filc: Now if that welfare continues to grow things may change but as it stands currently welfare projects are not voted in by a 'majority' of voting welfare dependants.
You know I suppose I should check myself on this. Technically we are all welfare dependents, by force. This is the very reason insolvent programs like Social Security are still around. And politically it sticks around because everyone wants their cut. So there you have it. Each acting person could be another cancer cell in one way or another.
Voting = Applied Coercion
Voting+People = Economic Chaos
filc:Now if that welfare continues to grow things may change but as it stands currently welfare projects are not voted in by a 'majority' of voting welfare dependants.
I think the idea here is that this is constantly something that is voted for on behalf of people with no direct input from people. Essentially, if a politician is running for election in a very urban area where minority ghettos exist the strongest, they are probably doing this for a vote. I'll use the recent Gubernatorial Election here in my state, New Jersey. Essentially, the best candidate (IMO) was the Republican Chris Christy. I don't know if you know anything about NJ, but John Corzine, the resident Democrat, seemed to actively try to make NJ a worse place to live. He made life even harder on business than it already was in NJ, he raised taxes significantly, raised the state sales tax, etc. Basically, did all the negative things a governor could really do. He lost by 5 points, which is huge considering NJ has been a Blue state for the better part of the last century. Well, despite all that he did bad, he still supported whole heartedly the state welfare programs. So, any place that was extremely urban such as Camden, Newark and Jersey City, Corzine won these areas by landslides. We are talking huge numbers. In Camden he got like 68% while Christy got 24%.
My point is, no one "voted" these programs into existence, someone proposed them and a bunch of people who felt that it's ok for them to decide what's best for people voted them in. Now that they are in place, people expect them to boot. I often times wonder what would happen if you asked someone that lives off these programs if they would rather get a check for so called "free" money, or if they would want to live in a place where there were job options, competitive salaries, and the potential for upward social mobility. But, I have to admit, I'm kind of afraid of the answer I would get.
According to this study the so called Scandinavian model, “Welfare capitalism (statism)” of high taxation, strong unions, high minimum wages and a comprehensive welfare state is detrimental to the integration o immigrants.
"By contrast, countries that combine a generous welfare state with easy access to equal citizenship rights and limited assimilation pressures (Sweden, the Netherlands, and the Flemish part of Belgium) show the poorest labour market integration of immigrants" See study below.
"the socio-economic gap between immigrants and natives is likely to be highest in comparatively generous welfare states such as Sweden, and lowest in liberal welfare states such as the United Kingdom [..] the Netherlands are faced with low labour market participation, strong segregation, and comparatively high levels of crime among immigrants. The Netherlands share these disappointing integration outcomes with two countries that have followed a similar integration philosophy, Sweden and [..] Belgium"
Most European states had highly regulated immigration, and tough rules on citizenship, residency, assimilation and benefits.
“Sweden [and the Netherlands] chose the opposite direction and argued that integration could best be achieved by granting immigrants easy access to full citizenship rights, security of residence even in the case of welfare dependence or conviction for crimes, and state support and protection for their languages, cultures, and ethnic organizations and institutions." PDF
^Koopmans, Ruud: Tradeoffs between Equality and Difference Immigrant Integration, Multiculturalism, and the Welfare State in Cross-National Perspective, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB) Social Science Research Center Berlin, 2008, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Volume 36 (english), sid. 22. DOI:10.1080/13691830903250881.
In Sweden the comprehensive welfare state has led to a new type of nationalism and the urge to stop influx of new users of the generous welfare and benefit system. It is called “welfare chauvinism” instead of the old xenophobia based on race and religion. This welfare chauvinism is particularly driven by the labor movement. They want to increase taxes and benefits for their members but want to exclude non-union members in general and non-union and non-Swedish residents in particular to a free lunch i.e. the welfare pie are limited.
This has led to that the traditional social democrats on the left have become more brown than red. The flight of these individuals from the traditional left in the US comparable to working class rednecks (DixieCrats), has also led to that Sweden in the next election 2010 will see a new party entering the Swedish parliament, the SwedenDemocrats, very nationalistic and playing on shutting down immigration and the benefit system. Their argumentation is very Lou Dobbsian and Jean Marie LePen.
I have always been a hardcore supporter of unlimited and free immigration but after reading the statistics about Mexican second and third generation immigrants and their impact on US economy I have somewhat changed my opinion.
Today I advocate free immigration but only for those with a high school diploma or higher education. The US cannot continue to import poverty and cannot allow immigrants that do not assimilate and become a part of the American Dream. All immigration groups prior to Mexicans have generations later risen fast in the economic ladder, become as an average American citizen, not so with the Mexicans, they are still poor, still living on welfare and not contributing to the American society. Read the very interesting article by Robert J. Samuelson Importing Poverty .
The government last week released its annual statistical report on poverty and household income. As usual, we -- meaning the public, the media and politicians -- missed a big part of the story. It is this: The stubborn persistence of poverty, at least as measured by the government, is increasingly a problem associated with immigration. As more poor Hispanics enter the country, poverty goes up. This is not complicated, but it is widely ignored.Only an act of willful denial can separate immigration and poverty. The increase among Hispanics must be concentrated among immigrants, legal and illegal, as well as their American-born children.
Why is it important to get this story straight?
One reason is truthfulness. It's usually held that we've made little, if any, progress against poverty. That's simply untrue. Among non-Hispanic whites, the poverty rate may be approaching some irreducible minimum: people whose personal habits, poor skills, family relations or bad luck condemn them to a marginal existence. Among blacks, the poverty rate remains abysmally high, but it has dropped sharply since the 1980s. Moreover, taking into account federal benefits (food stamps, the earned-income tax credit) that aren't counted as cash income would further reduce reported poverty.
We shouldn't think that our massive efforts to mitigate poverty have had no effect. Immigration hides our grudging progress.
Homo Illuminatus?: I have always been a hardcore supporter of unlimited and free immigration but after reading the statistics about Mexican second and third generation immigrants and their impact on US economy I have somewhat changed my opinion. Today I advocate free immigration but only for those with a high school diploma or higher education. The US cannot continue to import poverty and cannot allow immigrants that do not assimilate and become a part of the American Dream. All immigration groups prior to Mexicans have generations later risen fast in the economic ladder, become as an average American citizen, not so with the Mexicans, they are still poor, still living on welfare and not contributing to the American society. Read the very interesting article by Robert J. Samuelson Importing Poverty . The government last week released its annual statistical report on poverty and household income. As usual, we -- meaning the public, the media and politicians -- missed a big part of the story. It is this: The stubborn persistence of poverty, at least as measured by the government, is increasingly a problem associated with immigration. As more poor Hispanics enter the country, poverty goes up. This is not complicated, but it is widely ignored.Only an act of willful denial can separate immigration and poverty. The increase among Hispanics must be concentrated among immigrants, legal and illegal, as well as their American-born children. Why is it important to get this story straight? One reason is truthfulness. It's usually held that we've made little, if any, progress against poverty. That's simply untrue. Among non-Hispanic whites, the poverty rate may be approaching some irreducible minimum: people whose personal habits, poor skills, family relations or bad luck condemn them to a marginal existence. Among blacks, the poverty rate remains abysmally high, but it has dropped sharply since the 1980s. Moreover, taking into account federal benefits (food stamps, the earned-income tax credit) that aren't counted as cash income would further reduce reported poverty. We shouldn't think that our massive efforts to mitigate poverty have had no effect. Immigration hides our grudging progress.
The study seems to be bias and is coming to some wild conclusions. Statician's could easily manipulate that data to point the culprit as welfare in general, not immigration. Indeed this is what statician's do. They manipulate data to defend an arbitrary argument.
Still the measurement of poverty is entirely arbitrary. To anyone who comes from a third world country they can see this. For most of those immigrants their living conditions in the states have improved immensly.
In contrast other studies have been provided which has revealed a net economic gain by our newly acuired illegal citizen's. I don't have anythign to cite off the top of my head. I'm at work so I'll have to get it later.
This is the problem with statistics and letting your opinions be easily persuaded by numbers which are far more arbitrary then they are meaningful.
