David Goodhart (guest columnist) declared immigration a threat.
His column was part of a debate, not an official declaration by the Economist.
The Economist's declaration on immigration: There shall be open borders!
The French/Economist position on immigration:
The opposition's rebuttal remarksAug 12th 2011 |
Philippe Legrain
If immigration increases, European societies will indeed become more diverse. Great. What is wrong with Britain becoming more like London or the Netherlands more like Amsterdam? As throughout history, outside influences will broaden our horizons, enrich our cultures and make our societies more vibrant.
Where is the evidence that Europe's "unique combination of individual liberty and social solidarity" is fraying? Social freedoms are far greater than before. As for Mr Goodhart's chosen metric of social solidarity, taxes and benefits: are taxes falling? Is the welfare state shrinking? Do parties that favour lower taxes and a smaller state do so on the basis of immigration? No, no and no. Immigrants now form a bigger share of Sweden's population than of America's, yet Sweden's welfare state has hardly shrivelled to American levels. If necessary, welfare rules can be tightened and some benefits tied more closely to contributions.
Mr Goodhart questions the economic benefits of immigration. Yet static analyses ignore dynamic gains that compound over time: boosting productivity growth from 2% a year to 2.5% raises living standards by a tenth after 20 years and by more than a quarter after 50. Simplistic economic models assume that productivity growth falls like manna from heaven, or follows mechanically from spending on education and R&D. But in the real world, it is generated by innovators and entrepreneurs, spurred on by competition and facilitated by flexible markets—typically in cities where different people spark off each other. Google, Yahoo!, Intel, PayPal, eBay, Tesco, Marks & Spencer, easyJet and many other successful companies were started by immigrants and their children. As this week's Economist notes: "Many British-based tech entrepreneurs come from abroad … London's appeal is as much social as commercial. 'Entrepreneurs like the buzz and being in the thick of it.'" Do you think London would be half as prosperous and dynamic without a constant influx of people from around the world?
Mr Goodhart asserts that immigration depresses low-skilled wages, yet countless studies find otherwise. He frets that one-third of professional jobs in London are taken by foreign-born people. Yet many of those jobs would not otherwise exist, and those migrants in turn create jobs for others. And immigrants do not add to urban congestion or pressure on housing if investment is forthcoming.
Return to Charles Dicken's Britain Reacting to the stricken economy, the Cameron government wants to turn back the clock on European-style social capitalism. Steve Hilton, Mr Cameron's strategy director, has mooted the abolition of maternity leave and all consumer rights legislation, which would put Britain at odds with EU norms. He also has suggested that the UK should ignore EU labour rules on the length of the working week and temporary workers. Poor houses for Britain, here we come.
They are not really debating the issue. It is a set-up. Anyway, even if there were net economic benefits of immigration (and actually there are not) there are other things in life other than money. Like survival.
And, there is a vast difference between highly selective immigration (entrepreneurs and professionals)and mass-immigration.
If these immigrants are all so wonderful, surely it is immoral to extract them from their home countries, which are badly in need of their skills?
If these immigrants are all so wonderful, surely it is immoral to extract them from their home countries, which are badly in need of their skills?
Yes, Nigerian Ph.D.s are forced to drive taxis in New York, isn't it humiliating and destroying their self-esteem? To protect their human rights, and for their own good, they should be repatriated rapidly.
As we all know Immigration has been engineered by the Zionist, if anything Israel may need to be nullified so that everything can go back to how it was Africans to Africa, Arabs to Palestine Asian to Asia
LOL Zionist also cause parking tickets and premature ejaculation I bet anon. Tottenham is more about importation of aggressive anti-authority counter culture from America, majority of rioters where white. The older you are the less you probably like anti-establishment cultures
If you are under 30 you will inevitably have to compete in a global labor market one way or another
Numerically significant non-white immigration to Britain began during the later days of the British Empire, before Israel achieved independence. The elites among the late 19th century Indians and Afro-Caribbeans looked to London for cultural leadership and some were eager to move there in hopes of advancement.
You can tell old school afro-carribs by their accents and that most wear suits and ties younger teens this days seem to take lead from American culture
You can tell old school afro-carribs by their accents and that most wear suits and ties younger teens this days seem to take lead from American culture
Russian immigration in Israel started in the seventies and ended in the nineties. One million immigrants gave a big push to Israel's economy, but it did not change its profile. The Russians arrived hating everything socialist and they did change Israel's political scene. Their terrible experience in the Soviet Union disinflated the Israeli left and put an end to the kibbutzim and the Labor party.
18 comments:
I hope it is not too little, too late.
Or a smokescreen created by the Market-Leninists who control the MSM.
Anon.
The Economist declares
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/731
No.
David Goodhart (guest columnist) declared immigration a threat.
His column was part of a debate, not an official declaration by the Economist.
The Economist's declaration on immigration: There shall be open borders!
The French/Economist position on immigration:
The opposition's rebuttal remarksAug 12th 2011 |
Philippe Legrain
If immigration increases, European societies will indeed become more diverse. Great. What is wrong with Britain becoming more like London or the Netherlands more like Amsterdam? As throughout history, outside influences will broaden our horizons, enrich our cultures and make our societies more vibrant.
