crypto import to the UK

[Paul Leyland]

Peter Gutmann writes:

> Paul Leyland <pleyland@microsoft.com> writes:
>  
> >well-known) that one cannot beat bureaucrats --- the best one can do is
to
> >make their life miserable by ensuring that they have to do some work.
...
> The problem (at least in NZ and the US) is that the poor guys charged with
> enforcing this nonsense aren't the ones making the rules.  

True but irrelevant, as I'll illustrate.

>  As long as they're isolated
> from reality, the bureaucrats can pretty much set any requirements they
please.

True but based on a false premise.

Let me draw another parallel.  We used to have something called a dog
license; all dog owners were supposed to have one.  If I remember correctly,
the annual fee was set at 7/6 for many decades.  It eventually became 37.5p
--- the same sum in funny money.    Had the price kept pace with inflation,
the fee would have been ten or twenty pounds.

My point is that the dog license was eventually abolished because it was
costing much, much more to collect than the revenue gained.  It wasn't
politically acceptable to raise it to the break-even point and, eventually,
it was scrapped.  The bureaucrats were only very weakly coupled to reality,
which is why it took decades, but the coupling constant was non-zero.  My
strongly-held opinion is that the crypto bureacrats are not *completely*
isolated from reality.

Returning to crypto, if the cost to the customs and associated bureaucrats
became excessive, and I include non-monetary costs such as delay at
airports, bad press, and so on, then eventually actions to reduce the cost
would be taken.  What I do not have a good feel for is what those costs are
in practice.



Paul