Mass migration is going to be bad for everyone, but this is what happens when the global North develops at the expense of the global South. The sooner the developed world adopts a policy of actually helping the less developed world to grow instead of exploiting them, the better, because this would all go bust soon enough.
Even the current migration to the developed world has a lot of exploitation built into it.
Hey bro, thank you for taking the time to give my article a read!
We share the same conclusion but seem to differ on the thought path surrounding it. From what I can see, as the Global North has continued to industrialize and develop over the last century, more of the Global South has been lifted out of poverty as a byproduct of that.
Life-saving medicine, cars and telecommunications among many other kinds of technologies invented by those of the Global North have also raised the living standards and quality of life of many across the Global South as well.
No matter how much help Western nations provide, if different developing nations fail to master the fundamentals of growth, then the assistance won't count for much.
I think your "thought path" is a bit superficial and naive and I will explain why.
Medicines, technologies are the likes are good and they benefit everyone, but that's just one piece of a giant pie. For a society to industrialize and become developed, it must have access to resources. The way the global financial system is set up is to ensure a net flow of resources to the global North.
If you look at resource extraction from places like the Congo and other parts of Africa ad the middle east which fuel western industry, a pattern begins to form. Why are these resource rich African nations never stable? Why are they unable to get rich from natural resources they have while the global North get's rich off those same extracted resources? Why have there been continuous bombing campaigns of the middle east for decades? it's all to ensure the primacy of the global North.
Many of these extracted resources are gotten at rock bottom peasant prices from the global South, taken out to the global North and processed into finished products before being shipped back to all parts of the world including the global South at prices several times more than they were initially gotten for, making the global North richer and further impoverishing the global South.
The fact that the global South has not developed is not because they have failed to master the fundamentals of growth, that's a part of it, but it only explains a little bit, not everything, not most of it.
Part of what explains the developmental disparity are predatory loans that keep these countries forever indebted as well as unfavorable terms of receiving these loans. Close to 90% of Nigeria's earnings is used for debt servicing, how is a country like that supposed to develop? Some of these loans come with the precondition that these poor countries must devalue their currency, open it to market forces allowing stronger economies to decimate them.
Dangote refinery just opened up in Nigeria, yet he could not get Nigeria crude oil to buy from Nigeria to refine despite Nigeria being one of the top oil producing countries in the world because Nigeria's oil reserves have been mortgaged for decades to come to pay for loans taken, it's crazy like a fish in water suffering from dehydration.
We need to take a much more wholistic approach as to why the global South is failing and its not only because the people have failed to master growth fundamentals. The world is integrated, and those who have and have always controlled the global economy have set it up to favor them would not easily let go of such advantages, but they have made a big miscalculation that would come back and bite them in the arse.
"Many of these extracted resources are gotten at rock bottom peasant prices from the global South"
This is just how business works though, sellers can charge more by adding value to their products (raw materials in this case). Just like how you would be willing to pay more for Dangote's petrol compared to how much you would be willing to pay for the crude oil equivalent.
A large part of the reason why so many nations across the Global South are stuck at selling raw extracts for so little is because they lack the technical and managerial expertise and know-how to master and apply the processes required for them to add value to resources and make more money. Sand is a raw input for glass, would it make economic sense for anyone to pay sand suppliers the same price as the glass manufacturer? Who's added more value in that equation?
As for the issue of developing countries and debt, a country like Nigeria doesn't have to borrow as much as it does in order to develop. A choice was made. They could instead raise the USD funds by attracting more FDI from overseas into the country, or via its government and corporate bonds, or stock markets. But for many govts, it's easier to get expensive money today (by borrowing) and make the necessary economic reforms later, than it is to make economic reforms today and attract a lot more cheap money later.
Better yet, they can borrow today from private creditors and then get bailed out by multilateral lenders like the IMF and World Bank. This is essentially what happened with Africa throughout the 70's and 80's (period of debt racking) and the 90's and 2000's (period of debt forgiveness), and is happening again now.
It's all trade-offs, some Global South nations go one way and others go another way, hence why some succeed where others fail.
These raw materials are purchased at prices below their real market value from the global South, so they are not even getting full value from the raw materials themselves.
Ofcourse you have to pay more for refined products and many countries in the global South lack the technical skills to refine those raw materials, but those skills are not rocket science, those skills can easily be transferred, though the global South bear the most responsibility in not trying to acquire such skills, however, there is a concerted effort to not transfer such skills as it will make the global North less competitive, just look at the saber rattling the US does with the economic rise of China treating China's economic rise as an existential threat. Why should the economic prosperity of country be a threat, if not because it threatens western economic monopoly/hegemony and if the goal is to maintain such monopoly, what incentive would they have to support technological transfer that would lead to the development of the global South?
