Economist Bryan Caplan is outraged by having to listen to (what must be a tiny handful of) citizenist economists without being able to shout the Open Borders moral revelations of Julian Simon into their thick skulls:
I was just at a conference where several eminent economists embraced the following principle:
The United States should adopt whatever policies maximize the per-capita GDP of the existing population of the United States, and their descendants.
It was frustrating to listen. On the one hand, any philosophy professor could instantly produce devastating counter-examples to this principle of national egoism. For starters:
1. If conquering and enslaving Canada would increase American per-capita GDP, should we therefore conquer and enslave Canada?
2. If we could forever end world poverty by reducing American per-capita GDP by a penny, should we refuse to end world poverty?
3. If we could costlessly exterminate all Americans who produce a below-average quantity of GDP, should we exterminate them?
Uh ...
1. No.
(Unless, of course, the Canadians really piss us off. So, just watch your step, Canadians. You know what we're talking about. Oh, where was I?)
(Unless, of course, the Canadians really piss us off. So, just watch your step, Canadians. You know what we're talking about. Oh, where was I?)
2. Whatever.
3. I suspect reducing the income of 49.99% of Americans to zero would not, on the whole, be Good for the Economy -- it would certainly be bad for the 49.99% -- although I must admit that I don't keep up with the latest fashions in economic thought, which seem to be moving in that direction.
Seriously, Caplan's excursion into the fever swamps of why Godwin's Law exists means he completely misses the point of "The United States should adopt whatever policies maximize the per-capita GDP of the existing population of the United States, and their descendants."
The citizenist economists who so outrage poor Dr. Caplan are drawing an obvious analogy to the principle pounded into my head while getting my MBA in finance three decades ago that the board of directors of corporations should adopt whatever policies maximize the wealth of the existing shareholders of the corporation.
That doesn't mean that the board of directors should conquer and enslave Canada. All ethical principles come with endless grown-up qualifications to fantasies hatched by childish minds.
No, the most important word in that principle of financial economics is not "whatever," it is "existing." When corporate directors forget the distinction between current and potential shareholders, corruption ensues. As I pointed out in VDARE in 2005:
By "citizenism," I mean that I believe Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners.
Let me describe citizenism using a business analogy. When I was getting an MBA many years ago, I was the favorite of an acerbic old Corporate Finance professor because I could be counted on to blurt out in class all the stupid misconceptions to which students are prone.
One day he asked: "If you were running a publicly traded company, would it be acceptable for you to create new stock and sell it for less than it was worth?"
"Sure," I confidently announced. "Our duty is to maximize our stockholders' wealth, and while selling the stock for less than its worth would harm our current shareholders, it would benefit our new shareholders who buy the underpriced stock, so it all comes out in the wash. Right?"
"Wrong!" He thundered. "Your obligation is to your current stockholders, not to somebody who might buy the stock in the future."
That same logic applies to the valuable right of being an American citizen and living in America. Just as the managers of a public company have a fiduciary duty to the current stockholders not to diminish the value of their shares by selling new ones too cheaply to outsiders, our leaders have a duty to the current citizens and their descendants.
Posts
79 comments:
Of course when Adam Smith (the 'father of economics'), set the whole ball rolling way back in the 18th century, his discourse was entitled 'An Enquiry into the Wealth of Nations'.
Basically Adam Smith was interested in why some nations are rich and others poor. All he really cared about was boosting incomes in his own nation - he didn't give a damn about anything else.
That is what the founder of subject thought the subject was all about. In fact it was the commonsense position right up until recent times.
It's only in the last few decades that the assholes have obfuscated the subject (in the name of ideology, politics and 'smarter than thou' schtick) and have conned a lot of rather dim and vain politicoes with their bullshit (you see if you don't agree, 'you are not smart' like the profs are).
Caplan talks poopy.
As for conquest, well basically up until recent times this is the way all naions 'gained wealth' - Britsh, Romans, Spanish etc. Needless to say if the English colonizers of America weren't pretty much ruthless about conquering, Caplan wouldn't be here in the first place mouthing off his poopy.
On 'eliminating the unproductive' - again if evolution by natural selection never did this Caplan would be a piece of pond scum floating on a primeval ocean somewhere.
And as for the 'reducing American incomes to save the third world, poopy' - well I can assure Caplan absolutely no rational businessman in the world operates on that principle, there might be a moral in that for Caplan.
When there are autistics in the audience, nothing "goes without saying".
A few random points here Steve.
"The United States should adopt whatever policies maximize the per-capita GDP of the existing population of the United States, and their descendants."