Where is the evidence that Europe's "unique combination of individual liberty and social solidarity" is fraying? Social freedoms are far greater than before. As for Mr Goodhart's chosen metric of social solidarity, taxes and benefits: are taxes falling? Is the welfare state shrinking? Do parties that favour lower taxes and a smaller state do so on the basis of immigration? No, no and no. Immigrants now form a bigger share of Sweden's population than of America's, yet Sweden's welfare state has hardly shrivelled to American levels. If necessary, welfare rules can be tightened and some benefits tied more closely to contributions.
Mr Goodhart questions the economic benefits of immigration. Yet static analyses ignore dynamic gains that compound over time: boosting productivity growth from 2% a year to 2.5% raises living standards by a tenth after 20 years and by more than a quarter after 50. Simplistic economic models assume that productivity growth falls like manna from heaven, or follows mechanically from spending on education and R&D. But in the real world, it is generated by innovators and entrepreneurs, spurred on by competition and facilitated by flexible markets—typically in cities where different people spark off each other. Google, Yahoo!, Intel, PayPal, eBay, Tesco, Marks & Spencer, easyJet and many other successful companies were started by immigrants and their children. As this week's Economist notes: "Many British-based tech entrepreneurs come from abroad … London's appeal is as much social as commercial. 'Entrepreneurs like the buzz and being in the thick of it.'" Do you think London would be half as prosperous and dynamic without a constant influx of people from around the world?
Mr Goodhart asserts that immigration depresses low-skilled wages, yet countless studies find otherwise. He frets that one-third of professional jobs in London are taken by foreign-born people. Yet many of those jobs would not otherwise exist, and those migrants in turn create jobs for others. And immigrants do not add to urban congestion or pressure on housing if investment is forthcoming.
UK Guardian: "Charles Dickens'" Britain and the David Cameron Tories are too right-wing.
From leading Europe into the disaster of the Iraq war to killing off financial reform, the UK has been more destructive than Greece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/13/eu-kick-britain-out
Return to Charles Dicken's Britain
Reacting to the stricken economy, the Cameron government wants to turn back the clock on European-style social capitalism. Steve Hilton, Mr Cameron's strategy director, has mooted the abolition of maternity leave and all consumer rights legislation, which would put Britain at odds with EU norms. He also has suggested that the UK should ignore EU labour rules on the length of the working week and temporary workers. Poor houses for Britain, here we come.
At least they are debating the issue. It is not a tabu anymore.
At least they are debating the issue. It is not a tabu anymore.
They are not really debating the issue. It is a set-up. Anyway, even if there were net economic benefits of immigration (and actually there are not) there are other things in life other than money. Like survival.
And, there is a vast difference between highly selective immigration (entrepreneurs and professionals)and mass-immigration.
If these immigrants are all so wonderful, surely it is immoral to extract them from their home countries, which are badly in need of their skills?
The Left is full of BS.
Anon.
If these immigrants are all so wonderful, surely it is immoral to extract them from their home countries, which are badly in need of their skills?
Yes, Nigerian Ph.D.s are forced to drive taxis in New York, isn't it humiliating and destroying their self-esteem? To protect their human rights, and for their own good, they should be repatriated rapidly.
As we all know Immigration has been engineered by the Zionist, if anything Israel may need to be nullified so that everything can go back to how it was Africans to Africa, Arabs to Palestine Asian to Asia
LOL Zionist also cause parking tickets and premature ejaculation I bet anon. Tottenham is more about importation of aggressive anti-authority counter culture from America, majority of rioters where white. The older you are the less you probably like anti-establishment cultures
If you are under 30 you will inevitably have to compete in a global labor market one way or another
As we all know Immigration has been engineered by the Zionist,
How did the Jews engineer Europe's immigration policy?
LOL Zionist also cause parking tickets and premature ejaculation I bet anon.
His pedophile hero, Kevin MacDonald, is a premature ejaculation.
Numerically significant non-white immigration to Britain began during the later days of the British Empire, before Israel achieved independence. The elites among the late 19th century Indians and Afro-Caribbeans looked to London for cultural leadership and some were eager to move there in hopes of advancement.
You can tell old school afro-carribs by their accents and that most wear suits and ties younger teens this days seem to take lead from American culture
You can tell old school afro-carribs by their accents and that most wear suits and ties younger teens this days seem to take lead from American culture
Just regressing to the African mean.
Have fun with those black boys, UK.
Israel has had a lot of immigration from Jews from the former Soviet Union.
Do you think that these people are one of the driving factors of the current economic boom in Israel?
--Maciano
You need a Shrink anon
You need a Shrink anon
Which anon?
Maciano,
Russian immigration in Israel started in the seventies and ended in the nineties. One million immigrants gave a big push to Israel's economy, but it did not change its profile. The Russians arrived hating everything socialist and they did change Israel's political scene. Their terrible experience in the Soviet Union disinflated the Israeli left and put an end to the kibbutzim and the Labor party.
interesting. i haven't read through all the articles there (yet), so i can't tell if it's a real debate or not. would be nice if it were.
thnx for linking to it!
Post a Comment