not your differing views (instead I was looking forward to them) but you refusing to explain let alone defend them. That was what cut short the dialog...

@ Vanhauwaert

The disappointment is mutual.  However, while knowing the past is important, one should not be burdened by the past and, instead, look only forward to the future.  The advice of George2 - obviously, a wise man - is a good one.  "Pintje pakkeN".   We will act on it on my next visit to the Netherlands.

I have listed clearly and separately your three economic whoppers.  From my perspective they have to do with:

- the irrelevancy of 'immigrants' for Britain's long-term economic performance;

- the necessity of raising average labor productivity for raising per capita income;

- the major sources of rapid income growth in Poland after communism (or the irrelevancy of the EU in that regard over the past 15 years or so).

You do not have to be convinced of my opinions on these matters.  I would already be happy if you would at least be aware that serious people can have very different views than the prevailing ideologically-induced views that you have espoused on them.

My apologies for having misspelt your name.  I assure you that it was not intentional.  

The poll really should have asked "do you honetly believe your government has any clue who they are admitting to your country?"  Of course people are unhappy with immigrants because the unions and socialists basically designed the immigration system to exclude any talent so as not to compete with their members. When I immigrated to the Netherlands I had to take a newspaper ad out in Amsterdam to make sure that there were no Dutch people more quaified to run my own company than I was. Only after this plus nearly a year of delay was I issued a work permit to run my own company. When my yearly permit first arrived it was three months away from expiring which I am sure is the norm. Of course I was billed some 20 thousand euros by the tax authorities for payroll tax for entire time I was waiting.

The oft-repeated justification for mass immigration: the economic benefits. Where’s the proof? According to Professor Rowthorn, Professor of Economics at Cambridge University, the benefits of lage-scale immigration are ‘either close to zero, or negative’. In 2004, along with Professor Coleman of Oxford University, he wrote a paper published in Population and Development Review entitled The Economic Effects of Immigration into the United Kingdom, the conclusion being, ‘the economic consequences of large-scale immigration are mostly minor, negative, or transient, that the interests of more vulnerable sections of the domestic population may well be damaged, and that any economic benefits are unlikely to bear comparison with immigration’s probable substantial and permanent demographic and environmental impact’.

@ Van Hauwaert

I am only interested in promoting clarity, my cyber friend, not in engaging in silly semantic word games with you.  If you care to read carefully, you will have noticed that I have clearly and carefully defined what I mean by economic performance of Britain (the long-term or trend growth rate in PER CAPITA income).  If you could do something similar, instead of making cryptic statements about immigrants "holding up the British economy", then this could be a serious and fruitful conversation.    

You asked about economic whoppers? Well, let me repeat three of them:

-- First, your notion that the relative economic performance of Britain depends on foreign immigrants.

-- Second, your (again cryptic) denial of the importance of raising AVERAGE productivity of labor for raising PER CAPITA income. 

-- Third, your illusion that rapid income growth in Poland was due to EU membership.

And no, I am not going to slowly repeat an explanation of these whoppers.  Because, as I said, I am not interested in word games.  And yes, it is true that I cannot say everything at the same time.  Neither can you.  But I am not going to be so silly as to claim that you don't know the distinction between number of people and number of workers.   You, however, did make such a claim about me.  What more, then, is there to be said?

5. So now you move from the economical to the sociological field. Maybe you should have started your initial post with 'sociology 101'.
I agree that large scale immigration can be unsettling. I don't agree that the immigration as witnessed from East European countries is unsettling enough to warrant denying ourselves the advantages it provides (mainly cheaper labour)

You essentially say that domestic employers should pay more to employ locals. But why should they? What advantage has Mr Smith in paying a local 15 pound an hour to clean his car when a girl from Romania is willing to do it for 5 pound? Is that a 5 pound loss for Mr Smith? Surely not, he pocketed 10 pound (if he values a clean car at 15 pound)

6. What a shame. Maybe you are genuine but after a cop out like that you can hardly be surprised that I leave with the impression that you dare not debate that exact point exactly because it will expose you as anti-immigration per se. Or alternatively fall into the trap of zero sum mechanics (more for foreigners is less for us)

@ Van Hauwaert

....