It's possible that letting in additional highly qualified immigrants would boost the per-capita GDP of the existing population of the United States along with their descendants.
" By "citizenism," I mean that I believe Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners."
Globalization isn't necessarily a zero-sum game, a point which I indirectly alluded to above. If your argument is entirely economic, then it's certainly possible to improve the well-being of current Americans by letting in additional high quality immigrants.
I find your example of a corporation maximizing current shareholder value to be a bad one, because it directly contradicts what many of your readers have been saying on this blog.
Your readers complain about low quality immigration because of the obvious negative effects it has on American society. They complain about high quality immigration because according to them it makes America less a country united by a common ethnicity and culture and more like a corporation where anyone can come over and make money.
By the way, even if we shut off the borders entirely beginning right now, I would assume that differential reproductive rates amongst current ethnic groups would still lead to less than desirable demographic changes.
I would wager, though I could be wrong here, that what these economists are advocating for is less "citizenism" and more of something along the lines of cognitive elitism.
In The End of History, Francis Fukuyama talked about various philosophies possessing internal contradictions, and with citizenism we certainly have some glaring ones. So alas, History with a capital H has yet to come to an end on iSteve. The war of ideas rages on. :)
As I see it, citizenism is flawed because it's framed in explicitly economic terms, while many of Steve's readers frame the issue in explicitly racial/ethnic terms, which isn't a big surprise given that they're part of the white nationalist movement. Hence, the contradiction which I alluded to above.
Now, if the rest of the world were nothing but Mexicans and sub-saharan Africans, then perhaps citizenism and white nationalism would be much more closely aligned and this contradiction wouldn't exist. However, the rest of the world obviously isn't just made up of Mexicans and sub-Saharan Africans.
The bottom line here is that Steve has offered up something moderate and obviously more palatable to a mainstream audience, but which ultimately is at odds with what a large segment of his audience believes in.
"Just as the managers of a public company have a fiduciary duty to the current stockholders not to diminish the value of their shares by selling new ones too cheaply to outsiders, our leaders have a duty to the current citizens and their descendants."
Say that while running for elective office and the press will make you the next Todd Akin. The notion that America is for Americans is now one of the primary definitions of the term "racist."
"They complain about high quality immigration because according to them it makes America less a country united by a common ethnicity and culture and more like a corporation where anyone can come over and make money."
'Less united" = more divisive, but the latter is both more accurate and more forboding. I have Indian friends (all children of immigrants, of course) who (though members of the 2nd richest ethnic group in the country) bitch about how awful they have it; bitch about those 'damned white Republicans.' I would like to think them unrepresentative of Indians at large, but given my experience with ILG's (Indians in Large Groups) I have serious doubts.
And America today isn't run like a corporation. It is more like a shopping mall with an absentee owner where the manager is handing out free leases to tenants. The newcomers don't have to pay one solitary dime for the efforts of those who actually built the place.
America, American citizenship, is an inheritance. For any American who is middle class or below, it is the largest "estate" they will ever own, and yet that estate is being taxed at what is effectively a very high rate. The various levels of government hold in trust for the American people assets worth tens of trillions of dollars. Their duty is to the owners of those assets.
I think the management of most companies is more interested in making money for themselves than the welfare of the company. The shareholders are usually too indifferent to care, except in rare cases of shareholder activism.
"By the way, even if we shut off the borders entirely beginning right now, I would assume that differential reproductive rates amongst current ethnic groups would still lead to less than desirable demographic changes."
True, but that is mostly because Americans would still be subsidizing high NAM birthrates via welfare, affirmative action, etc.
"The United States should adopt whatever policies maximize the per-capita GDP of the existing population of the United States, and their descendants."
Personally, I would replace "per-capita GDP" with "quality of life," as it includes factors like commute times, air quality, etc. Perhaps economists don't like to use that as it isn't a measurable quantity.
I suspect that maximizing per-capita GDP would, in the views of many economists, still involve quite a lot of immigration. Rapidly increasing GDP generally means increasing your population, other than in places like China where you have a vastly underutilized labor force a and mercantilist regime. But population cannot grow rapidly forever, and probably can't even grow rapidly for more than a few generations without seriously disrupting any existing order, especially if population growth means demographic change.
Taliban just offed a cheerleader. If they do that again, we gotta go in.
Gilbert P.
"As for conquest, well basically up until recent times this is the way all nations gained wealth.". True. And as for why in recent times this is no longer the case, the cost of policing the conquered began to outweigh whatever benefits the conquest brought. This was actually always true, but it just wasn't apparent until recently. These costs are not just in monetary terms, but intangible as well. For example, Britain is still paying for it by supporting third-world immigrants from its former colonies (I.e. Pakistanis and Jamaicans).
