I see the absurdity of claiming that something (in this case absolute financial privacy) is for the benefit of everyone and worth the costs without taking into account whether the tradeoff does actually benefit everyone, or if the price is something that most people, let alone everyone, would be willing to pay.

Because claiming cybercrime is a price that is worth it for everyone to have this privacy comes across a lot like Trump saying "Don't expect the US to fight your wars for you any more, you're welcome, ingrates" while waging an unnecessary war nobody else wanted.