Talk:Capital control

message: Capital Controls, or Controlled Capital Accounts, are a fundamental component of modern monetary policy.  The IMF exists to surveil and assist countries in their management and/or transition of their capital account regimes.
Extensive research on this topic has been done by the world's top economists, at the the world's leading institutions...
Normalsynthesis 19:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must mean such people as Richard Wolff, Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Piketty, etc. ---Dagme (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Another point this article should cover is that capital controls are not nearly as prevalent as they used to be, notwithstanding the opening sentences.  Capital controls used to be a vital part of the Bretton Woods post-war economic environment, since they were necessary to ensure that everyone's currency was linked to the dollar at a set rate, and the US dollar was linked to gold.  Once currencies became free-floating with the end of the Bretton Woods system, the need for capital controls diminished and most major markets eliminated them by the 1980s.   (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This article still needs serious help

message: Quote: "* Nazi Germany attempted to prevent capital from leaving by imposing the Reichsfluchtsteur Reich Flight Tax or Escape Tax.[3]"
The Reichsfluchtsteuer was actually already put in place by the weimar republic in 1931, 2 years before the nazis came to power. It was applied the most to fleeing jews during the nazi period. BUt even after WWII it stayed in place in the bonner republic until 1953
:Confer :de:Reichsfluchtsteuer. --Alex1011 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: nazi germany, not quite true

message: It was said that IMF has a well classified items to measure the degree of freedom of capital mobility. It will be good to talk about it in the article. And, it will be nice to compare different countries' convertability. Capital account convertibility Jackzhp (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Capital Mobility Freedom

message: Someone (who doesn't bother signing in) keeps inserting an editorial piece arguing that US taxation law is an example of a capital control.  I know you must be upset that you live abroad and Uncle Sam still wants your money, but the example you give is clearly not the type of capital control this article discusses.  Make your argument here, if you like -- but these tax laws clearly do not prevent US citizens or companies from investing abroad, nor do they (very very clearly) prevent foreign investors from investing in the United States.  The evidence against your argument can be measured in the trillions of dollars each year (and by the fact that the US dollar is fully convertible).   (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am rebutting the prior paragraph.  You are arguing irrelevant syntax.  You refer to it only as a "tax", but that is does not capture the full semantics of what the HEART law changed in 2008.  The new semantics of forced acceleration of capital gains upon renouncing US citizenship is thus a capital control.  For example, imagine you've owned real estate and retirement investments for a long-time, intending to hold it until death except to gradually take gains in your retirement years to be in minimum tax bracket each year so as to sustain your retirement.  This is precisely the situation of many of the boomers.  But now the US economy is permanently bankrupted with unfunded govt retirement obligations exceeding $40 trillion and growing at $1+ trillion per year, so the government will have no choice to raise taxes excessively, perhaps to 90% on top brackets as FDR did in 1930 Great Depression.  Unlike Europe and most of the world, the USA taxes it's citizens even if they reside abroad.  On top of this, the USA is turning increasing totalitarian (http://financialsense.com/editorials/casey/2009/0818.html) and Americans are buying more guns in 1 month than outfits the entire Indian and Chinese armies combined.  So you decide to take your human capital (yourself and future investing income) abroad to escape this mess and renounce your citizenship to be free.  But instead of being able to liquidate your US assets slowly to minimize any US capital gains taxes, you are fored by the 2008 HEART low to take all the capital gains in one tax year!  Which very likely will soon end up at 90% tax rates.  In essense, this will make it a capital control on US citizens wanting to gain the same rights as foreigners.  Non-citizens (foreigners) have no such taxes or restrictions placed on them.  The US citizen is being placed in a capital control jail by his/her own federal government.  I am not signing in because it is my right under the Wikipedia system, and you or other reader may be an IRS operative.  121.97.54.2 (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are trying to make a political point about a tax you don't like.  Which is fine, but this tax has no effect on capital inflow or outflow in the United States (quite obviously, since the US is running such a large current account deficit.)  If you want to put your rants into the US income tax section, feel free.  But read the rest of the article (as lame as it is).  Or, better yet, read up on what capital controls are from another source -- and you'll see that what you are complaining about is not a real capital control.  Do not add this section in again.  (And if I were working for the government, how hard would it be to track down your IP address?  Go put your tinfoil hat back on and get off this page.)   (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on Capital Controls in the United States

message: While the merger suggestion seemed reasonable, if there's no objection in the next few days I plan to remove the tages for this article and Capital Account Convertibility , as the tags have been in place for over a year, attracting as far as I can see no support and one opposition.  I'll also probably be substantially expanding this article as there is a lot of interesting history to add and the recent re-appraisal of controls following the crises that would be good to capture. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing down Merger discussion

message: This article argues that the monetary policy trilemma was important under the Bretton Woods system as a justification for capital controls ("The impossible trinity concept was especially influential during this era, as a justification for capital controls"). I find it hard to believe, as the idea was formulated in the late 1960s, when BW was collapsing. I cannot find a primary source that supports this. Hence, I tagged it as "citation needed."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariboa (talk • contribs) 13:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this, its good of you to explain your thinking. On Wikipedia we tend to prefer secondary sources over primary, and the statement is supported by both Gallagher and Helleiner. E.g. you can easily confirm by opening the online "Regaining Control" source which shows in Table 1 that the Imp. Trinity concept was the key economic idea for the Bretton Woods period. Just as a fyi, if youre interested in primary sources the best ones for this would be the papers and transcriptions of Lord Keynes speeches at the BW meeting. As with so many other key concepts, Keynes anticipated it well before it was formalised, clearly saying that given they were looking at establishing a system of semi fixed exchange rates, capital controls were essential if countries were to be free to pursue independent domestic monetary policies. You can find these sources on the IMF web site I think, been about 4 years since I've looked at them. PS- the concept was actually formalised in 62/63.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Impossible Trinity under Bretton Woods

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Capital control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713025345/http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/51_This_Time_Is_Different.pdf to http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/51_This_Time_Is_Different.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110324021806/http://www.mof.go.jp/jouhou/soken/kenkyu/ron056.pdf to http://www.mof.go.jp/jouhou/soken/kenkyu/ron056.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130114203919/http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Fall%202012/2012%20fall%20klein.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Fall%202012/2012%20fall%20klein.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060921172106/http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/faq/faq_docs/capital_controls.shtml to http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/faq/faq_docs/capital_controls.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Capital control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013185913/http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~drodrik/Malaysia%20controls.PDF to http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~drodrik/Malaysia%20controls.PDF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Anti-free market and Pro-Interventionist
Extreme ideological bias only citing low quality, not prestige sources only from their favors to interventionists such as Krugman Blog, Delong Blog and Just Stiglitz's saying
More empirical research indicate that Capital Control do harm than good. Here, only cited Danni Rodrick but what about Kristin Forbes and many other real capital experts' research and IGM forum Economists consensus is "Capital control is bad" around 90% of them. It's so disgusting to see wikipedia's extreme bias on economics for their political purpose. They never cite and use research against their ideological bases. Shame! Big Shame! http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/capital-outflows Shfur0306 (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is always extremely biased on economics