Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
No - you just have this odd idea that immigration policy has been a significant political issue since the invention of the nation state. The Nation state has always been about jurisdiction and control. The concept of controlling emigration and immigration is a relatively new concept. Emigration and immigration where basically seen as something the nation state couldn’t really control.

I can't figure out what I said that you're responding to here. Not that it matters, but I think your grasp of history is a little weak.

Borders are an artificial construct created by the nation state. Do you disagree with that?

I'm not sure what you mean by "artificial" or "nation state." Is law artificial?

They are not ideals, they are the laws of economics. You can disregard these laws when you implement policy and end up with bad policy or you can work with these realities and implement practical policy. It was like when Nixon implemented price controls on gas. All it did was create huge gas lines and make things worse. He was in denial of economic reality. In free markets people get hurt all the time that is unavoidable. That is the way the system works. You implement the policy that provides that greatest benefit to all. And it is ridiculous and unrealistic to think you can or should compensate those people that are hurt by economic policies that are good for the nation and the world.

I'm not going to bother to respond to most of this, since it is either unobjectionable or fatuous. But then there are these two sentences: "That is the way the system works. You implement the policy that provides that greatest benefit to all."

My point -- the point I was trying to make to Sebby -- is that choosing to make policy in this way is a choice. It is not just "the way the system works."

Hell, it's not even the way the system works in a whole bunch of cases where monied or powerful interests who care a lot over come the public interest. E.g., farm subsidies.

"Construct a policy so that no one is worse off." There is not such thing. And the pursuit of such unrealistic policies by policymakers has let to disaster all over the world. Your argument really boils down do that there is a status quo and if we change the status quo we need to compensate the losers and punish the winners. If you really want to screw up a country’s economy just let that goal be your mantra.

I'm making an argument about baselines. (Look it up.) When you start using words like "compensate" and "losers," you are begging the question.

It seems I understand the consequences of what you are proposing better than you do. Any policy decision is going to have winners and losers. Trying to stop that result is naive, and basically stupid, and ends up in policy decisions that make everyone worse off. If you have a bad policy, and you change it, some people are going to get hurt. But that is no reason to continue a bad policy. Tobacco subsidies are a bad idea. If we cut them off tomorrow lots of people will get hurt, but the benefits will outweigh the costs. In addition, using the government to try and compensate all those hurt by policy decisions would also be unrealistic and, in the end, bad policy.

What I said above.

Baselines are a term without meaning. What you are saying is there is an economic status quo created by current US government policy that if changed, people will get hurt economically, and that the government should try and compensate those that get hurt. A stupid idea on about twelve levels. The current policy is in denial of certain economic forces. The policy implemented should try and work with those forces, not try and fight them. Once that policy is implemented the idea of trying to figure out who lost when we went from the bad policy to the good policy and then compensate those people is a recipe for disaster.

Pretending that you can't figure out who gets hurt by immigration is lame.

Nicholas Kristof in today's NYT
[G]rowing evidences [shows] that low-wage immigration hurts America's own poor.
The most careful study of this issue, . . . published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that the surge of immigration in the 1980's and 1990's lowered the wages of America's own high school dropouts by 8.2 percent. . . .
It's often said that immigrants take jobs that Americans won't take. But look at employment statistics, and you see that even among maids and agricultural workers, only four out of 10 people are immigrants.

No - I have been paying attention and I know you don't like it. The reason I know, is because you think if we implement a policy that embraces those economic realities instead of fights them you think we should compensate the people that will "be hurt" by embracing those realities. You can't go around compensating people that a hurt by natural economic forces.

Which economic reality do you think I am ignoring?

As long as the landscaping job pays more in the United States than it does in Mexico, the Mexican landscaper is going to come up here and take that job. He will find a way. And if you think that somehow the American landscaper should be compensated because they have lost that job you need to take that economic 101 class that you keep talking about.

"As long as that rich person insists on driving a nice car, that poor person is going to find a way to take it. He will find a way." Yeah, that makes sense.

Yes - I know its rough. You just realized when you read the paragraph that this line refers to, you were wrong, so you switch to the Ad Hominem attack. Try and be a little less transparent.

Oh, you slay me.

Sometimes and in certain situations. But what has that got to do with anything? Its called supply and demand.

I can no longer recall what this is talking about. Oh well.

Economics is not a tool, it’s a field of study.

In your hands, it's a blunt weapon.

If you are referring to whether we let the government determine distribution or the free market, then the market is preferable. Countries that have tried using the government to determine the distribution of resources as opposed to the market, haven't fared so well. Or haven't you noticed.

If you think that I am in favor of letting the government determine distribution, you are confusing me with the Hank Chinaski sock whose autosignature refers to the workers controlling the means of production, and you need to buy a clue.

Yes, we create a safety net for those people the market leaves out, but your statement clearly shows that we are just back to the basic Socialist v. Capitalist argument. The idea of having the government decide who has been "hurt" by free market forces, and compensating them, is just a stupid idea. Following this line of reasoning, every time a new machine was invented that displaced workers, thereby increasing the labor force, and thereby depressing wages, we would have to compensate the entire US workforce.

Except for the "Socialist v. Capitalist" thing, you said this already, and I responded. The "Socialist v. Capitalist" thing is d - u - m - b, and has nothing to do with what I am suggesting.

You are proposing that certain low end workers will be hurt by immigration, and need to be compensated, which is an incredibly stupid idea. If we went around trying to compensate everyone that was hurt by a prudent policy decision that embraced economic realities (as opposed to fighting them) we eventually wouldn't have an economy that could provide the taxes for such a misguided endeavor.

I was thinking of going to Starbuck's this morning to buy a cup of coffee, but she said, don't go -- if you go around buying coffee whenever you like, we'll have to declare bankruptcy. Plus, she pointed out that I might fall down the slippery slope on the way back from Starbuck's.