Marx' ideas on the inherent economic instability of capitalism (the most well known implication today being the "boom and bust" cycle) is pretty much the driving force of Keynesian economics.

So it is not wrong to call him a predecessor of Keynes. Keynesian economics is also typically employed in countries that have adopted non-communist socialism (like for example the welfare capitalism of Scandinavian countries).

Matthew 7:22-23
Matthew 19:24

What does true global open borders mean to you? How would it look?

What does freedom of movement without consequences mean to you? By that phrase I meant, that currently, forced governmental immigration( in the west at least) has no consequences for the person moving, but potentially a number of consequences for the community they move into. I think that open borders, without governmental interference or control, would be a great thing, but Im not sure thats the same thing you are thinking of.

Im not sure what this means?

What I mean by open borders is a situation roughly like the one that exists between the states in the US. That is, where the government doesn't cap or restrict the labor supply across national or state boundaries.

You asked what were the benefits of open borders. I said that stronger economic growth is one of them. If you think the EU isn't actually an open borders system, fine, but then let's not collapse the argument against the current EU migration policy into a discussion about open borders.

I don't know what you are talking about with re to "forced governmental immigration." Are you talking about the EU refugee resettlement issue?

Sure, I think you can make a decent argument that Marx has had the most negative impact on the world of any economist in history.

I've been to Poughkeepsie a few times, it seems like a nice little college town. I don't know much about its economy, but I do know that further upstate New York has struggled because of a loss of manufacturing jobs over the last few decades. As a result, there has been a redistribution of income from New York City to the rest of the state through government spending. Since much of NYC's high income comes from global trade, I would imagine that it would be beneficiary of an open borders regime, which means that they can continue to pay high taxes to help support people who live in Poughkeepsie. So I'm not sure what exact impact it would have on their economic prospects, but it might be positive. Returns on education are still high, so it is probably good for the college students and employees in Poughkeepsie. As for more general effects on their soul, you'll have to be more specific.

However, I do think starving to death or living on less than $2 a day is really bad for the soul. The increase in GDP over the last few centuries has led to one of the great triumphs of human history:



So we shouldn't just be looking at the effects of such a policy on the souls of just those in Poughkeepsie, but also for those in Somalia, India, and other, poorer, parts of the world.

People who live in an area, should not be forced to accept people into their area if they dont want them, and shouldnt be forced to pay for the people who are forcibly moved into their area.

Really? You think your neighbors should have the right to veto who you sell your house to if they don't like them? I certainly oppose that idea. It's your house, if you want to sell it to some Muslims or Jews or whomever, you should be able to.

Why not? You think the government should prevent people who voluntarily move to a new area but are disliked by the locals from using any public services? Barred from using parks and roads? Children can't use the public schools? Shouldn't the goal be to create an environment where newcomers feel welcome and succeed?

C'mon, effectively place the people of Poughkeepsie on the dole in order to abstractly feed the people of India and "Somalia ? This smacks of elitism but so long as the elite can eat in THE proper manner the rest can eat cake. LOL

The idea that these business gurus are interested in the welfare of the people of Somalia or India is a joke and I'm surprised that you can make these statements with a straight face.

The corporate structure and capital is the problem but not in the Marxist sense. A statement which has been used by Marxists and related to Marx but said by others before him is a primary beginning. I'll state it frm memory but it stands tall against your GDP or TVA or Yankee doodle dandy, or whatever.

"The buying and selling of human labor as commodity is a primary economic and social evil".

Well, I am an elitist, so I don't mind sounding like one. Three points:

1) There is nothing abstract about the hundreds of millions of people that used to live in horrible poverty that now don't - in part due to trade and immigration. Those are real people who will die or live much worse lives if we slow down immigration.

2) Why are you assuming that open borders puts people on the dole? In fact, immigration generally leads to more jobs as it leads to more economic growth.

3) The implicit assumption here, that public policy should never harm any group of people, is a fantasy. There is no making economic policy without some people benefiting more and some less. The point is to try to do so in a way that is consistent with a greater aggregate benefit, and to distribute this benefit as fairly as possible.

Bill Gates is the richest man in the US. He probably counts as a business guru. He has created the largest charitable foundation in the world, donated $28B of his own money and pledged to donate 95% of his wealth to charity. The Gates Foundation has spent billions of dollars combating malaria in Africa. It spent $50 million dollars on combating Ebola in Africa. In the last five years it's spent $265 million on water and sanitation, much of that in India.

Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the US. Also a business guru, he has pledged to give away 99% of his wealth to charity - including primarily to the Gates Foundation.

Seems to me pretty reasonable to say that they care about the welfare of the people of Somalia or India.

Anyway, I care about those people. My opinion here doesn't depend on the views of business leaders or whether or not they are all greedy scumbags. The great value of capitalism is that it is a system that doesn't depend on people not being greedy for it to work. A businesswoman who just wants to make a lot of money can built a great company that provides jobs and goods that people want while herself becoming wealthy.

I think the buying and selling of human labor as a commodity is one of the greatest inventions in history, leading to immense good for humanity. It is one of the foundations of the industrial revolution that has led to longer lives, higher living standards, and more freedom.

Also, if you don't know what GDP is, then you should find out.

People can rain the parade down on Marx all they want, when societies get skewed - whether it is by money, influence or privilege - they tend to become unstable.

