 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Immigration, borders, and "free trade" |
 |  |  |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 193/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| When people talk about "free trade", they mostly are talking about tarrif reduction, trade liberalisation, removal of subsidies, and stuff like that. It is argued that this is all beneficial, will benefit everyone, "raise all boats" and so forth. Unfortunately, even the most zealous free-trade advocates seem to have trouble making the leap from freeing up the movement of capital, finance, investment and trade, to freeing up movement of the OTHER major component of economics. LABOR. People. They have no problem saying that countries should uproot their entire economic structure and let the markets do their thing, but suggesting that borders and passports that prohibit movement across borders are far more significant barriers than tarrifs and competition-undercutting subsidies is a far sketchier proposition. The present structure of the economy of this planet, with a couple of isolationist (North Korea and Cuba, also Burma) exceptions, is of areas of great wealth and power living at least partly off the poorer areas of the planet. That much is indisputable. To some extent we all live off the cheap labor and lack of human rights in other parts of the planet. Conventional wisdom has it that global capital flows and financial investment will be enough to improve conditions in these regions, but so far it just isn't really working. To me it seems that the biggest thing missing is the FREE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE. People seem to not really connect the structure of the global economy with issues of immigration and border security but it seems like the two are intimately and irrevocably related. The reason people are trying to get into Australia, Europe, America, is in crude economic terms, because there is high "demand" for those places. What's the point of a globalised economy where goods can move freely anywhere in the world, if the PEOPLE in that economy are trapped in certain areas through the random chances of birth? It's like promoting free trade within the US but having rules people in Alabama can't emigrate to Maine and can't even visit without passports and visas. Look at the EU. It's a perfect case study here. Sure, it's a beaurocratic nightmare, quite protectionist, full of social-democratic countries that free-trade-proponent rhetoric holds are inherently dysfunctional. Yet, I bet that the new members - the Eastern European countires that are quite a long way behind the Western European ones - will vastly benefit from the free trade promoted WITHIN the EU. The free movement not just of capital, finance, investment, etc... but also of PEOPLE. Yes, there'll probably be teething problems, but the benefits for these places of the lowering of movement barriers to people will in the end show the way. The results of the EU will show that the free movement of PEOPLE is the most important factor in beneficial free trade. Many people see this as a question of allowing "those people" in. Border security, floods of poor immigrants, etc etc. It's an old story. Tijuana being a perfect example. What better illustration is there of the problems of a closed-border, people-restrictive set-up with a global economy? Capital, finance, investment, etc, can happily and wasily flow across borders between the US and Mexico, but if any people try to follow that path, it's a whole another story. It's not just a matter of allowing "those people" in, it's a matter of letting the benefits of our societies out. Which, after all, is the goal of the free-trade advocates. I'd wager that if you tore down the border between the two countries, as has happened in Europe, in the short term you'd get a large influx of Mexicans moving north, but after a while things would balance out, the trappings of US prosperity would filter south with business owners, educated Mexicans, and so forth. Cheap housing down south would suddenly look a lot more desirable, Mexico would seem a place of untapped opportunities, property owners in Mexico would see their land values rise, and from there I think you'd see a largescale evening out of economic conditions in the two halves of California. Another perfect example would seem to be the reunification of Germany. The introduction of large numbers of East Germans into a larger west germany that was far ahead in material and economic terms has had a great deal of benefit for East Germans, with minimal problems for West Germany. Yes there's teething problems, but nothing so apocalyptic as to make reunification, free movement, free trade within Germany, a bad idea. All this just with a unified politial structure - where goods, capital, finance, investment, but also PEOPLE could move freely as their whims and ambitions took them. I'd wager even the North-South Korea divide could be bridged by unification... or at least through totally open borders and trade, should that ever happen. The lack of connection between global economics, and immigration/borders seems like a pretty big issue no-one wants to touch just yet. They're closely related issues but no-one seems to want to point this out. Maybe as the EU's expansion proves this argument further the right people will begin to take note. |
|||
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38  Posts: 421/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| A well-taken point. In general, the arguments against the free movement of labor are stronger than the arguments against the free movement of capital, but I doubt that they're so strong as to outweigh the net total benefits free labor would bring. Free labor carries with it negative externalities such as social problems and it tends to destroy existing social capital. However, it can be argued that once an equilibrium is reached when two systems are "mixed", social capital will regenerate... however, there are clearly some very strong vested interests and rational fears about the consequences of free labor, and so it's a much more difficult idea to be open to than free capital. That is to say, there's little doubt that free labor would yield a better economy in the long run, but that there's a current equilibrium which is hostile to it that would have to be upset first. But history has shown that free labor tends to win out... for example, in the United States after the Civil War, many laws were passed which forbade blacks moving north from competing with whites for jobs. This created a non-optimal equilibrium for almost a century (whose residual effects still exist today). However, once this appropriate "shock" to the equilibrium is made, there's no going back.. and most likely it's simply a matter of time. |
|||
Dracoon Zelda The temp ban/forum ban bypasser! Level: 84  Posts: 1646/3727 EXP: 5514391 For next: 147561 Since: 03-25-04 From: At home Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 5 hours |
| ||
| The EU doesn't exsist anymore so you know... Yes, this is a good argument, but the problem is: If you could move wherever you wanted the world would be drastically crowded in some places. This would lead to a lot of problems and, if you had everyone move to America, because they don't like their lives, America would become a literal hell hole. To many people and to much to take care of. That is another reason why you can't do that, to many convicts would jump countries continously and no one could stop them. It wouldn't be helpful to have everyone be able to move freely and it would only cause difficulties. Plus the spread of some deseases would get crazy high. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 196/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Well, see the thing is, a surprisingly small number of people want to move to America. America tends to overestimate it's attraction, I think, and this spoken by someone who would like to live there again someday. Morevoer, if America became a hell-hole wouldn't lots of people leave there, thus evening things out? The whole point is that according to free trade and economic orthodoxy, people go where the opportunities are. Yes you'd get a flood of people into America and Australia and such, but at the same time you'd get a substantial backwash of people bringing economic prosperity, education, and such, BACK to other parts of the world, hence the "evening out" idea over a longer term. I also don't think it'd be that huge a problem. No bigger than the problems the EU will have with the new, poorer countries it's integrated. "to many convicts would jump countries continously and no one could stop them. It wouldn't be helpful to have everyone be able to move freely and it would only cause difficulties. Well, part of the whole integration thing would obviously have to be extradition agreements and such. I couldn't see it being a substantially bigger deal than the problems of people going to one state or another, or one country to another in the EU. (edited by Arwon on 10-31-04 01:04 AM) |
|||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 1575/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| I do occasional awareness work for something called the Mequila Solidarity Network. And after working with them and various labour movements and various trade unions in my area, I awoke and realized that free trade isn't truly free until free trade is fair. | |||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 425/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Fair trade and free trade are tradeoffs. |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Immigration, borders, and "free trade" |
| | |
