Live data from Hacker News

What a refugee camp reveals about economics

economist.com

21–25 of 25 posts

Re: What a refugee camp reveals about economics

#21
post #3

Hard not to believe Malawi would have a bigger economic upside from liberalising working rights and providing a pathway to citizenship.

From my experience with people who’ve spent years over there, there isn’t much desire for refugees to stay and become citizens. They are perceived by the voting public as competing for jobs. Jobs are perceived as scarce. It is politically far more popular to run on a platform of getting rid of refugees and refugee camps. There is also a very widespread perception that refugee camps are about making money for corrupt…

A dynamic that surprised me when years ago I learned about it was that consistently the most anti-migration electorate is from areas with next to no migration, while areas with the most migration are generally supportive of it. I watched out for this since and it appears to be a general dynamic accross many different wildly different nations.

This disparity is usually showing up as a rural-urban divide, with the cities being more migrant friendly.

Whether migration is good or bad in pure economic terms is mostly a function of the demography of a country/region. For most industrialized nations more migrations would be economically benefitial, since the own birth rates are too low to even cover the retirement of their own population.

But of course for many people migration isn't just a rational economic question, is a much more loaded, symbolic issue —interwoven with questions of identity, self-worth, self-perception, self-confidence and mythological narratives of the own nation. Which is why identity politics is so effective in getting people to vote against their own economic interests.

Re: What a refugee camp reveals about economics

#23
post #15
post #13

The WWII POW camp paper discussed is a lot more interesting and worth reading than this article winds up being: https://gwern.net/doc/economics/1945-radford.pdf

Author attempts to use this paper to dunk on Marx’ labor theory of value, but Marx discusses this extensively in Capital: price and value are often interchangeable, but not always.

Labor theory of value is one of the dumbest ideas ever thought of, not so hard to dunk on.

Re: What a refugee camp reveals about economics

#24
post #15
post #13

The WWII POW camp paper discussed is a lot more interesting and worth reading than this article winds up being: https://gwern.net/doc/economics/1945-radford.pdf

Author attempts to use this paper to dunk on Marx’ labor theory of value, but Marx discusses this extensively in Capital: price and value are often interchangeable, but not always.

Could you excerpt which part of the paper constitutes said dunk? I searched "Marx" and "labor" unsuccessfully. Also it would be helpful to use your knowledge of Marx to explain how price and value are not interchangeable in this case.

Re: What a refugee camp reveals about economics

#25
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author attempts to use this paper to dunk on Marx’ labor theory of value, but Marx discusses this extensively in Capital: price and value are often interchangeable, but not always.

Labor theory of value is one of the dumbest ideas ever thought of, not so hard to dunk on.

I can forgive somebody conflating labor and value, but only if they haven't given any serious thought to the matter. If they have, and still believe it, there's willful ignorance or some other problem at play.
Post reply on HN