
A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer - edward
https://www.economist.com/news/world-if/21724907-yes-it-would-be-disruptive-potential-gains-are-so-vast-objectors-could-be-bribed
======
observation
I am unbribed. I suspect this is an example of Troll Science for economists.

1\. The question becomes: if it is economical then why isn't it the case from
the start. Why do nations exist? Why do they have borders?

What of the question posed by a famous economist: why do corporations exist?
Why not a market filled with nothing but traders? The answer isn't obvious but
there is an answer. Perhaps free movement has similar invisible overheads that
are being conveniently ignored.

2\. Ignoring what I've said above for a moment. Let us suppose that free
movement made us richer. Then nations would be competing, offering incentives
to all.

They do not. Only to a tiny percentage of the population with obviously
valuable skills or assets. That implies that there is a very high price before
externalities are sufficiently alleviated. It at least means governments think
that is so for whatever reason.

3\. Within nations we have rich and poor zipcodes. It is true that workers
from poor neighbourhoods travel to richer ones for work, it is basic
time/money arbitrage. Yet few people think of installing poorer workers in
richer neighbourhoods as a means to improve the economy. Why is that?

------
oblib
This reads like a billionaire funded think tank production. The last paragraph
is a truly hilarious attempt to tell "liberals" how to think.

Though well obscured the obvious take away is "You all really should be a lot
poorer because you're worth a lot less than you think and we're working on
convincing you of that."

And that's all they really do "work" on.

------
blacksqr
"the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run
and others, abysmally so."

The article does not discuss the possibility that "migration controls" is a
component of "well-run". If so, then opening borders might be a disaster.

------
blacksqr
Yes, but experience with globalization suggests that the vast majority of that
extra wealth will go to the 0.01 percent, leaving the rest of us to fight over
the scraps.

------
blacksqr
"If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an
uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants
vote"

    
    
      1. Restrict civil rights of immigrants
      2. ??????
      3. Profit!
    

Hint: ?????? = forced labor

~~~
blacksqr
Article should be retitled "A Modest Proposal."

------
googletazer
>A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer

The only question is - for who?