@Flic
That an immigrant from a 2nd or 3rd world country get a life and change their economy when moving to a 1st world country is self evident. The issue we were discussing was which type of immigration is beneficial and a comprehensive welfare state is detrimental in integrating 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.
The study is a US Governmental study, the statistics are from the US Census bureau, the interpretation is done by Robert Samuelson. The conclusions are neither wild nor biased.
Poverty is always difficult to measure but if a the same factors are calculated you get the same differences. The US Census Bureau statistics show that Mexican immigrants is the first immigrants to not be able to integrate in the US society on an economic level, they still rely on welfare and are unemployed. These are facts and not opinions.
My point is that the difference is the types of immigrants that has come to the US since the immigration "reform", Kennedy Bill, of 1984 and since 1980 in Sweden. The immigrants has been non-skilled, low educated and a large portion illiterate and from very a very different culture (authoritarian and deeply religious social conservative). Before 1984/1980 the immigrants were in their most productive age, educated and/or skilled labor and relatively non secular, open minded etc.. See below of Swedish Macro Economic study on immigration.
it seems clear to me from the different studies that the more comprehensive a welfare state the less intergrated immigrants become. The pressures in Sweden and the Nehterlands are non existent to enter the workforce as well as assimilate. (After 1980 in Sweden)
Summary from Swedish Wikipedia on immigration policy
Up until 1980 immigration gave a positive net cash flow to the Swedish economy but after 1994 a net loss of 2 % of GDP annually USD 10 bn but has stabilized 2008 to USD 8 bn annually.
In a later macroeconomic study that even when considering all future work, social security payments and taxes the average immigrant over their lifetime is a loss of USD 25,000 only immigrants that arrive between the ages of 20-30 is profitable for the Swedish economy. All other groups cost more in welfare grants and subsidies than income from tax and social security payments.
These levels is on the premise that immigrants has work on the same levels as integrated pre 1980 immigrants and ethnic Swedes. If a more conservative estimate is done i.e. that the second generation of new immigrants has the same level of unemployment as the first generation of immigrants the annual cost rises from USD 25,000 to USD 70,000
The study shows the importance of whether or not the Swedish economy gains or losses from immigration are dependent on getting immigrants to work. The difference is the large discrepancy in unemployment between the groups, in particular between new and pre 1980 immigrants.
In Sweden it has been argued that the generous immigration policy was a way for the Social Democrats to increase their voter base. A similar argument can be said for Ted Kennedy's Immigration bill of 1984 that opened up full scale immigration from Mexico and Latin America. (Before 1984 immigration was restricted to former immigrant groups of mainly European (both West and East) decent and with the the requirement of education and /or skill.
Before 1980s both in the US and Sweden the focus was on labor immigration, increasing the skilled workforce and future taxpayers. After the 1980s the immigrants were of mainly two kinds, political refugees and economic refugees. Instead of emigrating to get a better life the immigrants emigrated to escape oppression and poverty. Instead of going somewhere it was escaping from something.
In Sweden 80 % of the post 1980 immigrants vote for the Social Democrats and I think it is similar for Latinos in the US. (Among African Americians its well over 90 %, if I'm not mistaken some 98 % of African Americans voted for the Democrats in the last presidentia election)
Whether or not Swedish Social democrats and/or US Democrats had ulterior motives behind their immigration reforms it is difficult in retrospect to know, but the result/effect is there. The more voters are dependent on the large welfare state, the more they will vote for the party that will keep it intact and/or increase it.
Homo Illuminatus?: A similar argument can be said for Ted Kennedy's Immigration bill of 1984 that opened up full scale immigration from Mexico and Latin America. (Before 1984 immigration was restricted to former immigrant groups of mainly European (both West and East) decent and with the the requirement of education and /or skill.
A similar argument can be said for Ted Kennedy's Immigration bill of 1984 that opened up full scale immigration from Mexico and Latin America. (Before 1984 immigration was restricted to former immigrant groups of mainly European (both West and East) decent and with the the requirement of education and /or skill.
Marko,
I got the information from a recent HBO documentary on Ted Kennedy. The discussed his "achievements" in general but in particular his "success" with immigration reform. They particularly mentioned 1984 as the year when immigration was opened for Latinos. As I understood it before 1984 US immigration laws had discouraged Latinos and had preference for European immigrants. I could of course be wrong, have misunderstood.
Just a couple of quick points. Nothing too serious, minor edits really. Writing from research and what I learned a while back in A-level politics.
Homo Illuminatus?:In Sweden 80 % of the post 1980 immigrants vote for the Social Democrats and I think it is similar for Latinos in the US
I think the number is much lower. Large part of Hispanics are catholic, thing e.g against Abortion, family values etc , there is also the whole cuban thing. It is worth remembering that the Republican and Democratic parties are really coalitions of the state parties, and various groups, rather then "single parties".
According to pewresearch [note I got this from a quick google search, don't know anything about the source, bias etc] in 2004 the hispanic vote was 60% for Democrat, this time it was 64%.
Homo Illuminatus?:Among African Americians its well over 90 %, if I'm not mistaken some 98 % of African Americans voted for the Democrats in the last presidentia election)
Historically from its around 80% democrat.
Homo Illuminatus?: The more voters are dependent on the large welfare state, the more they will vote for the party that will keep it intact and/or increase it.
The more voters are dependent on the large welfare state, the more they will vote for the party that will keep it intact and/or increase it.
Point worth noting. However we should also remind ourselves, that these voting percentages do not reflect the entire respective populations, only the percentage that vote. I think we should keep this in mind when considering their dealings, views and actions with the state.
Homo Illuminatus?:The issue we were discussing was which type of immigration is beneficial and a comprehensive welfare state is detrimental in integrating 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.
Removing Welfare from this equation your point becomes the descussion for anthropologists on the hows of assemilation.
As economics is concerned, despite what the economic output of a person or group of persons is the law of comparative advantage asserts that cooperative exchange between 'immigrants' and native workers will render a net gain. Not a loss. Had they not entered into exchange at all they would have been worse off.
Homo Illuminatus?:The study is a US Governmental study, the statistics are from the US Census bureau, the interpretation is done by Robert Samuelson. The conclusions are neither wild nor biased.
The very nature of statistics stems from some sort of bias. This is why statistics often contradict in data when a different perspective, angle, or variable is measured. A statistician had to make a conscious decision to gather statistics about Latino's as opposed to African Americans. Why does a statician choose to study the Irish as opposed to the Omish? Only he can really know, at some point in time a concession must be made, bias is always used. It needs to be said again that statistics are not indicators of facts. While they may indicate a fact, they need to be regarded as indicators of possible conclusions only.
Many of the thresholds in your cited survey are derived from entirely arbitrary conclusions. Like, what is or is not poverty and where that threshold lies, do those people prefer or not prefer to live in poverty. We make the assumption that they prefer not to live in supposed poverty and make an assumption they would rather not be skilled laborers. It is easy for statician's to intentionally or accidently reveal a faulty conclusions when their premise is flawed from the getgo. Living in third world countries by our standards everyone is impoverished. Though the natives there may have a different opinion on the matter.
It may be that first generation migrants from Latin America are more susceptibility to receiving welfare support. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's their intention to take that support. Our system is designed to work in that manner specifically. Furthermore the demograph of Caucasion American's have moved out the market of Unskilled Labor. In the midst of the housing boom that labor had to be filled. Now had the world encompassed the united states only wages would ahve to had risen to attract labor into that market. But since the dividing line between Mexico and the US is entirely arbitrary and there is no magical force-field stopping laborers from entering our country the demand for that labor was easily filled by migrants from Latin America.
A more accurate survey would be to analyze the effects of welfare on the poor in general. This isn't a 'politically correct' argument. Only an argument that realizes the real flaws in demographic statistics in economics. At some point a level of bias was imposed to only explore the statistics of Latino's in this case.
In short, Bias is always used by statistician's they don't have a choice otherwise. It is either broad statistics which may not hold much weight or very specific statistics which may give a misleading impression of the whole.
Homo Illuminatus?:it seems clear to me from the different studies that the more comprehensive a welfare state the less intergrated immigrants become.
