From EconLog:
What the Swiss Vote Really Shows
Bryan Caplan
The Swiss just passed a referendum to restrict immigration from the EU. Tyler thinks this shows that open borders is a hopeless cause. When immigration gets too high, public opinion naturally turns against immigration. ...
But there's a major problem with Tyler's story: Swiss anti-immigration voting was highest in the places with the least immigrants! This is no fluke. In the U.S., anti-immigration sentiment is highest in the states with the least immigration - even if you assume that 100% of immigrants are pro-immigration.
The natural inference to draw, then, is the opposite of Tyler's: The main hurdle to further immigration is insufficient immigration. If countries could just get over the hump of status quo bias, anti-immigration attitudes would become as socially unacceptable as domestic racism. Instead of coddling nativism with gradualism, we can, should, and must peacefully destroy nativism with abolitionism.
And, you’ll notice, not only are the Swiss having second thoughts about Inviting the World, for centuries they have failed to shoulder any of the burden of Invading the World.
I say, this unacceptable Swiss majority vote just proves that it's time to put Victoria Nuland and the rest of the Kagans in charge of having the National Endowment of Democracy pay for a Color Revolution in Switzerland. There are probably some bored soccer hooligans in Switzerland who wouldn't mind a grant to camp out downtown for the Swiss Spring and battle the riot police in the name of Democracy.
And if that doesn’t work, well we tried to destroy nativism peacefully, but there are limits to our patience. So, let the drone strikes begin.
P.S., in the comments at Marginal Revolution, Paolo explains:
You are forgetting how small Switzerland is. Nearly the entire country is in commuting distance of the main centres Zurich, Basel, Geneva, or the secondary centres St.Gallen, Winterthur, Berne, Lausanne, Lugano, Neuenburg.
That Yes vote regions are where people are living who were pushed ever further away from the centres due to huge rise in housing costs. A lot of those rural-semi rural areas have had very high population growth rates in the last 10 years due to the influx of commuters looking for affordable housing space. Both the expansion of the rail net and the real estate price inflation in the centres have been big drivers of this trend.
The yes vote in those regions are both disgruntled commuters unhappy with being priced out of the centres and locals unhappy with the flood outsiders.
As to the No vote of the centres, that’s no surprise. How can afford to live in the centres these days? Either people living in (subsidised) social housing or people earning enough to pay 4000+ CHF in rent or a million+ CHF to buy a flat. The first group aren’t really feeling the price pressure and tend to follow the Social Party and Union paroles, while the latter by definition belong to the winners of the current situation who can afford to pay those prices.
Posts
45 comments:
Suisse is full of ethnics already. It's a French-German-Italian country. They're still trying to digest what they have now.
Open Borders are toast, Caplan, get over it. Next will come the Dutch, then the Danes, the French and the Brits. Nothing you nor your globalist masters nor your obediantly bleating journOwhores can do about it.
No one in the West wants to live with unlimited numbers of Third Worlders, period.
The Caplan crowd should just go all the way and demand immigration everywhere, for everyone; like some kind of camp drill where each and every person moves to a new tent site each night.
Let the GDP grow to infinity and beyond.
"Nothing you nor your globalist masters nor your obediantly bleating journOwhores can do about it."
Don't be too sure about how limited their weapons are.
>>The Caplan crowd should just go all the way and demand immigration everywhere, for everyone....
That is precisely what they are demanding. Caplan is just the most vocal of these intenationalists. Schumer, Wall Street Journal, neo-Cons, Bushes, et. al. believe the same thing but for tactical purposes keep their full ambitions under wrap.
More Right recently quoted a few pages of Julius Evola's essay on the evil of worshiping The Economy (e.g. Caplan) as the highest good, rather than the fulfillment of man.
As for why those in city centers voted NO, the city centres are where the corporate jobs are. The corporate jobs are also filled with people (often young people) who have lots of exposure to the educational system. The education system of the western nation is a white-guilt inducing factory. The curriculum is molded and shaped over decades to produce white guilt in young minds. White guilt is then used to manufacture consent for mass immigration.
That is the cultural organism that has been evolved over decades via monetary forces exerted by rich investors and corporations.
People such as this Caplan seem to feel very comfortable in bashing almost every national group or country. Another feature is their busybody behavior. Does he wish to move to Switzerland anytime soon? If not then why would he be so concerned about what their internal policies are? It's not as if the Swiss are invading anyone, sending people to camps, creating refugees or anything of the sort. There's other places around the world that he could focus his moral outrage upon. Probably, he doesn't really care about the prospective immigrants at all. They're just a battering ram to break down the door of the Swiss. Seeing them ruined would bring out all the schadenfreude lurking within.
