isn't this braindrain? 
wouldn't it be in the interest of Afghanistan to divert the over £100 million funding for opportunities to reeducated these brilliant young lads in technical or professional skills that would be required in post foreign support Afghanistan. or is it the case that the British government considers the creation of an economy that would need and supported advanced skills labour inconceivable and instead opts to do a service to these talented young group, that are only few in Afghanistan, by offering them asylum. This seems very plausible and i think for once the politician got it right. they would end up in the west anyway, there is not much else for the interpreters to do in Afghanistan. this is offering them a dignified path.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/04/afghan-interpreters-uk-resettlement-inadequate

It is not a triple dip recession, this is how it is going to be

In the new world a complex system of network nodes and links are appearing that changes the nature of government. if you accept this premises then the question is how does one tackle the predatory state and in doing so seek to unwind the symbiotic relationship that exists between it and powerful interest groups. these interest groups have varied nature and purpose and range from rent seeking elite that dominate the state to subsidiaries of state benefit system. they include lawyers, public servants, artists, beneficiaries, regulators or bankers. Governments through law making, taxation or public spending have promoted these interests in return for votes, partisan patronage and allegiance. the nature of social discourse in regard to stakeholders is predominantly ideological and not constructive; often focused on singling out one of the groups while overemphasizing the relationship it has in wielding social bonds. the left sees the banks as the very source of the problem, after all they caused the calamity of credit crunch and their greed drove financial institutions to near collapse.  The right sees recipient of public service funds and those employed by the sector as the source of the problem. this is a dept crisis and the government is spending way over what it affords in order to appease the current generation at the cost of the young and the unborn.  

as you can appreciate this is not in the interests of the society and the rule of law. it is clear to an onlooker that the nature of state institution should be altered in a way to face up huge agency problems. this would require charismatic leadership that is willing to take the risk. another but most likely scenario is the tale of continued entanglement of the state with the interest groups, eventually the market loses faith in the capacity of nations and the mountain of depth piles on but the state using monetary and financial policies manage to maintain financial confidence  and prevent the collapse of the economy.  this scenario is already shaping in the UK. this era will see economic stagnation and large scale unemployment but the government won't have to default.

my solution is to revisit the role of the state and in the light of its mission study the relationship it has formed with various groups. a range of solution will surface and we can put them all to democratic test. through a system of bargaining that is the characteristic of democracy we will arrive at a few that are acceptable to all. the dept, economic stagnation, unemployment, immigration ... are not the problem they are just symptoms. 

Low wage craft labourer would have to put up until economic growth

I grew up amidst a ravaging war in Kabul that was gripping the city in the 90s. Playing outside was rarely an option, even then it carried risks. Death or injury of my friends, who were too like me in their early teens, was common and each was a lesson to learn from. Just like many children of my age I adapted to the underground or the general indoor life. At the same time just like many other children of my age I carried the burden of seeking sources that provided the provision of sustenance. This is the time when many children of my age learned several handcraft skills. We had spent around ten hours a day working on a piece of embroidery, carpentry, packaging soap or weaving a carpet. The amount of money a child could make was under 50p. All the crafts were particularly harmful to health, inhaling the dust, debris or chemical is now causing problem among those children that are now in their early 30s. Most are suffering from anomaly associated with sight too. Not to mention of the psychological footprint left from mixing childhood with adult responsibility and imminent death.

I have moved a long way from the misfortunes that had befallen my childhood and now own my business in the UK. When I was in my 20s and had just transitioned from the smothering poverty of my childhood, I took an issue with the marketing trend of handcrafts and the exhibitionist place it had in the western culture. I only saw the prospect of a child confined to a dark room, not the embellishment of the hand weaved carpet or embroidery. I have recently overcome my ethical protest but maintain my objection to the profit distribution mechanism of handcraft. Millions of children will continue to produce handcrafts and labour extensive camps will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Craft children are working long hours in horrible conditions for low pay only because the alternative ways of making a living is none existent or worst.

When you take away an iconic handcraft labour from a woman or child the obvious risk is that they lose whatever financial power they have. This is surely not the aim. The only alternative is economic growth: while it may be frustratingly slow, it finishes off “Afghan Handcraft” by producing far more attractive jobs.

While the economic logic is straightforward enough, it is not watertight. I believe that economic development is not alleviating this particular problem. Economic growth itself can increase the demand for child labour as well as reducing the supply. While luxury customers are willing to pay a dime more for handmade carpet, increasing the chances of handcraft labourer income. Research shows that this income generally adds to the profit of trader and marketer and hardly trickles to the child force. Economic growth – at least in the short-term – is not enough to reduce child labour. Complementary policies to strengthen schools and the incentive to attend them seem to be necessary.

Schools and education is also key in grappling with the psychological element to the persistence of “Afghan Handcraft”. Many labours perceive this work as the only to make a living. The repetitive nature of the craft provides the illusion of safety to the child. Effective education shall reinstate self-confidence and alternative skill in labour children.

It is difficult to discount the long-term effectiveness of economic growth in improving working conditions. Despite my deepest sympathy for children who work long hours waving carpets, unfortunately I see no quick solution for them.

There is a lot to learn from the experience of other developing countries to help us make informed assumptions. For instance after the US boycotted sweatshops in Indonesia profits did fall, and so did investment. Some small plants closed. But few, if any, jobs seem to have been lost. The minimum wage in Indonesia more than doubled between 1989 and 1996, after inflation, and this did depress employment. But there seemed to be no additional effect in the districts with lots of high street handcraft suppliers, despite the fact that wages in those regions outpaced wage increases elsewhere by almost a third.

Increasing the demand and creative marketing for handcraft will not only change the demand but the profit structure and result in increasing the wage of the labourer. Increased income for children will provide the opportunity to work fewer hours and increase chances of school attendance. It will also induce other family member to work, easing the burden on the labour child. 

is it any good if it is for free?

Productivity in economic term is measured by GDP which measures monetary income of labour force. Thus the current economic model cannot measure productivity in terms of advancing personal utility through self-reliance. As such when you pay for childcare, health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance, car insurance, home insurance, boiler insurance… (you got the picture, this list has no end) while working difficult hours, then you are considered productive but if you spend time with your child, look after your health, exercise and eat healthy, learn to fix your own boiler… (you got the picture) then you are not productive.

Government imposes taxation on the money you spend and the money you earn. It is between 10 to 50% (unless you live in France), the institutions of the state are established to collect that money and would only recognise you as productive if the government gains from your efforts.

Then who says we are in a recession, maybe this is an economic transformation. If that is the case then we are just dealing with the symptoms of an ailing economic model that is flabbergasted by the new world flash bang.

You dare not utter that word of horror, self-reliance, a concept considered so pernicious the mere mention of which raises hair on the back of the neck of both right and left. The left would turn further red and take it as an offence to the fundamental principle of “human agency”. Where they see individuals thrive within their economic context. Instead of liberty the left would urge for remaking of social and economic system to enable individuals to achieve full potential. I describe the right as a drunkard which has just lost a gamble, sad but mostly empty captivated and under constant pressure from extremists. To the right self-reliance would be an egalitarian notion that is unattainable. To the right such a transformation is inconceivable while maintaining the rule of law.

I find both sides of political spectrum patronising. Both lack a project that is SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time scaled). Fuelled by vulgar Keynesianism and focused on the micromanagement of an unsustainable state.

I find the continuous focus of mainstream society on the money making avenues stressful. Instead I propose to shift our focus to activities the primary aim of which is not to generate money but make us happy and enable us to live comfortably without spending money.