The $78-Trillion Free Lunch – If Borders Were Open

*

I reiterate a former reply to this exact article.

I am unbribed. I suspect this is an example of Troll Science for economists.

1. The question becomes: if it is economical then why isn't it the case from the start. Why do nations exist? Why do they have borders?

What of the question posed by a famous economist: why do corporations exist? Why not a market filled with nothing but traders? The answer isn't obvious but there is an answer. Perhaps free movement has similar invisible overheads that are being conveniently ignored.

2. Ignoring what I've said above for a moment. Let us suppose that free movement made us richer. Then nations would be competing, offering incentives to all.

They do not. Only to a tiny percentage of the population with obviously valuable skills or assets. That implies that there is a very high price before externalities are sufficiently alleviated. It at least means governments think that is so for whatever reason.

3. Within nations we have rich and poor zipcodes. It is true that workers from poor neighbourhoods travel to richer ones for work, it is basic time/money arbitrage. Yet few people think of installing poorer workers in richer neighbourhoods as a means to improve the economy. Why is that?