They still escape with their lives. This was sufficient for people escaping scary regimes for centuries - they arrived at Ellis Island with nothing but a suitcase and still managed, or jumped a wall or snuck across a border with just the clothes on their back.
Unfortunately, escaping regimes is expensive. Many Americans today would not be able to pay this fee.
[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=QjA_AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA77&lpg=P...
Because many of those seem to start with "nothing but a suitcase and the clothes on their back".
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
>>> 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?
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?
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.
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
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
i understood the 'it' in this sentance to be one's cash/funds. you seem to understand the 'it' as the act of fleeing. i think that is where out disagreement comes from
from there i responded to the following poster's claim that money is not a factor that influences people's decision to flee. i think this is flawed and suspect they are not talking from any experience