This is a question to those who deal with TPTB. Supposedly, they know exactly what they're doing. If so, why do they allow such a low level of immigration, knowing that immigration would raise standards of living?
a) Who is "they"?
b) Who is TPTB?
c) How do you assume either of these parties "know what they're doing"?
d) How do you assume immigration would raise standards of living?
e) How do you assume they "know" this?
f) How do you assume they aim to achieve such an end?
Did someone hack the Whelous account?
They = TPTB = the powers that be
I assume so because those who I'm asking (Clayton mostly, I guess) think that the power "in control" know of the effects of their actions but perform them for personal gain.
As to immigration increasing standards of living, I didn't think that would be a controversial one. Isn't this forum generally of the opinion that open immigratino would be positive for the economy?
Are you feeling ok? Is this a suggestion that 'TPTB' favour laissez-faire??
I know what "TPTB" stands for. I'm asking you who exactly you're talking about. Which TPTB? The Executive Branch? The Congress? The border patrol? The INS? The staff of the Mises Institute?
As for Clayton, he'll be the first to admit he's extremely paranoid, and personally I think he gives way too much credit to the people in high positions and way too much credence to their organizational ability and ability to maintain a global cartel spanning multiple countries and governments. I just don't buy it. I'm not saying there isn't a push for global government, there always is. I'm not even saying there aren't elite interests pulling strings above government. I'm just saying extrapolations like this (and those that follow) are just too far-fetched.
As for immigration it would depend on what you're talking about. If you were talking about an anarcho-capitalist society or something along those lines, then I could see it. But it sounds to me like you're talking about more-open borders, but in today's world, with today's government, today's welfare state, today's warfare state...and I just don't exactly see how someone with your level of understanding would assume that simply opening borders would automatically be a good thing.
Indeed, it doesn't even seem like your overall premise is true...as plenty of what we hear about these days is how Obama wants more immigration so as to capture more votes.
The Beneficial Impact of Immigrants
The Munro Doctrine
Lest We Forget
Didn't you just tell me TPTB are against immigration?
From what I understand, TPTB would be not the obvious people actually holding office but those "pulling the strings" - probably related to Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Morgans, etc.
Cafe Hayek is TPTB in your opinion?
I just don't exactly see how someone with your level of understanding would assume that simply opening borders would automatically be a good thing
Lifting restrictions on who can go onto your property is a bad thing? Do you mean to say that you think the zeal of new immigrants to produce would not outweigh the tiny amount of welfare that goes to them? Even throwing in public infrastructure, you think immigration would be a negative thing? Where is the limit, then? How doe we calculate how much is good? Is any good? Heck, why not actually actively kick people out of the US?
Wheylous:Cafe Hayek is TPTB in your opinion?
Who are you?
a) You pick out one link out of three? I only needed one, no? Not going to challenge all of them? Stealing the leftist tactic of selective focus/ ignorance?
b) Those links weren't even supposed to be examples of "TPTB", but simply evidence to my point that immigration is being supported by the White House (I assume that counts as a "PTB"...but feel free to tell me if I'm wrong and the people in the White House have absolutely no power whatsoever) and it is a heated topic, making news.
Lifting restrictions on who can go onto your property is a bad thing?
Surely your imagination is strong enough to conjure a circumstance or two in which it is.
you think immigration would be a negative thing? Where is the limit, then? How doe we calculate how much is good? Is any good? Heck, why not actually actively kick people out of the US?
Okay seriously, who are you? The Whelous I knew hasn't committed so many logical (and otherwise) fallacies in one thread in a long time.
Nah, I think this just isn't the same JJ.
Those links weren't even supposed to be examples of "TPTB", but simply evidence to my point that immigration is being supported by the White House
So what? The White House can say whatever it wants. Actions matter. The White House has not moved toward a concerted effort to open borders. And even if it claimed it wanted to, it could be a political ploy.
I assume that counts as a "PTB"...but feel free to tell me if I'm wrong and the people in the White House have absolutely no power whatsoever
Straw man - I didn't say elected figures have no power whatsoever. I said that according to floating TPTB ideas out there there are other people in control of actual policy.
So if I understand correctly you think the state ought to use force to prevent people who happened to be born outside an arbitrary line to enter the property of willing people inside the line?
First of all, there's a "y" in there :P Secondly, if you make the case that the US should not have open borders, how can you say exactly how many immigrants it should allow? Maybe 1 million per year? Maybe 5 per year? Maybe 0? And while we're in the business of kicking arbitrary people out of the US, why not actually also kick US citizens out? Again, the line between citizen and immigrant is arbitrary.
Wheylous:Nah, I think this just isn't the same JJ.
You're just in another one of your brain funks, my friend.
Did you even notice what the articles were about? The President is granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. If that's not supporting immigration I don't know what is.
Straw man - I didn't say elected figures have no power whatsoever.
I didn't say you did. So ironically it is you who has created a straw man so that you might accuse me of creating a straw man.
No, you don't understand me correctly.
First of all you are committing a false dichotomy fallacy by assuming it either has to be good or bad...not only that, but in all instances as well.
Second, all that transpired here was you asked: "Lifting restrictions on who can go onto your property is a bad thing?" And I responded that surely you could come up with a scenario or two where it could be...
And your response is "you think the state ought to use force to prevent people who happened to be born outside an arbitrary line to enter the property of willing people inside the line?"
Do you seriously not see anything logically, intellectually, or conversationally flawed with that?
if you make the case that the US should not have open borders, how can you say exactly how many immigrants it should allow? Maybe 1 million per year? Maybe 5 per year? Maybe 0? And while we're in the business of kicking arbitrary people out of the US, why not actually also kick US citizens out? Again, the line between citizen and immigrant is arbitrary.
*sigh*
Fine. I'll play your game. If you make the case that the US should have completely open borders, how can you say it will inevitably be an economically good thing when US residents are already granted access to an enormous welfare net that already less than half the population pays into? Exactly how long do you think the country would last with millions upon millions of new people being added to the dole, and being able to vote in more despots who will take away more from the haves to offer more crumbs to the have-nots? Maybe 1 year? Maybe 5 years? Maybe 0? And while we're in the business of electing people who promise to give you stuff by taxing your neighbor, why not actually also vote for legislation to kick original US citizens out? After all, the immigrants will certainly outnumber the original residents in many areas. Again, the line between citizen and immigrant is arbitrary.
Wheylous:This is a question to those who deal with TPTB.
I thought it was obvious who you meant by "TPTB."
Supposedly, they know exactly what they're doing.
They do, but they're human and make mistakes.
If so, why do they allow such a low level of immigration, knowing that immigration would raise standards of living?
In an attempt to think praxeologically as Clayton does, I'd say it's simply a matter of subjective valuation of their options. For example, when a thief on the street robs someone in front of a police station; it's simply a matter of how they value their options.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."