Bryan Caplan has a new book, Labor Econ Versus the World, a collection of his blog posts on the topic. Tyler Cowen says that while “I agree with a great deal of what is in this book, … let’s focus on where we differ”:
I tend to agree with you Edward, or I have at least moved closer to the possibility there being more fascistic actions by our government. I see tendency on both the right and the left in the US to act in ways that would reflect fascism. But I don't know if it has anything to do with immigrants and is likely much more a domestic byproduct of natural born citizens. Authoritarian responses from governments come from people who don't like the outcomes of liberty for those who think differently than they do.
The problem is immigrants are a self selected group, so they don't represent the average citizen from their home country. Also places like Nigeria, Japan and Israel have low trust, but when they come here they have high economic status.
Are you kidding? The US is a hair's breadth from fascism. Did we not just witness a fascistic response to the trucker protests in Canada? Haven't good people been ruthlessly smeared for daring to have opinions contrary to the narrative of the day?
The only thing holding it at bay is the weakness of our wannabe overlords.
Because it's what happened in the 1970s with the baby boomers all starting to borrow to build houses at the same time. Money can be created instantly, but it takes time for production to adjust quite a long time.
Please think through this fully. Millions of people more come. Can none of them build houses? Can none of them be hired to do so? Why should we expect all this money chasing housing to not think of hiring some of the people who moved here too?
I was imagining a scenario where some politicians somehow manage to ram through open borders, possibly because they get a lucky super majority after an opposition scandal, and that's how open borders happen.
Bryan is right: "a) finish high school, b) get a full time job, and c) get married before you have children. "
If we don't have the optimal number of people following this 3 step script, we should increase the positive incentives. (More carrot; reality is its own stick)
In poor school district areas, getting a HS diploma should get some gov't money; also a GED. And both cash rewards for both.We should experiment more with paying kids in school to show that they've learned things.
Either in poor areas only, or for all workers (including kids of billionaires)b) After the first month on a full time job, get some cash bonus. After the first year, another cash bonus.
c) Get cash for getting married - a big amount but only 20% for the marriage, vest it over the next 4 years with another 20% each anniversary.
Today the gov't mostly rewards those who have made mistakes and created problems, because after the mistake "they need it". This has weakened the benefit-cost calculations so more folk take the, usually more fun, less responsible paths, even tho reality rewards the more responsible path. I argue for more gov't rewards than mere "free market with current welfare".
I don't see political sense in arguing against social safety net welfare, like I did decades ago as a Libertarian. But it's a simple issue - if we as society want more individual personal actions to be successful, we should have gov't programs that reward those actions more. Small expected success is not yet enough of a reward for ... too many poor folk who take the 3 steps.
Slovakia (good example; lived here 30 years) has a non-global language (Slovak) and two big non-Slavic minorities: Roma (Gypsies) and Hungarians. Working in English was easy for me, but non-English speaking immigrants have it tough. Non-Slovak speaking (or poorly) Hungarians often have trouble working at high levels in mainly Slovak companies.
Slovaks, (like Hungarians), are proud of being Slovak (or Hungarian) and want their culture to remain. Most unique "Slovak Culture" is the language, while generally accepting UN human rights. The (SK) Constitution was amended so that marriage is between man and woman.
A huge amount of hiring is based on knowing folk in the hiring organization. Much less anonymous "meritocracy" - which is a big US plus. Has been.
Low wages, and very low gov't benefits means most non-EU immigrants want to move on towards more generous German speaking Austria or Germany.
It may not be proven in any rigorous sense, but the US tends to succeed in assimilating immigrants to the mainstream culture, at least compared to peer countries. So one might presume increased immigration could be similarly successful for the US, even if it might fail for another country, say Slovakia, for unclear reasons.
Fascism almost requires perceived ethnic near-homogeneity; the citizens must view (the great majority of) themselves as constituting a nation of brothers or close cousins, united by "blood" (consanguinity). America is already ethnically so diverse that fascism probably cannot arise here; and opening the borders would admit people of many different ethnicities, rendering the country even more diverse.
