Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

[Andreyich]

what do I care what happens to the country they came from?

The tl;dr of America

Or maybe their country of origin created the brain drain by failing to implement effective policies that would motivate their citizens to stay there.

Right because that is the only thing that motivates people to leave. I guess the whole continent of Africa should just leave home.

Andre is right but he isn't thinking big enough! Forget brain drains across borders, people should be embargoed from leaving their home towns. I mean it just creates a brain drain! No one should move ever, or at least not without their Lords permission.

Tell you what, how about free immigration but then no country has to pay for any foreign aid? Sound fair?

[Kratesis]

what do I care what happens to the country they came from? I'M AN AMERICAN!But I don't expect my government to be altruistic. I want America to do what is best for America. If that means brain-draining Cambodia, you know, I'll bring the chopsticks.

Insofar as immigration benefits my country, I am totally in favor of immigration.

@mdk

I'm with you here. To the victor the spoils and devil take the hindmost. However I am not convinced that immigration, even immigration of skilled labor, actually benefits the american worker. It might benefit the corporate bottom line or move some stats in a government bureau around in a way that could be construed as beneficial but that isn't the same as helping the working american.

[Penny]

Tell you what, how about free immigration but then no country has to pay for any foreign aid? Sound fair?

@Andreyich

But Andre! Wont that cause a brain drain?! Where is your concern of a moment ago for the intellectual capital of other nations?!

[Andreyich]

<Snipped quote by Andreyich>

But Andre! Wont that cause a brain drain?! Where is your concern of a moment ago for the intellectual capital of other nations?!

@Penny

I find it hypocritical that people insist on funding foreign aid when they are themselves responsible for those places needing it, I was hoping you'd notice this flaw in your thought. It appears I set my bar too high.

[Penny]

That's the real problem in Syria, to many of their intelligentsia have been lured away. Sad really.

[Kratesis]

That's the real problem in Syria, to many of their intelligentsia have been lured away. Sad really.

@Penny

I don't know how much you know about the middle east but the flight of the intelligentsia actually is a problem.

[Penny]

If I lived in a land where people regularly chanted Christians to Beruit and Alawites to the grave yard, it probably encourage me to flee too. Intellectual flight is a symptom rather than a cause. Being at the junction of Sunni/Shia spheres of influence and this weird Turkish Irredentism as well as proximity to a failed state with a massive influx of weaponry probably has more to do with it than a lack of people with masters degrees.

[POOHEAD189]

You know my best friend and roommate (who majored in finance and now works for the state bank department) came home today from work and told me he actually checked out the federal budget, and while I already know some of what he said, he did criticize Trump (whom he neither likes nor dislikes) over saying he'll cut foreign aid spending, when that accounts for less than 1% of the U.S. spending.

Also something I knew (but not to this extent) was that our 7 trillion dollar deficit per year would almost be met if we halted military spending. Not to say we should halt it entirely, but even though we spend more on defense than any country (and more than many countries combined) we'd still be 20 trillion in debt, and the american work force would need to work for free 3/4ths out of the year to even get close to helping pay the debt the U.S. is in. Cutting military spending entirely would barely get us on track.

[POOHEAD189]

If I lived in a land where people regularly chanted Christians to Beruit and Alawites to the grave yard, it probably encourage me to flee too. Intellectual flight is a symptom rather than a cause. Being at the junction of Sunni/Shia spheres of influence and this weird Turkish Irredentism as well as proximity to a failed state with a massive influx of weaponry probably has more to do with it than a lack of people with masters degrees.

@Penny

So much this^^

Context is key when it comes to geopolitics. Or most anything, for that matter.

[Penny]

I don't know how much you know about the middle east but the flight of the intelligentsia actually is a problem.

@Kratesis

I don't mean to come off as dismissive. The I'm not a middle east expert but it is something I'm interested in. I'd like to hear more about it.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[POOHEAD189]

@catchamber@Andreyich I'd say if policies could be implemented to help incentivize people staying, it would definitely put a cork on the flood of immigrants so to say, even if it wouldn't halt it entirely. People aren't too complicated when it comes to where they want to live. Most of the time, it's as long as it's comfortable.

[Kratesis]

@Penny No worries. The TL;DR is the flight of the intelligentsia begin in earnest after the six day war dealt the fatal blow to Arab nationalism and the conceptual vacuum begin to be filled by fundamentalist interpretations of Islam. There was a wave of assassinations of cultural voices by Islamist assassins that really got rolling during Anwar Sadat's day. A generation of intelligentsia fled west but that was not enough; Germany and Spain were host a number of assassinations after Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the last Shah. The Kurds in particular suffered. At this point there really isn't much of an intelligentsia left in the middle east but their grandchildren can be found scattered across Europe and America.

[Kratesis]

I'd say if policies could be implemented to help incentivize people staying, it would definitely put a cork on the flood of immigrants

@POOHEAD189

"If the problem could be solved it would be solved."

[POOHEAD189]

I think you're misreading or misunderstanding. First there was no actual evidence that the problem was a lack of policies. Which is why there was a discussion over it.

Catchamber: Making better policies would help.
Andreyich: I doubt that.
Me: I think they would help, though not solve all of it.

