Bill--

Thanks for the edifying remarks about socialism, but I'm still mystified.
Your original comments said that one problem is that capital is mobile,
but labor isn't. That formulation assumes that if it were otherwise,
there would be one less problem. I offered a counterexample which on the
face of it would seem to contradict that assumption, and I'm still
waiting for someone to tell me what's wrong with it. Perhaps your remarks
about socialism meant that the solution isn't increased mobility of
labor, but restriction of capital, in that under socialism capital would
be owned in common by its producers, the workers. If that's so, that's a
start, but then we encounter all the usual objections and issues that
planned economies generate. Certainly if wages are fair across the board,
then there's no incentive for capital to go elsewhere.

FWIW, Chomsky does point out that the so-called Tiger Economies of SE
Asia flout the "rule" of free markets. I believe he cites Taiwan (?),
which makes capital flight literally a "capital" offense and in general
pursues extremely restrictive currency and profit repatriation policies.
Sure, these are policies that serve primarily the interests of the
country's ruling class (just as early US protectionism did), but at least
they are domestic interests, rather than those of the multinational corps.