4 ms·

A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer

5 points by edward 9y ago

blacksqr 9y ago
Yes, but experience with globalization suggests that the vast majority of that extra wealth will go to the 0.01 percent, leaving the rest of us to fight over the scraps.
blacksqr 9y ago
"the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so." The article does not discuss the possibility that "migration controls" is a component of "well-run". If so, then opening borders might be a disaster.
blacksqr 9y ago
"If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote" 1. Restrict civil rights of immigrants 2. ?????? 3. Profit! Hint: ?????? = forced labor
- blacksqr 9y ago
  Article should be retitled "A Modest Proposal."
observation 9y ago
I am unbribed. I suspect this is an example of Troll Science for economists. 1. The question becomes: if it is economical then why isn't it the case from the start. Why do nations exist? Why do they have borders? What of the question posed by a famous economist: why do corporations exist? Why not a market filled with nothing but traders? The answer isn't obvious but there is an answer. Perhaps free movement has similar invisible overheads that are being conveniently ignored. 2. Ignoring what I've said above for a moment. Let us suppose that free movement made us richer. Then nations would be competing, offering incentives to all. They do not. Only to a tiny percentage of the population with obviously valuable skills or assets. That implies that there is a very high price before externalities are sufficiently alleviated. It at least means governments think that is so for whatever reason. 3. Within nations we have rich and poor zipcodes. It is true that workers from poor neighbourhoods travel to richer ones for work, it is basic time/money arbitrage. Yet few people think of installing poorer workers in richer neighbourhoods as a means to improve the economy. Why is that?
googletazer 9y ago
>A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer The only question is - for who?
oblib 9y ago
This reads like a billionaire funded think tank production. The last paragraph is a truly hilarious attempt to tell "liberals" how to think. Though well obscured the obvious take away is "You all really should be a lot poorer because you're worth a lot less than you think and we're working on convincing you of that." And that's all they really do "work" on.

5 points by edward 9y ago

Yes, but experience with globalization suggests that the vast majority of that extra wealth will go to the 0.01 percent, leaving the rest of us to fight over the scraps.

blacksqr 9y ago

"the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so." The article does not discuss the possibility that "migration controls" is a component of "well-run". If so, then opening borders might be a disaster.

blacksqr 9y ago

"If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote" 1. Restrict civil rights of immigrants 2. ?????? 3. Profit! Hint: ?????? = forced labor

blacksqr 9y ago
Article should be retitled "A Modest Proposal."

observation 9y ago

I am unbribed. I suspect this is an example of Troll Science for economists. 1. The question becomes: if it is economical then why isn't it the case from the start. Why do nations exist? Why do they have borders? What of the question posed by a famous economist: why do corporations exist? Why not a market filled with nothing but traders? The answer isn't obvious but there is an answer. Perhaps free movement has similar invisible overheads that are being conveniently ignored. 2. Ignoring what I've said above for a moment. Let us suppose that free movement made us richer. Then nations would be competing, offering incentives to all. They do not. Only to a tiny percentage of the population with obviously valuable skills or assets. That implies that there is a very high price before externalities are sufficiently alleviated. It at least means governments think that is so for whatever reason. 3. Within nations we have rich and poor zipcodes. It is true that workers from poor neighbourhoods travel to richer ones for work, it is basic time/money arbitrage. Yet few people think of installing poorer workers in richer neighbourhoods as a means to improve the economy. Why is that?

googletazer 9y ago

>A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer The only question is - for who?

oblib 9y ago

This reads like a billionaire funded think tank production. The last paragraph is a truly hilarious attempt to tell "liberals" how to think. Though well obscured the obvious take away is "You all really should be a lot poorer because you're worth a lot less than you think and we're working on convincing you of that." And that's all they really do "work" on.