US politicians have long favored "ourselves" over "our posterity." Will this not end up bankrupting us?
Libertarians don't get many chances to be morally self-righteous or to ingratiate themselves with their progressive overlords. Give Caplan his moment.
"That same logic applies to the valuable right of being an American citizen and living in America. Just as the managers of a public company have a fiduciary duty to the current stockholders not to diminish the value of their shares by selling new ones too cheaply to outsiders, our leaders have a duty to the current citizens and their descendants."
Yeah, but when even the Lord of Business candidate embraces open borders, then it seems to be unavoidable...
Libertarian and Austrian school economists are deliberately removing themselves from some crucial debates when they could be very much in the mix. When the city-states really do immanentize, Paul Romer and the anarcho-capitalists will not like what they see.
1. If conquering and enslaving Canada would increase American per-capita GDP, should we therefore conquer and enslave Canada?
It looks like Caplan's projecting here. It is possible to pursue self-interest without violating moral rules. Caplan's favored policies whereby Americans are forbidden to pursue their collective self-interest and resources are stolen from Americans and transferred to others is not an example of morally legitimate pursuit of self-interest.
And what's special about Canada? Why do Canadians get the protection of moral rules while Americans don't?
2. If we could forever end world poverty by reducing American per-capita GDP by a penny, should we refuse to end world poverty?
"We"? You're talking about "you" making the decision for everyone else. Go to hell.
3. If we could costlessly exterminate all Americans who produce a below-average quantity of GDP, should we exterminate them?
It looks like Caplan's projecting here. It is possible to pursue self-interest without violating moral rules. Caplan's favored policies whereby Americans are replaced by others -- a policy of genocide -- is not an example of morally legitimate pursuit of self-interest.
Caplan is a bad guy who makes insultingly stupid arguments.
1. If conquering and tax-enslaving America would increase Mexican per-capita GDP, should they therefore conquer and tax-enslave America?
1. Yes, and they have.
Fixed it.
"Your readers complain about low quality immigration because of the obvious negative effects it has on American society. They complain about high quality immigration because according to them it makes America less a country united by a common ethnicity and culture and more like a corporation where anyone can come over and make money."
Remind me again why highly qualified foreigners wish to move here to improve our country with their talents instead of their own countries and countrymen.
Yan Shen:
"It's possible that letting in additional highly qualified immigrants would boost the per-capita GDP of the existing population of the United States along with their descendants."
Is a GDP increase (minus externalities)really an unalloyed good? Also, assuming it is, wouldn't the GDP of the highly qualified immigrants' homelands have to decrease by a similar amount, putting out-migration pressure on those whose immigration to Western lands would lower GDP?
I don't think this is quite fair to Caplan. Those points were intended to serve as counterexamples, proving that it's not as simple as "We want to maximise Americans' GDP", not as legitimate counterpoints to whatever more complicated position people really hold.
If people volunteer to give a clear-cut verbalisation of what they want, they are vulnerable to others logically picking it apart.
Your citizenism idea is even wackier than I first thought. Current citizens and their descendents are not analogous to current shareholders. They're roughly analogous to current and future shareholders, or they would be if stocks could only be sold within the family. It's a lousy analogy, and citizenism...has some problems as a political philosophy.
Caplan's reductio is exactly to the point. Never, ever let economists set policy goals. They'll come up with something crazy like "maximize GDP."
"Yan Shen said...
I find your example of a corporation maximizing current shareholder value to be a bad one, because it directly contradicts what many of your readers have been saying on this blog."
Perhaps that's because you are either a.) a pro asian-immigration bigot, or b.) an idiot, or c.) both. Steve's example of the board of a company diluting the value of that company's stock is directly analagous to a government of a nation diluting the value of citizenship in that nation.
Perhaps Caplan doesn't really feel any kinship with his fellow citizens. Perhaps he doesn't consider them to be his fellow citizens at all. Perhaps he would feel differently if his name were Smith, or Jones, rather than Caplan.
Even putting moral considerations completely aside, you wouldn't want to strictly implement whatever policies maximize the per-capita GDP of the existing population..., because it leaves out a very important consideration: what the existing population wants. I.e.:
1) The existing population does not want to enslave Canada.
2) The existing population would be very happy to spend a penny per person to end world poverty.
3) The existing population does not want to exterminate half of itself.
Nations, like people, are free to act against their own self interest if they want to. If the people of the United States truly wanted to see their country overrun by Third World immigrants then our current immigration policy, while still unwise, would be a legitimate expression of their will. But they don't, so it isn't.
