The Elite Population Transfer

[timo]

I think because they are more of a help to you when they work for your good and not for someone else´s.

[-Demosthenes-]

There are many people in third, and second world countries who have tremendous intellectual, creative, emotional, and genetic potential. I believe that where they are waste their potential...

I think because they are more of a help to you when they work for your good and not for someone else´s.

Ah, so they are wasting their potential on the third and second world countries they are in, when they could be working for us.

[ku]

As mentioned, this sort of thing happens with exchange students. The smart students from developing countries come to Australian or US universities, gain knowledge, and then go back to the developing country with what they learnt. They benefits the country they came from.

 

"Do you think China, India, and many other countries will let their people come here?! Especially when they are poised to become the next superpowers?"

In Australia Indian and Chinese immigrants together make a significant proportion of the country's skilled migrants. Maybe sending immigrants out allows them to make more business connections, which can be helpful if these migrants return. Maybe countries accepting skilled migrants do so because of the business connections they have overseas. For example, with foreign direct investment in China, Americans send over Americans to China to work there because, among many reasons, they also have business connections, meaning that, for example, they will be able to source inputs like steel (assume car plant is made) from different parts of the world at better prices. If Americans simply poured money into Chinese firms (portfolio investments), the Chinese executives may not have these connections and will pay more for the steel.

 

I think the best way to rid poverty in the world is to move slowly towards eradicating national borders and establishing a world government. Every single argument for a national government can be applied to justify a world government.

[-Demosthenes-]

As mentioned, this sort of thing happens with exchange students. The smart students from developing countries come to Australian or US universities, gain knowledge, and then go back to the developing country with what they learnt. They benefits the country they came from.

Okay, then we should work on educating people.

[Aardvark]

I think the best way to rid poverty in the world is to move slowly towards eradicating national borders and establishing a world government. Every single argument for a national government can be applied to justify a world government.

 

That is a silly idea.

 

The nation state is a natural political unit. The world is not.

[ku]

The purpose for government is to restrict freedom for the greater good. For example, firms within a nation-state are not allowed to form a cartel. This logic can be extrapolated to apply to countries or entities that operate across national borders. If there were a world government, we wouldn't have OPEC.

 

It would not be beneficial if, within a nation, barriers to movement of cars, labor, etc were put up. Several giant walls crisscrossing America would not make businesses happy. Such barriers would result in lost trade opportunities. National borders are similar.

 

However, because national borders have been around for a long time (about 200 years now for most countries) there are big differences in good and factor prices, culture, language, etc, so quickly bringing down barriers might create too much shock to the system. Gradual migration flows, globalization, dissemination of Western Culture, and so on may ease the way towards a borderless world.

[Aardvark]

The purpose for government is to restrict freedom for the greater good.

 

That's too much of a sweeping statement. That may be one part of the purpose of government but not its sole purpose.

 

For example, firms within a nation-state are not allowed to form a cartel.

 

Some firms in some countries are.

 

This logic can be extrapolated to apply to countries or entities that operate across national borders. If there were a world government, we wouldn't have OPEC.

 

And you think this would be an unalloyed good thing?

 

It would not be beneficial if, within a nation, barriers to movement of cars, labor, etc were put up. Several giant walls crisscrossing America would not make businesses happy. Such barriers would result in lost trade opportunities. National borders are similar.

 

There are internal barriers to trade inside countries, even the USA. Just look at the restrictions on the banking sector.

 

However, because national borders have been around for a long time (about 200 years now for most countries)

 

200 years? What history books have you been reading?

 

There are trees in my garden older than that.

 

200 years isn't a long time, it's hardly a chapter in a history book. Most countries have a much, much older history than a mere 200 years.

 

there are big differences in good and factor prices, culture, language, etc, so quickly bringing down barriers might create too much shock to the system. Gradual migration flows, globalization, dissemination of Western Culture[/url'], and so on may ease the way towards a borderless world.

