The rise of Extremism in Economically tough times

kabayiri

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I said - A similar system to the Australia system.

I did not state exactly the same system with exactly the same policies.

And yes, lots of posters do say my posts are a waste of time. I tend to take that with a pinch of salt however, considering many of them are the same posters, either with dual accounts or a long string of PPR'd usernames. I also tend to believe it's one of the easiest way to avoid any reasonable debate on a subject you've been questioned on.

Don't be bullied Graham, online or in real life.


You have 1 opinion; I have 1 opinion; Hamish has 1 opinion. It also translates into 1 vote each.


I know a lot of people uncomfortable with mass migration, whether their fears are founded or not. They also have a vote.


If someone tries to tag you as racist for expressing concerns, that is their problem, not yours.

GeorgeHowell

jamesmorgan wrote: »

Immigration is not the real issue - it is re-distribution of resources. The average world salary per head is around £6000. When we manage to spread that evenly across the planet we can all sleep peacefully.

No, when we can get the average world salary per head up to roughly the same as the developed western nations such as the UK, we can all sleep peacefully. Reducing everything to the lowest common denominator is the folly of socialism. It does not increase human happiness, it just gives a false impression of doing so to people who are preoccupied with slicing the cake instead of finding ways to bake bigger and better cakes.

jamesmorgan

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

No, when we can get the average world salary per head up to roughly the same as the developed western nations such as the UK, we can all sleep peacefully. Reducing everything to the lowest common denominator is the folly of socialism. It does not increase human happiness, it just gives a false impression of doing so to people who are preoccupied with slicing the cake instead of finding ways to bake bigger and better cakes.

Money is just a relative concept not an absolute one. If everyone earns £6000 or everyone earns £60000 the result in the standard of living is exactly the same. Socialism believes that everyone earns the same amount. That is a completely different concept from saying that every country should have the same average salary. Within each country there would be a normal distribution of salaries. That is not socialism but the result of free markets. You only get massive variations in country's salaries when you use protectionist policies to interfere with free markets.

The scenario runs broadly as follows:

a) Rich countries run protectionist policies to restrict trade with poor countries
b) Poor countries are unable to compete, so never manage to improve their standard of living to the same as rich countries
c) In the absence of free trade, people in poor countries become economic migrants and try to move to rich countries
d) Rich countries put up barriers to prevent movement of economic migrants into their countries.

Much of the discussion focuses on the last point. This is just a symptom of the previous points. If the EU is serious about reducing economic migrants it needs to sort out the real problem (ie the reason why so many people are desperate to get into the EU)

GeorgeHowell

jamesmorgan wrote: »

Money is just a relative concept not an absolute one. If everyone earns £6000 or everyone earns £60000 the result in the standard of living is exactly the same. Socialism believes that everyone earns the same amount. That is a completely different concept from saying that every country should have the same average salary. Within each country there would be a normal distribution of salaries. That is not socialism but the result of free markets. You only get massive variations in country's salaries when you use protectionist policies to interfere with free markets.

The scenario runs broadly as follows:

a) Rich countries run protectionist policies to restrict trade with poor countries
b) Poor countries are unable to compete, so never manage to improve their standard of living to the same as rich countries
c) In the absence of free trade, people in poor countries become economic migrants and try to move to rich countries
d) Rich countries put up barriers to prevent movement of economic migrants into their countries.

Much of the discussion focuses on the last point. This is just a symptom of the previous points. If the EU is serious about reducing economic migrants it needs to sort out the real problem (ie the reason why so many people are desperate to get into the EU)

All nonsense I'm afraid. For equal real incomes you have to have equal productivity. That's what it's about, not protectionism.

jamesmorgan

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

All nonsense I'm afraid. For equal real incomes you have to have equal productivity. That's what it's about, not protectionism.

And why do think that we don't have equal productivity? Productivity is just a measure of the effectiveness of globalisation and free trade. Ultimately protectionism is all about trying to protect the current imbalance of productivity. The bottom line is that if you make it very difficult for poor countries to trade with rich ones you remove many of the incentives for productivity improvements (in both rich and poor countries). The net result is the preservation of the status quo.

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

Don't be bullied Graham, online or in real life.


You have 1 opinion; I have 1 opinion; Hamish has 1 opinion. It also translates into 1 vote each.


I know a lot of people uncomfortable with mass migration, whether their fears are founded or not. They also have a vote.


If someone tries to tag you as racist for expressing concerns, that is their problem, not yours.

I agree with this but presumably if you hold racist views, e.g. not wanting to be around foreigners, then it's reasonable to be called a racist.

GeorgeHowell

jamesmorgan wrote: »

And why do think that we don't have equal productivity? Productivity is just a measure of the effectiveness of globalisation and free trade. Ultimately protectionism is all about trying to protect the current imbalance of productivity. The bottom line is that if you make it very difficult for poor countries to trade with rich ones you remove many of the incentives for productivity improvements (in both rich and poor countries). The net result is the preservation of the status quo.

You don't know much do you. Productivity depends on many things including :- level of industrialisation, investment and infrastructure, skills and capabilities of the workforce at all levels, research and devlopment capability, cultural issues such as work ethic and acceptance of change, governmental and legal system suitability to support a modern industrialised society.

jamesmorgan

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

You don't know much do you. Productivity depends on many things including :- level of industrialisation, investment and infrastructure, skills and capabilities of the workforce at all levels, research and devlopment capability, cultural issues such as work ethic and acceptance of change, governmental and legal system suitability to support a modern industrialised society.

You really don't get it, do you? Just ask yourself why these things are different across different countries. These aren't intrinsic differences, but the result of centuries of abuse and interference by the west.

Gangaweed

jamesmorgan wrote: »

You really don't get it, do you? Just ask yourself why these things are different across different countries. These aren't intrinsic differences, but the result of centuries of abuse and interference by the west.

This is just not true. Most of Africa's problems for example are man made. With good governance, they would be easily wealthy.

GeorgeHowell

jamesmorgan wrote: »

You really don't get it, do you? Just ask yourself why these things are different across different countries. These aren't intrinsic differences, but the result of centuries of abuse and interference by the west.

Impossible to hold a sensible discussion with someone who has a totally incorrect and off-beam fixed notion based on obsessional political prejudice and who is impervious to all evidence and reason. Think what you want to think, I couldn't care less, life's too short.