It may be true but it's entirely speculative to assume so. Statician's cannot provide proof either. They can only provide possible indicators.
Back to economics. Many of these survey's forget the valuable roll that unskilled labor provides. Unskilled labor is a very real demanded service in the market. Under the division of labor it would not be idealistic for there to be no unskilled laborers, regardless of their cultural background. In addition some people's personal preferences prefer them to work as unskilled laborers. Who are we to judge them otherwise?
A.L. Pruitt,
I made a mistake i often dislike in others.I generalized. Instead of Latinos I should have written Mexican. My main thrust in my post was not towards Latinos but towards the newer immigration of low skilled, low educated and mostly illiterate persons. My point is that the same situation is in Sweden. It is not their nationality, Mexican, or Middle Eastern its their social class (lack of skill and education as well as very different cultural values). As you point out there is a vast difference between Cuban descendants and those of Mexican heritage in the US. My guesstimate is that over 80 % of voters of Mexican decent voted Democrat. Thank you for the information as regards African Americans. I better check my Swedish statistics.
Different immigrants groups and different generations of immigrants have vastly different socio-economic status and mobility as shown by studies in Sweden and by articles such as Mr Samuelson's.
In Sweden there has been some that have suggested that when 60 % for the population is dependent on the government for all or part of their income the Welfare state and high taxes is locked in. The party of securing the welfare state always have a 40 % self interested voting block. It is very difficult for any opposition to reach more than 50 %. They only have 60 % potential voters to turn. The pro welfare and high taxes parties only have to turn 10 % of the voters.
As a result Sweden only have had a center-right government 12 years out of the last 80. There has never for the last 100 years been a conservative (Right) government. The rest of the time it was not even center-left but left and during 1968 to 1993 semi-socialist with income taxes reaching 98 % and a plan to socialize Swedish companies through so called Workers Funds, financed by a tax on eranings that instead of taxes paid was paid by shares on "exess" earnings in the company that over a period of 20-30 years would have given the trade unions full power of all Swedish listed companies.
@Flic,
Read this article Catching Up to Mexico, Illegal immigration is depleting California’s human capital and ravaging its economy by Alex Alexiev, visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C.
In an an opinion piece in last week’s Wall Street Journal as towards the non viability of the Californian model, super high taxes, an extreme welfare dependence, a for businesses and entreprenures extremey unfriendly climate a very interesting fact appeared. California has 12 % of the US population but 30 % of the US welfare recipients. Mr Alexiev points in the article below that half of the California deficit is from welfare payments.
He shows that immigration from Mexico is different than earlier immigrant groups. In certain areas of California illiteracy rates are above 30 %, reaching sub -Saharan Africa levels.
He shows that instead of reaching the American Dream the new immigrants are creating a permanent ethnic underclass (including African Americans).
It has taken me 30 years to change my views on unlimited immigration as an absolute good to the position of the great Milton Friedman:
“unrestrained immigration and the welfare state do not mix”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catching Up to Mexico, Illegal immigration is depleting California’s human capital and ravaging its economy
Alex Alexiev, visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C.
California’s financial unraveling has prompted a long-overdue debate about taxes, regulation, and government spending, but the state’s media and government continue to ignore what could be an even greater problem: the irreparable damage to California’s human capital that nearly 30 years of unrestrained illegal immigration has.
In 2003, it had the highest adult illiteracy in the United States, 23 percent — nearly 50 percent higher than a decade earlier. In some counties (Imperial at 41 percent, Los Angeles at 33 percent) illiteracy approaches sub-Saharan levels.
The mediocre education system, along with the unfriendly business climate and confiscatory tax regime, is driving educated, middle-class Californians out of the state. Between 2000 and 2005, more people with college degrees left California than came in, according to research by the Hewlett Foundation. Since then this trend has accelerated, and the state lost 2.2 million members of its young, educated, tax-paying middle class between 2004 and 2007. IRS data show that of recent migrants from the Golden State to places like Texas and Oklahoma, who average 29 years of age, 58 percent have received at least some college education and 53 percent own their homes.
One myth is that because America is a country of immigrants and has successfully absorbed waves of immigration in the past, it can absorb this wave. But the argument neglects two key differences between past waves and the current influx. First, the immigrant population is more than double today what it was following the most massive previous immigration wave (that of the late 19th century). Second, and much more important, as scholars from the Manhattan Institute have shown, earlier immigrants were much more likely to bring with them useful skills. Some Hispanic immigrants certainly do integrate, but most do not. Research has shown that even after 20 years in the country, most illegal aliens (the overwhelming majority of whom are Hispanic) and their children remain poor, unskilled, and culturally isolated — they constitute a new permanent underclass.
Perhaps the most disingenuous myth about illegal immigrants is that they do not impose any cost on society. The reality is that even those who work — and half do not, according to the Pew Hispanic Center — cannot subsist on the wages they receive and depend on public assistance to a large degree. Research on Los Angeles immigrants by Harvard University scholar George J. Borjas shows that 40.1 percent of immigrant families with non-citizen heads of household receive welfare, compared with 12.7 percent of households with native-born heads. Illegal immigrants also increase public expenditures on health care, education, and prisons. In California today, illegal immigrants’ cost to the taxpayer is estimated to be $13 billion — half the state’s budget deficit.
Faulty link:
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=MWFhYjhiODFiOGZmNTc1ZTQxMzlkNjNkNjIzNDg2YWU
This article points out a huge flaw in California and it's welfare system. Not in immigrants themselves. It also makes a few obviously nationalistic bigotry like statements and then makes a few economic fallacious statements. It's obvious the author has done the least amount of research possible, grabbed a bunch of statistics on a whim and formulated his argument. Not something that carries alot of weight with me.
· Yes the article is biased against illegal immigration. However it is not biased against all immigration only immigration that creates a permanent underclass dependent on welfare benefits.
· Just because it is written by a Harvard research fellow does not make it suspect. Please refrain from juvenile and deroatory remarks such as "frat boy", your own biases are very obvious and apparent. I read Marx and statist supporters as well as conservative and classic liberal writers. Your facts are not wrong because of your personal views or your opinions. Facts are facts!
· The article doesn’t point to that immigrants are irrational; it is very rational to live on welfare. It suggests that that a comprehensive welfare state cannot be maintained without selective immigration. The article writer however wants a restrictive and narrow policy based on nationalistic values, not allow immigration even of the skilled and the educated as I propose.
· My main point, as well as the point of Robert Samuelson and the article writer, is that immigrants in the US and Sweden up until the 1980s were an extremely positive economic influence for the US and Sweden. In fact without them neither Sweden nor US would be the economies they are today. However the contention of me and the writers are that it has changed. Immigration of low skilled, largely illiterate and vastly culturally different immigrant groups have created a new situation. Instead of becoming part of Swedish and US society the new immigrants have become a permanent welfare dependent underclass outside society. This are not opinions but facts!
The writer of the article is definitely against illegal immigration, maybe all kinds of immigration?
He writes:
In short, we are witnessing a highly advanced and prosperous state [California], long endowed with superior human capital, turning into the exact opposite in just one generation.
What can be done to stop this race to the bottom?
What does he recommend?
1. The answer is simple: California and Washington need to enforce existing immigration law. Unfortunately, it is difficult to convince the public that this is necessary, so deeply entrenched are myths about illegal immigration.
2. The state should stop providing welfare and other social services to illegal aliens — as existing statutes demand — and severely punish employers who break the law by hiring illegal immigrants.
He believes that these actions would immediately remove powerful economic incentives for illegal immigration, and millions of illegal aliens would return to their countries.
My suggestion instead would be to give amnesty to all with a high school diploma and/or have higher education, a requisite would be that they have no felony convictions more recent than 5 -10 years. Those that that can support themselves or show that they are supported should also get amnesty. Probably also underage children and spouses of the above. This would give amnesty to a substail amount of the guesstimated 13 mn "illegal" immigrants i.e. the ones that we hope will be productive and economically viable to US society.
Give all with H1B1 Visas permanent resident Visas as well as all foreign students that graduate in the US with a college degree. After that let those with skills and higher education immigrate to the US.