For all their posturing of being coldly rational and completely logical, libertarians are some of the biggest moralizers on the planet.
Yan Shen is probably stupid enough to believe that he is arguing for "cognitive elitism", but what he is actually arguing for is preferential treatment for his own ethnic group.
A laissez faire free market advocate recommends that the rich should give their wealth to the poor? Those who do well in the free market ought to subsidize those who do not?
Has not Mr. Caplan in the past pushed open borders immigration on the basis that it will make the country richer? He suggests that the USA should contemplate a reduction in its GDP which will make others better off. On the same basis, why should a business not reduce its profits or market share in order to benefit its rivals? Ought not an employee ask for less pay in order to leave more for the rest of the staff?
It doesn't sound much like classic competition.
"The United States should adopt whatever policies maximize the per-capita GDP of the existing population of the United States, and their descendants."
It's possible that letting in additional highly qualified immigrants would boost the per-capita GDP of the existing population of the United States along with their descendants.
Yes, let's play make a deal. I'll pay you a lot of money for the rope to hang you. Hey, what are you, an economic Luddite? Let's move beyond the economic Dark Ages and make a deal.
Globalization isn't necessarily a zero-sum game, a point which I indirectly alluded to above. If your argument is entirely economic, then it's certainly possible to improve the well-being of current Americans by letting in additional high quality immigrants.
This "not a zero-sum game" schtick is one of Kato's favorites. Almost as popular as those rubber nunchuks.
When businessmen sit down to negotiate, they set out to get as much as they can, and give as little as possible. That's what we should do with China (those high quality immigrants to which Kato refers); we're bigger, we should bend them over.
I mean, say you sit down across from a guy to make a deal. You get a dollar, and he gets a million dollars. Hey, you both made a profit, right? It wasn't a zero sum game! No. You were just bent over, big time. That's usually how you find out you were the smaller guy, if you didn't know already. But according to the "not a zero sum game" argument, you're a brilliant business man, so go ahead and pat yourself on your sore backside.
I find your example of a corporation maximizing current shareholder value to be a bad one, because it directly contradicts what many of your readers have been saying on this blog.
Kato hates words like "maximize." They're so straightforward!
I would wager, though I could be wrong here, that what these economists are advocating for is less "citizenism" and more of something along the lines of cognitive elitism.
Cognitive elitism
n. (slang): the practice of telling YT to do as yellow people say, but never as they do; see antonyms reciprocity and fairness.
P.S. Kato, I saw you in You Only Live Twice. Near the end, in Blofeld's secret volcano lair, you were working the radar, or some kind of engineering panel anyway. Bet you thought I missed that.
"It's possible that letting in additional highly qualified immigrants would boost the per-capita GDP of the existing population of the United States along with their descendants."
You don't need highly qualified immigrants if all you want to do is boost GDP. A lower class Mestizo who drunk-drives and causes several automobile accidents will do just fine boosting GDP through payments to and from body shops, insurance companies, hospitals, funeral homes, and etc.
The Arab oil embargo ripped the heart out of western industrial capitalism, way back in '73, and things have never been the same since. From that point onwards recession, unemployment, stagnation, inflation have been the order of the day, f*cking up the living standards of generations of westerners.
Anyway, my point is that there would have been a certain moral justification (from the industrial west's POV), for the seizure and annexation of Arab oil assets way back then.
It seems to me that high skilled immigration to already developed nations is not justified without an explanation as to why a population that created the high skilled positions in the first place, needs in influx of foreigners to man those very industries. Unless you can substantiate a rapid decline in the IQs of the native born population, importing foreigners is a self destructive swindle.
For example, the German population suffered a drastic decline in WWII, yet bounced back without the aid of talented Hindus or Chinese. How did they manage? Maybe we should ask.
It seems that most of the tellers and low ranking bank personnel in my area are now held by Indians. Can anyone seriously say that the USA lacks enough people to fill these positions? In fact, I find these people to be rather dim when I interact with them. The same goes for customer service. In order to make myself understood and get anything but the most basic service from the overwhelmingly foreign representatives, I have to get an American supervisor on the line.
If we are not producing enough talented workers, we need to encourage family formation among the talented. We also need to crack open the education establishment and educate our young to be patriotic, productive citizens.
I left a comment over at Econlog for that post that the moderator removed for being too rude. I wasn't trolling; I just gave Bryan the verbal thrashing he deserved. Apparently, "obtuse" crosses a line, though. Just fyi for anyone else who comments over there.
" They complain about high quality immigration because according to them it makes America less a country united by a common ethnicity and culture and more like a corporation where anyone can come over and make money."