Perhaps a common national religion could substitute for common ethnicity; again, open borders would produce less commonality than already exists.
From open borders I'd expect stagflation pretty quickly - lots of working age people apearing in the workforce borrowing to build housing. All the additonal money chasing not enough products meaning central bank keeping interest rates high and too many people to fit into the workforce held back by the high interest rates.
If this all got bad enough something radical would arise. In the real world it would be re-instating immigration controls, but if that is off the table for argument sake, it's difficult to say what the radical thing would be. Possibly something as close to immigration controls as practical without technically being immigration controls -eg. Apartheid, a quasi cast system, extreme urban zoning. Many people would call it fascism, but it's unlikely to be traditional fascism.
Even in engineering, they have to teach you most everything on the job, and most of what you learn in classes you will never use, even if you remembered it.
One obvious reply is "let in immigrants, benefit economically from them, and swiftly acculturate them to local high-trust norms". Like, whatever France does - do the opposite.
That seemed to work pretty well in the early 20th century.
(I know it doesn't sit well with modern "cultural diversity" advocates. But feh.)
In a real education market (ie one not distorted by large government monopolies and punitive policies for those who do not comply), much of schooling would be replaced by more effective enculturation approaches. Not all dysfunctional families would seek out such more effective enculturation, but some would. Gradually a market would develop in which more diverse suppliers of better living would meet diverse demand for better ways of living. Some of these might look like churches, some like apprenticeships, some might look like clubs, some might look like a la carte course offerings, including how to sell, how to get into certain communities (courses on manners used to be a path to upward mobility), "How to Win Friends and Influence People," etc.
Key data point: Utah spends the least amount per capita on K12 and yet has the highest rate of social mobility. LDS culture is way more effective for social mobility than is schooling. A very small schooling system might survive, but most of K12 and university would gradually be replaced by more effective enculturation alternatives.
I've written on this here (as well as creating schools that focus more on enculturation than any kind of didactic teaching),
I tend to agree with you Edward, or I have at least moved closer to the possibility there being more fascistic actions by our government. I see tendency on both the right and the left in the US to act in ways that would reflect fascism. But I don't know if it has anything to do with immigrants and is likely much more a domestic byproduct of natural born citizens. Authoritarian responses from governments come from people who don't like the outcomes of liberty for those who think differently than they do.
The problem is immigrants are a self selected group, so they don't represent the average citizen from their home country. Also places like Nigeria, Japan and Israel have low trust, but when they come here they have high economic status.
Are you kidding? The US is a hair's breadth from fascism. Did we not just witness a fascistic response to the trucker protests in Canada? Haven't good people been ruthlessly smeared for daring to have opinions contrary to the narrative of the day?
The only thing holding it at bay is the weakness of our wannabe overlords.
Because it's what happened in the 1970s with the baby boomers all starting to borrow to build houses at the same time. Money can be created instantly, but it takes time for production to adjust quite a long time.
Please think through this fully. Millions of people more come. Can none of them build houses? Can none of them be hired to do so? Why should we expect all this money chasing housing to not think of hiring some of the people who moved here too?
I was imagining a scenario where some politicians somehow manage to ram through open borders, possibly because they get a lucky super majority after an opposition scandal, and that's how open borders happen.
Bryan is right: "a) finish high school, b) get a full time job, and c) get married before you have children. "
If we don't have the optimal number of people following this 3 step script, we should increase the positive incentives. (More carrot; reality is its own stick)
In poor school district areas, getting a HS diploma should get some gov't money; also a GED. And both cash rewards for both.We should experiment more with paying kids in school to show that they've learned things.
Either in poor areas only, or for all workers (including kids of billionaires)b) After the first month on a full time job, get some cash bonus. After the first year, another cash bonus.
c) Get cash for getting married - a big amount but only 20% for the marriage, vest it over the next 4 years with another 20% each anniversary.
