5 ms·
For his solutions: "Brain drain" is what we had been doing for the past 80 years or so. It worked great. We're specifically driving people away now. "Gold sta
by jfengel 2y ago
For his solutions:
"Brain drain" is what we had been doing for the past 80 years or so. It worked great. We're specifically driving people away now.
"Gold standard" is an idea every sane economist rejected decades ago.
- EmpireoftheSun 2y agoI dont think Brin Drain is a win-win outcome in a globalized world. USA benefits but at expense of mostly poor nations sending their elite talent.
- trhway 2y agowould this elite talent be that productive there like it is here? I don't think so. I think moving talent to the most productive environment is the win for the civilization as a whole.
- lxgr 2y agoOnly if there's something flowing back that amounts to more than crumbs falling off the edge of the table, i.e. ownership of what these talented people help build, not just salaries/remittances. Silicon Valley is actually pretty good at that, compared to e.g. academia in the US.
- trhway 2y agoTechnological and scientific progress flows back spreading around the world like the tide rising all boats.
- sandeepkd 2y agoThis is probably a key thing which gets buried in the details. Potential value and actual realized value of a resource can be really different depending on the opportunities. Individuals rarely exists in isolation, every time they do better, they impact others in positive way, sort of uplifting everyone around them by some margin. A simple manifestation of this is how we start up coal fire. The idea is similar, bring the hot blocks together so they produce a lot more heat which in turn heats up the entire coal load. Move away the red hot blocks to isolation and the fire would die away in no time.
- nextos 2y agoSince the host country rarely retains the majority of the students, it can be a win-win. Some go back home with a good education and fresh ideas.
- lxgr 2y agoI wouldn't call that brain drain then.
- toast0 2y agoDepending on the origin country, there's a non-insignificant amount of people coming to the US, making a lot of money, then going back to their country of origin and building businesses or charities back home. Often with some amount of remitances in the meantime. I think that can be a win-win, but the ratios probably matter.
- Etheryte 2y agoWhile this may happen to some degree, it's almost certainly overshadowed by the fact that this also quickly creates a vast wealth gap, leading to problems with housing, gentrification, etc. In other words, the people actually living there will very quickly be priced out of many markets. We see this effect to some extent in nearly every country in the world, just mixed in with all other economic activity, so it isn't as plainly obvious.
- lxgr 2y agoI have a feeling that any cost to other nations might not be a concern to TFA in any way, given that the stated goal seems to be to somehow "save the American empire". Geopolitics from a less civilized time making their comeback, this time without mincing any words.
- __loam 2y agoYeah that's the point.
- roenxi 2y ago> "Gold standard" is an idea every sane economist rejected decades ago. I don't think any sane economists have ever "rejected" the gold standard, it is known to work. Pretty much any empire ever founded was built on a gold standard. The US jumped away from it because they were going to go bankrupt and picked a system that put the pain off until a later date. Now, 50 years later, they appear to have lost the title of the world's major superpower. It is relatively unusual for effective economic ideas to gain any traction in politics. It seems to be partially random whether a specific policy gets a tick or a cross when an economist is asked about it.
- Finnucane 2y agoWhat is the gold standard 'effective' at? In the 19th century, the US had a more or less continual stream of panics and recessions. In 1932, everyone had to get off the gold standard because there was no mechanism to stop the deflationary death spiral otherwise. 'Bretton-Woods' failed to control inflation, and it became possible to arbitrage gold across markets.
- roenxi 2y ago> In the 19th century, the US had a more or less continual stream of panics and recessions. In 1932, everyone had to get off the gold standard because there was no mechanism to stop the deflationary death spiral otherwise. Disabling the feedback mechanisms isn't a win. When it had the feedback from continuous minor panics the US built an economy capable of taking on the entire word and winning by a massive margin in the 1940s. And I bet there were alternative mechanisms to deal with the "deflationary debt spiral". Now the US keeps telling itself it is OK while it is increasingly marginalised. There isn't much evidence is it can win a major war or compete economically against more serious Asian efforts. The election of Trump suggests that US citizens don't even feel particularly fat and comfortable in their own economy. At least all the economic indicators say the US is OK though! The money printing is sure to lead to prosperity.
- Finnucane 2y agoWhen gold was money, most people were poor. Gold was mainly good for the aristocracy.
- amluto 2y ago> "Brain drain" is what we had been doing for the past 80 years or so. Really? For at least 20 years, if not quite a bit longer, the US has made it obnoxiously difficult for foreign students studying US universities to travel or to remain in the US after graduation.
- bodegajed 2y agoWhen I think of macro economics, I always start with "We live in a society" 1. For the Brain Drain, alienation will cause discontent. Politically impossible. Mass-layofs created a weaker consumer demand. Who to create any value for? 2. Gold standard - but not from the current astronomical value of the US dollar.
- dash2 2y agoSome serious macroeconomists think fiat money was a bad idea on balance.
- t-3 2y agoCan you share some links?