MBA CENTRAL APTITUDE QUIZ-2
MBA Central Aptitude Quiz - Version 2
Test your knowledge and enhance your critical thinking skills with our comprehensive MBA Central Aptitude Quiz. This quiz covers various topics, including verbal aptitude, logical reasoning, and quantitative skills. Engage with thought-provoking questions designed to challenge your understanding and improve your analytical abilities.
- Assess your comprehension of verbal skills.
- Evaluate your logical reasoning capabilities.
- Measure your quantitative aptitude.
Philippe Legrain, a liberal economist has already written a book stoutly defending globalisation. Now he takes on an even more emotive subject in the book ‘Immigrants: Your country needs them’. There is not a shadow of doubt about
his own views. He wants open borders. He believes that they will, on balance, enrich both sending and receiving countries; and he detests bureaucratic restrictions on human freedoms. “Immigrants are not an invading army,” he points out. “They are no different from someone who moves from Manchester to London, or Oklahoma to California, because that is where the jobs are.”
Mr. Legrain has assembled powerful evidence to undermine the economic arguments against immigration. In the case of skilled migrants, that is relatively easy. But for migrants there are hardly any legal tracks across borders. Yet, he argues, they too bring economic benefits and do “little or no harm” to the wages or employment prospects of native workers.
Mr Legrain makes a robust economic case – though he surely understates the impact of immigrants on holding back the pay of the poorest. He is more successful at rebutting the argument that taxpayers give willingly only to those with whom they feel some kinship and that immigration, therefore, jeopardizes support for the welfare state. A willingness to pay taxes to support the poor is independent of levels of immigration, he shows.
Less convincing are his proposals for encouraging immigrants to go home after a period of working abroad. If immigration were temporary people might tolerate it more readily. So why not get immigrants to post a bond on arrival or have a portion of their wages withheld until they leave? The trouble with such ingenious ideas is that immigrants from the world’s poorer countries have many reasons to stay overseas, especially in Europe or America. The financial gains are huge, but they are by no means the only rewards. Life is much easier where there is the rule of law, less petty corruption and a better health-care system than exists at home.
But hospitality to immigration is not just about economics. It is based on fear of change and on racism. It has also been based on growing worries about Muslim terrorism. Such anxieties are not easily assuaged by economic logic. It is striking how little serious protest there was in Britain at the absorption of over 500,000 east European immigrants in the two years after Poland and nine other countries acceded to the European Union in May 2004. Surely at least one reason was that these white Christian Europeans look and think extraordinarily like most British people, and their children will be distinguishable only by their unpronounceable names.
By contrast, many Muslim immigrants and their children have become more estranged. Their ambivalence towards the West and its secular liberalism has appeared to grow, not diminish. It is wholly unreasonable to see most Muslims as potential terrorists – but reason may not have much chance here.
So no government in the rich world is likely to open its borders to all comers, as Mr Legrain urges. For politicians, the tricky question is who to let in. The harsh truth is that voters find it easier to accept immigrants who look and behave as they do than those who are different. That, as a basis for policy, still leaves most of mankind outside the gates.
Philippe Legrain, a liberal economist has already written a book stoutly defending globalisation. Now he takes on an even more emotive subject in the book ‘Immigrants: Your country needs them’. There is not a shadow of doubt about
his own views. He wants open borders. He believes that they will, on balance, enrich both sending and receiving countries; and he detests bureaucratic restrictions on human freedoms. “Immigrants are not an invading army,” he points out. “They are no different from someone who moves from Manchester to London, or Oklahoma to California, because that is where the jobs are.”
Mr. Legrain has assembled powerful evidence to undermine the economic arguments against immigration. In the case of skilled migrants, that is relatively easy. But for migrants there are hardly any legal tracks across borders. Yet, he argues, they too bring economic benefits and do “little or no harm” to the wages or employment prospects of native workers.
Mr Legrain makes a robust economic case – though he surely understates the impact of immigrants on holding back the pay of the poorest. He is more successful at rebutting the argument that taxpayers give willingly only to those with whom they feel some kinship and that immigration, therefore, jeopardizes support for the welfare state. A willingness to pay taxes to support the poor is independent of levels of immigration, he shows.
Less convincing are his proposals for encouraging immigrants to go home after a period of working abroad. If immigration were temporary people might tolerate it more readily. So why not get immigrants to post a bond on arrival or have a portion of their wages withheld until they leave? The trouble with such ingenious ideas is that immigrants from the world’s poorer countries have many reasons to stay overseas, especially in Europe or America. The financial gains are huge, but they are by no means the only rewards. Life is much easier where there is the rule of law, less petty corruption and a better health-care system than exists at home.
But hospitality to immigration is not just about economics. It is based on fear of change and on racism. It has also been based on growing worries about Muslim terrorism. Such anxieties are not easily assuaged by economic logic. It is striking how little serious protest there was in Britain at the absorption of over 500,000 east European immigrants in the two years after Poland and nine other countries acceded to the European Union in May 2004. Surely at least one reason was that these white Christian Europeans look and think extraordinarily like most British people, and their children will be distinguishable only by their unpronounceable names.
By contrast, many Muslim immigrants and their children have become more estranged. Their ambivalence towards the West and its secular liberalism has appeared to grow, not diminish. It is wholly unreasonable to see most Muslims as potential terrorists – but reason may not have much chance here.
So no government in the rich world is likely to open its borders to all comers, as Mr Legrain urges. For politicians, the tricky question is who to let in. The harsh truth is that voters find it easier to accept immigrants who look and behave as they do than those who are different. That, as a basis for policy, still leaves most of mankind outside the gates.