Will open borders help us all?
Open orders will open world of opportunities according to expert economists from the Economist Intelligence. But will everyone benefit equally? Depends on who you ask
BEV Rail might mean ridersharing commuter trains & rejuvenation of unused tracks
Nigel Hargreaves
logged in via Google
“…the long-run effects of open borders [in the European Union] improve the conditions and wages of all workers”.
Tell that to the Greeks. I’ve believed in open borders since my university days in the 1960’s, but sadly it ain’t gonna happen. It would only work if there was a World Federation with a common currency, common Central Bank and Common Treasury. Where the EU has, in fact, failed is that it has a Central Bank (for the Eurozone), but each country still has its own Treasury. That’s because individual countries were not, and never will be, prepared to give up all of their sovereignty.
Why? because their leaders will not give up their positions of power, and individuals with huge vested interests would no longer be able to exploit different economic conditions in different countries. Not to mention the opportunities for arms manufacture. Oh, there, I just did!
I’m afraid borders will increase in the future. A Scottish Indyref2 is looking increasingly likely and, if successful, will trigger the Catalans and no doubt many more. In my view the collapse of the Eurozone is inevitable and probably with it the EU.
I applaud the sentiment of the article on Economist Magazine on open borders and wish it were true, but I’m afraid it simply isn’t any time soon.
It's likely that Western World just realized that they are no longer 'special' & losing competitiveness?
a year ago
Murray ANDERSON
In reply to Nigel Hargreaves
I too have long believed in open borders. I have also believed that “never’ is a long long time and that nations and states are but a few centuries old and that we humans will finally realize that there are too many of us on this planet to live in "relative comfort”.I envisage a time when population policies reduce numbers without harsh means, when GROWTH is no longer a god and when the earth itself does not need to fight back against our present usage . Utopian eh?
The maths looks like $100 trillion = 2.5 Billion people each enjoying a GDP increase of $40,000 if the move from a poor $2000 p.a GDP country to a $42000 GDP country. I have a big problem in the simplistic assumption that you can extrapolate the GDP increase for a few individuals moving from a poor country to rich one to a situation where they vastly outnumber the original inhabitants . I live in Melbourne Australia and over the last few decades we have had large numbers of immigrants coming from Asia and Africa .( approx 10% increase) The result has been lowering GDP per capita tranport congestion and overcrowding of public facilities and infrastructure environmental degradation. Aside from the questionable assumption that GDP per capita is actually a good measure of happiness and quality of life. Large numbers of immigrants from different cultural backgrounds will actually destroy the social cohesion and fabric of the country the migrate to it is clear that ultimately a communities wealth is limited by natural and environmental constraints and that sharing this with many more will mean far less for each, Articles like these reinforce my deep scepticism of economics as a serious intellectual pursuit. Such a policies if implemented would be reckless to the extreme.
a year ago
Christopher Smith
In reply to Murray Ross
Hi Murray, You have missed that this article was written by a Political Economist, not an Economist.
In most peoples opinions, Political Economists are not Economists, they are lackeys for politicians.Now: As you can see from my previous comment that this paper is invalid, I did not include all of the reasons. Your observation is correct. The numbers are incorrect.
One hundred trillion Dollars is equal to the financial assets of the entire world.
There is no way that this could be doubled by imposing the proposed brain drain on the countries the migrants are leaving, or the countries they go to.Unfortunately, brain drain also increases the wealth gap between the poor countries and the wealthy ones.My opinion: The article is a political statement, not based in legitimate economic theory that I have ever encountered. This brain drain problem is why the German government has a semi open door policy only for migrants fleeing wars. Syria is the largest example.
There is also the political pressure from the AfD.
BEV Rail might mean ridersharing commuter trains & rejuvenation of unused tracks
Nigel Hargreaveslogged in via Google
“…the long-run effects of open borders [in the European Union] improve the conditions and wages of all workers”.
Tell that to the Greeks. I’ve believed in open borders since my university days in the 1960’s, but sadly it ain’t gonna happen. It would only work if there was a World Federation with a common currency, common Central Bank and Common Treasury. Where the EU has, in fact, failed is that it has a Central Bank (for the Eurozone), but each country still has its own Treasury. That’s because individual countries were not, and never will be, prepared to give up all of their sovereignty.
Why? because their leaders will not give up their positions of power, and individuals with huge vested interests would no longer be able to exploit different economic conditions in different countries. Not to mention the opportunities for arms manufacture. Oh, there, I just did!
I’m afraid borders will increase in the future. A Scottish Indyref2 is looking increasingly likely and, if successful, will trigger the Catalans and no doubt many more. In my view the collapse of the Eurozone is inevitable and probably with it the EU.
I applaud the sentiment of the article on Economist Magazine on open borders and wish it were true, but I’m afraid it simply isn’t any time soon.
It's likely that Western World just realized that they are no longer 'special' & losing competitiveness?
a year ago
Murray ANDERSON
In reply to Nigel Hargreaves
I too have long believed in open borders. I have also believed that “never’ is a long long time and that nations and states are but a few centuries old and that we humans will finally realize that there are too many of us on this planet to live in "relative comfort”.I envisage a time when population policies reduce numbers without harsh means, when GROWTH is no longer a god and when the earth itself does not need to fight back against our present usage . Utopian eh?
The maths looks like $100 trillion = 2.5 Billion people each enjoying a GDP increase of $40,000 if the move from a poor $2000 p.a GDP country to a $42000 GDP country. I have a big problem in the simplistic assumption that you can extrapolate the GDP increase for a few individuals moving from a poor country to rich one to a situation where they vastly outnumber the original inhabitants . I live in Melbourne Australia and over the last few decades we have had large numbers of immigrants coming from Asia and Africa .( approx 10% increase) The result has been lowering GDP per capita tranport congestion and overcrowding of public facilities and infrastructure environmental degradation. Aside from the questionable assumption that GDP per capita is actually a good measure of happiness and quality of life. Large numbers of immigrants from different cultural backgrounds will actually destroy the social cohesion and fabric of the country the migrate to it is clear that ultimately a communities wealth is limited by natural and environmental constraints and that sharing this with many more will mean far less for each, Articles like these reinforce my deep scepticism of economics as a serious intellectual pursuit. Such a policies if implemented would be reckless to the extreme.
a year ago
Christopher Smith
In reply to Murray Ross
Hi Murray, You have missed that this article was written by a Political Economist, not an Economist.
In most peoples opinions, Political Economists are not Economists, they are lackeys for politicians.Now: As you can see from my previous comment that this paper is invalid, I did not include all of the reasons. Your observation is correct. The numbers are incorrect.
One hundred trillion Dollars is equal to the financial assets of the entire world.
There is no way that this could be doubled by imposing the proposed brain drain on the countries the migrants are leaving, or the countries they go to.Unfortunately, brain drain also increases the wealth gap between the poor countries and the wealthy ones.My opinion: The article is a political statement, not based in legitimate economic theory that I have ever encountered. This brain drain problem is why the German government has a semi open door policy only for migrants fleeing wars. Syria is the largest example.
There is also the political pressure from the AfD.
Comments
Post a Comment