5) Where on earth do you get the idea that I see the economy as "a zero-sum game"?   We certainly agree on the need for LONG TERM ECONOMIC (and political) HEALTH of a country to ensure that there are proper incentives in place for its people to seek to become (and remain!) economically active.   Is it then so difficult to see that large-scale immigration, particularly of unskilled workers, can often stand in the way of that requirement?   Do you really think that there would be so many unemployed youth in American and European ghettos if employers did NOT have acces to 'cheap' and often illegal foreign workers?   The argument that 'locals' don't want to do those jobs is bogus.  They did them in the past, they will do them again if the 'right' incentives (including remuneration) are in place, both on the demand side and on the supply side on labor markets.

6) Perhaps this would be the place to dig deeper in the distinction between DOMESTIC income (per head) and NATIONAL income (per head), but I will not do so.  I do not want to leave the impression that I am anti-immigration per se,  but I do not accept false (ideologically-induced) economic arguments about it.         

@ Van Hauwaert

.....

3) I agree with you that EU membership is certainly in the economic interests of "East European" countries, but you have rather naive (again ideologically-induced) views about the sources of their strong economic growth rates since the 'fall' of communism.   This is not the place to seriously expound on economic growth in Eastern Europe .  Let me simply point out that countries like Poland and other Eastern countries were experiencing rapid economic growth BEFORE their EU membership.  If, in some cases these growth rates have declined somewhat since then, it is not the fault of the EU.  This is a much more complex issue than you seem to realise.

4) You do have a valid point where you say that the emigration of many Poles to the west did not have a serious impact on the Polish economic growth rate (given the INITIAL large available pool of unemployed workers).  It certainly helped raise the PER CAPITA income level of ALL Poles (those in Poland and abroad).  But, that is of course a SHORT TERM point, and it has also nothing to do with the issue at hand which was the economic performance of Britain (which I interpret to mean the long-term  or trend  growth rate of per capita income in Britain).    

@ Van Hauwaert

I appreciate that you are making 'sincere' comments, but please think seriously before making them.  This discussion originated in a very cryptic comment on your part, implying that the economic performance of Britain somehow was based on "immigrants", which is of course (ideologically-induced) nonsense.  Since then, you have made some further 'woppers', which suggest that (macro)economic understanding in Belgium may well be at an all-time low these days.

1) Why do you feel a need to state the obvious, e.g. that "...output...depends on the number of people actually working."?  Did I ever deny that?  What has that got to do with the issue at hand which was the economic performance of Britain?   Surely you know that people in Luxembourg and Ireland are today ON AVERAGE much richer than, say, in Germany.  Yet, the output of Germany is much bigger than the output of Luxembourg or Ireland, MAINLY because there are many more people-cum-workers (locals and immigrants) in Germany than in Luxembourg or Ireland.  We are not talking about TOTAL output or income of a country, but about PER CAPITA output or income in that country.

2) Thank you, I am fully aware that economic output (both total and per capita) depends PARTIALLY on the number of people ACTUALLY working, and I can also make the distinction between "people available" and "people actually working".  But, you do not seem to realise that concepts like "working" and "output" become only economicallly meaningful in the context of market evaluation.  You could put every man, woman, and child, to work on digging holes or canals (like the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia) and you wouldn't end up with much economically meaningful "work" nor "output".

.....

@ George2

Once again, you make very 'perceptive' comments. I agree with most of them, but not entirely.

You are probably right that, on the whole, immigrants to the US will have a 'better' effect on per capita income than immigrants to the EU, because of the rules you mentioned.   It doesn't follow, however, that the net effect in the US is a positive one, at least in the short term.  There is a lot of evidence that a major part of poverty and crime (in some parts of the USA the dominant part) can be attributed to illegal immigration of largely unskilled 'latin americans'.  I am fairly certain (not totally) that this gets reflected in the "per capita income statistics".  Because the national income accounts are in large measure based on estimates based on sample surveys in which 'residency' simply refers to physical presence (without any 'legal' connotations).   

I, for one, am much in favor of establishing a 'national' identity card in the USA, and for strict border enforcement, despite contrary opinions held by some 'libertarian' friends. The contra argument that 'government is dangerous' does not carry as much weight in the US than in, for instance, Belgium. The Belgian parliament's violations of individual constitutional rights (as freedom of opinion/expression) are clearly indicative of that.