They? I haven't heard anyone make this argument. You are creating a straw man.
I don't think you understand high quality immigration. The reason low quality immigration is a problem is because there are so many low quality people around (willing to emigrate to the US) in the world relative to the US population. Higher quality immigration will always be far less significant than lower quality.
And the only way a nation can even get high quality immigration is to be able to choose who can or cannot be allowed in, which I believe is the position of most of Steve's readers.
You've completely ballsed up the argument. If anything, low quality immigration "makes America less a country united by a common ethnicity" because of the sheer numbers.
agnostic,
I think it goes without saying that was bloody brilliant.
The citizenist economists who so outrage poor Dr. Caplan are drawing an obvious analogy to the principle pounded into my head while getting my MBA in finance three decades ago that the board of directors of corporations should adopt whatever policies maximize the wealth of the existing shareholders of the corporation.
That doesn't mean that the board of directors should conquer and enslave Canada. All ethical principles come with endless grown-up qualifications to fantasies hatched by childish minds.
This would seem to support Caplan's point.
The change from a more Fordist attitude in American business to a singular focus on promoting financial "shareholder value" resulted in policies aimed at maximizing shareholder value at the expense of others in the American economy. Policies like outsourcing, immigration, de-industrialization, etc.
Caplan's argument is not that strange if you look at history where wars for more food or wealth are routine.
Caplan made a good post showing that Nazi Germany was motivated by a desire to increase GDP-per-capita:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/03/hitlers_argumen.html
Caplan made a good post showing that Nazi Germany was motivated by a desire to increase GDP-per-capita:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/03/hitlers_argumen.htm
That's not what he says in that post. He says that Hitler was motivated by the Malthusian concern that Germany would run out of food unless it acquired more land. GDP-per-capita is not discussed at all.
Anyway, my point is that there would have been a certain moral justification (from the industrial west's POV), for the seizure and annexation of Arab oil assets way back then.
Arab oil was effectively seized by the US in '73 to form the basis of the (off gold) dollar as world reserve currency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar
That's not what he says in that post. He says that Hitler was motivated by the Malthusian concern that Germany would run out of food unless it acquired more land. GDP-per-capita is not discussed at all.
That is what he says. More food is more GDP-per-capita.
Isn't the primary purpose of government to protect its existing citizens? The ones that voted for that government?
Presumably maximising GDP is consistent with that principle?
More food is more GDP-per-capita.
That's a truly remarkable degree of economic illiteracy.
It's not even true that more food per capita equals more GDP per capita. And we're not talking about more food per capita, just the same amount of food per capita.
Caplan's reductio is exactly to the point. Never, ever let economists set policy goals.
1) Caplan is not making a reductio.
2) Caplan does believe that economists should set policy goals.
Other than that, bang on!
Caplan isn't off-base here considering that history is basically the history of war socialism:
http://www.energybulletin.net/print/49369
http://www.warsocialism.com/
Never, ever let economists set policy goals.
Caplan wrote an entire book arguing that economists, and only economists, should be allowed to set policy goals.
It's called The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. It's standard libertarian boilerplate - Down with representative government, long live the rule of the unaccountable elite!
Steve:
This is for your information rather than publication though you may do as you wish in that regard.
I took a look at the Caplan and can say that nearly every one of his critics is an idiot. Caplan may not be a world-beater as an economist but has a sound grasp of
basic truths.
Your comment-o-sphere includes individuals perceptive in many ways but it's frequently painful to read the various economic mis-analyses, often emanating from otherwise intelligent commentors.
(And I count you, youself, among these.)
Take the very first commentor--"Anonymous," of course. He's got Adam Smith "way back in the 18th century" (Smith wrote W of N in the 19th--about the time of our War of Independence) "set the whole ball rolling" (Ricardo had formulated his Law of Comparative Advantage about 50 years earlier, along with his Law of Diminishing Returns; Smith was conversant with such thought, properly regarded as foundational in Economics.)
It's even simpler. The Law of Comparative Advantage, does lead to conclusion that, by and large, free trade is best policy for all countries in all circumstances.
There are no "policies" that can fix the problem. Here, there, and everywhere, trade and monetary policies CAUSE most problems with trade and money matters. There's no cure for these problems except to abandon attempts to gain some advantage or to "make things fair" (usually applied to attempts to gain some advantage).
If you want to appreciate these relationships and processes better, I'd suggest Hayek's THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, published in the late '40s. It wasn't new at the time-Mises had laid it all out in 1920 or so (along with predicting that, one night, perhaps several generations hence, we'd go to bed in a world in which the USSR was one of the pre-eminent powers in the world and awake to find it had collapsed--"like a house of cards."