When this is done I agree with the writer on his recommendations:
1. enforce existing immigration law and punish employers who break the law
2. stop providing welfare and other social services to illegal aliens
I forgot those that would get a permanent job if they had a Visa. They should get amnesty too.
Homo Illuminatus?:· Just because it is written by a Harvard research fellow does not make it suspect. Please refrain from juvenile and deroatory remarks such as "frat boy", your own biases are very obvious and apparent. I read Marx and statist supporters as well as conservative and classic liberal writers. Your facts are not wrong because of your personal views or your opinions. Facts are facts!
Im not saying the facts are wrong or right. Just that they are projecting the immigration problem to the whole country based on an unstable situation in california. I also find it suspect since it contridicts the findings of other more established economists. And I also find it hard to beleive that the net produce from immigrants is in the red, evne including welfare, considering they helped build a huge housing bubble.
California is proof alone. They've been destroying hundreds of homes and communities due to the bubble. Well someone had to build those homes. Who do you think it was?
Homo Illuminatus?:My main point, as well as the point of Robert Samuelson and the article writer, is that immigrants in the US and Sweden up until the 1980s were an extremely positive economic influence for the US and Sweden. In fact without them neither Sweden nor US would be the economies they are today. However the contention of me and the writers are that it has changed. Immigration of low skilled, largely illiterate and vastly culturally different immigrant groups have created a new situation. Instead of becoming part of Swedish and US society the new immigrants have become a permanent welfare dependent underclass outside society. This are not opinions but facts!
And my main point is your convoluting facts to attack immigration, mexican's specifically. Statements like they are unskilled ect are not only offensive but economically wrong. No one is 'unskilled' and the fact is latin american families operate much different then americans. Children and women typically do not work and stay at home. Your statistics consider this and the typical american method of measuring poverty reflects that household style as being impovershed when in reality it's a lifestyle choice by the family.
The article tries to make an argument that our problems are immigration, specifically mexican immigrations. The truth is thats not our problem at all, the problem is welfare.
Look lets get down to the nuts and bolts of this. Are you arguing that the problem is immigration or welfare? You can't say both or because they are mixed. :)
Homo Illuminatus?: Yes the article is biased against illegal immigration. However it is not biased against all immigration only immigration that creates a permanent underclass dependent on welfare benefits.
So it's still bias against what its arguing against...
"
Homo Illuminatus?: The article doesn’t point to that immigrants are irrational; it is very rational to live on welfare. It suggests that that a comprehensive welfare state cannot be maintained without selective immigration. The article writer however wants a restrictive and narrow policy based on nationalistic values, not allow immigration even of the skilled and the educated as I propose.
The article doesn’t point to that immigrants are irrational; it is very rational to live on welfare. It suggests that that a comprehensive welfare state cannot be maintained without selective immigration. The article writer however wants a restrictive and narrow policy based on nationalistic values, not allow immigration even of the skilled and the educated as I propose.
Perhaps that is true. Lets assume it's true. Then we should be arguing to get rid of welfare. Not to expand the states powers with regards to immigration. You will probably find a great deal of resistance with regards to expanding federal power via immigration, since most people on this forum are anti-statist, anarchists, Libertarians etc. So even if you were able to provide a very logical and well sourced report on why immigration should be blocked in the U.S, you would still fail to convince a lot of people on moral grounds. \
Homo Illuminatus?: · My main point, as well as the point of Robert Samuelson and the article writer, is that immigrants in the US and Sweden up until the 1980s were an extremely positive economic influence for the US and Sweden. In fact without them neither Sweden nor US would be the economies they are today. However the contention of me and the writers are that it has changed. Immigration of low skilled, largely illiterate and vastly culturally different immigrant groups have created a new situation. Instead of becoming part of Swedish and US society the new immigrants have become a permanent welfare dependent underclass outside society. This are not opinions but facts!
I don't think your conclusion is factual. As I already brought up, unskilled, culturally different immigrants have showed up before, to all sorts of countries all over the world. The welfare system is a new factor. HOWEVER, you are only providing us with more ammunition as to why the welfare state should be ended. Not that that Federal power should be extended.
If your having troubling understanding that, deciding who and who can't come in the country, and "raising the barrier" is an increase in state power.
Furthermore, as well all know, prohibition is horribly inneffective. This will mean that the State will have to allocate more resources to immigratiion control. And give it more powers to enforce immigration control. So now all you have done is made voluntary movements and transactions illegal
e.g immigration, immigrant works.
And you have enlarged the state, and its burden on society.
Look I don't want to dispute this all day long. So i'll just finish up with my point above.\
Homo Illuminatus?:1. The answer is simple: California and Washington need to enforce existing immigration law. Unfortunately, it is difficult to convince the public that this is necessary, so deeply entrenched are myths about illegal immigration.
This wouldn't fix california's financial situation. Eliminating welfare would. Removing immigration may ease the pain or slow it's failure but it is not the root of the problem.
Homo Illuminatus?:2. The state should stop providing welfare and other social services to illegal aliens — as existing statutes demand — and severely punish employers who break the law by hiring illegal immigrants.
The state should just stop with it's welfare. There is no need to punish 'illegals' especially if they are filling a labor demand that domestic labor can't fill. Economically that demand must be met.
Do you see how in both of his solutions he's equating immigration AND welfare as being a problem. What he needs to do is remove his bias and make a decision, Immigration OR welfare. One of the two are causing the problem, not both. Now mixed together it can only exacerbate the welfare problem. Welfare doesn't work as is though, the problem is the welfare.
Homo Illuminatus?:1. enforce existing immigration law and punish employers who break the law
When a nation isolates itself in goods and labor it's worse off. I'm not sure if you've read about the Law of Comparative advantage or the Division of Labor. But you need to read up on both.
Homo Illuminatus?:2. stop providing welfare and other social services to illegal aliens
That would only slow the progression of the problem and it may be necessary. But the immigrants themselves are not the root of the problem. This is not an opinion, this is the way things work economically.
Quiet frankly I don't have the energy to debate it. Many folks, such as yourselfs, grab a hold of every New York Times highschool grade study that is published that fits your ideological viewpoint. Meanwhile there are entire books, studies, and schools of thought that spend a lifetime refuting these ad-hoc statician's.
What I recomend to you is reading some basic economic books. If I wanted to I could probably pull 10-20 articles off NYT which gives statistical credibility to Marxism. I could probably do the same for socialism, conservationism, or just about anything else. Statistics can be fabricated and provided to support any ideological viewpoint. The problem is those statistics do not follow logic.
The article you provided is proof enough. It is so bias that the author cannot seperate illegal aliens from welfare. He seems to think we have welfare because of illegal aliens. He fails to realize that welfare came first and that immigrants came here to fill a labor demand, not to fill a welfare demand.
Here's a statistic that defends my viewpoint, The immigration influx from Mexico correlates with the housing bubble. There was a labor demand, american's didnt want to fill it at that wage rate so latinos did. There are statistics which substantiate any viewpoint out there, the problem is some of them are do not follow economic law. Those ones I find suspect. It's not that they are true, it's that the information is being presented as an opinion to support another ideology.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-benefits-of-immigration/
Here is another article that does a cost-benefit analysis of immigration.
http://sorrel.humboldt.edu/~economic/econ104/immigrat/
The cost is roughly 60billion annually
The benefit is 51 billion
Some of his costs are simply economically fallacious and examples of where numbers can scew reality. His entire argument of displacement cost is a rediculous one. Lowering wage rates is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Still he does show that the bulk of the costs come in the form of welfare. So lets look at our problem again
Cost 60 (Welfare)
Benefit 51 (Production)
If you get rid of welfare you have a solid benefit of 51 million. However if you get rid of immigrants all together you loose all those benefits and retain a level of costs for domestic welfare. So in other words, eliminating immigration will still keep your situation financially in the red, this is due to the nature of welfare.
Getting rid of welfare however and allowing immigration brings a large benefit to the overall economy.
Furthermore his benefit measurement analysis is flawed as is. He us is measuring all the economic output of the immigration. I state again that the immigration influx helped fuel the housing boom. Their economic output is astronomically high and possibly cannot be accurately measured but what the produced definitely outweighed any welfare costs. The problem is what they were producing was an error as reflected by the business cycle but again thats not their fault. They were simply filling a demand of labor.