I don't see where you lost us. No one said "I think solving problems solve problems"

[Penny]

It is a big decision to pack up and leave your home forever, which is why most people dont attempt it.

While there are academic theories for the brain drain issue, they are far from simple and you can find points to support both arguments.

Rethinking the Brain Drain -Oded Stark, World Development Volume 32, Issue 1, January 2004

When productivity is fostered by both the individual’s human capital and by the average level of human capital in the economy, individuals under invest in human capital. A strictly positive probability of migration to a richer country, by raising both the level of human capital formed by optimizing individuals in the home country and the average level of human capital of nonmigrants in the country, can enhance welfare and nudge the economy toward the social optimum. Under a well-controlled restrictive migration policy, the welfare of all workers is higher than in the absence of this policy.

Also when you look at brain drain alone you are ignoring the positive effects of diaspora's, remittances, investment, trade ect.

Migration's New Payoff- Devesh Kapur and John McHale Foreign Policy No. 139 (Nov. - Dec., 2003)

Every day, migrant working in rich countries send money to their families in the developing world. It’s just a few hundred dollars here, a few hundred dollars there. But last year, these remittances added up to $80 billion, outstripping foreign aid and ranking as one of the biggest sources of foreign exchange for poor countries. Following a boom in the 1990’s, this flow of money is lifting entire countries out of poverty, creating new financial channels, and reshaping international politics.

It is a complex issue, which doesn't play well in our fake news world.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[mdk]

<Snipped quote by mdk>

I'm with you here. To the victor the spoils and devil take the hindmost. However I am not convinced that immigration, even immigration of skilled labor, actually benefits the american worker. It might benefit the corporate bottom line or move some stats in a government bureau around in a way that could be construed as beneficial but that isn't the same as helping the working american.

@Kratesis

America has the best Chinese food in the world.

That is my response to that.

[mdk]

Also something I knew (but not to this extent) was that our 7 trillion dollar deficit per year would almost be met if we halted military spending. Not to say we should halt it entirely, but even though we spend more on defense than any country (and more than many countries combined) we'd still be 20 trillion in debt, and the american work force would need to work for free 3/4ths out of the year to even get close to helping pay the debt the U.S. is in. Cutting military spending entirely would barely get us on track.

@POOHEAD189

That would be surprising, since the DoD budget is $574b, and the entire federal budget (all of it) is $4.1t. Honestly don't know where your numbers are coming from.

Edit: okay so the 2017 deficit is $440b, not $7t. So technically yes, that would work once. Then again, this is what our spending looked like when we ran that deficit. We spent twice the DoD's budget on unemployment benefits. So..... you know..... perhaps running >3% GDP growth will cut those unemployment numbers while also driving up revenue. But that's a pipe dream.

... jk Trump already did that

Double Edit: Also, we should be spending less than we are on the military. Not nearly the kind of cuts most people are talking about -- parity with other nations is the stupidest defense strategy of all time ever -- but we are wasting money and we can save a lot of it without draconian cuts.

[The Harbinger of Ferocity]

Let us also not forget this is the infamous argument of, "Why does the United States need to spend so much on the defense budget?" To which there are a number of answers, none easy, but among them the largest are fronting global operations - we as the United States are more or less responsible for the defense of many, many nations and held accountable for performing defense roles in their environments rather than home nations having the capability or interesting - and that we as a country invest heavily on our research, development, production and fielding of new technologies. There are few militaries in the world that can even begin to field the same type of equipment in the same number as the United States; people tease, mock and belittle the F35, but there's no actual competitor aircraft taking to the skies that can do what it does as good or better, let alone close.

Few militaries maintain a mission portfolio that accounts for anywhere and everywhere at just about any time so that need to fight a war at moment's notice is no coinless effort. Rare still, there are only a handful of countries that provide any level of care, treatment and sustainment for their members, in that while military day to day care is considered bad, it is really only considered bad in the United States where you could easily get better treatment in the civilian sector. Battlefield wise? There isn't too much competition for how much effort gets put into taking care of everyone as best they can.

We haven't even spoken to maintaining a successful nuclear deterrence operation, but the details go on and on. The real reason the United States is paying as much as it is, is because it is funding countries who "cannot be bothered" with their own national defense; the same reason President Trump hammered them so hard when speaking about NATO. These other details are not as big as that. If these allied nations got off their comfortable rears and actually did something militarily for once, spending more on it to compensate for our expenditures, we would not be spending nearly as much there. They need to be paying their fair share as @mdk said as it is costing the United States a fortune.

Another not well known issue is that the Department of Defense covets its funding, by which I mean, everything in the world they plan for assumes they at least receive the same amount they did prior, if not more. The military does not function well at all without this and the system quickly breaks down when cuts are introduced at every level. Most civilians know nothing of this, or rather do not care because "war is bad" and clearly that is all a military is for, but it is very difficult to retain military members in service in this day and age. The civilian sector offers just about everything better, almost universally in pay, benefits and hours, now including health care because it is mandatory and is not too much worse than the very low quality they already experienced (and rarely were ever able to use) along with the Department of Veteran's Affairs' provisions. Retiring and separating members are willing to take just about anything if it is only slightly better given their conditioning to lack.