tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post7525987345435772208..comments2024-03-28T16:48:18.088+11:00Comments on loon pond: In which the pond goes Friday feral thanks to the Currish Snail and a case of the WSJ yips ...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post-64462728331642410072017-01-14T14:32:32.208+11:002017-01-14T14:32:32.208+11:00Almost, FD, but not quite, so you had at least one...Almost, FD, but not quite, so you had at least one reader. After all, I did enjoy your take on some "ancient" Greek Mills and Boon fiction too.<br /><br />So, one doesn't really need to go as far back as the original hominid diaspora to note that people had "free movement" for quite a while. I can think, for instance, of the massive Goth/Vandal "migration" into Europe and the near east not so very long ago (about 1900 or so years I think) and of the magnificent 'empire' that resulted therefrom (Santa Sophia, anyone ?).<br /><br />Or even more recently, say, the great "migration" into Australia during the Victorian gold rush - back when the boomtown of Melbourne expanded to nearly 540,000 occupants and held nearly half of Australia's total population. And a lot of them were Americans, so one might have expected our WSJ reptile to have heard of that.<br /><br />But then, as an American based journalist, one might also have expected that he'd have heard of Ellis Island and the 12 million or so "immigrants" who passed through there from 1892 t0 1954 (plus about another 13 million or so "visitors" over the same period). Yes, there were some controls implemented on Ellis Island but the great majority of immigrants got through to become, progressively, the next set of American "industrial fodder".<br /><br />And even more recently, what about the 2 1/2 million (or so) Turkish 'guest workers' who came into Germany from the 1960s onwards. Apparently there's still "almost 3 million people having at least one parent immigrated from Turkey" according to the 2011 German census.<br /><br />So yair, I reckon our WSJ reptile doesn't know the smell of his own farts when it comes to history.<br /><br />But the thing is, how did he get this way ? Did he miss out on a decent education ? Maybe we should sic Donnelly onto his school(s) to see if he can improve things.<br /><br />Or is this just some catechism entry that right wingnuts have to learn and spruik ? Because the whole thing about 'people movement' is just recent, isn't it - if you believe Trump and the Tea Party, anyway.GrueBleennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post-87927309725417959592017-01-14T01:15:38.425+11:002017-01-14T01:15:38.425+11:00I found the WSJ article particularly irritating be...I found the WSJ article particularly irritating because much of the fundamental premise went to custard in the first grab (para 4). It conflates globalisation of trade and commerce with the global movement of people and repeatedly uses that error to support positions which must, perforce, be bogus. It is entirely possible to be pro-globalisation and anti-immigration, or vice versa, or pro-both or anti-both (all four exist right now).<br /><br />The article talks about the first era of their neologism "globalism" ending in 1914. But that notion is based on the false implication that free trade and free-everything-else ruled. That is not remotely correct - there was a mix of free trade and protectionism, varying in both time and place. One of the root causes of the American Civil War was this very issue - the North wanted to protect their domestic industry from European competition, the South was free-trade because they wanted to export into Europe unhindered. In the mid-19th century, Prussia sought to create a customs union that would ensure free-trade between the many states that would become Germany, to the exclusion of other economies. Joseph Chamberlain (Colonial Secretary and father of Neville) floated the idea of an "Imperial Preference", which would bind the British Empire together with economic ties to match the societal, political and military ties that already existed, again, to the exclusion of all others (at least, where their goods were in competition with a producer within the Empire). There was simply no such thing as a globalised trading economy in the 19th century. Currency movement was far more regulated than now. But interestingly, the movement of people was barely restricted at all (except by poverty or slavery) until the latter part of the 19th century, when governments made their first baby steps at regulating (and taxing) the movement of people - originally, these were aimed at limiting exploitative labour practises not much different to slavery, but by the 1900's more countries wanted to keep out the horde of Russian Jews, who were fleeing persecution, but you know, they look different and worship differently, and smell funny and don't assimilate and they're probably involved in terrorism... <br /><br />The First World War fundamentally changed that, and we saw the rise of economically and demographically nationalistic governments, but a countervailing increasing in the free flow of capital (which is why Wall Street laying an egg in 1929 was disastrous for many countries, more so than the US itself). That said, some countries, such as France remained open to immigrants, at least from their colonial empire to metropolitan France.<br /><br />The post war regime has seen an increase in free trade and a decline of currency controls, but a draconian restriction on the movement of people. Both of these trends have sharply accelerated in the last 25 years.<br /><br />The consequences are obvious - 100-some years ago, people were free, if they could afford it, to move to where relatively highly paid work was available (at least, vastly more lucrative than growing manglewurzels on the Pontic Steppe). The jobs stayed pretty much where they were created, fed by immigration from areas that had not yet boarded the industrialisation train (which limited wage increases by ensuring supply kept up with demand).<br /><br />Now, labour movement is massively regulated, but commerce is a free-for-all, and the obvious move for the eager young plutocrat is to reverse the earlier paradigm and move the demand to where there is an abundant (and therefore cheap) supply.<br /><br />150 years ago "nativist" Americans would beat up immigrants because they had come to America and competed for their jobs for less pay. They can't do that anymore, because instead of the labour going to the work, the work has gone to the labour. The guy they want to punch is a half a world away...<br /><br />probably tl;dr, but so was the WSJ.FrankDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post-54134530173990614772017-01-13T18:48:30.309+11:002017-01-13T18:48:30.309+11:00God Miss; hard yards for a Friday.
Still you'...God Miss; hard yards for a Friday. <br /><br />Still you've gotta give us what them reptiles cough up I suppose.<br /><br />AnonpossumAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com