Quite a lot of modern democracies were born by forcefully removing the heads of the governments that preceded them, which was a rather hefty encouragement for the peaceful passing of power in countries where similar movements were spurred. Bizarrely, we think we're protected from this process by borders - which I guess shows how narcissistically unable to see longer than our own nose we have become.

Anyone who thinks you can simply clam up borders to escape turmoil of other countries is in for a nasty surprise. That turmoil and despair, if left unchecked, will give root to political movements we're all going to pay a very big price for. Democracy is already losing, and the influence we had is slowly waning away. And really, why should anyone listen. We had the second world war, created a heap of international treaties to aid people having to flee such disasters, because we had learned our lesson about the atrocities inflicted upon us by such disasters - and when the **** hits the fan we close the doors, put our hands over our ears and scream "well, you guys deserved it!".

Yes, you decide who you sell your house to. Not the government. So you can freely decide to sell it to muslims or jews. Or you can freely decide not to.You can freely decide where you want to live, with whom.
And yes, in some cases, it would be possible for the neighbours to have a say in who you sell the house to. I dont think it necessarily SHOULD be that way, or always be that way, but thats one way to do things.

I dont think the government should prevent people from anything. I dont think the government should force people to pay for things either, or force them to provide services to people they dont want to.

By that logic you are also, by implication, opposed to borders. Borders is one of the most basic ways a government affirms its right to regulate individuals. And no, it is not the same as property or even communal property, rather is the ultimate definition of the (physical) extent of the state as a judicial person.

You sound like a libertarian, and last time I checked one of the very basic conclusions of libertarian ideals is freedom of movement.

Yes, I am totally for open borders, government by definition isn't open borders. Forcing people to live with people they don't want to isn't open borders

I plan to speak to you without references but believe that sobering thoughts about the industrial revolution should be considered. when you make the above statement my first thought was Charles Dickens and John Steinbeck in this country (Grapes of Wrath).

Dickens:

http://westerncivguides.umwblogs.org...al-revolution/

Industrial Revolution : http://webs.bcp.org/sites/vcleary/Mo...roduction.html

Of course we've all morphed from these times socially, economically and politically but perusal of the contents of the references will uncategorically state the difficulties persist.

I would like to speak to you of our particular economic system and from there perhaps saunter into the mobile borders, free trade, and globalization.

I do advocate "free trade" but as in all matters the proof is in the pudding and perhaps we might relate to the "pudding" in the future.

My deference in this matter is related to the fact that this is Religion, God and Theology which makes it a perfect place to have a reasonable discussion of these matters for in the existent world these factors must be considered for they are alive but perhaps indistinguishable.

Yada, yada, I plan to return after I gain the proper thoughts , at least from my perspective.

I think in the libertarian world who lives next door is usually none of your business (pun intended)?

Okay? So you support open borders then?

Good, so we are in agreement about open borders then.

This is incorrect. A stateless world would not be a world of open borders, because there wouldn't be any borders. "Open borders" refers to states that have borders, but don't regulate which or how many people cross that border. No modern state has fully open borders. Instead, the most you see are states that have open border agreements with other states, such as in the EU member countries.

However, you keep suggesting the issue is that the government is forcing people to live with other people. That is a false description of an open border policy generally, or of the current EU policy specifically. Leaving aside the refugee issue for now, the government is not forcing any EU member to live with anyone else. Rather, the government is not preventing some EU members who want to live near people who don't want them from doing so.

Sure, there has been a lot of true and vital art and social science that has focused on the human cost and often tragedy of industrial and post-industrial life. It's just that when I look at the alternatives, this seems like a clear improvement, with people living longer and healthier lives with more freedom and opportunity to develop their own potential.

Im not sure we are, since you seem to want the government to regulate who can and cant come in to a country, and force its citizens to pay for the people that it allows to come in. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position though

Yes, I am for no borders at all. I agree that its not clear from saying "open borders" that thats what I meant.

It's just a fact that governments do regulate immigration. In general, I think the government should regulate it much less - that is, I generally think that we should let in or out whoever wants to come to the US as long as they can pass a security screening. Sounds like I disagree with you about taxation, but that we are in agreement that removing restrictions on immigration is generally a good thing.

removing restrictions on immigration, and also removing forced acceptance of immigration.

It's important to remember that the ideal of the sovereign state (treaty of Westphalia) was primarily one of peace. Not necessarily peace as the mushy ideal we often know of it as today, but peace as in the end of ruinous wars of attrition and to stop the devastation of an entire continent. War and conflict become affairs with rulebooks, so to speak.

So there is good historical grounds to say that borders and the recognition of borders is generally a good idea.

I don't know what you are referring to, can you please explain yourself?

I'm not sure this is relevant to their debate. Original Position hasn't advocated here the end to borders or sovereign states. "Open borders", in this context, means something more like that people, goods, and capital freely or at least far more freely flow, and that doing so would, it is posited, increase economic prosperity both for the greatest number of people. That isn't incompatible with a sovereign state with it's own military, government, police, borders, laws, taxes, social programs, and so forth. There are some that advocate additionally for the end of a sovereign state paradigm additionally, but I don't think Original Position has yet revealed himself to believe this.

people dont get to say no to immigration in their area. And they dont get to say no to paying for the people who immigrate into their area/country.
I guess the second one is part of the taxation question, and therefore maybe not relevant. And the first one is the problem with democracy, and therefore also maybe not relevant.

It seems like immigration is a government program ( in places like germany or sweden, at least) and that a large part, maybe even a majority , of the population doesnt like it or thinks its a bad idea