6 ms·

it’s not so simple. one side effect of strong nationalism is a restriction on the flow of people. when capital can flow freely, but people can’t, multinationals

it’s not so simple. one side effect of strong nationalism is a restriction on the flow of people. when capital can flow freely, but people can’t, multinationals gain an advantage.

leereeves 8y ago
The mere existence of nations prevents the free flow of people. "Nationalism" usually means something stronger than the existence of nations, such as "the belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals".
- perfmode 8y ago
  it is nationalist policy that restricts flow.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    All nations do that. A definition of "nationalist" that includes every nation isn't particularly useful for distinguishing the policies of nations.
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      All nations are at least a bit nationalistic. If they weren't at all nationalistic, they wouldn't be nations. Restrictions on the free flow of people are not a binary decision. Countries in the Schengen Area which have almost completely given up the ability restrict movement between their territory and 25 other nations are not restricting the movement of people as much as say North Korea which doesn't even let most of its own citizens travel abroad.
      - leereeves 8y ago
        By that definition the US is the least nationalist country on the planet. 20% of the world's foreign born population lives in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d... And it seems to me that it's that lack of "nationalism" as you've defined it that's helping US-based companies exploit cheap labor in (or from) other nations.
        TheCoelacanth 8y ago
        Even if you were to define nationalism solely based foreign-born population, the least nationalistic country would obviously be Vatican City with 100% foreign born or UAE with 84% if you want to exclude extreme outliers. The US isn't even particularly high at 14% of the population being foreign born. And of course, restrictions on freedom of movement can't be summed up exclusively with number of immigrants. There are many countries that are much, much easier to get into than the US; people just don't want to go there as much. And of course, nationalism isn't exclusively border control. That is just one nationalistic behavior.
        leereeves 8y ago
        I think you know I was only offering foreign born population as an example of the US's freedom of movement, not as the definition of nationalism. If you're intentionally misinterpreting me, this discussion isn't going anywhere. But in the hope that that's not the case, I'll try again: What country offers freedom of movement to the most people? The US, by far.
        shanghaiaway 8y ago
        China offers far more freedom of movement. US is at the bottom. By far.
        leereeves 8y ago
        China doesn't even offer freedom of movement to its own citizens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system
- User23 8y ago
  The free flow of people historically involves all the males on one side getting murdered or enslaved and the women raped. The DNA evidence incontrovertibly supports this. I’d say the idealistic nationalist sees each nation akin to a cell in a cellular automaton and believes that each nation looking after itself in the context of some fundamental rules will achieve better outcomes globally, not just locally, than heavy handed large scale top down control, aka empire. Taleb cogently argues that scale is of fundamental importance to understanding human behavior. I also accept the argument that distributed local control is generally to be preferred.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
No, again, sorry I think this is wrong. Multinationals are almost all in favour of open borders. They want a) cheap labour and some, good companies need b) high end talent. The later is more rare though. Every big company I know is 'pro migration' I can't think of a single one that's against it. Google is more in favour of getting 'highly skilled' people, while most others are in favour of 'bodies' for cheap labour. Companies that are allowed to think long term, like large banks, want migration because 'adding bodies' is the only way most Western economies actually grow. So in Canada, CIBC, BMO, RBC (i.e. big banks) make their $ from mortgages and small business lending - there's no real way for them to grow other than 'more mortgages'. So they push for more bodies as part of national strategy. Because most political entities, most big business, and a lot of social activists are globalist in nature, it creates a friction with other groups. This friction is actually a big deal and is reshaping the political landscape in the entire Western world. It's getting to be less about left/right than it is those with a globalist view and those with a more localist view. 'Nationalists' tend to fall in the later camp.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  It seems to me that immigration helps raise wages. A multinational company is going to employ people in India regardless of US immigration policy. But if those people can come to the US and make 5x the money, then even if they are making somewhat less than other Americans, they are improving (i.e. raising wages in) the global market for labor that we have to compete in. Given that wages in India and other places are clearly artificially depressed, or people wouldn't want to come to the US, I don't think it's obvious that the multinationals do want open borders. I think it's in the interest of workers though.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > But if those people can come to the US and make 5x the money, then even if they are making somewhat less than other Americans, they are improving (i.e. raising wages in) the global market for labor that we have to compete in. I would also add that it's wrong to assume that just because an immigrant was hired for a highly skilled job that automatically means there is a native somewhere with an equivalent skillset and able to do the job as well. It boggles the mind how some people assume that somehow every single top expert in the field happens to live in the same city/state/country where a job opening is published.