Today the gov't mostly rewards those who have made mistakes and created problems, because after the mistake "they need it". This has weakened the benefit-cost calculations so more folk take the, usually more fun, less responsible paths, even tho reality rewards the more responsible path. I argue for more gov't rewards than mere "free market with current welfare".
I don't see political sense in arguing against social safety net welfare, like I did decades ago as a Libertarian. But it's a simple issue - if we as society want more individual personal actions to be successful, we should have gov't programs that reward those actions more. Small expected success is not yet enough of a reward for ... too many poor folk who take the 3 steps.
More jobs for non-college guys is also good.
Slovakia (good example; lived here 30 years) has a non-global language (Slovak) and two big non-Slavic minorities: Roma (Gypsies) and Hungarians. Working in English was easy for me, but non-English speaking immigrants have it tough. Non-Slovak speaking (or poorly) Hungarians often have trouble working at high levels in mainly Slovak companies.
Slovaks, (like Hungarians), are proud of being Slovak (or Hungarian) and want their culture to remain. Most unique "Slovak Culture" is the language, while generally accepting UN human rights. The (SK) Constitution was amended so that marriage is between man and woman.
A huge amount of hiring is based on knowing folk in the hiring organization. Much less anonymous "meritocracy" - which is a big US plus. Has been.
Low wages, and very low gov't benefits means most non-EU immigrants want to move on towards more generous German speaking Austria or Germany.
I don't see why this is true at all. Are governments suddenly competent now?
It may not be proven in any rigorous sense, but the US tends to succeed in assimilating immigrants to the mainstream culture, at least compared to peer countries. So one might presume increased immigration could be similarly successful for the US, even if it might fail for another country, say Slovakia, for unclear reasons.
Fascism almost requires perceived ethnic near-homogeneity; the citizens must view (the great majority of) themselves as constituting a nation of brothers or close cousins, united by "blood" (consanguinity). America is already ethnically so diverse that fascism probably cannot arise here; and opening the borders would admit people of many different ethnicities, rendering the country even more diverse.
Perhaps a common national religion could substitute for common ethnicity; again, open borders would produce less commonality than already exists.
From open borders I'd expect stagflation pretty quickly - lots of working age people apearing in the workforce borrowing to build housing. All the additonal money chasing not enough products meaning central bank keeping interest rates high and too many people to fit into the workforce held back by the high interest rates.
If this all got bad enough something radical would arise. In the real world it would be re-instating immigration controls, but if that is off the table for argument sake, it's difficult to say what the radical thing would be. Possibly something as close to immigration controls as practical without technically being immigration controls -eg. Apartheid, a quasi cast system, extreme urban zoning. Many people would call it fascism, but it's unlikely to be traditional fascism.
If there were a proven effective treatment to increase social trust it would probably be implemented everywhere already.
Even in engineering, they have to teach you most everything on the job, and most of what you learn in classes you will never use, even if you remembered it.
One obvious reply is "let in immigrants, benefit economically from them, and swiftly acculturate them to local high-trust norms". Like, whatever France does - do the opposite.
That seemed to work pretty well in the early 20th century.
(I know it doesn't sit well with modern "cultural diversity" advocates. But feh.)
In a real education market (ie one not distorted by large government monopolies and punitive policies for those who do not comply), much of schooling would be replaced by more effective enculturation approaches. Not all dysfunctional families would seek out such more effective enculturation, but some would. Gradually a market would develop in which more diverse suppliers of better living would meet diverse demand for better ways of living. Some of these might look like churches, some like apprenticeships, some might look like clubs, some might look like a la carte course offerings, including how to sell, how to get into certain communities (courses on manners used to be a path to upward mobility), "How to Win Friends and Influence People," etc.
Key data point: Utah spends the least amount per capita on K12 and yet has the highest rate of social mobility. LDS culture is way more effective for social mobility than is schooling. A very small schooling system might survive, but most of K12 and university would gradually be replaced by more effective enculturation alternatives.
I've written on this here (as well as creating schools that focus more on enculturation than any kind of didactic teaching),
https://www.independent.org...