4 ms·

Economies are not zero-sum. The flow of capital and education to poor countries would increase their productivity (and thus wages and standard of living) while

Economies are not zero-sum. The flow of capital and education to poor countries would increase their productivity (and thus wages and standard of living) while the increased supply of labor decreases prices in rich countries, and the new equilibrium would be strictly better for both sides. Find a good economics textbook. (This is an issue where economists are in almost universal agreement, and almost universally opposed by politicians and the general public).

mistermann 10y ago
The way you describe it, it sounds like you believe there are no negative consequences for anyone, anywhere, ever.
tuna-piano 10y ago
Free trade (and free immigration, which is essentially the same) is undoubtedly good on the whole. However, the current anti-trade pandering from Trump / Sanders and the like may also be correct. Expanded access to markets may be unequal. For example, if there was an untapped country that had a million unemployed meteorologists - signing a free-trade deal with that country would most likely be terrible for meteorologists in America - although all other Americans would be better off with improved weather forecasts. Replace "meteorologists" with "factory laborer" and you can see why so many of the current anti-trade folks are upset with what they see happening. They aren't barbers or plumbers - they're factory workers. The barbers, plumbers and engineers get cheaper stuff (and are better off), but the factory workers get paid less.
67726e 10y ago
I'm sorry but that's transparently bullshit, an example of good on paper but bad I reality. It does very little but line the pockets of a select few in the rich nations. There is no reason for me to give a shit about someone in Africa if it means my own family, my own people struggle.
- charlesism 10y ago
  And if you married an African, should you be allowed to live together in the same country? Her parents? Grand-parents?
- aravindet 10y ago
  "My own people". Clearly you use that phrase to mean people who share a nationality with you. Historically, this phrase has been used more often to refer to people with the same skin color, or religion, as you. You could use the exact words you used to justify systematic exclusion of people of another race or religion from jobs and markets controlled by "your people". I like to think that we’d all consider that appalling. Like race or religion, nationality is largely determined by an accident of birth. It is inconsistent to hold that racial or religious discrimination is unethical, but discriminating on the basis of nationality is somehow okay.
  - visarga 10y ago
    We are all human, we deserve the same opportunities. But when mass migrations happen, they threaten the host country and also don't solve the problem back in the source country. The solution would be to make it better to live everywhere, so that people would not be so tempted to migrate. It will probably happen for Africa and Middle East in this century, as technology advances quickly.
    - aravindet 10y ago
      And I assume a very similar argument was made in apartheid South Africa, or Jim Crow US. “We are all human, we deserve the same opportunities. But when [black people move into white neighborhoods], they threaten [white neighborhoods] and also don't solve the problem back in [black neighborhoods]. The solution would be to make it better to live everywhere, so that people would not be so tempted to migrate. It will probably happen for [Cape Town and Johannesburg?] in this century, as technology advances quickly.” Or, in other words, you propose the “separate but equal” solution.
- superuser2 10y ago
  It lines the pockets of everyone who purchases better, cheaper goods and has more money left over for other stuff. Everything we buy that's made abroad is made abroad because doing it that way makes it better or cheaper or both.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> The flow of capital and education to poor countries would increase their productivity (and thus wages and standard of living) while the increased supply of labor decreases prices in rich countries, and the new equilibrium would be strictly better for both sides. The fact that it isn't zero-sum doesn't mean that it's always strictly better for both sides. There are many policies that will give +4 to a foreign citizen at the cost of -2 to a US citizen, which is not zero sum but is still not to the advantage of the US. > (This is an issue where economists are in almost universal agreement, and almost universally opposed by politicians and the general public). Not an unexpected result, since economists are generally utilitarians more than nationalists and politicians the opposite.

mistermann 10y ago

The way you describe it, it sounds like you believe there are no negative consequences for anyone, anywhere, ever.

tuna-piano 10y ago

Free trade (and free immigration, which is essentially the same) is undoubtedly good on the whole. However, the current anti-trade pandering from Trump / Sanders and the like may also be correct. Expanded access to markets may be unequal. For example, if there was an untapped country that had a million unemployed meteorologists - signing a free-trade deal with that country would most likely be terrible for meteorologists in America - although all other Americans would be better off with improved weather forecasts. Replace "meteorologists" with "factory laborer" and you can see why so many of the current anti-trade folks are upset with what they see happening. They aren't barbers or plumbers - they're factory workers. The barbers, plumbers and engineers get cheaper stuff (and are better off), but the factory workers get paid less.

67726e 10y ago

I'm sorry but that's transparently bullshit, an example of good on paper but bad I reality. It does very little but line the pockets of a select few in the rich nations. There is no reason for me to give a shit about someone in Africa if it means my own family, my own people struggle.

charlesism 10y ago
And if you married an African, should you be allowed to live together in the same country? Her parents? Grand-parents?
aravindet 10y ago
"My own people". Clearly you use that phrase to mean people who share a nationality with you. Historically, this phrase has been used more often to refer to people with the same skin color, or religion, as you. You could use the exact words you used to justify systematic exclusion of people of another race or religion from jobs and markets controlled by "your people". I like to think that we’d all consider that appalling. Like race or religion, nationality is largely determined by an accident of birth. It is inconsistent to hold that racial or religious discrimination is unethical, but discriminating on the basis of nationality is somehow okay.
- visarga 10y ago
  We are all human, we deserve the same opportunities. But when mass migrations happen, they threaten the host country and also don't solve the problem back in the source country. The solution would be to make it better to live everywhere, so that people would not be so tempted to migrate. It will probably happen for Africa and Middle East in this century, as technology advances quickly.
  - aravindet 10y ago
    And I assume a very similar argument was made in apartheid South Africa, or Jim Crow US. “We are all human, we deserve the same opportunities. But when [black people move into white neighborhoods], they threaten [white neighborhoods] and also don't solve the problem back in [black neighborhoods]. The solution would be to make it better to live everywhere, so that people would not be so tempted to migrate. It will probably happen for [Cape Town and Johannesburg?] in this century, as technology advances quickly.” Or, in other words, you propose the “separate but equal” solution.
superuser2 10y ago
It lines the pockets of everyone who purchases better, cheaper goods and has more money left over for other stuff. Everything we buy that's made abroad is made abroad because doing it that way makes it better or cheaper or both.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> The flow of capital and education to poor countries would increase their productivity (and thus wages and standard of living) while the increased supply of labor decreases prices in rich countries, and the new equilibrium would be strictly better for both sides. The fact that it isn't zero-sum doesn't mean that it's always strictly better for both sides. There are many policies that will give +4 to a foreign citizen at the cost of -2 to a US citizen, which is not zero sum but is still not to the advantage of the US. > (This is an issue where economists are in almost universal agreement, and almost universally opposed by politicians and the general public). Not an unexpected result, since economists are generally utilitarians more than nationalists and politicians the opposite.