Chicago: Caplan doesn't care that much about the Swiss vote--he's just afraid that it will embolden other Western nations to follow suit.
Which it will.
Is American foreign policy largely built on subsidising "nativism" in Israel?
"Instead of coddling nativism with gradualism, we can, should, and must peacefully destroy nativism with abolitionism."
Sounds like what has happened in Britain since 1997. That Caplan guy is pure evil.
Everyone's rights are allowed, except the rights of the majority.
"More Right recently quoted a few pages of Julius Evola's essay on the evil of worshiping The Economy (e.g. Caplan) as the highest good, rather than the fulfillment of man."
Why quote a Evola(whom he would just call a fascist) when you have Wilhelm Röpke?
http://www.vdare.com/articles/good-fences-and-free-markets
BTW, I did not know before googling right now that the author of Wilhelm Ropke: Swiss Localist, Global Economist had written for VDare.
http://www.amazon.com/Wilhelm-Ropke-Localist-Economist-Thinkers/dp/1882926676
Anyway, the new reactionary types should just stay away from Evola... he's too compromised and his positive philosophy is pretty much worthless.
Here, try something different...
The social philosophy of Carlyle and Ruskin
https://archive.org/details/socialphilosophy00roef
That Caplan would make a judgment like that on the basis of descriptive statistics is a reason to revoke his 'social scientist' membership card.
I do wish Caplan would self-deport to somewhere else, but it is hard to think of a place that would want him. I really detest the idea of him taking up space in Fairfax County, Va. (which might benefit from either fewer people or much better urban planning).
The globalists want to rob Switzerland blind. They don't need it anymore as a safe haven for their money. Because their stuff is now virtual and digital and offshored to the Cayman Islands in legal terms.
Poor Swiss! They had the greatest country in the world!
Everyone's rights are allowed, except the rights of a white majority.
fixed it for you
" Daniel said...
>>The Caplan crowd should just go all the way and demand immigration everywhere, for everyone....
That is precisely what they are demanding."
No, they're not.
Is Caplan arguing for more Palestinians in Jerusalem and the rest of Israel?
Hell no.
I consider myself libertarian on many matters, but this guy is a serious a nut case. To open your borders to the entire world, to many people where concepts like liberty and individualism are non existent is lunacy.
From Wilhelm Röpke's International Order and Economic Integration:
3. As far as mass-immigration is concerned, there exists not only the right, but moreover the duty of every nation, to subject it to a qualitative control, which protects the spiritual patrimony, the political tradition, the ethical, linguistic character and the social structure of the country from an immigration undesirable from these points of view. ...(he continues to say that assimilation is easier if they settle in the countryside rather than the cities.)
4. Corresponding to this, there should be in the emigration countries an economic and social policy, which lessens the impetus to emigrate. The last thing we should wish for is a world of wandering nomads. ...
Read all 6 of his points here...
No, I had it right the first time as it pertains to America: Everyone's rights are allowed, except the rights of the majority. Not only the white majority. Black Americans are fully American. I'm disgusted by many aspects of black American society, but they're loyal Americans. They're part of the majority whose rights aren't respected.
"Swiss anti-immigration voting was highest in the places with the least immigrants!"
Is this really such a surprise? It seems pretty obvious that immigrants would be pro-immigration. Gotta get the rest of the family over to promised land, after all. Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
"Look at this place that's been inundated with immigrants. They love immigration! Therefore this other place over here with hardly any immigrants obviously just needs to be forced to accept more immigrants, and soon they'll love it too!"
Or am I missing something here?
So it's "Switzerland Must Perish!". At least this fellow is decent enough not to pretend he wants anything other than the full-steam-ahead demographic destruction of one of the world's most successful countries.
Eurocide is in the air. An old, enfeebled Noel Ignatiev looks on from his Miami condo and trembles approvingly. What he and his fellow nation-wreckers perhaps don't appreciate is just how hard-assed the Swiss can be when it comes to their national interests. They have easily resisted international pressure to enmesh themselves in things that will not benefit them for centuries. They've been generous so far when it comes to allowing foreigners to settle among them but it looks like those days are over. Yes, the margin was narrow but I suspect that they will not take kindly to being asked the same question again and if they are will vote more decisively against immivasion.
