
Irrespective of whether their practices are immoral, unethical, unfair, or unjust, they're definitely not counterintuitive.
It's genuinely hard for me to understand how the authors could believe otherwise.
Given so many of the comments here about tracking the offshore accounts down and confiscating the contents, it's no surprise.
Irrespective of whether their practices are immoral, unethical, unfair, or unjust, they're definitely not counterintuitive.
It's genuinely hard for me to understand how the authors could believe otherwise.