> Who said that? You've defined your own narrow version of capital controls to then argue against. States could just ban moving capital out of the country. Countries can just pass laws! They don't need to do whatever makes rich people happy.

If capital cannot be taken out of country then it can be put in assets mate. I have explained that scenario already.

> If a few dudes control most productive forces, that is inherently antidemocratic. No amount of trying to pay off the public with some elaborate scheme that doesn't remove their control will fix that.

Then have more dudes controlling most productive forces. You have anti-monopoly and antitrust laws for that exact reason.

> If the only reason somebody opens a company is greed, then maybe that company would be a net-negative for society anyways?

It is not greed. Money is a by-product of success and follows success wherever it goes. You cannot dissociate the two.

> Of course UBI is an allowance. You can't just say it isn't without making an argument

It really isn't. It is the same argument as utilities. You individually haven't paid the full amount for construction of road network, bridges, electric grid yet you don't consider it an "allowance" do you? You believe you have contributed your fair share. Yet you still enjoy these utilities wherever you are and for life by only paying for how much you use it. UBI is the exact same thing. Instead of giving you in the form of utilities, you are getting money which you will reinvest back into the economy by choosing what and from whom to buy. Both are assets being dispersed by the Government.