Many destructive economic policies and reforms that have decimated countries in the global South have been due to policies proposed by the IMF and world bank. Reducing root cause analysis to simply, "they have refused to adopt fundamentals of growth" is simplistic and ignores other critical factors in global geopolitics.
It is in the West's interests that other parts of the world are just as developed and well off, people who are prosperous begin to care about values like freedom, free speech, democracy, rule of law and the likes and they are also less likely to emigrate to more developed nations and bring with them attitudes and cultures that may not be compatible with western societies.
"however, there is a concerted effort to not transfer such skills as it will make the global North less competitive"
How so? The Global North is bending over backwards to take in millions of students from the Global South, in the case of countries like the US and Canada, they can even receive grants and scholarships for their attendance.
Also, the skills are not rocket science but they're not exactly easy either. Some countries within the Global South and Africa specifically acquire them, others don't.
Also, Western companies have transferred lots of technology and skills to many countries around the world, including China in particular. If it wasn't for Western and Japanese technological assistance, skill transfer and market access then China would not be what it is today.
What you see between the US and China today mostly related to issues surrounding national security. The West also has a lot of leeway for implementing protectionist measures against China because China is already quite protectionist against the West. Measures and controls in China exist in relation to how many properties non-Chinese can purchase, engagement in the financial sector, joint-venture requirements in exchange for market access etc.
And unless you have evidence proving otherwise, these corporations tend not to act in a concerted effort to hold down other country competitors (company nationality doesn't matter so much, plus these firms are usually competing against each other) down. It's more about whether the country is able to make it worth their while.
"The Global North is bending over backwards to take in millions of students from the Global South, in the case of countries like the US and Canada, they can even receive grants and scholarships for their attendance."
Do not let the appearance of charity fool you. Look at the big picture, if after exploiting a country I give a few of them scholarships, does that erase my exploitation? Besides, most foreign students are not there on scholarship, they pay a lot. African students that pay a lot of tuition are literally sustaining higher institutions in the UK.
"What you see between the US and China today mostly related to issues surrounding national security"
What national security threat that is not tied to economics is China posing to the US?
Look at these things more critically, they are deeper than you think.
Mass migration is going to be bad for everyone, but this is what happens when the global North develops at the expense of the global South. The sooner the developed world adopts a policy of actually helping the less developed world to grow instead of exploiting them, the better, because this would all go bust soon enough.
Even the current migration to the developed world has a lot of exploitation built into it.
Hey bro, thank you for taking the time to give my article a read!
We share the same conclusion but seem to differ on the thought path surrounding it. From what I can see, as the Global North has continued to industrialize and develop over the last century, more of the Global South has been lifted out of poverty as a byproduct of that.
Life-saving medicine, cars and telecommunications among many other kinds of technologies invented by those of the Global North have also raised the living standards and quality of life of many across the Global South as well.
No matter how much help Western nations provide, if different developing nations fail to master the fundamentals of growth, then the assistance won't count for much.
I think your "thought path" is a bit superficial and naive and I will explain why.
Medicines, technologies are the likes are good and they benefit everyone, but that's just one piece of a giant pie. For a society to industrialize and become developed, it must have access to resources. The way the global financial system is set up is to ensure a net flow of resources to the global North.
If you look at resource extraction from places like the Congo and other parts of Africa ad the middle east which fuel western industry, a pattern begins to form. Why are these resource rich African nations never stable? Why are they unable to get rich from natural resources they have while the global North get's rich off those same extracted resources? Why have there been continuous bombing campaigns of the middle east for decades? it's all to ensure the primacy of the global North.
Many of these extracted resources are gotten at rock bottom peasant prices from the global South, taken out to the global North and processed into finished products before being shipped back to all parts of the world including the global South at prices several times more than they were initially gotten for, making the global North richer and further impoverishing the global South.
The fact that the global South has not developed is not because they have failed to master the fundamentals of growth, that's a part of it, but it only explains a little bit, not everything, not most of it.
Part of what explains the developmental disparity are predatory loans that keep these countries forever indebted as well as unfavorable terms of receiving these loans. Close to 90% of Nigeria's earnings is used for debt servicing, how is a country like that supposed to develop? Some of these loans come with the precondition that these poor countries must devalue their currency, open it to market forces allowing stronger economies to decimate them.
