> The Panama Papers are an argument for more effective regulation, not against capitalism. So you conclude with agreement despite disagreeing in each premise?

> The Panama Papers are an argument for more effective regulation, not against capitalism. So you conclude with agreement despite disagreeing in each premise? As I said. Capitalism =/= the way the world is set up. Capitalism is an economic model. This humanities use of the word obfuscates more than it clarifies. The regulatory environment of the world is not "capitalism". At a guess, I'd say its vaugely semi-feudal. But certainly, there is no transnational court system to make the kinds of rights-based guarantees you'd need.