The basic problem (identified by Mises) is that of "socialist calculation." But never mentioned by Mises (or Hayek) is that EVERY government is, essentially a socialist enterprise and, as such, is absolutely destined (it's only a matter of time) to a failure resulting from inability to perform economic calculation (only possible to owners and only where there is a public market for that which they own).
Most of your commentors are not, in fact, of a different opinion than most of the academics; nor are they really of a fundamentally different mindset from that of the
ignorant rabble (of any color) or the various leftist elites.
It looks like Caplan's projecting here. It is possible to pursue self-interest without violating moral rules.
That is exactly Caplan's point. He's not projecting here. He's showing how the pursuit of self-interest doesn't violate the moral rule of "national egoism". I'm not sure what your disagreement or objection is here, since your view of morality is that it's a means or tool of groupism.
maximize the per-capita GDP
There's his problem with it.
If it had been:
"maximize the wealth of the international super-rich"
then he would be fine with it.
Bryan Caplan immigration quotes:
I've tried (though perhaps not hard enough) to make open borders my pet issue
I have come to see immigration as the most important issue on earth.
Part of me thinks that I should devote my entire life to this issue - to transform myself into the William Lloyd Garrison of immigration.
immigration restrictions ... To truly appreciate the horror of these laws, ... Most of us can't reach this level of enlightenment unless we personally get to know some illegal immigrants.
1. Under Jim Crow, there were many places in America where blacks were not legally allowed to live. Under current immigration laws, there is nowhere in America where illegal immigrants are legally allowed to live.
The Law of Comparative Advantage, does lead to conclusion that, by and large, free trade is best policy for all countries in all circumstances.
That little clause, "by and large", covers an awful lot of territory. Our current trade with China, for example, is not remotely "free" in the sense understood by the theory of free trade. In fact, it's mercantillist.
And any philosophy professor could tell Bry-Bry what a "ceteris paribus" clause is, and how pedantic objections like his aren't objections at all.
From Bryan Caplan blog:
Gilens vs. the Political Externalities of Immigration
Even if immigrants vote staunchly in favor of the welfare state, their presence reduces native support for the welfare state. The net effect of immigration on the size of the welfare state is therefore ambiguous.
[...]
Gilens presents no specific evidence about the effect of immigration on the welfare state.
[...]
If Gilens is right, granting citizenship to even staunchly statist immigrants is almost politically harmless...
[...]
Slogan: The immigrants to fear aren't Mexican laborers, but French professors.
It's not even true that more food per capita equals more GDP per capita. And we're not talking about more food per capita, just the same amount of food per capita.
In the context of Caplan's post on Nazi Germany, more food is more GDP-per-capita.
(Caplan is) showing how the pursuit of self-interest doesn't violate the moral rule of "national egoism".
What? Where in the post Steve linked to is Caplan "showing" anything of the sort? He's just having a hissy fit, declaring himself a better and wiser person than those "national egotists", and stomping off stage left.
We should all learn to speak Spanish.
Are Monolingual Americans Missing Out?
Bryan Caplan
If you find the typical American insufferably insular and low-brow, I agree. My point is that given his insular, low-brow ways, the typical American who remains monolingual isn't missing much.
In the context of Caplan's post on Nazi Germany, more food is more GDP-per-capita.
No, it is not. It is the same amount of food per capita. It is more food for more people, but the same amout of food per capita.
I can see why you're "Anonymous".
Even if immigrants vote staunchly in favor of the welfare state, their presence reduces native support for the welfare state. The net effect of immigration on the size of the welfare state is therefore ambiguous.
We have several decades of of empirical experiment and result to answer this - the past few decades of American history. Has the welfare state gotten bigger or smaller? There's nothing ambiguous about it. The welfare state is vastly larger and more intrusive than it was in 1960.
He heard:
eminent economists embraced the following principle: ...
should adopt whatever policies maximize the per-capita GDP
And he thought:
It was frustrating to listen.
Ironic, that's how I feel reading his and libertarian pro immigration arguments using the same reasoning. ie: "it boosts GDP, so it's good. Who cares about the non-economic aspects of it".
Under current immigration laws, there is nowhere in America where illegal immigrants are legally allowed to live.
Under current immigration laws, there are hundreds of countries in the world in which American's are not legally allowed to live. Perhaps Caplan can direct his efforts towards persuading the government of Israel to grant Israeli citizenship to all Americans? That would be a good start.
What? Where in the post Steve linked to is Caplan "showing" anything of the sort? He's just having a hissy fit, declaring himself a better and wiser person than those "national egotists", and stomping off stage left.
