Recently I wrote about how permitting freer immigration may be beneficial to rich and poor countries alike. A recent study by the National Venture Capital Association seems to confirm that the rich countries, at least, are enriched by the presence of immigrants. The study found that, since 1990, immigrants founded one of every four public, venture capital-backed companies in the U.S. In the technology arena, the number climbs to 40%. Immigrants helped found such icons as Intel, Sun Microsystems, Yahoo, Google and eBay. These and other companies have created hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in wealth. Can anyone seriously argue that the US would be better off if these companies had not been created? Policy makers would do well to take a careful, unbiased look at studies like this when they attempt to determine the limits to set on immigration.

The UN's Human Development Index provide some food for thought. The index combines measures of material wealth, schooling and human longevity to rank the nations of the world in terms of the extent to which they promote human development. The winner? Norway. Niger finished last.

George Bush is in Hanoi today for the APEC Summit. Earlier this week the US Congress embarrassed him by refusing to pass legislation granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with Viet Nam which is about to accede to the WTO. Of course, Republicans and Democrats are arguing over whose fault this legislative failure is but this raises the much larger issue of how free trade and globalization effect developing countries. I was in Seattle during the WTO riots several years ago. I saw the people marching in turtle costumes (presumably to indicate that they thought the WTO was bad for turtles) and others carrying signs suggesting that citizens of the developing countries opposed freer trade. I don't know about the turtles but I do believe that, by and large, relatively free trade is better for the poor than highly protective trade regimes. Lower tariffs force developing country producers to be more efficient and produce higher quality goods. There can be a period of transition when some such producers may be harmed by foreign competition. This, in turn, can cause the loss of some jobs. However, the jobs created by the foreign investment generally far exceed the losses. I certainly recognize that some of the foreign investors have employed abusive labor practices. These have to be stopped. But I do not believe that the only way to stop such abuses is to eliminate free trade.

Based on personal experience in Cambodia, I can almost guarantee that most people with jobs in the garment factories there will say that they are much better off with those jobs than they were before. Do those need workers need protection and representation? Certainly. But forcing the factories to shut down in the name of protecting workers is definitely not the answer.

In reality, when labor unions and others in the US oppose free trade agreements they do not have the best interests of workers in poor countries in mind. I believe their sole interest is in protecting their own jobs. Those jobs are worth protecting. But retraining and additional education is how we should protect and improve those jobs. Sacrificing the jobs of workers in poor countries is not.

Ironically, the US will in violation of WTO requirements if it fails to approve PNTR for Viet Nam. I very rarely agree with the Bush Administration on anything. But this time, I do.

Many of us in the U.S. are now catching our breath after the remarkable mid-term elections we just held. It was a stunning repudiation of the Bush Administration. The resignation of Donald Rumsfeld is icing on the cake. The Democrats will now run Congress. Some commentators predict two years of gridlock leading up to the 2008 presidential election. Others think the two parties will have to work together to at least some extent in order to avoid thoroughly disgusting the electorate.

What does this mean for the developing world? It is mostly too early to say. Gridlock would not necessarily be bad as it could prevent the current administration from making things worse at least in Iraq. If the two parties can agree on an Iraq exit strategy this could ultimately free up funds that might be used to support, for example, international health care initiatives that both parties can get behind. Stay tuned.

I read today about a soon-to-be-released UN report that advocates streamlining UN anti-poverty programs so as to avoid duplicative efforts and excessive bureaucratic requirements imposed on the countries such programs are intended to help. The various agencies need to cooperate better, be more transparent and more efficient. The UN also needs to reduce the level of competition among the various agencies and refocus on the real work-poverty reduction. Like most large bureaucracies, the UN agencies seem to be overly concerned with self-perpetuation at the expense of their missions. The same has happened with the various US federal government departments and their state-level counterparts. I daresay the same is true in most, if not all, countries of the world. It will be interesting to see the reaction to this report when it is released.

A while back I wrote a bit on the subject of excess consumption. The specific target that day was bar drinks costing hundreds of dollars. Of course, there is shortage of examples of such excess. Today;s winner of the Consumer Excess of the Day award is: $14,000 for one night in the Presidential Suite at the Mandarin Oriental hotel in New York. Save those pennies!

Some random musings today....

As readers in the US will know, the issue of so-called immigration "reform" has been important here this year, although it seems to have diminished in importance somewhat in the run-up to the Congressional mid-term elections. I have been thinking about immigration lately in larger terms. Many wealthy countries are experiencing very low birthrates. Some, such as Italy, Spain and Japan have birthrates so low that their populations will shrink. This has obviously negative implications for economic growth and how well those countries will be able to support their pension obligations for the elderly. In the U.S., some recent studies show that the long-term potential rate of economic growth is falling, in part due to the fact that the baby boomers are just now beginning to retire and the workforce will shrink. Fewer workers means lower economic production which in turn means less wealth. I find it rather amazing that so many rich countries are so reluctant to allow immigration when it is more workers those countries need. The U.S. is actually more willing to accept immigrants than many countries and this is why the American economy has generally outperformed those in the rest of the developed world over the past 20 years or so. But Congress just approved the construction of a fence along part of the border with Mexico.

How does all this relate to developing countries? Well, in most developing countries both unemployment and birthrates are high. Those countries have people who need and want to work. The rich countries need more workers. Isn't there a match there? In wealthy countries, a higher proportion of immigrants tend to work than in the native populations. So, instead of building fences or creating more barriers to immigration, perhaps rich country governments should stop pandering to the vocal anti-immigration segments of their constituencies and adopt policies that recognize that their countries will be better off in the long run if they welcome the workers they will need.

Next, a bit about Senator Barack Obama. Reports have surfaced in the past two weeks that he is seriously considering a run for the US presidency in 2008. It is too soon to know whether he is worthy of support or not. However, one can say at this point that he is likely to be a friend of developing countries, or at least be more open and sympathetic to the problems of those countries. His recent visit to Africa provides support for this. Stay tuned....

I should correct something from my last post. Nicholas Kristof is not the author of a new book on aid to poor countries. The author is William Easterly and the book is "The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good."

Finally, an interesting statistic concerning the micro-finance movement. According to Grameen USA, more than 113 million people have been helped by micro-credit but only 82 million of those have been among the poorest of the poor. Great progress but still a long way to go.