In this line, "I don't see the immediate link between the foiled plot planned by Asian-Britons and immigration from new EU member states,"
the term 'Asian' is not appropriate I think. Better is the correct reference to their pakki origin. Better use the term: "islamists originally of South Asia"

It was the the same group that caused Dutch flight delay by over-reaction. In fact, whether London police's over-reaction causing Brazilian's death or the Forest Gate incident or Gujarat public's over-reaction to genocidal murders of about 60 pilgrims in a train car by savage islamists or Jewish over-reaction to Hizbullah's abduction, the pattern is all over-reaction to the jihadi savagery all over the world.

Authorities protecting the civil society are on edge now, all across the globe.

http://lighthorse.blogspot.com/  People like to live with people who are like them.  There is nothing wrong with that in spite of the almost visceral distaste that has been drilled into Western Caucasians over the past few decades, and in spite of the ridiculous accusation of "racism" that is thrown about whenever anyone comes within 50 yards of mentioning the fact.  Why is it so wrong for Westerners to feel that way but such a non-issue when China, Japan and a host of other states and tribes are proudly "racist"? 

@ George2

There are countless factors lying behind differences in per capita income among US states, or any states for that matter.  It certainly would not be surprising that "foreigners" INITIALLY will tend to go to states that are growing RELATIVELY fast because of recent large-scale investments, or because of 'growth pole effects', etc....  And, I would expect the same to happen w.r.t. INTERNAL MIGRANTS.  In other words, if one were to look at the movements of "American" workers within the USA, one would find that they would also tend to go more to states with RELATIVELY rising per capita income levels than to other states.

But my main point was that immigration of "foreigners" is largely irrelevant for the long term health of an 'advanced' economy, i.e. that immigration can only be beneficial if the newcomers raise the AVERAGE level of productivity in the economy.   The importation of unskilled workers is certainly not going to raise PER CAPITA income levels, and is over time likely going to lower it.

It is important to see this concept of "productivity" not only in a static or immediate sense, but also in a more dynamic and long term sense.  To take an extreme case.  It is conceivable that large-scale migrations of newcomers with higher work skills (than the locals) could raise average productivity in the economy in the short term.  But, if they have long term negative effects on the political system, particularly in terms of the maintenance of ('democratic') judicial certainty and equality, then it is equally conceivable that the governmental regulatory framework will deteriorate, with deleterious effects on overall productivity (of everyone) in the economy. 

I don't see the immediate link between the foiled plot planned by Asian-Britons and immigration from new EU member states

@ Vanhauwaert

There is no direct relationship between the number of people ("workers") in a country and its economic performance.  Indeed, there are LARGE rich countries and large poor countries, and there are SMALL rich countries and poor countries.   Those workers from Eastern Europe moved from faster-growing countries to slower-growing Britain (in income terms).  You can not AT THE SAME TIME imply that the loss of workers in one case leads to faster growth and that the gain of workers in the other leads to "its economy holding up so well".  In fact, the movement of immigrant workers has little or nothing to do with an economy "holding up well".  If the health of an economy depended on the number of available workers then Congo/Zaire and Bangladesh would be doing very well.  In fact, they are not.   

The LONG TERM (per capita income) growth TREND of ANY economy depends on good 'structural' economic policies, i.e. the volume and type of (private and public sector) investments and the quality of the jucidial and regulatory framework provided by government within which (product and labor) markets can operate. 

In the SHORT TERM it is mainly the quality of fiscal and monetary policy that will determine how close short term income and employment fluctuations will stay around the long term growth trend of the economy. 

Those East European workers in Britain may in the short term have helped to relieve 'cyclical shortages' and in that sense (temporarily) helped to "hold up the economy".  But they will only help to raise the  long term income growth trend in Britain if their labor PRODUCTIVITY is on average higher than the existing British AVERAGE labor productivity.  There is no a priori reason to think that that was the case. 

What are you complaining about. It may very well be that the emigration from East European countries towards the UK was the single most important reason that it's economy held up so well recent years...

As much as I agree that Great Britain is for Britons - the English, Welsh, and Scotch - the number of non-Europeans in the country is alarming. Which do the British people want - non-European immigrants or fellow Europeans?