THe article you provided seems to be a form of circular reasoning. Such information I usually dismiss due to the reasons I stated above. There are statistics and articles which substantiate any ideological viewpoint. How they are founded is what counts.
Some typos and it wont let me edit. So my last paragraph is restated:
Furthermore his benefit measurement analysis is flawed as is. He is NOT measuring all the economic output of the immigration, only measuring what he can see in monetary terms. As I already stated the immigration influx helped fuel the housing boom. Their economic output is astronomically high and possibly cannot be accurately measured but what they produced definitely outweighed any welfare costs. The problem is what they were producing was an error as reflected by the business cycle but again thats not their fault. They were simply filling a demand of labor.
My contention as well as the contention of Milton Friedman is:
There are 2 solutions:
1. Get rid of the welfare state
2. Restrain immigration
I am a consequentialist as well s a pragmatic classic liberal as was FA Hayek and Milton Friedman and dismiss the Utopian idea that we can get rid of the welfare state and/or get to pure anarchy. It is only suited for theoretical discussions and in philosophical forums. I work for change and for limiting the growth of government in general and the slimming down in particular. I call it “Lean Government”.
In the real ugly world there is a large and expanding welfare state. The economy will no longer grow at the rate it has after WWII. In Europe it’s down to 2-3 % annually. The US growth up until 2008 was 4-5 % but will now go to a European level after all the costly reforms of the Democrat congress as well as George W Bush huge underfunded extension of the entitlement programs, “No Child Left Behind” and Medicare D. This means that if the welfare state and its costs are not to explode we cannot bring more recipients into it. There is no more funding. Tremendous cuts in entitlements are soon to come, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Long overdue.
So the solution number 1 getting rid of the welfare state is not viable. Solution 2 is unpalatable for a libertarian. So should we do nothing because we dislike the options?
(We can discuss endlessly the calculations whether or not the new immigration is economically beneficial or not. I disregard factors that cannot be measured since their interpretation becomes too subjective. The facts on the ground is that Mexican immigrants are different than historic generations of immigrants, they cost more and are less likely to be prosperous and more likely to be on welfare. Older generations of immigrants were as pointed out culturally different but the succeeded to become economically integrated as have not the Mexican. Further I am for unlimited immigration of skilled immigrants only restriction on unskilled. I don't think you can call that prohibition. FYI the quotes Flic attribute to argue against me is Alex Alexievs not mine.)
Friedman and Hayek are vastly different. They come from two entirely different and conflicting schools of thought.
Not getting rid of solution 1 will eventually destroy the state. Getting rid of option 2 will hinder it;s economic growth making that destruction much sooner rather than later.
Calculations aren't necessary. Hayek himself, to my knowledge, contends with his teacher Mises about the problem of Economic Calculation in socialist programs.
My recommendation to you is don't stop reading economics. So you've read a book from Hayek and a few from Freidmen. Why not pickup some books from Mises or Rothbard?
Homo Illuminatus?:In the real ugly world there is a large and expanding welfare state. The economy will no longer grow at the rate it has after WWII. In Europe it’s down to 2-3 % annually.
This will grow whether you have immigrants or not. Yet your solution you argue 'as a realist' is to eliminate immigration. As if that was more realistic then eliminating welfare.
arguing that solution 1 is not viable is entirely arbitrary and based on your own opinion. One of the convenietn things about calling yourself a 'realist' and pragmatist is that you can conveniently put yourself on a pedistool of non-budging opinions. I agree, such dogmatisism is nearly fruitless to argue against.
Still I want to correct you on Hayek. Have you read Road to surfdom or some of his other books? The concessions he makes are far different then the ones Freidman makes.
Your position is also logicaly fallacious. Be careful not to fall into a typical fallacy of Arguing for Tradition. In the same manners murderers have been around since the dawn of man. That doesn't mean we should accept them as status quo and make no attempt to stifle their efforts.
I would recomend you stop reading Milton Freidman all together. Most of his understanding of economics is built on various fallacies, as is the whole chicago school of economics. Instead build your understanding and foundation in logic and reason.
Also by supporting welfare your supporting the roots and creating a justification for socialism all together. Conceptual socialism will never die so long as such programs exist. Especially if they exist and are given the image as success's. It is inconsistent for free-market economists to defend socialist programs and attack socialism at the same time. The public sees this. If the public things social security, welfare, social healthcare, and other social programs are a success they will continue to expand that ideology. Not from irrationality but due to their own ignorance and because of economists defending that status quo. In time the status quo grows larger you see. Eventually the system will topple onto itself as socialism does not produce anything, only markets do.
Human Action Pg 185: The main objective of praxeology and economics is to substitute consistent correct ideologies for the contradictory tenets of popular eclecticism. There is no other means of preventing social disintegration and of safeguarding the steady improvement of human conditions than those provided by reason. Men must try to think through all the problems involved up to the point beyond which a human mind cannot proceed farther. They must never acquiesce in any solutions conveyed by older generations, they must always question anew every theory and every theorem, they must never relax in their endeavors to brush away fallacies and to find the best possible cognition. They must fight error by unmasking spurious doctrines and by expounding truth. The problems involved are purely intellectual and must be dealt with as such. It is disastrous to shift them to the moral sphere and to dispose of supporters of opposite ideologies by calling them villains. It is vain to insist that what we are aiming at is good and what our adversaries want is bad. The question to be solved is precisely what is to be considered as good and what as bad. The rigid dogmatism peculiar to religious groups and to Marxism results only in irreconcilable conflict.
The main objective of praxeology and economics is to substitute consistent correct ideologies for the contradictory tenets of popular eclecticism. There is no other means of preventing social disintegration and of safeguarding the steady improvement of human conditions than those provided by reason. Men must try to think through all the problems involved up to the point beyond which a human mind cannot proceed farther. They must never acquiesce in any solutions conveyed by older generations, they must always question anew every theory and every theorem, they must never relax in their endeavors to
brush away fallacies and to find the best possible cognition. They must fight error by unmasking spurious doctrines and by expounding truth. The problems involved are purely intellectual and must be dealt with as such. It is disastrous to shift them to the moral sphere and to dispose of supporters of opposite ideologies by calling them villains. It is vain to insist that what we are aiming at is good and what our adversaries want is bad. The question to be solved is precisely what is to be considered as good and what as bad. The rigid dogmatism peculiar to religious groups and to Marxism results only in irreconcilable conflict.
Another issue about being a realist is that the level of state intervention accepted by a realist is different for each person. There can be no reconciliation on those grounds as each person comes to their conclusions arbitrarily. The level of state intervention is decided apon entirely arbitrarily and subject to the whims of an opinion espoued from one individual to the next.
It is not subject to any logical scrutiny. That alone is problematic.
I can't edit my old post so thats why I posted twice.
Homo Illuminatus,
Are you aware that Germans make up the majority of the white population of the United States? Are you aware that only a tiny fragment of that group speak german.
Integration does not take 2 seconds. It takes time.
I want you to admit the following
1) The war on drugs, or drug prohibition is a failure. It is a waste of resources, and it does more harm then good.
2) Admit that prohibiting immigration and making voluntary actions a crime e.g hiring "illegal immigrants" is really no different then voluntary narcotic transactions wrong.
3) Then admit that "enforcing" or making laws on immigration more stringent will not work, and will be just as successful as the war on drugs.
So now you have to admit to yourself that starting a "war on illegal immigration" will be just as hurtful as the "war on drugs", "war on terror" and the "war on poverty".
And btw, you argument against ending welfare because it is entrenched is true for ALL state programs. They all become entrenched. No state wishes to willingly and easily relinquish power.
The War on poverty and the War on Drugs are miserable failures. It holds absolutist ideals that all drug abuse and all poverty can be eradicated. It can't.
I hold all utopian and absolutist ideas and morals in contempt. Be they ideologically based such as Marxist and Objectivist, religious or based on other absolutist morals.
I'm not for prohibition but for restriction. I do not believe in decriminalization of the sale of drugs but I believe in the decriminalization of personal use. Portugal has chosen this route with great success.