it’s not so simple. one side effect of strong nationalism is a restriction on the flow of people. when capital can flow freely, but people can’t, multinationals gain an advantage.

leereeves 8y ago

The mere existence of nations prevents the free flow of people. "Nationalism" usually means something stronger than the existence of nations, such as "the belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals".

perfmode 8y ago
it is nationalist policy that restricts flow.
- leereeves 8y ago
  All nations do that. A definition of "nationalist" that includes every nation isn't particularly useful for distinguishing the policies of nations.
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    All nations are at least a bit nationalistic. If they weren't at all nationalistic, they wouldn't be nations. Restrictions on the free flow of people are not a binary decision. Countries in the Schengen Area which have almost completely given up the ability restrict movement between their territory and 25 other nations are not restricting the movement of people as much as say North Korea which doesn't even let most of its own citizens travel abroad.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      By that definition the US is the least nationalist country on the planet. 20% of the world's foreign born population lives in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d... And it seems to me that it's that lack of "nationalism" as you've defined it that's helping US-based companies exploit cheap labor in (or from) other nations.
      - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
        Even if you were to define nationalism solely based foreign-born population, the least nationalistic country would obviously be Vatican City with 100% foreign born or UAE with 84% if you want to exclude extreme outliers. The US isn't even particularly high at 14% of the population being foreign born. And of course, restrictions on freedom of movement can't be summed up exclusively with number of immigrants. There are many countries that are much, much easier to get into than the US; people just don't want to go there as much. And of course, nationalism isn't exclusively border control. That is just one nationalistic behavior.
        leereeves 8y ago
        I think you know I was only offering foreign born population as an example of the US's freedom of movement, not as the definition of nationalism. If you're intentionally misinterpreting me, this discussion isn't going anywhere. But in the hope that that's not the case, I'll try again: What country offers freedom of movement to the most people? The US, by far.
        shanghaiaway 8y ago
        China offers far more freedom of movement. US is at the bottom. By far.
        leereeves 8y ago
        China doesn't even offer freedom of movement to its own citizens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system
User23 8y ago
The free flow of people historically involves all the males on one side getting murdered or enslaved and the women raped. The DNA evidence incontrovertibly supports this. I’d say the idealistic nationalist sees each nation akin to a cell in a cellular automaton and believes that each nation looking after itself in the context of some fundamental rules will achieve better outcomes globally, not just locally, than heavy handed large scale top down control, aka empire. Taleb cogently argues that scale is of fundamental importance to understanding human behavior. I also accept the argument that distributed local control is generally to be preferred.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

No, again, sorry I think this is wrong. Multinationals are almost all in favour of open borders. They want a) cheap labour and some, good companies need b) high end talent. The later is more rare though. Every big company I know is 'pro migration' I can't think of a single one that's against it. Google is more in favour of getting 'highly skilled' people, while most others are in favour of 'bodies' for cheap labour. Companies that are allowed to think long term, like large banks, want migration because 'adding bodies' is the only way most Western economies actually grow. So in Canada, CIBC, BMO, RBC (i.e. big banks) make their $ from mortgages and small business lending - there's no real way for them to grow other than 'more mortgages'. So they push for more bodies as part of national strategy. Because most political entities, most big business, and a lot of social activists are globalist in nature, it creates a friction with other groups. This friction is actually a big deal and is reshaping the political landscape in the entire Western world. It's getting to be less about left/right than it is those with a globalist view and those with a more localist view. 'Nationalists' tend to fall in the later camp.

perl4ever 8y ago
It seems to me that immigration helps raise wages. A multinational company is going to employ people in India regardless of US immigration policy. But if those people can come to the US and make 5x the money, then even if they are making somewhat less than other Americans, they are improving (i.e. raising wages in) the global market for labor that we have to compete in. Given that wages in India and other places are clearly artificially depressed, or people wouldn't want to come to the US, I don't think it's obvious that the multinationals do want open borders. I think it's in the interest of workers though.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > But if those people can come to the US and make 5x the money, then even if they are making somewhat less than other Americans, they are improving (i.e. raising wages in) the global market for labor that we have to compete in. I would also add that it's wrong to assume that just because an immigrant was hired for a highly skilled job that automatically means there is a native somewhere with an equivalent skillset and able to do the job as well. It boggles the mind how some people assume that somehow every single top expert in the field happens to live in the same city/state/country where a job opening is published.