I was curious what your answer was? What argument was refuted? I explained clearly why the program needed to be national and not at the state level. Good grief.
Your argument rests on mobility of capital and people being less federally than statewise. At both levels, that becomes less true as income goes up. And it virtually disappears in the long run. If the argument for UBI is that it must be federal because of monetary or mobility reasons, it’s either reliant on causing inflation or locking down the population à la North Korea.
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?
> 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?