When it comes to the War on Poverty I am for support but restricted and for a limited time period only.
The War on Terror is a misnomer; it should have been a police action against criminals that destroy property. The action against the Taliban in Afghanistan I supported as a police action. The Iraqi invasion is a much more difficult issue. As being a libertarian (the classic liberal version) I cannot really see your arguments against self defense. Are we not allowed to defend ourselves against aggressors or is it only domestic aggressors we can defend against?
I'm not for War on illegal immigration but for unlimited immigration of skilled workers and restriction on unskilled workers.
I'm neither for War on Welfare nor War on the Big State but try to restrict it as much as possible as well as stop its expansion.
I don't understand your arguments. How are you going to accomplish the abolishment of welfare? So what is your action plan besides theoretical arguments, words are cheap action costs!
As you can see I'm consequent in my views. Absolutism, no. Prohibition, no. Restriction, yes.
Homo Illuminatus?: I hold all utopian and absolutist ideas and morals in contempt. Be they ideologically based such as Marxist and Objectivist, religious or based on other absolutist morals.
So you choose to be a centrist. As a result however your beliefs are in conflict. Your principles lack integrity and will be granted no real intellectual weight as your beliefs change inconsistently from one topic to the next. In some cases you defend markets and private property, in others you do not. It shows that you may not necessarily understand what you believe in. I imagine that in some cases you argue that socialized goods and services generate a net benefit. Though you will be unable to define which goods those are, it is likely you espouse the goods and services adopted by the state. Though many of those were developed on the market before the state abducted them by way of force. You are inconsistent in your views and as a result you will always have a hard time defending your case.
Homo Illuminatus?:I don't understand your arguments. How are you going to accomplish the abolishment of welfare? So what is your action plan besides theoretical arguments, words are cheap action costs!
Why do I need an action plan? I have the market.
Homo Illuminatus?:The War on poverty and the War on Drugs are miserable failures. It holds absolutist ideals that all drug abuse and all poverty can be eradicated. It can't.
That is the problem of a war on a concept. Another issue with the war on drugs is the definition of a drug. Such definitions are created arbitrarily and not from any formal logical. This is call legal positivism and these types of war overtly display the economic harm they cause.
Homo Illuminatus?:When it comes to the War on Poverty I am for support but restricted and for a limited time period only.
Again the concept of a war on poverty or a war on any concept is just as fallacious as the other, war on drugs for example.
Homo Illuminatus?:The War on Terror is a misnomer; it should have been a police action against criminals that destroy property.
Amazingly you are correct and I commend you for making a distinction that 9/11 should have been handled as a violation of private property. Criminals should have been dealt with and defensive agents of the state should have been reprimanded. Though somehow you do not understand where private property is relevant for the war on poverty, drugs, or anything else. I suspect this is due to your acceptance of legal positivism.
Homo Illuminatus?:I'm not for War on illegal immigration but for unlimited immigration of skilled workers and restriction on unskilled workers.
How exactly can you define skilled and unskilled workers? Especially in a state of economic ignorance. Most policy makes have no idea what it means to be skilled or unskilled. Technically there is no such thing as being unskilled short of being unconscious. Here you support nothing other then dictatorship. The concept of freely moving goods/trade scares you. Because of this you would rather see a fascistic form of control of such goods. Remebering that labor is a market good just like anything else.
Homo Illuminatus?:I'm neither for War on Welfare nor War on the Big State but try to restrict it as much as possible as well as stop its expansion.
I have a challenge for you. Please cite one historical example where democracy effectively voted and reduced the size of welfare. You accuse us of being Utopian yet your own beliefs are as far fetched as the next. Welfare cannot be restricted and it does not shrink. It only grows like a cancer.
We don't understand you. You change your fundamental principles from one case to the next. Not an attack on you but this is the fundamental problem with modern liberalism.
Homo Illuminatus?:. As being a libertarian (the classic liberal version) I cannot really see your arguments against self defense.
You seem to reveal that you know far less about libertarianism or classic liberalism than you claim.
Either you admit that freely moving goods and services is the best way to meet consumer desires and needs or you do not. You cannot believe white is black as well. It's either white or black. You cannot eat your cake and have it to.
Homo Illuminatus please listen to this.
http://mises.org/media/2322
I also recomend these books.
Apparently they don't dwell on the moral and ethical arguments that libertarian's typically profess and stick just to the practicality of government. I think you would relate more to this.
Why Government Doesn't Work and
The Great Libertarian Offer
Homo Illuminatus?:I'm not for prohibition but for restriction. I do not believe in decriminalization of the sale of drugs but I believe in the decriminalization of personal use. Portugal has chosen this route with great success.
Yes decriminalization (of personal use) is better then prohibition. And legalization is better then decriminalization.
Do you require that I explain the economics behind that? Or are you aware of it already?
I didn't present an argument for ending welfare. And I don't need to .I don't care about whats politically feasible. I don't think the state can be voted away or voted down. I don't claim to know how to reduce the state. However, why do you believe that action is de facto better than inaction? What if that action is the wrong one? e.g struggling frantically in quicksand.
Btw it is inaccurate to see consequentialism as a synonym for realism or being practical. On a side note there are consequentialists that are against restriction and for full legalization, anarchy etc
Homo Illuminatus?:The action against the Taliban in Afghanistan I supported as a police action.
It was a very poor demonstration of police action. It was an invasion. Its akin to canadian police coming into Germany, destroying the local community government that may have indirectly supported a terrorist action in cananda, (that canada had earlier given support to), murdering innocent people, and then installing a new state. How is that a police action?
A police action would be capturing the actual terrorists. And then trying them. I don't see how how invading afghanistan is relevant to that.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Integration takes a long time of that we agree. German immigrants in the 19th century and Mexican immigrants in the 21th is vastly different. You bring a 19th century person to a 19th century surrounding with the demand for 19th century skill sets. Anybody in the 19th century could go about his daily business without being able to read and only do manual unskilled labor. Education and technological innovation went hand in hand with integration. Transplanting 3rd world person i.e. 19th with reading proficiency and with 19th century skill sets into a 21th century high tech world is something completely different.
Research show as you point at that immigration in general is beneficial for most societies but studies in Sweden and in the US show that subset of Mexican and Middle Eastern immigrants differ in integration from previous cohorts of immigrants. It has nothing to do with their being Mexican or of Middle Eastern decent it has in my opinion to do with their lack of 21th century education and skill sets. I welcome any that have or can learn 21th century skill sets.
You seem to misunderstand me. I share your ideological points of view on the best of economic systems i.e. a completely free market. However I don’t believe in the more extreme variants of libertarianism that hold that all government is force and that Anarchy is preferable. My version of libertarianism, which I share with most libertarians, is the concept of the “Night watchman state”, police, fire, military defense and a court system.
The issue I’m debating is how to change the real world and to minimize the rise of the states intrusion in our personal and economic sphere. How to minimize the growth of the welfare state? Ideological purity i.e. like the ostrich putting its head in the sand is fine by me. However I live in the real world. I pay exorbitant taxes and government is intruding more and more into my private sphere.
I'm European as well as a supporter of the Austrian School of economics. So I follow Hayek and not Rothbard and Mises, at least not in the dogmatic way most American followers do. I have never understood orthodoxy of a portion of US libertarian that believe Ayn Rand is God with Mises and Rothbard as her prophets i.e. their word is law and to be taken literarily. I always ask them to show me how they prove the existence of absolute morals and where they originated from. They always fail. But that is the way of all (semi) religions, they rely on faith not reason.
However I think that the Austrian purists are misguided. Praxeology is way too esoteric, to cult like. The refusal to do any kind of calculations is also to cult like for me.
I hope that we soon will see a neo Austrian School that makes use of certain subsets of econometrics as well as rational economics, Becker et al, and neuro-psychology. Not all Austrians are against calculations only hard core Rothbardian and followers of Mises
You maybe should read this essay from Bryan Caplan George Mason University. (One of the few universities that have openly Austrian professors of Economics). He thinks that the followers of Rothbard and Mises are to narrow in their interpretation of the Austrian School. But Caplan is not of the Austrian Economic School of thought. I am.
Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist
I do not deny that Austrian economists have made valuable contributions to economics. Rather, as the sequel will argue, I maintain that:
· (a) The effort to rebuild economics along foundations substantially different from those of modern neoclassical economics fails.
· (b) Austrian economists have often misunderstood modern neoclassical economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it.
· (c) Several of the most important Austrian claims are false, or at least overstated.
· (d) Modern neoclassical economics has made a number of important discoveries which Austrian economists for the most part have not appreciated.
· Given this, I conclude that while self-labeled Austrian economists have some valid contributions to make to economics, these are simply not distinctive enough to sustain a school of thought. The task of developing an alternate Austrian paradigm has largely failed, producing an abundance of meta-economics (philosophy, methodology, and history of thought), but few substantive results. Whatever Austrian economists have that is worth saying should be simply be addressed to the broader economics profession, which (in spite of itself) remains eager for original, true, and substantive ideas.
· Needless to say, I have many friends who think more highly of Austrian economics than I do. I hope that this piece will spark interest and discussion without sparking any kind of personal acrimony
o
Homo Illuminatus?: Integration takes a long time of that we agree. German immigrants in the 19th century and Mexican immigrants in the 21th is vastly different. You bring a 19th century person to a 19th century surrounding with the demand for 19th century skill sets. Anybody in the 19th century could go about his daily business without being able to read and only do manual unskilled labor. Education and technological innovation went hand in hand with integration. Transplanting 3rd world person i.e. 19th with reading proficiency and with 19th century skill sets into a 21th century high tech world is something completely different. Research show as you point at that immigration in general is beneficial for most societies but studies in Sweden and in the US show that subset of Mexican and Middle Eastern immigrants differ in integration from previous cohorts of immigrants. It has nothing to do with their being Mexican or of Middle Eastern decent it has in my opinion to do with their lack of 21th century education and skill sets. I welcome any that have or can learn 21th century skill sets.
There is no need for this sort of mysticism. It has nothing to do with any century. There is infinite work to be done thus we can always offer work even to a basic laborer. There is no reason a 21st century economy could not accomodate a basic laborer, 21st century China keeps finding more and more jobs for them with ease. The reality is that no such jobs exist because of minimum wage, social security, union rules and other restrictions. Not the moodines of time.
Please read through this post very carefully. I think I finally see what is the root causes of our disagreement. I believe certain key factors have been misrepresented to you, and therefore have developed a misunderstanding of the issues below.
Homo Illuminatus?: Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist
Thank you for the article. However I have already read it. I am even considering to transferring to GMU as a matter of fact.
Homo Illuminatus?: completely free market. However I don’t believe in the more extreme variants of libertarianism that hold that all government is force and that Anarchy is preferable. My version of libertarianism, which I share with most libertarians, is the concept of the “Night watchman state”, police, fire, military defense and a court system.
Then you don't believe in a completely free market. A free market is one free of the state, where all interactions are voluntary. If the initiation of coercion is claimed as a "legitimate power which they retain a monopoly over", that institution is a state. Once it uses it, you no longer have a 100% "free market".
Homo Illuminatus?: The issue I’m debating is how to change the real world and to minimize the rise of the states intrusion in our personal and economic sphere. How to minimize the growth of the welfare state? Ideological purity i.e. like the ostrich putting its head in the sand is fine by me. However I live in the real world. I pay exorbitant taxes and government is intruding more and more into my private sphere.
Changing the real world is fine however you face several issues which you need to admit exist :
1) It gives the welfare state breathing room (how is that a good thing? Perhaps it struggling to live will help end it?)
2) It makes otherwise voluntary exchange (with regards to immigrants of x,y,z) prohibited thereby creating a blackmarket, legitimate "citizens" into criminals and now a whole new problem that has to be dealt with by you guessed it...increase in state power.
3) Overall you have increased the state. Not decreased it.
Don't you see that your not only enlarging the state but also failing to fix the immigration problem in the first place!? Prohibition does not work!
Do you believe that using state intervention to fix problems causes new problems which then the state attempts to fix which causes new problems? ad infinitum.
Homo Illuminatus?: 'm European as well as a supporter of the Austrian School of economics. So I follow Hayek and not Rothbard and Mises, at least not in the dogmatic way most American followers do.
'm European as well as a supporter of the Austrian School of economics. So I follow Hayek and not Rothbard and Mises, at least not in the dogmatic way most American followers do.
I'm european too, and an Austrian as well yet I have read all three. I know European Austrians who are Rothbardians. It's not logical to say because your European and Austrian ergo you study Hayek and not Rothbard or Mises. It would make more sense to say, the mainstream uni's in the UK/EU have either been sympathetic, tolerant or accepted Hayeks work, but simply are not familiar with Rothbard and Mises, and therefore it is unlikely that you have been exposed to it, or discussed it in person with someone who does know much about the other two Austrian Economists.
Homo Illuminatus?: I have never understood orthodoxy of a portion of US libertarian that believe Ayn Rand is God with Mises and Rothbard as her prophets i.e. their word is law and to be taken literarily. I always ask them to show me how they prove the existence of absolute morals and where they originated from. They always fail. But that is the way of all (semi) religions, they rely on faith not reason.
Big major, major, major misunderstanding here. Mises came before Ayn Rand, so he can't be her prophet. Rand certainly influenced Rothbard but they fell out. And well, they are not infallible, but they are brilliant, will you admit that (remember Hayek built off of von Mises)? Assuming your right on the absolute morals argument, doesn't win you this argument nor does it break down the economics of Mises and Rothbard. Its also worth noting that Mises was a utilitarian similar to yourself whilst Rothbard was a Natural Law Libertarian.
Homo Illuminatus?: However I think that the Austrian purists are misguided. Praxeology is way too esoteric, to cult like. The refusal to do any kind of calculations is also to cult like for me.
Another major major major misunderstanding.
1) Rothbard and Mises both did calculations. They never said "Thall shall not do calculations". What they (and any Austrian since to be an Austrian you use Praxeology, or using logic to derive principles of human action) argued against is attempting to using empirical data to prove one's argument instead of illustrating it. Or that one can deduce principles of human action from empirical reasoning. Anyone feel free to correct me, but I'm 100% confident that you are incorrect in the above assertion.
Homo Illuminatus?: I hope that we soon will see a neo Austrian School that makes use of certain subsets of econometrics as well as rational economics, Becker et al, and neuro-psychology. Not all Austrians are against calculations only hard core Rothbardian and followers of Mises
Calculation and econometrics are not synonyms. What is your first language?
In post-industrial societies there is only manual labor. In industrial societies the demand for skill rises and teh demand for manual labor decreases. In post industrial sociietes such as Sweden and soon the US the industrial work is scarece and unskilled manual labor practically disapperas.
in a post-industrial society there is no such thing as an abandunce of work. It is the opposite. There is no shortage of work but there is a shortage of highly educated and skilled workers. I grant you that minimum wage and union rules are making it more difficult for low skilled basic manual laborers but even if union rules and minimum wage was abolished there would still not be enough work for low skilled manual laborers.
I grant you that if we could abolsih welfare I would agree to unrestricted immigration. But I still contend as did Milton Friedman that unrestrained immigration is not compatibel with the welfare state. Since abolishing teh welfare state is politically and therefore practically impossible restraining low skilled immigration is a partial solution. To do nothing is always an option. But inaction has costs of its own even for those morally opposed to any state intervention. You will be asked to pay more and higher taxes, getting less and less service.
I choose the option of restraining low skilled immigration since i don't want to see any further expansion of the welfare state, no more welfare recipients and as a consequence higher taxes and more intrusion in my personal sphere.
“Free market” what is that? An absolutely can free market can exists in the real world as little as anarchy can work in the real world. Both are theoretical abstractions. To reiterate I don’t believe in the utopia of anarchy. My minimal state is as I you told before the concept of the Night watchman state. I accept state coercion as well as state funding for these purposes. I have read “Anarchy, State and Utopia” and find Nozicks arguments weak for the anarchist state where everything is contracted upon.