 

You really think that Mongolia, Peru, France, Iceland, Papua New Guinea, Afghanistan and the USA are going to come together in one homogenous mush? That humans will abandon the basic political unit? That Americans will dump the stars and strips and never play the star sprangled banner again? That the Japanese will abandon their culture and Emperor? That Saudi Arabia will embrace 'Western Culture'?

 

There is more to human nature than economics, even if abolishing all nations were to be good for economies. (which is a highly unlikely theory as small nations tend to do better than larger nations).

[ku]

There are internal barriers to trade inside countries, even the USA. Just look at the restrictions on the banking sector.

Yes, but not as much. It's harder to move a good across a nation border than it is to move it within national borders. Do understand that I don't advocate full unrestricted capitalism. Some restriction is necessary. Don't you think that, as the behavior of corporations within a nation is regulated to a degree, the behavior of nation-states should also be regulated? Too much freedom for nation-states is analogous to too much freedom for corporations.

 

200 years? What history books have you been reading?

 

There are trees in my garden older than that.

 

200 years isn't a long time, it's hardly a chapter in a history book. Most countries have a much, much older history than a mere 200 years.

Well, history isn't one of my core competencies, by from my reasonably good understanding 19th and 20th century saw the rise of the nation-state. Before this most nation-states were just vague tribes and ethnic groups. There was little political organization to the extent we see today.

 

You really think that Mongolia, Peru, France, Iceland, Papua New Guinea, Afghanistan and the USA are going to come together in one homogenous mush? That humans will abandon the basic political unit? That Americans will dump the stars and strips and never play the star sprangled banner again? That the Japanese will abandon their culture and Emperor? That Saudi Arabia will embrace 'Western Culture'?

Globalization and the establishment of a world government wouldn't necessary destroy any culture. Culture thrives in an environment of commercialization. Walk into the city and you will notice a wide choice of different "cultures," from Japanese restaurants to McDonald's. Japan is highly Westernized, yet within the country there is much Japanese food, Japanese clothes, and so forth. If you have time, watch the video at Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures from the Cato Institute.

 

Within a nation there is wealth redistribution from the most wealthy to the least wealthy, yet on an international level this doesn't happen. Americans and Australians deal with spiralling obesity while children in third-world countries starve. If the same thing happened within a country there would be cries of inequality, yet at an international level it is different. Many people identify themselves according to the nation-state to which they belong, yet each individual is also a member of the human species. That there is emphasis on the nation-state as a source of identity leads to differential treatment of people based on nationality. Everyone has different values on what is important, and I respect that, but I believe that each individual is valuable, and the American principles in the sactity of life and liberty are compatible with these values. So either Western Civilization brings in non-Westerners into their civilization or Western Civilization expands into non-Western territory to make Western Civilization global. To not believe in the sactity of the individual and to instead to focus on the issue at the level of the nation, i.e. to say that nations are natural units, is like saying that a dictatorship has the rights to existence because through the dictatorship a nation-state is formed. But under a dictatorship individual liberties are ignored.

 

Of course there are problems. What if the World Government is corrupted? Then there is no escape unless you leave the planet. To prevent this a thorough system of checks and balances needs to exist.

 

So of course there are pros and cons, but it seems like the pros do outweigh the cons. There is no reason why the whole world can't be developed. Under similar economic conditions there is convergence. If you look beyong the superficial differences among humans that is "culture" and see poverty, torture, etc, you'll notice that there is a greater imperative than the mere preservation of clothes and customs.

[Pangloss]

Well, history isn't one of my core competencies, by from my reasonably good understanding 19th and 20th century saw the rise of the nation-state. Before this most nation-states were just vague tribes and ethnic groups. There was little political organization to the extent we see today.

 

A bit earlier, perhaps. Most historians date the invention of the modern nation-state from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. A good reference on this is Daniel Philpott's "Revolutions in Sovereignty" (Princeton Press, 2001), an interesting book which takes the position that revolutions are the vehicle for the formation of a nation-state.