Dangote refinery just opened up in Nigeria, yet he could not get Nigeria crude oil to buy from Nigeria to refine despite Nigeria being one of the top oil producing countries in the world because Nigeria's oil reserves have been mortgaged for decades to come to pay for loans taken, it's crazy like a fish in water suffering from dehydration.
We need to take a much more wholistic approach as to why the global South is failing and its not only because the people have failed to master growth fundamentals. The world is integrated, and those who have and have always controlled the global economy have set it up to favor them would not easily let go of such advantages, but they have made a big miscalculation that would come back and bite them in the arse.
"Many of these extracted resources are gotten at rock bottom peasant prices from the global South"
This is just how business works though, sellers can charge more by adding value to their products (raw materials in this case). Just like how you would be willing to pay more for Dangote's petrol compared to how much you would be willing to pay for the crude oil equivalent.
A large part of the reason why so many nations across the Global South are stuck at selling raw extracts for so little is because they lack the technical and managerial expertise and know-how to master and apply the processes required for them to add value to resources and make more money. Sand is a raw input for glass, would it make economic sense for anyone to pay sand suppliers the same price as the glass manufacturer? Who's added more value in that equation?
As for the issue of developing countries and debt, a country like Nigeria doesn't have to borrow as much as it does in order to develop. A choice was made. They could instead raise the USD funds by attracting more FDI from overseas into the country, or via its government and corporate bonds, or stock markets. But for many govts, it's easier to get expensive money today (by borrowing) and make the necessary economic reforms later, than it is to make economic reforms today and attract a lot more cheap money later.
Better yet, they can borrow today from private creditors and then get bailed out by multilateral lenders like the IMF and World Bank. This is essentially what happened with Africa throughout the 70's and 80's (period of debt racking) and the 90's and 2000's (period of debt forgiveness), and is happening again now.
It's all trade-offs, some Global South nations go one way and others go another way, hence why some succeed where others fail.
These raw materials are purchased at prices below their real market value from the global South, so they are not even getting full value from the raw materials themselves.
Ofcourse you have to pay more for refined products and many countries in the global South lack the technical skills to refine those raw materials, but those skills are not rocket science, those skills can easily be transferred, though the global South bear the most responsibility in not trying to acquire such skills, however, there is a concerted effort to not transfer such skills as it will make the global North less competitive, just look at the saber rattling the US does with the economic rise of China treating China's economic rise as an existential threat. Why should the economic prosperity of country be a threat, if not because it threatens western economic monopoly/hegemony and if the goal is to maintain such monopoly, what incentive would they have to support technological transfer that would lead to the development of the global South?
Many destructive economic policies and reforms that have decimated countries in the global South have been due to policies proposed by the IMF and world bank. Reducing root cause analysis to simply, "they have refused to adopt fundamentals of growth" is simplistic and ignores other critical factors in global geopolitics.
It is in the West's interests that other parts of the world are just as developed and well off, people who are prosperous begin to care about values like freedom, free speech, democracy, rule of law and the likes and they are also less likely to emigrate to more developed nations and bring with them attitudes and cultures that may not be compatible with western societies.
"however, there is a concerted effort to not transfer such skills as it will make the global North less competitive"
How so? The Global North is bending over backwards to take in millions of students from the Global South, in the case of countries like the US and Canada, they can even receive grants and scholarships for their attendance.
Also, the skills are not rocket science but they're not exactly easy either. Some countries within the Global South and Africa specifically acquire them, others don't.
Also, Western companies have transferred lots of technology and skills to many countries around the world, including China in particular. If it wasn't for Western and Japanese technological assistance, skill transfer and market access then China would not be what it is today.
What you see between the US and China today mostly related to issues surrounding national security. The West also has a lot of leeway for implementing protectionist measures against China because China is already quite protectionist against the West. Measures and controls in China exist in relation to how many properties non-Chinese can purchase, engagement in the financial sector, joint-venture requirements in exchange for market access etc.
And unless you have evidence proving otherwise, these corporations tend not to act in a concerted effort to hold down other country competitors (company nationality doesn't matter so much, plus these firms are usually competing against each other) down. It's more about whether the country is able to make it worth their while.
"The Global North is bending over backwards to take in millions of students from the Global South, in the case of countries like the US and Canada, they can even receive grants and scholarships for their attendance."
Do not let the appearance of charity fool you. Look at the big picture, if after exploiting a country I give a few of them scholarships, does that erase my exploitation? Besides, most foreign students are not there on scholarship, they pay a lot. African students that pay a lot of tuition are literally sustaining higher institutions in the UK.
"What you see between the US and China today mostly related to issues surrounding national security"
What national security threat that is not tied to economics is China posing to the US?
Look at these things more critically, they are deeper than you think.