3 ms·

That's both literally and figuratively backwards. You're describing a scenario where the relationship between the countries becomes so hostile that we have to

by 794CD01 10y ago

That's both literally and figuratively backwards. You're describing a scenario where the relationship between the countries becomes so hostile that we have to worry about what happens if one of us cuts off the flow of talent. But what we should really care about is making the flow of talent so voluminous and indispensable to both nations that relations cannot deteriorate to that point. That's real national security.

akiselev 10y ago
Right, until that other country elects an orange demagogue that utilizes popular discontent to demonize you and cut off that flow of talent, regardless of the mutually assured harm. Societies are fickle, especially in times of war or increasing tensions. A well maintained local talent pool and industrial capacity subsidized against foreign economic forces are not. Relying on other nations is the exact opposite of national security and it's naive to think that they will be by our side when shit hits the fan. We've seen too much in the last hundred years to leave our most critical industries to chance.
- 794CD01 10y ago
  The movement of labor and ideas also means that there is no shortage of educated people to speak out against said orange demagogue's terrible policies. And most peoples' postmortems of the election agree that the election was close enough that higher immigration (or even better distribution of existing immigrants) would likely have kept him out of office.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > higher immigration (or even better distribution of existing immigrants) would likely have kept him out of office. Only importing immigrants who have political views that agree with yours? A country has a particular culture and set of views. Why would we want to import people from countries with inferior living conditions and follow the way they do things? There's a reason they left.
    - 794CD01 10y ago
      No, the presence of immigrants who have political views that disagree with me would be even better. As for why let people in from poor countries, because we are siphoning off the most educated and ambitions people from that country, who bring their drive and good genes to our country. It's the same reason Asians, who consist of the top people in their home countries who chose to came here, do better in the US than blacks, who were brought here by slavers.
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        > As for why let people in from poor countries, What part of the point "let people in from poor countries, but don't let them keep doing things the way they were doing them" is not clear? Sure they want to move here, don't let them turn this place into the place they left by making them learn the language and culture. >It's the same reason Asians, who consist of the top people in their home countries who chose to came here That is an incorrect statement. Most asians who first came to america were imported as cheap labor to compete against Irish unskilled labor. The Polish, Irish, and Italian who came to the states were definitely not the best and brightest, but because they assimilated and learned the culture prospered.
jimmywanger 10y ago
> But what we should really care about is making the flow of talent so voluminous and indispensable to both nations that relations cannot deteriorate to that point. That has not happened in the history of mankind. Talent moving around is rather high on Maslov's hierarchy of needs. If your country is out of arable farmland, clean water, or minerals, you will start looking around for places to get those materials. If they will not trade for them, generally you invade.
- 794CD01 10y ago
  I would say that is because, in the past, "work remotely" wasn't a viable option. Today, that sounds like a much better option than a war of conquest. To me, at least.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > in the past, "work remotely" wasn't a viable option. What does this have to do with anything? We're talking about resource wars. You can kidnap talent. Look at the origin of the term "shanghaied" and the British impressing American seamen. > Today, that sounds like a much better option than a war of conquest. You're not getting the point. Most nations can do without talent. Talent is willing to cross borders, depending on who's winning. What nations cannot do without is food, minerals and water. Those are definitely zero sum games. Unless you're able to defend your goods with force or there is an abundance of them, they will be taken away from you.

by 794CD01 10y ago

akiselev 10y ago

Right, until that other country elects an orange demagogue that utilizes popular discontent to demonize you and cut off that flow of talent, regardless of the mutually assured harm. Societies are fickle, especially in times of war or increasing tensions. A well maintained local talent pool and industrial capacity subsidized against foreign economic forces are not. Relying on other nations is the exact opposite of national security and it's naive to think that they will be by our side when shit hits the fan. We've seen too much in the last hundred years to leave our most critical industries to chance.

794CD01 10y ago
The movement of labor and ideas also means that there is no shortage of educated people to speak out against said orange demagogue's terrible policies. And most peoples' postmortems of the election agree that the election was close enough that higher immigration (or even better distribution of existing immigrants) would likely have kept him out of office.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > higher immigration (or even better distribution of existing immigrants) would likely have kept him out of office. Only importing immigrants who have political views that agree with yours? A country has a particular culture and set of views. Why would we want to import people from countries with inferior living conditions and follow the way they do things? There's a reason they left.
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    No, the presence of immigrants who have political views that disagree with me would be even better. As for why let people in from poor countries, because we are siphoning off the most educated and ambitions people from that country, who bring their drive and good genes to our country. It's the same reason Asians, who consist of the top people in their home countries who chose to came here, do better in the US than blacks, who were brought here by slavers.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      > As for why let people in from poor countries, What part of the point "let people in from poor countries, but don't let them keep doing things the way they were doing them" is not clear? Sure they want to move here, don't let them turn this place into the place they left by making them learn the language and culture. >It's the same reason Asians, who consist of the top people in their home countries who chose to came here That is an incorrect statement. Most asians who first came to america were imported as cheap labor to compete against Irish unskilled labor. The Polish, Irish, and Italian who came to the states were definitely not the best and brightest, but because they assimilated and learned the culture prospered.

jimmywanger 10y ago

> But what we should really care about is making the flow of talent so voluminous and indispensable to both nations that relations cannot deteriorate to that point. That has not happened in the history of mankind. Talent moving around is rather high on Maslov's hierarchy of needs. If your country is out of arable farmland, clean water, or minerals, you will start looking around for places to get those materials. If they will not trade for them, generally you invade.

794CD01 10y ago
I would say that is because, in the past, "work remotely" wasn't a viable option. Today, that sounds like a much better option than a war of conquest. To me, at least.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > in the past, "work remotely" wasn't a viable option. What does this have to do with anything? We're talking about resource wars. You can kidnap talent. Look at the origin of the term "shanghaied" and the British impressing American seamen. > Today, that sounds like a much better option than a war of conquest. You're not getting the point. Most nations can do without talent. Talent is willing to cross borders, depending on who's winning. What nations cannot do without is food, minerals and water. Those are definitely zero sum games. Unless you're able to defend your goods with force or there is an abundance of them, they will be taken away from you.