third world nurses

Along with today's news item about Zimbabwe refugees, comes another "don't let them come here" story. The British NHS wants more nurses. Nurses take a long time to train, so it hires some from overseas. Including third world countries. As a result, according to The Independent,

"there are more Malawian nurses in Birmingham [England] than in
Malawi"

The government is being urged to stop hiring nurses from third world countries. But that misses the point! Malawi needs nurses because it is poor. Poverty is the problem, not the health service. There may be reasons for the poverty that are easy to address, like unequal trade. If so, these problems can be fixed. But if there are no obvious reasons, then we are faced with a failing business. The business of government is, after all, simply another form of business.

Land rent is the solution. Land rent, if applied between governments, brings the facts of life to governments: no business has a divine right to exist. Not even a government. By charging rent, a land rent system demands a reasonable level of economic competence. When a business can no longer pay the rent, another business moves in and takes over.

Would this lead to war and instability? How could this be implemented? Does this simply mean bringing democracy to the third world? Isn't that extraordinary difficult? All these questions will be answered in the coming months, by looking at examples from the news. But one topic at a time, please! :)

In the short term, if we care about Malawi's health, we could pay to send our own nurses over there. Sure, it would be hideously expensive because the Malawians could not afford our prices. But it might help us remember that the real problem is poverty. Maybe it would help focus the mind.

In summary, note the contrast. Sending the nurses back means we try to solve poverty by trapping more people inside a failing country. Land rent, on the other hand, fixes the country.