Globalism: A Failed Experiment (No 1) by Ken Grundy

James Reed has described globalism as a “failed experiment,” and I could not concur more. I intend to devote a number of articles to this topic in due course. But to get the ball rolling, I draw the reader’s attention to an article which lets the cat out of the bag, and throws away the bag.

Alex Tabarrok, “The Case for Getting Rid of Borders – Completely,” The Atlantic, Ontober10, 2015, is an article well worth reading just to see how the globalist mind ticks over.

Tabarrok says that the benefits of the poor from the third world by immigrating to the West are obvious. Closed borders prevent the wealth of the West from being shared, and he thinks that morality requires it. As well, the economists, no references given, think that open borders immigration would double world GDP. Third world immigrants “possess skills different from those of their hosts, and these differences enable workers in both groups to better exploit their special talents and leverage their comparative advantages. The effect is to improve the welfare of newcomers and natives alike. The immigrant who mows the lawn of the nuclear physicist indirectly helps to unlock the secrets of the universe.”

This is nonsense, completely inconsistent with a wide range of economic data indicating that if a migration of the bulk of poor humanity did occur to the West, these people would be under-skilled, unemployed, and certainly would not have skills that locals do not have. It may keep the nuclear physicist alive a bit longer if he mowed his own lawn.

There is a very good general reply to this sort of globalist propaganda, Christie Davies, “London Letter: Immigration is theft,” Quadrant, August 10, 2016.

Here are some counter-balancing comments on the costs of the quasi-open borders immigration policy of Tony Blair:

“The result of this mass immigration has been a marked but deliberately concealed fall in the standard of living of the indigenous population and a large rise in inequality. The lying politicians, notably Tony Blair, have boasted about the rise in total national income due to the extra labour the migrants have provided, but most of this increase has gone in wages and welfare payments and services to the migrants themselves. Very little of it has ended up in the pockets of the indigenous population and that little has been completely offset by a rapid and substantial rise in house prices, as more people are crammed into a fixed space. Rents and mortgage payments have rocketed and these are of course a very large part of the expenditure of British citizens and particularly the poorer ones. Not only can the building industry not provide new dwellings fast enough, but as it tries to do so it gobbles up our unspoilt countryside. Britain is being concreted over and is ceasing to be a green and pleasant land. Travel has become impossible, with clogged roads and crowded trains. Our land has been stolen from us. Immigration is theft.”

“The Left-liberal proponents of an open-door policy, the ones who have imposed this hell on an unwilling people, are the same ideologues who whine about rising inequality. Yet immigration is a key cause of rising inequality. If there is an influx of relatively unskilled migrants, it is those among the indigenous population without skills or capital who are bound to lose out.”

The Left, Davies concludes, see migration as a way of shattering national identity, for their socialist agenda. The big business Right, sees migrants as useful tools to keep an abundant supply of cheap labour. Ironically the Left should have opposed this form of economic exploitation and championed people staying in their own countries and developing them. Instead, it joins with the globalist in attempting to bring down Western civilization.