3 ms·

> This was sufficient for people escaping scary regimes for centuries just curious, are you grandstanding or have you (or even your close relatives) been throu

> This was sufficient for people escaping scary regimes for centuries just curious, are you grandstanding or have you (or even your close relatives) been through such a situation? with statements like this it can only be one or the other. also it does not have to be escaping a "scary regime". it can be escaping war for example

s1artibartfast 5y ago
> What good is it to a person if he can escape a scary regime but can’t take his lives savings with him? >>> This was sufficient for people escaping scary regimes for centuries Clearly saving your life is sufficient reason to escape. Not optimal, but certainly enough reason. Are you claiming you would rather you and your family die than lose your money?
- medo-bear 5y ago
  are you saying that taking your money with you is not important? and since you asked, i know a lot of people who did not leave major conflict zones because they would have nothing. for example one person very close to me sent his children and wife overseas when fighting in former yugoslavia started while he stayed to protect their house from looters. next day he was kidnapped but luckily he survived and reunited with his family. shared this story only for sake of a different perspective
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    >are you saying that taking your money with you is not important? Not at all, and I don't think the original person you responded to was either. I am just saying that there are times you would want to flee even if it means loosing your wealth. This should be obvious, but someone didn't get it. >What good is it to a person if he can escape a scary regime but can’t take his lives savings with him?
    - medo-bear 5y ago
      the parent to whom i was responding to said it is sufficient. it is sufficient only in retrospect at which point it is a truism. the point i trying to make is that even in places where there is major conflict a lot of people do not realize that they will make a right decision. having a mechanism to move their money might help them to make a safer decision
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        I don't doubt that at all. The fact that people have found scary regimes enough reason to flee contradicts the point that there is no good reason to flee if you can't take your money. It can be a good idea to flee even if you can't take money, and even if you don't know the future. I agree that the ability to take money makes that decision easier.
        medo-bear 5y ago
        > contradicts the point that there is no good reason to flee if you can't take your money. who said that there is no good reason to leave? i am saying that the realization of the fact that it is a good idea is usually seen in retrospect. it is a gamble. for example, right now it might be a good reason to leave ukraine, but great majority of people will stay, even if a war starts. i think you underestimate the gravity of the decision to leave your homeland
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >who said that there is no good reason to leave? The original poster: "What good is it to a person if he can escape a scary regime but can’t take his lives savings with him?" Clearly there are a lot of valid reasons to leave even if you don't have your money (like gambling that leaving will save your life). People do it all the time. Someone said as much and you tried to refute them (perhaps not understanding their point). > i am saying that the realization of the fact that it is a good idea is usually seen in retrospect. Yes it is clearer in retrospect. That said, millions of people have left their homes before they died and lived because of this, so it is clearly possible to make a gamble without future knowledge and be right. Many have also moved and been wrong. > i think you underestimate the gravity of the decision to leave your homeland I don't think you can read my mind and I never said it was easy. Just that it is possible and people do it all the time. They make incredibly hard choices and sometimes are right and sometimes are wrong

s1artibartfast 5y ago

> What good is it to a person if he can escape a scary regime but can’t take his lives savings with him? >>> This was sufficient for people escaping scary regimes for centuries Clearly saving your life is sufficient reason to escape. Not optimal, but certainly enough reason. Are you claiming you would rather you and your family die than lose your money?

medo-bear 5y ago
are you saying that taking your money with you is not important? and since you asked, i know a lot of people who did not leave major conflict zones because they would have nothing. for example one person very close to me sent his children and wife overseas when fighting in former yugoslavia started while he stayed to protect their house from looters. next day he was kidnapped but luckily he survived and reunited with his family. shared this story only for sake of a different perspective
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  >are you saying that taking your money with you is not important? Not at all, and I don't think the original person you responded to was either. I am just saying that there are times you would want to flee even if it means loosing your wealth. This should be obvious, but someone didn't get it. >What good is it to a person if he can escape a scary regime but can’t take his lives savings with him?
  - medo-bear 5y ago
    the parent to whom i was responding to said it is sufficient. it is sufficient only in retrospect at which point it is a truism. the point i trying to make is that even in places where there is major conflict a lot of people do not realize that they will make a right decision. having a mechanism to move their money might help them to make a safer decision
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      I don't doubt that at all. The fact that people have found scary regimes enough reason to flee contradicts the point that there is no good reason to flee if you can't take your money. It can be a good idea to flee even if you can't take money, and even if you don't know the future. I agree that the ability to take money makes that decision easier.
      - medo-bear 5y ago
        > contradicts the point that there is no good reason to flee if you can't take your money. who said that there is no good reason to leave? i am saying that the realization of the fact that it is a good idea is usually seen in retrospect. it is a gamble. for example, right now it might be a good reason to leave ukraine, but great majority of people will stay, even if a war starts. i think you underestimate the gravity of the decision to leave your homeland
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >who said that there is no good reason to leave? The original poster: "What good is it to a person if he can escape a scary regime but can’t take his lives savings with him?" Clearly there are a lot of valid reasons to leave even if you don't have your money (like gambling that leaving will save your life). People do it all the time. Someone said as much and you tried to refute them (perhaps not understanding their point). > i am saying that the realization of the fact that it is a good idea is usually seen in retrospect. Yes it is clearer in retrospect. That said, millions of people have left their homes before they died and lived because of this, so it is clearly possible to make a gamble without future knowledge and be right. Many have also moved and been wrong. > i think you underestimate the gravity of the decision to leave your homeland I don't think you can read my mind and I never said it was easy. Just that it is possible and people do it all the time. They make incredibly hard choices and sometimes are right and sometimes are wrong