He did show it. It's an obvious logical implication that the pursuit of self-interest doesn't violate the moral rule of "national egoism".
He did show it. It's an obvious logical implication
"Showing it" is one thing. "An obvious moral implication" is another thing. The two things are not the same.
I'm still waiting for you to point out where he "showed it" or where he made the "obvious moral implication" that the "pursuit of self-interest doesn't violate the moral rule of "national egoism"."
Try reading Caplan's post.
Yan Shen,
"It's possible that letting in additional highly qualified immigrants would boost the per-capita GDP of the existing population of the United States along with their descendants."
Sure, there are some immigrants that most Americans would agree would be a welcome addition to this country. For example, entrepreneurs who will create jobs for Americans, and truly world class individuals in all fields. In fact, there are already specific visas for those two categories of exceptional immigrants: EB-5 and 0-1, respectively. But there are a couple of reasons why you don't hear much about those two visa categories:
1) There aren't whole lot of immigrants who would qualify for them.
2) Advocates of increasing immigration usually employ a bait-and-switch. They'll talk about the importance of immigrant entrepreneurs (who could be covered by the EB-5) at the same time the shill for more H1-B visas. IOW, we need more job creators, so lets bring in more job takers. Makes no sense.
He heard:
eminent economists embraced the following principle: ...
should adopt whatever policies maximize the per-capita GDP
And he thought:
It was frustrating to listen.
Ironic considering:
Open Borders Persuasion Bleg
Immigration restrictions probably have bigger effects on the world's economy than all other regulations combined.
[effects on the world's economy]
The Efficient, Egalitarian, Libertarian, Utilitarian Way to Double World GDP
[Double World GDP]
The noble Michael Clemens tells the full story in his new piece...
[The mentioned article (warning: pdf):]
Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?
[Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk]
How large are the economic losses caused by barriers to emigration?
[economic losses]
The gains to eliminating those barriers
amount to large fractions of world GDP
[world GDP]
the gains from complete elimination of migration barriers are only realized with epic movements of people—at least half the population of poor countries would need to move to
rich countries. [...] But migration need not be that large in order to bring vast gains.
[half the population of poor countries would need to move to
rich countries ... bring vast gains]
we might plausibly imagine overall gains of 20–60 percent of global GDP. This accords with the gasp-inducing numbers in Tables 1 and 2.
["gains of ... global GDP ... gasp-inducing numbers." (libertarians have their own Poe's law)]
Cato Journal Immigration Symposium Round-Up
I've now read the full Cato Journal immigration issue ...
1. Gordon Hanson, "Immigration and Economic Growth." Pretty good, ...
[Economic Growth]
10. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda. "The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform."
[Economic Benefits]
Summary ======================
So far Caplan tells us that half the population of poor countries moving to rich countries is good because of:
effects on the world's economy
Double World GDP
Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk
world GDP
bring vast gains
gains of ... global GDP ... gasp-inducing numbers
Economic Growth
Economic Benefits
It's frustrating to listen.
Globalization isn't necessarily a zero-sum game, a point which I indirectly alluded to above. If your argument is entirely economic, then it's certainly possible to improve the well-being of current Americans by letting in additional high quality immigrants.
I agree, and given that the highest quality of immigrant of all is the educated European, it's high time to stop letting Asians, Africans, and Central and South Americans into this country, expel much of those who are already here, and revert back to pre-1965 immigration policy. I'm sure you'll agree, assuming you aren't grossly ignorant of social science.
"It's possible that letting in additional highly qualified immigrants would boost the per-capita GDP of the existing population of the United States along with their descendants."
It's possible that there is a black obelisk sitting on the surface of Titan. All sorts of things are possible. It's possible that the correct cure to America's economic woes is to sacrifice some virgins to that brass bull on Wall Street. I wouldn't bet money on it working, but the possibility does exist.
Caplans blog post "The Efficient, Egalitarian, Libertarian, Utilitarian Way to Double World GDP"
references this article:
Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?
the gains from complete elimination of migration barriers are only realized with epic movements of people—at least half the population of poor countries would need to move to rich countries.
But migration need not be that large in order to bring vast gains.
we might plausibly imagine overall gains of 20–60 percent of global GDP. This accords with the gasp-inducing numbers in Tables 1 and 2.
================
Picking out the good parts gives us:
Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?
half the population of poor countries would need to move to rich countries
bring vast gains
gains of 20–60 percent of global GDP
gasp-inducing numbers
Brings to mind:
money, money, money by the pound
Aaron in Israel,
"Your citizenism idea is even wackier than I first thought. Current citizens and their descendents are not analogous to current shareholders. They're roughly analogous to current and future shareholders, or they would be if stocks could only be sold within the family. It's a lousy analogy"
I disagree. Steve's analogy works well with one small addition:
Current citizens and their descendants are analogous to current shareholders and their heirs.
