[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< Capital knows no borders

Those statements are offered as truism ( and they do sound true enough ),but are they anything more than a hopeful assertion? I won't go into too many details, but I think it is not exactly axiomatic. It may be have been 99% accurate in the post-world war new world order, but, needless to say, that has shifted.

We can argue over whether it is a temporary pit stop or a longer term change that is likely to remain its place, but 'capital knows no borders' has its place along other otherwise useful phrases such as 'bet you bottom dollar that tomorrow there'll be sun'. As in, sure, but it is more of an expression of our wants, not an if/then scenario.

[lesuorac]

> Those statements are offered as truism ( and they do sound true enough ),but are they anything more than a hopeful assertion?

For the US / Euro, yeah you can just digitally wire say $ 150 million no problem. You just can't physically fly out with a suitcase of $100 bills.

This is not true for something like China [1].

The counter-topic is usually Labor. You very much cannot just go to the US and work but you could from China invest in a US company. So Capital knows no borders while Labor does.

[1]: https://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/china-chine/control-cont...

[naveen99]

China has capital controls. Chinese can’t just invest in the U.S. an unlimited amount.

[overfeed]

> I won't go into too many details, but I think it is not exactly axiomatic.

The Panama papers, the Double Irish sandwich, and the US government pressuring the EU not to tax American tech companies all say otherwise. More prosaically, the average non-resident, non-American has a much easier time registering a Delaware LLC than attempting to get an American work visa.

> It may be have been 99% accurate in the post-world war new world order, but, needless to say, that has shifted.

Trump has proposed a green-card-inspired "Gold Card" for rich Russians^w investors to skip the immigration queue. Lot's of countries have investor visa with fewer hoops to jump than work visa. I don't see this changing any time soon. If you have the capital, and hint that you're interested in investing $1M+, most countries will roll out the red carpet for you.

> As in, sure, but it is more of an expression of our wants, not an if/then scenario.

To be clear I don't want labor to be more restricted than capital.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< The Panama papers, the Double Irish sandwich, and the US government pressuring the EU not to tax American tech companies all say otherwise.

It is an interesting argument to make. Given current efforts to reshuffle existing system, those may no longer be available. Let me ask you a hypothetical instead: if those 'ways' are gone, is it automatically a given that new ones will emerge? If yes, why? If no, why?

<< Trump has proposed a green-card-inspired

I don't want to write too much of an obvious comment, but.. how is it different from existing pre-Trump green cards sold to interested parties ( with lower price tag, but I am not asking about the price )? Is the existence of the card proof that capital has no borders or of something else? Is it inherent? I am now genuinely curious about your internal world model.

[overfeed]

> Let me ask you a hypothetical instead: if those 'ways' are gone, is it automatically a given that new ones will emerge?

It's important to remember those were not the only ways, they just happened to have be the most effective, and became notorious because of it. Tax havens still exist, and we are still far from taxing corporate in the same stringent ways we tax individuals. The fact that governments only chipped at the edges with no systemic changes is telling.

> I don't want to write too much of an obvious comment, but.. how is it different from existing pre-Trump green cards sold to interested parties

You need to be specific about how green cards are currently sold before I can attempt to explain the difference. Further, if there is no difference IYO, then why is Trump proposing something new?

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< You need to be specific about how green cards are currently sold before I can attempt to explain the difference.

I was personally referring to EB5[1]

<< Further, if there is no difference IYO, then why is Trump proposing something new?

Eh, I have a personal theory, but that one will likely need some time to confirm. The shortest, handwavy way I can offer is politics ( and separation/differentiation from existing EB5 ), but I am open to alternative explanation.

[1]https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/permanent... [2]https://legalservicesincorporated.com/immigration/minimum-eb...

<< It's important to remember those were not the only ways, they just happened to have be the most effective,

True, but I am questioning how much some of this stuff will be increasingly challenging to evade. The fact that beneficial owner version in US was effectively scrapped suggests the AML regimes were getting pretty close to the issues you were referring to. And, as always, conversations within the industry players are discussing more monitoring, more data.. not less.

<< The fact that governments only chipped at the edges with no systemic changes is telling.

That is true, but it does not prove that capital has no borders ( original point of contention ).

[overfeed]

> That is true, but it does not prove that capital has no borders ( original point of contention ).

Which is easier to execute: legally investing on a goat project on Mongolia or Djibouti over 2 years vs legally living there for 2 years?

It's self evident that there are far fewer hurdles for capital to transcend national borders than people. I am not certain if your argument is that the existence of minimal friction proves that there are borders for capital. If so, I'll concede that capital crossing market and judicial boundaries will encounter some minor bumps - typically from the country of origin. This heavily contrasts with labor, which faces significantly more resistance, and the resistance is from the destination country/market/juridiction. Would you agree with "Countries bend over backwards for capital inflows, including from individual investors"? It's a mouthful, but perhaps expresses the same sentiment.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< Would you agree with "Countries bend over backwards for capital inflows, including from individual investors"? It's a mouthful, but perhaps expresses the same sentiment.

I think so. It sounds closer to what seems to be happening. In any event, thank you for this conversation.