The secret that outsiders don't quite grasp is that the French, German and Italian Swiss are more Swiss than they are French, German or Italian. They look out, and will fight, for each other. Their country is a mountainous redoubt and that gives it its special identity. German Switzerland has been separate from Germany proper from many centuries and has little in common with it. The French and Italian sectors know what a good thing they are on to as parts of Switzerland rather than parts of France and Italy and will never voluntarily be hived off. Within Switzerland, the three ethnolinguistic groups have their own clearly demarcated territories and there is zero conflict between them. Any attempts to drive wedges between the groups will be met by the Swiss with amused contempt.
Chicago said...
"Does he wish to move to Switzerland anytime soon? If not then why would he be so concerned about what their internal policies are? It's not as if the Swiss are invading anyone, sending people to camps, creating refugees or anything of the sort."
Erm... 3/5 of Switzerland is GERMAN. They've kind of slipped under the radar for the past 70 years, but they weren't going to get away with it forever. Evil resides in the very souls of the German peoples, oozes from the very words of their language, and Caplan and people like him are going to do something about it.
"Swiss anti-immigration voting was highest in the places with the least immigrants! This is no fluke."
He's right it's not a fluke. The destruction of schools, gang violence and rape that drives white flight and is covered up by people like Kaplan has the same effect throughout he entire western world.
It's funny to me when a referendum passes and they say "it won in the rural areas but lost in the [implied: smart, cosmopolitan] cities." What kind of densely populated rural areas are these that can overwhelm the cities?
What really happens is that it wins the rural areas by 80% and loses in the cities 55-45, with much of the margin the result of...immigrants.
What's about to happen is that the EU tyrants are going to overplay their hand and threaten Switzerland with economic devastation for exercising their rights as a free, self-governing people. My guess is that voters in the rest of Europe won't take kindly to that.
"Is Caplan arguing for more Palestinians in Jerusalem and the rest of Israel?
Hell no."
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1x1dyy/i_am_bryan_caplan_economist_and_professor_at/cf79vnw?context=5
Yes, he is. He really believes his own BS.
Life imitates art. In "The Camp of the Saints," Switzerland was the lone hold-out against mass Third World invasion. They eventually gave in after being subjected to severe sanctions from the rest of the West.
"Life imitates art. In "The Camp of the Saints," Switzerland was the lone hold-out against mass Third World invasion. They eventually gave in after being subjected to severe sanctions from the rest of the West."
----------------------------------
"The Camp of the Saints" also features Clement Dio, a hateful charlatan more than reminiscent of Tim Wise who relentlessly prosyletizes for the destruction of Western civilization in general and French culture in particular. Ironically, Dio is slaughtered by the very Third Worlders he championed as they overrun France and the reat of the Western world.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/10/when_is_aboliti.html
Another gem from Caplan: wherein slavery might be better than being a Haitian. He has a mathematical formula to help you figure it out!
Some Finland-related off-topic (don't know where else to put it):
The Finnish Immigration Service just released their statistics regarding citizenships granted last year.
Here are the top 4 groups:
1. Russians (2,058)
2. Somalis (789)
3. Iraqis (505)
4. Afghans (467)
Source
Some other interesting tidbits:
Our refugee quota was increased by 40 % this year (from 750 to 1050). On top of this quota come the asylum seekers and the family reunifications.
By law, the Finnish equivalent of the BBC is required to promote multiculturalism.
But there's a major problem with Tyler's story: Swiss anti-immigration voting was highest in the places with the least immigrants! This is no fluke. In the U.S., anti-immigration sentiment is highest in the states with the least immigration - even if you assume that 100% of immigrants are pro-immigration.
Yes, Bryan, immigrants are attracted to places where there's wealth to be had, and where there's spare wealth to be had, people often tend to let immigration slide.
Plus because of high existing immigration, the people there lack much connection to their community there, so what do they care if more immigrants bust that up?
Also, love the Caplan suddenly becomes innumerate here when it supports his position - what is the actual differential in the vote between the places with the most and least immigrants? I bet it's not that much and that Swiss between places with high and low immigration barely differ.
Oops, I clicked "Publish" by accident...
The Finnish equivalent of BBC is called YLE: http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/
Let's end nativism, starting with Israel mister Caplan...
he
We are experiencing a new kind of warfare, psychological warfare. You no longer need to have an arsenal of weapons of last generation to hit the enemy, just directly attack their brains. And the enemy is the white man.
