- 17 Sep 2017 01:30
#14844151
[youtube]FPicR5Kz6uQ[/youtube]
Noam has his say on immigration and takes a critical position on 'rich countries'. Is it the case that these 'rich countries' are responsible for immigration from the 'global south'? He describes the immigration crisis in terms of a'moral crisis of the West'. Is Noam correct?
He mentions nothing about high rates of population growth and low rates of economic growth in the 'global south'. Nor does anyone at the UN Universtity at which his speech was presented. He also misrepresents Japan. Noah's understanding of the Far East actually isn't that good. East Asia has managed to keep population growth at least close to economic growth. Those countries that have done best in Asia are the ones which economic growth outpaced population growth. Note: they started from the same position as Africa and the ME and faced the same imperialism but still managed to thrive.
He does present a weak arguement that Africa was poised to develop as Japan did, but as I pointed out, many East Asian countries were in the same situation but are much better off today. Could it be that Africa is poorly managed by its ruling class? Could this be so for the ME too? And could a UN institution afford to criticise those power Elites? Rich countries are an easier target, no?
https://gcm.unu.edu/publications/articles/crises-of-immigration.html
Noam has his say on immigration and takes a critical position on 'rich countries'. Is it the case that these 'rich countries' are responsible for immigration from the 'global south'? He describes the immigration crisis in terms of a'moral crisis of the West'. Is Noam correct?
He mentions nothing about high rates of population growth and low rates of economic growth in the 'global south'. Nor does anyone at the UN Universtity at which his speech was presented. He also misrepresents Japan. Noah's understanding of the Far East actually isn't that good. East Asia has managed to keep population growth at least close to economic growth. Those countries that have done best in Asia are the ones which economic growth outpaced population growth. Note: they started from the same position as Africa and the ME and faced the same imperialism but still managed to thrive.
He does present a weak arguement that Africa was poised to develop as Japan did, but as I pointed out, many East Asian countries were in the same situation but are much better off today. Could it be that Africa is poorly managed by its ruling class? Could this be so for the ME too? And could a UN institution afford to criticise those power Elites? Rich countries are an easier target, no?
https://gcm.unu.edu/publications/articles/crises-of-immigration.html