As I pointed out before both action and inaction has consequences. A purist anarchist might not want to do anything to support the welfare state or the state since they want it to disappear, be destroyed under its own weight. But by inaction they make it grow even larger, and for your information the state will never go away. It has always been there and will always be there.
I’m not prohibiting immigrants but restricting their access to my territory. Do I not as a libertarian have the right to restrict access to my property? By allowing for unlimited access for skilled workers and only restricting unskilled I make the need for the bureaucracy of immigration much smaller. They only have to enforce and control low skilled workers i.e. state intervention is radically decreased. It is the same by introducing a flat tax. The IRS will be cut by 90 %.
I agree that prohibition does not work but restriction has worked. (Unless you equate restriction with prohibition)
I agree that it would be more correct to say that Europeans tend to be more sympathetic towards Hayek. The quip about Randians was just a quip about the semi-religious nature of certain US libertarians belief system. Paraphrasing “Allah is god and Mohammed is his prophet”. I am fully aware that Hayek and Mises were as me consequentialist classic liberals.
It is correct that they never said “though shalt not do calculations” but their later day followers seem to have interpreted them as prohibiting econometrics. That is why I called for a neo-Austrian school in the same way old Keynesianism turned into a vulgar and simplified practice. There was a need for a restart. The neo-Keynesians have adapted with both Chicago School and Austrian School ideas especially now with the Austrian Business Cycle theory getting mainstream traction. It is also indirectly what Caplan is talking about. I don’t agree with him that the Austrian School should go mainstream but that it should adopt and evolve.
Homo Illuminatus?: It has nothing to do with their being Mexican or of Middle Eastern decent it has in my opinion to do with their lack of 21th century education
This is incredibly false but at least you admitted that it's your opinion. Nearly all previous instances of major immigration to the US came from situations where the populous did not have 'american status quo' education.
Further more your definition of 'skilled labor' and being 'properly educated' is entirely arbitrary. IN ADDITION TO, as I have ALREADY STATED, the law of comparative advantage shows that you are still better off by trading with someone who's productivity output is far inferior to yours. I've mentioned this at least 3 times now and all 3 times you have ignored it. You are essentially arguing against the laws of economics and then present strawmen to try and hide from the fact.
Homo Illuminatus?:You seem to misunderstand me. I share your ideological points of view on the best of economic systems i.e. a completely free market. However I don’t believe in the more extreme variants of libertarianism that hold that all government is force and that Anarchy is preferable.
Your first sentence is a complete contradiction to the following sentence. It's apparent you don't really believe what you state. Perhaps you don't really know what you state.
Homo Illuminatus?: My version of libertarianism, which I share with most libertarians, is the concept of the “Night watchman state”, police, fire, military defense and a court system.
It's nice that you can speak with authority on what most libertarian's beleive. The problem with your ideology is it's akin to slippery slope. First you state minimal police, that quickly becomes minimal police and anti-drug. That turns into policing business, and eventually grows into all sorts of policing that is harmful to the market. Whats more shocking is your a libertarian saying that we should stop immigration before we should stop welfare, and believed that stopping immigration is a more realistic concept. Doesn't sound very libertarian or very realistic to me. Stopping immigration is like stopping drug use. Black markets, here we come.
Homo Illuminatus?: The issue I’m debating is how to change the real world and to minimize the rise of the states intrusion in our personal and economic sphere. How to minimize the growth of the welfare state?
I understand what your saying but you have taken it to an extreme and as a result have discounted the correct way of doing things and legitimized the incorrect way of doing things. You've entirely flipped and gone backwards away from the libertarian concept.
Homo Illuminatus?:I'm European as well as a supporter of the Austrian School of economics. So I follow Hayek and not Rothbard and Mises
Do you realize that Mises was Hayek's teacher? Have you even given Mises or Rothbard a chance by reading some of their books before discounting them? Furthermore do you realize that Mises and Rothbard in and of themselves are vastly different?
Homo Illuminatus?: I have never understood orthodoxy of a portion of US libertarian that believe Ayn Rand is God with Mises and Rothbard as her prophets i.e. their word is law and to be taken literarily.
So you reveal how little you actually know about this guys
Listen to this http://mises.org/media/2824
Homo Illuminatus?:Praxeology is way too esoteric, to cult like. The refusal to do any kind of calculations is also to cult like for me.
This just goes to show that you don't know the first thing about praxeology. It's hardly esoteric. You need to read Human Action before you can make such a judgement. Further more you discount your own idol, Hayek. You may not realize either but Austrian's do use data to their service.
The difference between Austrian's and everyone else is this. Everyone else uses statician's to formulate their principles. You could call it a form of ideological positivism. As a result all other economic schools constantly have to change their understanding of economics as the data they pull over time contridicts with itself.
Building an ideology from random unquestioned stats is basically what everyone else does. What austrian's realizew is that predicting the economy is like predicting the weather. There are far too many variables to account for to take all these stats literally. So they use logic instead FIRST, and then built on a foundational principle they can use data and stats to continue to substantiate their already logical consistent ideology.
The result is that austrian's have been statistically consistent and theoretically unchanged. Where-as all other schools of economics were raving about how 'sound the fundamentals are' of our economy was two years ago. The austrian's knew better.
Despite the fact that you CLAIM to believe in austrian economics your using the arguments most similar to the chicago school.
Homo Illuminatus?:You maybe should read this essay from Bryan Caplan George Mason University. (One of the few universities that have openly Austrian professors of Economics). He thinks that the followers of Rothbard and Mises are to narrow in their interpretation of the Austrian School. But Caplan is not of the Austrian Economic School of thought. I am.
Instead of reading someone's opinions in an article published on some website. Why not read the book for yourself and judge? Why do you let all these silly little internet publications so easily manipulate your opinions? WHy not make your own opinion rather then borrowing from someone else's un-substantiated stats.
Why not read Human Action?
Homo Illuminatus?:“Free market” what is that? An absolutely can free market can exists in the real world as little as anarchy can work in the real world.
Thats false. It's existed plenty of times in the past. Anarchy exists today. You just have the existence of compulsory based monopolies interfering with it's interactions.
Try to keep your strawmen and characterisitcal attacks out of your arguments please.
Homo Illuminatus?:in a post-industrial society there is no such thing as an abandunce of work. It is the opposite.
This is entirely false. I can't beleive what I am reading here. None of it is Austrian. I think you need to re-assess which school of economics you claim to follow. You seem to be stuck on Freidmen and all of the fallacies he brought to the table of 'free-marketeering'. You are chicagian. :)
I can't edit guys sorry.
Homo Illuminatus?:. A purist anarchist might not want to do anything to support the welfare state or the state since they want it to disappear, be destroyed under its own weight. But by inaction they make it grow even larger, and for your information the state will never go away.
Wrong again. If anarchists could truly choose inaction people would opt out of the welfare system and it would go bankrupt.
Homo Illuminatus?: It has always been there and will always be there.
Sigh wrong again. Just because it's been there since you've been born does not mean it's always been. Your observed life is not a reflection of mankind as a whole.
Homo Illuminatus?: agree that prohibition does not work but restriction has worked.
Prohibition has never worked, never has had evidence of working, and will never work as it's impossible. The fact you beleive it's worked shows how much merit and zeal you've granted the system.
Homo Illuminatus?:I agree that it would be more correct to say that Europeans tend to be more sympathetic towards Hayek.
Why do you keep repeating Hayek and Rand as if they are founding fathers of economics?
Homo Illuminatus?: later day followers seem to have interpreted them as prohibiting econometrics.
Who specifically?
Homo Illuminatus?: In post-industrial societies there is only manual labor. In industrial societies the demand for skill rises and teh demand for manual labor decreases. In post industrial sociietes such as Sweden and soon the US the industrial work is scarece and unskilled manual labor practically disapperas.
Homo Illuminatus?: in a post-industrial society there is no such thing as an abandunce of work. It is the opposite. There is no shortage of work but there is a shortage of highly educated and skilled workers. I grant you that minimum wage and union rules are making it more difficult for low skilled basic manual laborers but even if union rules and minimum wage was abolished there would still not be enough work for low skilled manual laborers.
Where the market sets the prices there can be neither shortages nor surpluses.