Caplan made a good post showing that Nazi Germany was motivated by a desire to increase GDP-per-capita:
Hitler-and a lot of other Germans- wanted Ukraine because they recalled the Allied starvation blockade that killed a million or more Germans during and after the Great War. The fact that they were totally dependent on USSR for oil-except for a few wells in Romania that were highly vulnerable to a Soviet attack-after war began was also a strong motivating factor.
r
Dave says:
"Steve's analogy works well with one small addition: Current citizens and their descendants are analogous to current shareholders and their heirs."
With shareholders, the "and their heirs" part is actually implied. Boards of directors are not supposed to reason like this:
"We should print up a lot of new stock and award it to our mistresses because many of our current shareholders are elderly and likely to die soon and so there's no ethical presumption against watering the stock of heirs."
No, the heirs are already included in the conceptual package of "shareholders."
And it should be like that for citizens, too.
Makes sense, Steve. Perhaps I should have said "with one small explication" rather than "with one small addition".
"Gene Berman said...
Steve:
This is for your information rather than publication though you may do as you wish in that regard.
I took a look at the Caplan and can say that nearly every one of his critics is an idiot......
Your comment-o-sphere includes individuals perceptive in many ways but it's frequently painful to read the various economic mis-analyses,.....
Take the very first commentor--"Anonymous," of course. He's got Adam Smith "way back in the 18th century" (Smith wrote W of N in the 19th--about the time of our War of Independence).....
Apparently, Mr. Berman, who would privately deride us as idiots is quite an idiot himself. "The Wealth of Nations" was published in 1776, about the time of our War of Independence indeed - which took place entirely in the 18th century, not the 19th century, as he asserted.
Now, why is it again that we should care to hear Mr. Berman's opinion, given that his knowledge of american history seems to be on a par with the average contestant on "Jay Walking"?
If a lot of this stuff really represents Caplan's thought then he is an idiot.
Actually I doubt he is an idiot, its all a ariety of who, whom or at the very least him telling the people who matter what they want to hear.
To Gene Berman,
not only was the Wealth of Nations written in the 18th century (NOT the 19th century), Adam Smith xame BEFORE David Ricardo, who was active in the early 19th century.
Also the War of Independence was fought in the 18th century - how any educated American can possibly get that one wrong, I hate to think.
I agree, and given that the highest quality of immigrant of all is the educated European, it's high time to stop letting Asians, Africans, and Central and South Americans into this country, expel much of those who are already here, and revert back to pre-1965 immigration policy. I'm sure you'll agree, assuming you aren't grossly ignorant of social science.
Why don't you go back to wherever you or your ancestors came from?
Guys who criticized my timeline screw-up:
Mea culpa. You're right. I'd plead late hours and Value-Rite vodka but I didn't have a drop (maybe I should've). I probably got it more or less exactly backwards (in the sense of Smith's Wealth of Nations likely having been a stimulant of Ricardo's very fruitful thought on the subject.
And specific apology to the first "Anonymous" on that score.
But my other comments stand. As a matter of fact, I'll expand on them a bit by simply stating that virtually all the angst and the back-and-forth discussion of immigration is largely an entire waste. Disastrous (and dysgenic) immigration is more a product than a cause (though it is somewhat of both).
Socialism is real enemy and cause of decline. Reduce gov't intrusion in the economy (and other aspects of life) and seemingly intractable problems will disappear (or shrink to a size quite within abilities of ordinary law enforcement).
If these immigrants are super high quality why don't they have countries worth living in?
Why don't you go back to wherever you or your ancestors came from?
Because I already live there.
Because I already live there.
So what? It's called deportation.
That is exactly Caplan's point. He's not projecting here. He's showing how the pursuit of self-interest doesn't violate the moral rule of "national egoism". I'm not sure what your disagreement or objection is here, since your view of morality is that it's a means or tool of groupism.
Caplan said the pursuit of self-interest is illegitimte because people who pursue their self-interest will necessarily commit atrocities. Seriously, can you read?
Caplan said the pursuit of self-interest is illegitimte because people who pursue their self-interest will necessarily commit atrocities. Seriously, can you read?
Can you read? He's showing how the pursuit of self-interest doesn't violate the moral rule of "national egoism" but may violate other moral rules held by the "national egoist", resulting in inconsistency.
You're incapable of reading and incapable of intellectual honesty.
Post a Comment