A New Term: ‘Birthplace Injustice’

The next such revolution, likely to occur in the 21st century, will challenge the economic implications of the nation state. It will focus on the injustice that follows from the fact that, entirely by chance, some are born in poor countries and others in rich countries. As more people work for multinational firms and get to know more people from other countries, our sense of justice is being affected.

That’s the Royal ‘We’ again. The Guardian loves this so…

The next revolution will not abolish the consequences of place of birth, but the privileges of nationhood will be tempered. While the rise in anti-immigrant sentiment around the world seems to point in the opposite direction, the sense of injustice will be amplified as communications continue to grow. Ultimately, recognition of wrong will wreak big changes.

Frankly, I’ve found my own sense of injustice being affected not one whit by being able to read the Tweets of Third World dwellers of their advocates on social media.

Has anyone?

…the most important steps to address birthplace injustice probably will not target immigration. Instead, they will focus on fostering economic freedom.

In 1948, Paul A Samuelson’s “factor-price equalisation theorem” lucidly showed that under conditions of unlimited free trade without transportation costs (and with other idealised assumptions), market forces would equalise the prices of all factors of production, including the wage rate for any standardised kind of labour, around the world. In a perfect world, people don’t have to move to another country to get a higher wage. Ultimately, they need only be able to participate in producing output that is sold internationally.

Yes, maybe, but unfortunately, those transportation cost are going to remain for a significant period of time. We don’t have that perfect world, and it’s likely we never will.

Ultimately, the next revolution will likely stem from daily interactions on computer monitors with foreigners whom we can see are intelligent, decent people – people who happen, through no choice of their own, to be living in poverty. This should lead to better trade agreements, which presuppose the eventual development of orders of magnitude more social insurance to protect people within a country during the transition to a more just global economy.

I’m all in favour of better trade agreements. But I haven’t seen any sign whatsoever that the digital revolution will overcome the basic problem of getting goods from A to B cheaply enough to make a difference.

7 comments for “A New Term: ‘Birthplace Injustice’

  1. October 5, 2016 at 11:24 am

    Has something cut off the post after haven’. ?

    • October 7, 2016 at 6:52 am

      Yes! Cut n’ paste disaster. Now fixed.

  2. ivan
    October 5, 2016 at 11:57 am

    The big problem is these SJWs are afraid to ask the crucial question, ‘why are these countries poor’ because the answer is that they, and the green environmentalists, are keeping them that way.

    • Voice of Reason
      October 5, 2016 at 1:50 pm

      The main reasons:

      1. Massive government corruption.
      2. In many countries, the multi-national companies have their resources tied up quite nicely.

      • Errol
        October 5, 2016 at 8:57 pm

        And, as Ivan says, a massive lack of cheap energy and infrastructure – all denied them by wealthy, lazy westerners banging on about the lie of ‘climate change’.

  3. Stonyground
    October 5, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    Would it be considered an injustice if my next door neighbour trashed his house and the government told me that I had to let him move in with me? It is the only compassionate thing to do, after all, his house is trashed where is he supposed to live? The thing is, if your country is a mess, it is your responsibility to sort it out, nobody else’s. Those busy bodies who think that it is their responsibility to sort out other people’s countries have a proven track record of making things worse.

  4. Errol
    October 5, 2016 at 8:56 pm

    I know lots of ‘foreigners’. One regularly sends me cheese. She’s a lovely young woman, just married; who I lent £150 and after the third repayment, amortised the loan. With her goat bought with my monies, she then bred more baby goats? and makes more cheese. She is now expanding to buy another billy.

    This relationship isn’t about my being rich andher being poor. It is about intelligence, business sense and being a decent, honest person trying to compete against a failed government. You see, she struggles to sell to EU nations because the legislation is too complicated, so she sells elsewhere, to other countries- Japan, China, New Zealand.

    These Lefty Guardian readers really just want more crushing legislation, more laws, more international socialism but they’re trying to hide it in flowery language. They don’t want to allow people to earn their own money, they want to take it from me, by force using the state machine – they never give their own – and give it to someone else, someone who likely wll simply waste it.

    The developing world doesn’t want aid (well, the lazy and corrupt do, they love the lazy and corrupt Lefty indolent West) it wants to sell to us. You see, all that communication systems we have don’t have these people thinking ‘I hate you, you’ve more than me’ they have them thinking ‘wow, I can sell my cheese/sausages/pots/handkercheifs/furniture to these people for more money rather than just to Joe down the road.

Comments are closed.