4 ms·

Ah, ok, finally! You made an argument clear enough to respond to. I think your point is ridiculous! There is an entire range of possibilities between total glob

Ah, ok, finally! You made an argument clear enough to respond to. I think your point is ridiculous! There is an entire range of possibilities between total global freedom for capital and North Korea. First, North Korea is a bad example, because I'm certain that Kim Jong-Un and his key cogs are able to stash their cash in London, New York and Geneva like all good autocrats and oligarchs do. The average North Korean lives in poverty by western standards, why would they need capital mobility? Second, the US had capital controls in place throughout the New Deal Era, surely you aren't comparing regulated capitalism with socialist qualities with a statist monarchy that impoverishes its' people?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the US had capital controls in place throughout the New Deal Era, surely you aren't comparing regulated capitalism with socialist qualities with a statist monarchy that impoverishes its' people? Sure, if you say we need capital controls and exit visas to implement UBI, that is consistent with breaking continuity between state and local experiments and the federal proposal. But I’m not sure how much buy in there is for those policies. > North Korea is a bad example, because I'm certain that Kim Jong-Un and his key cogs are able to stash their cash in London, New York and Geneva And American oligarchs wouldn’t? > You made an argument clear enough to respond to Isn’t it presumptive to use one’s own ignorance as an argument?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]