78 Trillion Free Lunch Summary

The general argument made by The Economist in its work, “If Borders Were Open: The $78 Trillion Free Lunch”, is that if nations such as Great Britain or the United Stated allowed immigrants to enter its country freely, then this change may help that country grow economically and socially. The Economist shows this through the use of comparisons and statistics. The article “If Borders Were Open: The $78 Trillion Free Lunch” discusses how open borders are not as harmful as most people think they are. Most people think that having immigrants enter the country freely takes away the job opportunities from the natives: the U.S. However, that is not the case; The Economist shows us that if countries were to open up their borders, there will be …show more content…
It highlights how insignificant the number of immigrants who have migrated to these richer countries. This is important because many people fear that immigrants might take over and that there is a huge number of them in their homeland, however, the Economist shows that “out of a population of 11 million people in Greece, only 150,00 of them have migrated from their home country. This goes to show that there are not as many people who migrated from their homeland because not a lot of people are open to change. Human beings are more succumbed to tradition than change. Moreover, not many people like to migrate for the sake of change and unfamiliarity, however, those who do, do it because the opportunities given to them back home is not as good as the ones in these richer countries. Therefore The Economist points out that immigrants should be allowed access to these richer countries because not only do they help improve the economic system, but it could also increase the diversity of these countries. Given the United States is already a heavily diversified country, some places like Germany, Japan, Great Britain, etc., are not as diverse. Yet, if they are keen on opening their borders, it would provide a social improvement in these