Open Borders are toast, Caplan, get over it. Next will come the Dutch, then the Danes, the French and the Brits. Nothing you nor your globalist masters nor your obediantly bleating journOwhores can do about it.
Good, Europeans changing on immigration will helped to built resisted here among the moderate blue collar worker that the Republicans and Tea Party disdain because they want decent wages besides getting rid of legal and illegal immigration.
As for why those in city centers voted NO, the city centres are where the corporate jobs are. The corporate jobs are also filled with people (often young people) who have lots of exposure to the educational system. The education system of the western nation is a white-guilt inducing factory. The curriculum is molded and shaped over decades to produce white guilt in young minds. White guilt is then used to manufacture consent for mass immigration.
I would not blame this all on the left, lots of conservative metro areas wanted cheap labor for years. I think Orange County California helped California be full of illegals since illegal Hispanics worked less for maids and restaurant workers, cheap labor is the main reason for the insane immigration policy not liberal politics for minorities but conservative cheap labor politics of the Republican Lincoln Club.
In the U.S., anti-immigration sentiment is highest in the states with the least immigration - even if you assume that 100% of immigrants are pro-immigration.
If this assertion is accurate, then why have Arizona and Georgia passed laws discouraging immigrants from settling there (illegals directly, and legals implicitly) while West Virginia and Montana haven't?
You would think an a person who fancies himself a brilliant economist wouldn't permit himself to use totally unsubstantiated claims to support his arguments.
"As for why those in city centers voted NO, the city centres are where the corporate jobs are."
1) Industries based in cities disproportionately benefit from rapid growth.
2) City dwellers are more often victims of multicultural brainwashing.
3) Are often either quite well off (and not facing economic competition from immigrants) or are immigrants themselves.
4) Are cosmopolitan types more concerned about filling their lives with varied amusements than with the business of raising children. Cities are population sinks. For example, Republican-controlled House districts in the US have far more children than Democratic-controlled districts.
"If this assertion is accurate, then why have Arizona and Georgia passed laws discouraging immigrants from settling there (illegals directly, and legals implicitly) while West Virginia and Montana haven't?"
Well, there are at least 3 possibilities:
1. Strong restrictionist and strong pro-immigration sentiment in a state.
2. Strong restrictionist sentiment mixed with apathetic people.
3. Strong pro-immigration mixed with apathetic people.
Iowa probably falls into 2--people like Steve King, but also lots of center-left white folks who don't really care too much either way or don't put any thought into it. This is probably because Iowa has 5% Hispanics, a reletively low number (and hey, crops don't die in the fields!). So there aren't a lot of Hispanics in Iowa to agitate for immigration and there isn't a lot gained for Democrats to emphasize the issue.
Arizona, on the other hand, is more divided and thus best fits in 1. There is a huge Hispanic population that is strongly pro-immigration. On the other hand, whites in Arizona are passionately restrictionist--because they have to deal with the effects of immigration in a way Iowa whites don't. So Arizona has strong pro-immigration sentiment. It also has strong restrictionist sentiment. Texas is the same way.
anti-immigration voting was highest in the places with the least immigrants!
How astonishing! I bet Caplan is equally as amazed that crime is lowest in places where the prison population is highest!
I consider myself libertarian on many matters, but this guy is a serious a nut case. To open your borders to the entire world, to many people where concepts like liberty and individualism are non existent is lunacy.
Too many people are ignorant of what libertarianism is all about. Caplan (and Cowen, and the rest of the tenured class of libertarians) ARE libertarianism. This is what libertarianism is, Caplan isn't some wacky outlier.
Instead of coddling nativism with gradualism, we can, should, and must peacefully destroy nativism with abolitionism.
How do you "peacefully destroy" something?
By law, the Finnish equivalent of the BBC is required to promote multiculturalism.
Whereas the BBC only behaves as if it were a legal requirement.
"Average Joe said...
""Instead of coddling nativism with gradualism, we can, should, and must peacefully destroy nativism with abolitionism.""
How do you "peacefully destroy" something?"
With gentle violence.
"Anonymous said...
""Is Caplan arguing for more Palestinians in Jerusalem and the rest of Israel?
Hell no.""
Yes, he is. He really believes his own BS."
Doesn't matter. The people who use Caplan and his ilk and their arguments as a hammer to bust up western civilization don't really believe his schtick and wouldn't apply it to Israel. Caplan is a tool: the opinions of tools don't matter - it is the opinion of those who wield the tool that counts.
Post a Comment