Monday, February 27, 2012

Aging Population--More Immigration?



In his article, "The IMF Strikes Back", Kenneth Rogoff closes with a call for a "Global Bargain", in which aging developed nations invest in younger developing nations. He writes that a Global Bargain is mutually beneficial for both the developed and developing nations, because developing nations need investment and funding right now, and developing nations need revenue in the future to pay for the population bulges that will be retiring. 
This point is echoed by Nandan Nilekani in "Imagining India", when he contends that one of India's major economic advantages in the coming century is that India has not yet reached the peak of its "demographic dividend" and should continue to see massive growth. This gives India an advantage over countries that have had to artificially control their population, such as China (a fact that Nilekani then uses to punch home a point on the advantages of democracy over autocracy). This means that India is poised to become a major economic power in the next century, should things continue smoothly. 
After reading and synthesizing these points, it seems especially imperative to me that the U.S. pursue solutions for the baby boomers looming retirement with more urgency. My generation has always grown up hearing "you'll be paying for the baby boomers", but this point is finally be driven home to me--in order for the United States to remain as competitive as it is today, we will need a larger, younger tax base, as well as younger creative individuals powering the economy as the U.S.'s population bulge retires. One possible solution to this problem that occurs to me is immigration. The U.S. is fortunate to be seen around the globe as a country of opportunity and wealth--and because of this the U.S. ranks number 1 in the world in the number of immigrants moving into the country. The US should use this allure to its advantage, by allowing more immigrants into the US, it could create a wider tax base. In addition, legislation such as the Dream Act, should be passed. The Dream Act seems like a fair trade to me--although these immigrants were originally illegal (through no fault of their own) they have proven themselves to productive members of society, who can only help the United States on a global level, by sheer numbers and the possibilities for ingenuity that the could bring to the American economy. 

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Russia, China... UN Security Council?


Just finished reading Sorrelle's post on the UN Security Council's inability to intervene in Syria. I think that it is definitely an accurate assessment to say that the U.N. Security Council is in factions right now, but I don't think that the factions are merely just the result of skepticism due to recent US intervention efforts. This CNN article points to economics as one of the possible explanation for China's and Russia's reluctance to condemn the Syrian government. Russia has been dealing arms to the al-Assad regime, and China has been Syria's 3rd largest importer in recent years. However the divide between Russia and China and the other permanent members of the UN Security Council may also be an ideological divide. Looking at the 5 permanent member countries, Russia and China stand out as ideological black sheep. China is notorious for its human rights abuses, and over 100,000 protestors demonstrated in Moscow this weekend over allegations of voter fraud in Russia's last election. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that these two governments actively pose dangers to their citizens, they seem less concerned with their own citizen's well-being than they do with political stability. Which leads me to wonder how effectively two countries that are questionable when it comes to human rights can mitigate international conflicts and maintain peace? 

It isn't practical or prudent to kick China and Russia off the security council, but perhaps thought could be given towards reforming the veto clause. We've been discussing how economics sometimes clashes with human rights and the protection of life, and compared with the complexities of intellectual property laws, streamlining the ability of the UN Security Council to intervene on the behalf of innocent civilians seems like an easy fix.