The economical logic of open borders

The bigger the market, the bigger the value of leading technology, and hence the interest of the developed world in open markets, but whence the interest of the trailing world? Why have so few countries chosen to walk the Indian path and develop their economies autonomously? There is only one possible reason:

• countries have resources that they can export at favourable conditions,
  

and when we consider an arbitrary country, the only resource that it has for sure is its own workforce. There are two ways to export one's workforce:

• providing it inside one's country to foreign corporations or
• providing it outside of one's country to foreign corporations.
  

China proves that a country can do the former and profit from providing low cost labour to foreign corporations, but for it to be profitable, for the conditions of the export to be favourable, a highly organised effort must be made to transfer technical knowledge, so that it cannot indefinitely be used as a lever to set the wages. As far as I know, although it lies near the borders of my knowledge, Pakistan has made a similar effort, but there are plenty of countries with little to export but their workforce, who haven't.

Of course, if the workers themselves are exported, although they still work for lower wages, their wages in a developed economy will still be higher than they would be at home, for a number of reasons, but in any case because of lower shipping costs. So if a country doesn't feel up to transferring enough technical knowledge to become a major industrial player itself, but has only its workforce to export, its only motivation not to walk the Indian path and shut its market off consists in being allowed to export its workers to developed countries and profit from the money they send back home in order to support their families or bring back home when they retire or start a local business.

Nationalism is the natural enemy of globalism in the trailing world, not the developed world. However, when we look at the policy of open borders from a (Marxist) class point of view, the individual profiteers of open markets bribe the polity of trailing economies by expropriating the polity of developed economies by way of their political lobbying. What I am saying in this regard is that because of the ability of automatons to amass leading technology in ever smaller units, there will be no leading society left, like there's none when you play musical chairs, or Journey to Jerusalem, as its called in German (purportedly, because the knights died one after another on their way to Jerusalem, but I expect a reason more in line with the attribution of the so called Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, because the only purpose of that game is to make you feel bad, no matter whether you win or lose), that is we'll all be part of the trailing world soon enough and better start pursuing our political interest accordingly.

Yet, when you're still circling the ever scarcer chairs, taking from the wealthier players, who've already dropped out, and giving to the poorer, and things start getting tumultuous, your first choice will be to teach the dropouts to learn to live with less.