« The M word | Main | Hierarchy and altruism »

November 09, 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

ian

Doesn't expenditure on the Immigration service and deporting so-called 'undesirable aliens' get rolled up into GDP too?

Sunny

Chris, hope you don't mind but I'm gonna nick your two (excellent) points and make them on Sky News tonight.

James

Also why do they think that the Government can do a good job of making decisions at such a low level on this issue where they wouldn't elsewhere. Isn't this exactly the sort of issue where the market should have better data than a central authority?

Gracchi

Nice fisk. The Tories deserve it on this one despite nice young Mr Cameron.

Sam

Well, there are externalities associated with large-scale immigration for the host population. Some are good things (vibrant culture, interesting restaurants etc.), whereas others aren't so good (inter-racial mob warfare, ghettoism, import of voters whose opinions and ideals may be opposed to those of the general host population).

They are probably rather hard to assess...

TStockmann

So, if you're going to be slinging around "stupid", you might work a little on making the analysis coherent rather than rhetorical - this either shows sloppiness on your part or cynical disrespect for your readers.

Why should the decisions of a group reflect its members' collective interests rather than the collectivity that includes nonmembers? Is this a serious question?

Why do we care about the wellbeing of our own children, the children of other members of our family, and the children of our friends and acquaintances more than those not related to us. Is this a serious question? Even in a host of practical terms, including likely utility and competition?

Huh - even in terms of reciprocity - if the countries from which Britain limited - or even prohibited - immigration did likewise - would that be a substantial negative effect?

Arguing that only economic effects should be considered might be stupid, but as Sam points out above, the other possibilities hardly line up like good little soldiers - excuse me, earnest and nonviolent demonstrators - in favor of more open borders.


Not Saussure

TStockman: 'Why should the decisions of a group reflect its members' collective interests rather than the collectivity that includes nonmembers? Is this a serious question?

'Why do we care about the wellbeing of our own children, the children of other members of our family, and the children of our friends and acquaintances more than those not related to us. Is this a serious question? Even in a host of practical terms, including likely utility and competition?'

Very good questions. They are ones I've always asked when people have questioned my view that if an individual or a company wishes to hire someone from overseas, and that someone wishes to accept the offer, the government has no business interfering in the transaction.

angry economist

Evidence shows that a majority of working immigrants work in low skilled, low pay jobs. They are filling a gap. And are probably more productive.

Uk has a dual labour market - the highest skilled people rank amongst the best in the world, the lower skilled cohorts are less well skilled, and partially as a result, less well paid.

There is a consequence that UK residents or citizens out of work cannot now compete with foreign immigrants. But businesses are happier with immigrants - work harder, better basic skills. The rump of the unemployed still out of work for long periods of time are not immediately job-ready.

BUT my final point - skills and labour are derived demand, you cannot create demand for skills by creating the skills or unblocking the supply, except indirectly. Businesses have demand, people supply to that demand.

The politicians always get this arse about face.

Chris P.

The comment "restrict skilled immigrants" could even be a moral position. The UK (both political party's) have a policy of looting the developing world of their human capital & thereby delivering economic woe. There is a close connexion between low GDP & civil war & so by remote extension we could also be promoting endless grief. Having politics reduced to a bazaar is a sign of our retreat into infantilism.

Rob

The stupid party is trying to get elected by the current people of the United Kingdom. The rest of the world does not get a vote. The stupid party is not meant to be a charity.

The reason why "get on your bike and look for work" does not apply across national borders is that we live in a nation state - the legitimacy of the current state depends on it representing the people of the nation inhabiting that state. The fact that you say "national borders" rather than "state borders" only underlines that. A state which acts to undermine the nation it is meant to be representing by encouraging mass immigration is no longer legitimate, and is opening the door on chaos and rioting. As you all could see if you got out of your ivory towers for a minute and walked around the multicultural streets of European cities.

Good luck.

Doug

Who are the Clever Party?

Lars Smith

Should e.g. Estonia allow unlimited immigration from Russia? Why not?

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad