The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Irony
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

A screenshot from Economist.com:

Screenshot 2017-07-17 21.56.01

Oh, well …

So I guess I’ll never know what the The Economist has to say about the advantages of Open Borders because the rest of the article is secured away behind The Economist’s paywall.

But I can probably guess anyway.

 
235 Comments to "Irony"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. wren says:

    Haha.

    Why is it that these open borders folks are always putting up walls around their own stuff?

    Read More
    • Agree: Coemgen, bomag
    • LOL: ben tillman
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/irony/#comment-1937897
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there’s no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish (e.g. renting a house to immigrants.) (Obviously this a limited philosophy.)

    For example, I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don’t want to live near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring that they can live in homogenous neighborhoods; but they would have a problem with people saying that everyone in society has to forcibly abide by those rules.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Patrick Harris
    "For example I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don't want to live to near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring they can live in homogenous neighborhoods."

    The Economist definitely *would* have a problem with it. It's not really a libertarian publication in the American sense (à la Reason), but more of a broadly liberal (or neoliberal, if you prefer) centrist outfit. It's never been that squeamish about state intervention as long as it's congenial to Davos Man. Hence, the Economist is the kind of paper that would be horrified by restrictive covenants but is perfectly happy with de facto segregation for the rich.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Yes, there's no contradiction, SF, but it's not that there's a flaw there that means libertarianism inherently means ruin to society as is going on today.

    The Economist can write what it wants (I'm not gonna read it, paywall or not paywall - hell, they put up a $10/month wall, I'll find an $11/hr hacker!). We have people in power that are creating our problems, immigration invasion, evisceration of American manufacturing (i.e. wealth creation), devaluing of the dollar, etc. They can listen to The Economist or they can listen to us. Which have they been choosing?

    That was an easy one, but it brings me to: Why are they not following us? The problem with some of the conservatives (yes, some here) and the alt-right is that they cannot see that once you let government get out of control, it has no reason to listen to us any more! There is more profit in listening to big business (in cahoots with them) and foreign and domestic big donors. You've lost control, and Juan McCain of Arizona does not represent Arizonans, and Ms. Lindsey Graham of SC does not represent S. Carolinians any more than Dr. Zaius represents the apes of his district (OK, I wanted something you all could relate to ;-}

    On the other side, any libertarian who believes in open borders for America represents nobody except the deeply-institutionalized.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    But wouldn't that be the definition of borders? A community with effectively enforced restrictions would need borders in order and allow freedom of association(and nonassociation).
    , @ben tillman

    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there’s no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish (e.g. renting a house to immigrants.)
     
    A country is private property.
    , @bomag

    to a libertarian there’s no contradiction here... private property... no one can use the government to prevent...
     
    The basic contradiction is that libertarians want Big Government (tm) to impose libertarian strictures on everyone in year zero, and then we can all happily live in the resulting utopia and thank them later.

    Plus, there are all the smaller contradictions that arise from cooperative agreements, such as a group bands together to maintain a road; and your immigrants use the road to rob my property; so we need a communal police force; but the police force hires an immigrant that shoots an innocent; and now we are back in today's world.
    , @George
    Libertarians have never been in power so who knows what they would do if they ever had power.

    I have read libertarian articles claiming citizenship is sort of like stock ownership, and printing up new citizenships is sort of like stock dilution.

    I have a genius idea. There would be no citizenship except by birth to US of A parents. But being a libertarian, any citizen could sell their citizenship to anybody and leave the US. Why is this so incredibly brilliant? All the new Somali immigrants could sell their citizenship to rich Chinese and move back to Mogadishu as rich persons. Seems totally win win win to me. Trying to dump them in Somalia with a couple thou is not happening, even Israel can't seem to do it.
    , @Wilkey
    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there’s no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish

    A country is a form of private property. It was fought for, bled for, and paid for (via taxes). The various levels of government (federal, state, and local) hold tens of trillions of dollars worth of assets in trust for the citizens. About 40% of Americans don't own a home. A huge fraction of the populace has negligible savings, little or no pension, and next to nothing in their 401(k). Their share in this country is the most valuable asset they own.

    Aside from pushing for open borders one of the biggest policy pushes of the rich - especially libertarians - is to eliminate the estate tax, which they like to call the "death tax." Taxing the inheritances of billionaires is immoral. Taxing the inheritance of the poor and middle class is perfectly ok.
    , @AnotherDad

    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there’s no contradiction here: ...
     
    Sorry Supreme, these "Open Borders libertarians" are full of obvious contradictions:

    1) Shared ownership.
    People have a shared property right in their nation. This is not a complicated idea--it's common, stock ownership, partnerships, condo associations. By analogy think "county club". The owners (or their ancestors) have done work to build it and make it nice. They pay to maintain it and keep it nice. And they benefit--fellow owners they can get along with and enjoy associating with and less crowding, etc.--precisely from the restriction of ownership.

    Open borders libertarians advocate stealing that shared ownership and giving it out to whoever wants it. It's like tearing down the fence of your country club and saying everyone's entitled to play on the course your own and pay for. Or Steve's "dumb Steve" example of a company's board printing new stock and giving it away to their friends.

    A very simple test of this is ... could you sell it? Could you sell citizenship in the US or Canada or Germany or France? Obviously yes. I has real marketplace value. Value that belongs to the citizens of those nations.

    And the Open Borders goons agitate to give that value away! This isn't "libertarianism" it's some sort of radical redistributive socialism. That's the real "Open Borders" program--theft!


    2) Freedom of Association.


    For example, I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don’t want to live near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring that they can live in homogenous neighborhoods
     
    Maybe some do. But
    a) That's not the situation that actually exists. We no longer have freedom of association.
    b) The Open Borders goons do not advocate any linkage or "deal" where we get Open Borders along with Freedom of Association. Rather they agitate for Open Borders without Freedom of Association. In other words, they really don't believe in or care about Freedom of Association, they care about breaking borders.
    c) Once you have "Open Borders" there is zero chance you'd ever get Freedom of Association. The huge benefit of immigration to non-whites is the opportunity for them to be around whites--enjoy the peace, prosperity and rule of law whites create, suck on their welfare system and--for some--get "even" by taking white women and otherwise hurting whites (sticking their nose in diversity, crime, terrorism). Once you have Open Borders the hordes are not going to vote to let whites to move away from them into their own mini-nations nor vote to cut back welfare. It's just abjectly silly.

    ~

    That's it--silliness. It's either silliness or hate. The Open Borders loons as far as I can tell are motivated either by the same old ethnic resentments--they seem to be heavily Jewish or minority immigrants--or by some sort of autistic "religious" belief characteristic of an 18-year old "I've-got-this-idea-and-if-everyone-would-just-follow-it-everyone-would-be-great" 'intellectual'.

    But their program Open Borders program has nothing to do with liberty. It's a program of socialist pie-in-the-sky utopianism--communism writ big. And like the communist utopia, the Open Borders utopia would actually be an orgy of destruction of the hard work of millions over centuries. It's a program of massive world wide theft.

    , @Olorin

    no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms
     
    IOW, utopia for lawyers and accountants.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there’s no contradiction here
     
    To hell with charity. I want a country I can live in, and hand over to my descendants as a country they can live in.
    , @Polynikes
    Lol...tell me libertarians aren't this dumb...

    A constitutionalist need only day that the constitution is a contract between the people and their government (I.e. the original meaning of constitution). Then the a nations people are easily able to exclude noncitizens, or non parties to the contract.

    Easy peasy, but likely to intellectually taxing for the economist type folks.
  3. I like the Economist (there are a lot of interesting articles), but you can always count on it for howlers like this from the article:

    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. …

    A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Judah,

    As usual the Economist is guided/blinded by the bitch god of unfettered capitalism!
    , @Anonymous
    Hey, you dropped the "But in America" immigrants commit less crime than natives into the ellipsis -- that's important stuff.

    How many more howlers?


    Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs... might vote for an Islamist government...

    ... But nearly all these risks could be mitigated ... with a bit of creative thinking.
     

    "Creative thinking":

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime.

    ... If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits?
     

    We didn't think to restrict the welfare benefits of African migrant workers into the twentieth generation because we weren't thinking creatively back then.

    ... ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?
     
    This time we undergo political upheaval on an unimaginable scale just to import a foreign worker underclass for the enrichment the Economist class, they'll be cutting us a slice of the pie. Promise!
    , @Anonymous
    That synopsis of the 'University of Warwick' report is got to be one of the stupidest things I've read in my life.

    Now understand why I regularly trash the economics profession.
    , @Sunbeam
    "A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth. "

    I'm not directly replying to your comments, simply this article excerpt.

    Is there any evidence that migration fosters economic growth? Any? Under what conditions in the modern world could it possibly do so?

    Sure there are more people to pick lettuce and eat cheetos. But there are a ton of costs that aren't assumed by Central Valley farmers, but society as a whole.

    Seems to me that immigration is a net drain on a country. Unless a bunch of Chinese are immigrating. (The Japanese and Koreans seem to be staying home now)

    And that is a whole ball of issues in itself.

    The posters here are pretty knowledgeable (or have incredible google skills). Literally where is the evidence that immigration is good. Like ever, under any circumstance?

    I suppose if you strictly have immigrants from an area where the locals have no reason to emigrate that might be true. But China really seems to be the only exception to that rule. Productive immigrants, and clear reasons they might want to leave.
    , @anonymous
    "Anecdotal evidence" Mohamed Noor?
    , @Daniel H
    >>but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. …

    That's good enough persuasion for me.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    The assertions of the Economist are false, and if they had to pay the costs of migration their position would magically reverse.
    , @Mr. Anon

    I like the Economist (there are a lot of interesting articles).....
     
    Although "interesting" is no guarantee of them being "correct". There is a well known phenomenon where - often - when one has personal knowledge of a news story, the account in the paper or magazine is wrong. That is certainly true of "The Economist".
  4. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Magic Unicorn Theory.

    - Apparently, Adam Smith and others attempted to put a rationalized, enlightenment-valued analysis on the factors which determine the ‘wealth of nations’. And that was back in the 18th century.
    But, the present day Economist magazine believes in the voodoo like belief that there is a direct correlation between the density of warm bodies packed onto ‘magic’ soil and ‘economic growth’.

    Absurd.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Needless to say, if 'magic unicorn theory' was actually true - that is the notion, held as axiomatic by The Economist magazine, that human bodies 'emit' 'wealth' in the same way that they emit flatulence - then one would expect Mali, Bangladesh, Afghanistan etc etc to be the most dynamic, modernistic, wealthy localities on the planet.

    Adam Smith and co tried, in their inimitable way, to disabuse the public of such primitivism.
    In these mad mad mad insane times, this 'theory' which would make a hard-core Australian aborigine pre-Captain Cook witch doctor blush - even he didn't believe that flints begat kangaroos - is the economic orthodoxy of the political class.
    , @Pericles
    Adding more third world bodies might not mean more workers but in the west at least implies increased government spending, which means increased GDP, which is great. Are you not amused?
  5. Achilles says:

    Was it not Bill Kristol who suggested that the surplus First World workers could be made into Soylent Green for supplying the lunch breaks of the New Americans and the New Europeans?

    Not only would that turn a cost into a benefit, but those First World workers might at any moment grab their swastikas and Confederate battle flags and put the globalists into ovens, so the better to deal with them preemptively.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    And the magic dirt turns Muslim immigrants into instant philo-Semites, so no worries there.
    , @druid
    I would go for Kristol's suggestion if we started with the Ziofascist who have ruined this country, starting with him first!
    , @Pericles

    Was it not Bill Kristol who suggested that the surplus First World workers could be made into Soylent Green for supplying the lunch breaks of the New Americans and the New Europeans?

     

    Hmmm. Would there be ovens involved? Asking for a friend.
  6. jim jones says:

    I wonder how they worked out that it would be exactly $78 trillion richer?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    $78 trillion buys a lot of windows (white flight). Someone should explain the broken window fallacy to The Economist.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
    , @Paul Walker - Most beautiful man ever...
    "I wonder how they worked out that it would be exactly $78 trillion richer?"
    The Rothschild's have a nose for numbers.
    , @Anonymous
    Give or take a mil.

    I'd love to see how all that extra cash gets divvied up. I'd like to know what my share is before I get behind this plan.
    , @Jack D
    $78 to call a cell phone in Mexico times a trillion phone calls. They forgot to mention that the whole $78 trillion goes to Carlos S(a)lim.
    , @Hubbub
    When you're dealing in 'pie in the sky', any figure is a good as another, so make it big and outlandish.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    I wonder how they worked out that it would be exactly $78 trillion richer?
     
    They got there through base, dishonest fabrication. No one not completely full of faeces would presume to offer such a bogus number in service of the whores that run the West.
  7. Dan Hayes says:
    @Judah Benjamin Hur
    I like the Economist (there are a lot of interesting articles), but you can always count on it for howlers like this from the article:


    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. ...

    A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

     

    Judah,

    As usual the Economist is guided/blinded by the bitch god of unfettered capitalism!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Judah Benjamin Hur
    If you merged Gene Roddenberry with Malcolm Forbes, you'd get the Economist. Comically naive and absurdly free market.
  8. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Even if true, richer for whom?

    The Soroses of the world.

    Also, there are things of priceless value in the world. But we can’t expect THE ECONOMIST to understand that.

    According to Economist thinking, if we could get rid of all languages but one, get rid of all currencies but one, get rid of all narratives except for one, get rid of all values except for one… the world might be 700 trillion dollars richer, and that would be worth it.

    At any rate, let’s see if this is true on a smaller scale. Let’s open Israel’s borders and let all the Muslims and Africans move in and see if the economy grows 100x.

    Btw, borders fell apart on all sides in Syria, and the nation is thriving, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @wren
    Yes, open borders is a very who whom proposition.

    One must only ask any indigenous people how it worked out for them.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Well, to be a devil's advocate, we could run a thought experiment if the US would be wealthier if there were higher barriers between state trade and travel. I would posit it would likely benefit a lot of people within each state, at the least, who would be slightly insulated from competing against the hegemonic Wal-Marts of the world.
  9. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Judah Benjamin Hur
    I like the Economist (there are a lot of interesting articles), but you can always count on it for howlers like this from the article:


    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. ...

    A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

     

    Hey, you dropped the “But in America” immigrants commit less crime than natives into the ellipsis — that’s important stuff.

    How many more howlers?

    Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs… might vote for an Islamist government…

    … But nearly all these risks could be mitigated … with a bit of creative thinking.

    “Creative thinking”:

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime.

    … If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits?

    We didn’t think to restrict the welfare benefits of African migrant workers into the twentieth generation because we weren’t thinking creatively back then.

    … ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?

    This time we undergo political upheaval on an unimaginable scale just to import a foreign worker underclass for the enrichment the Economist class, they’ll be cutting us a slice of the pie. Promise!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fredrik
    To be fair. What you quoted sounds like justification for Apartheid or Gulf servitude.

    Bring them "here" but treat them like sub-humans.

    With a little creative thinking from people concerned for the future of their homes this could and should be shot down easily.
    , @Lot

    If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits?
     
    Why not assume a can opener?

    Go below if you don't remember the joke



    A physicist, a chemist and an economist find themselves stranded on a desert island with nothing to eat. One day, they find a cache of canned goods washed ashore on the beach. However, they have no way to open the cans.

    After pondering the problem for a while, the chemist says "I think i have an idea. It will take us a few days, but if we take some of the seawater, and concentrate it, we can eventually get a solution corrosive enough to eat through the top of the can."

    He's barely finished before the physicist interrupts him "Wait! I've got an even better idea. It shouldn't take us more than a day. We collect some sand from the beach, then we build a fire and melt the sand into glass to make a lens. We use the lens to focus the rays of the sun until they melt through the top of the can"

    But the economist interrupts him "wait! wait! I've got an even better idea. I know how we can open the cans right now... OK... First, assume a can opener"
  10. anonguy says:

    OT, but this Australian women shot by the Minneapolis police officer story is going to be incredibly more embarrassing than it already is.

    You know, whenever the cops shoot anyone, there is immediately some at least lame attempt by the relevant PD to exculpate the officer – he felt threatened, that sort of thing.

    Nothing at all here. And there is an unimpeachable witness, the driver cop, who I don’t believe is going to take a fall or keep a blue line of silence here.

    I’m kinda wondering what went on in the squad car in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, was the driver cop fearing for his life from his partner, etc?

    He’s going to spill all the beans and we are going to hear all about it. Australian media won’t let this story die despite the efforts of our domestic MSM.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Police are the only "protected" group in America that can literally murder someone with impunity and get away with it. The magic words are "I feared for my life" and will get just about any police officer off, with a paid vacation to boot. Too bad the same tactic cannot be used by honest law-abiding citizens. An honest citizen would be tried, convicted and incarcerated for these same actions as committed by police officers.
    Due to training in Israeli police tactics (not suitable for American law enforcement), the "thin blue line" has become an occupying force for all American citizens. The militarization of American police has created an "us vs. them" attitude, regarding the citizens as mere "slaves" (lesser beings) able to be "pushed around" by police because THEY CAN...
    Quite often, police bark commands to citizens, demanding immediate compliance. The trouble starts when multiple officer bark conflicting commands, and then end up murdering the citizen for failing to react fast enough...
    Any police officer who cannot disarm a person holding a knife, stick, or rake without resorting to "lethal force" has no business being involved in "law enforcement".
    One solution is to take any awards given to citizens for police misconduct from the police pension funds--not from the municipality's general fund or insurance company. You can bet that if that were the norm, police would "clean up their acts" in a hurry...
  11. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Judah Benjamin Hur
    I like the Economist (there are a lot of interesting articles), but you can always count on it for howlers like this from the article:


    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. ...

    A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

     

    That synopsis of the ‘University of Warwick’ report is got to be one of the stupidest things I’ve read in my life.

    Now understand why I regularly trash the economics profession.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yep, I suppose the 9/11 attacks - probably the biggest most spectacular terrorist attack of the age - were all down to 'lack of economic growth' in Saudi Arabia, (whence most of the 9/11 terrorists originated), during the post 1945 timeframe.
  12. Toddy Cat says:

    “but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. …”

    For “conjecture and anecdotal evidence” read “common sense and experience”…

    Read More
  13. “Objectors could be bribed to let it happen”

    The bribery is already happening, ask the Greeks and Italians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    The bribery happens always and everywhere. Who gets political donations, who's offered a high-profile public appointment, who gets published and who doesn't.

    Yesterday BBC's flagship radio current affairs programme devoted a five-minute slot to some retired lecturer living in a whitopia who has declared his house an independent republic still remaining in the EU. Someone who declared his house independent of the EU would be ignored (rightly IMHO) or given negative coverage.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-40634395

    The bribery starts early. Back when blogging was a newish thing in 2006 or so I was surprised to read on Laurie Penny's blog that she'd been invited on an expenses-paid EU junket, as had some lesbian councillor in Oxford with about 50 readers a week. None of the rightie blogs (with much more reach) got such an invite.

    There's "negative bribery" too, like having your name and address online (as happened to the entire BNP membership) or having a violent mob picket your TV appearance or even a family meal in a pub.

  14. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The benefit of a modern World War is it could erase at least a billion people within a few years, while strengthening our economy as we sell goods and services to the nations we flattened, Muslims would no longer be a problem, and the more souls removed, the more efficiently we address global warming.

    Just because it seems true, doesn’t make it good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Excellent point. Plus, back in the 1970s, there was much warning from the Left that atomic weapons would cause a Nuclear Winter. Enough of them dropped on the Middle East and we have a solution to global warming.
  15. guest says:

    Would “the world” be richer, or would five fat men smoking cigars in leather chairs next to a fireplace (my mental image for “they”)?

    They live in the world, so there’s no difference, says Sr. Globalismus.

    Read More
  16. wren says:
    @Anon
    Even if true, richer for whom?

    The Soroses of the world.

    Also, there are things of priceless value in the world. But we can't expect THE ECONOMIST to understand that.

    According to Economist thinking, if we could get rid of all languages but one, get rid of all currencies but one, get rid of all narratives except for one, get rid of all values except for one... the world might be 700 trillion dollars richer, and that would be worth it.

    At any rate, let's see if this is true on a smaller scale. Let's open Israel's borders and let all the Muslims and Africans move in and see if the economy grows 100x.

    Btw, borders fell apart on all sides in Syria, and the nation is thriving, right?

    Yes, open borders is a very who whom proposition.

    One must only ask any indigenous people how it worked out for them.

    Read More
  17. A HUNDRED-DOLLAR BILL is lying on the ground. An economist walks past it. A friend asks the economist: “Didn’t you see the money there?” The economist replies: “I thought I saw something, but I must have imagined it. If there had been $100 on the ground, someone would have picked it up.”

    If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true. But occasionally it is. Michael Clemens, an economist at the Centre for Global Development, an anti-poverty think-tank in Washington, DC, argues that there are “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”. One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

    Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

    “Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.

    [MORE]

    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

    The potential gains from open borders dwarf those of, say, completely free trade, let alone foreign aid. Yet the idea is everywhere treated as a fantasy. In most countries fewer than 10% of people favour it. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, it is a political non-starter. Nonetheless, it is worth asking what might happen if borders were, indeed, open.

    To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

    Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace. It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada. The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists. Their poverty would thus become more visible to citizens of the rich world—who would see many more Liberians and Bangladeshis waiting tables and stacking shelves—but much less severe.

    If borders were open, how many people would up sticks? Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

    Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience. Migrants must wave goodbye to familiar people, familiar customs and grandma’s cooking. Many people would rather not make that sacrifice, even for the prospect of large material rewards.

    Wages are twice as high in Germany as in Greece, and under European Union rules Greeks are free to move to Germany, but only 150,000 have done so since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2010, out of a population of 11m. The weather is awful in Frankfurt, and hardly anyone speaks Greek. Even very large disparities combined with open borders do not necessarily lead to a mass exodus. Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

    Despite these caveats, it is a fair bet that open borders would lead to very large flows of people. The gap between rich and poor countries globally is much wider than the gap between the richest and less-rich countries within Europe, and most poor countries are not Pacific-island paradises. Many are violent as well as poor, or have oppressive governments.

    Also, migration is, in the jargon, “path-dependent”. It starts with a trickle: the first person to move from country A to country B typically arrives in a place where no one speaks his language or knows the right way to cook noodles. But the second migrant—who may be his brother or cousin—has someone to show him around. As word spreads on the diaspora grapevine that country B is a good place to live, more people set off from country A. When the 1,000th migrant arrives, he finds a whole neighbourhood of his compatriots.

    So the Gallup numbers could just as well be too low. Today there are 1.4bn people in rich countries and 6bn in not-so-rich ones. It is hardly far-fetched to imagine that, over a few decades, a billion or more of those people might emigrate if there were no legal obstacle to doing so. Clearly, this would transform rich countries in unpredictable ways.

    Voters in destination states typically do not mind a bit of immigration, but fret that truly open borders would lead to them being “swamped” by foreigners. This, they fear, would make life worse, and perhaps threaten the political system that made their country worth moving to in the first place. Mass migration, they worry, would bring more crime and terrorism, lower wages for locals, an impossible strain on welfare states, horrific overcrowding and traumatic cultural disruption.

    Open questions
    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. Granted, some immigrants commit crimes, or even headline-grabbing acts of terrorism. But in America the foreign-born are only a fifth as likely to be incarcerated as the native-born. In some European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

    Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.

    Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space. And mass migration would make the world as a whole less crowded, since fertility among migrants quickly plunges until it is much closer to the norm of their host country than their country of origin.

    Would mass immigration change the culture and politics of rich countries? Undoubtedly. Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today. Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.

    Eyes on the prize
    There are certainly risks if borders are opened suddenly and without the right policies to help absorb the inflow. But nearly all these risks could be mitigated, and many of the most common objections overcome, with a bit of creative thinking.

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.

    This sounds horribly discriminatory, and it is. But it is better for the migrants than the status quo, in which they are excluded from rich-world labour markets unless they pay tens of thousands of dollars to people-smugglers—and even then they must work in the shadows and are subject to sudden deportation. Today, millions of migrants work in the Gulf, where they have no political rights at all. Despite this, they keep coming. No one is forcing them to.

    “Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say…‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is 'economically senseless'.

    - Bryan Caplan must have had a very sheltered life then. Or he is a bloody, ignorant damned fool.


    (Hint - where do you think America's black population originated?).
    , @ThreeCranes
    "Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space."

    No, that would create less "space". More people per unit volume means higher density which equals less space.

    This illustrates the problem with leaving economics to economists.

    , @Regor
    Since The Economist cannot be expected to understand how priceless something like Civilization is, someone should at least remind them of the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns and how that applies to labour as well.
    , @Daniel Chieh

    intolerance for gay people
     
    Think of the gays! The only truly holy people. Haha.
    , @Lurker
    If this is true then I agree with the earlier commenter - lets try an open borders experiment in Israel first. Or Marin County.
    , @Jack D
    Even a Gulf Emirates style system of imported temporary laborers with no citizenship rights has many downsides, but such a system is inconceivable in the West. Even if we started out with such a system and they double-triple swore that the guest workers could never achieve full citizenship, how long would it be before there were pleas for "amnesty" and the granting of full citizenship to the foreign workers (and their wives, children, grandmas, siblings, etc.)? It would be done in salami slice fashion - OF COURSE we must grant full citizenship to the American born children of guest workers - that's in the Constitution (somehow though no one can point to the specific words). But what about the children of guest workers who come here as babies or young children? And so on until the whole salami is on the table.

    As Democrats continue to alienate working class whites and upscale blue state whites forget to reproduce, the Democrats are in perpetual need of fresh immigrant blood to refresh their voter pool. If amnesty can't be achieved democratically in the legislative branch they will do end runs thru the Democrat controlled executive or judicial branches. How do I know this will happen? Because it already has.
    , @Jack D
    Here's an idea. Instead of making Africans, Mexicans, Indians, etc. move to the US to increase the value of their labor, let them stay home (all other things being equal, most people would prefer to remain in their native land where they have friends, family, familiar foods and customs, etc.) and the West will import into these countries the legal structures and physical infrastructure to make these people productive - we'll build railroads, schools, courthouses, etc. for them and import civil servants to administer these in an efficient way instead of corrupt local elites. What we can do is split up the various third world countries among the advanced nations - the British will get India, the French will get Syria, the Spanish and Portuguese will get Latin America, and so on until each 3rd world country is under the protection of some advanced Western nation. Even small European countries such as Belgium and Denmark will be assigned a few countries or islands for them to protect and nurture. Wouldn't that be a great idea instead of uprooting countless millions from their native lands?
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Once you understand that different groups of people are, well, different, not because of culture but because of DNA, your entire argument falls apart.

    Humans are not widgets. Law and order does not magically appear in some areas and not others.

    You, sir, are a child, and it is time to put away childish things. No need to read beyond this point, but here it is.

    On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.
     
    And just why do you think that is so? Colonialism. Mean white people. Gremlins. The ever popular Magic Dirt.

    Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

     

    Gosh, only 1/3 of Africa - what's that, around a billion people - would emigrate to Europe and the U.S. Geez, what I was I worried about.

    Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.
     
    Wait, who's side are you on again?

    Seriously, I could do this all night, but it's getting silly. Stay in the classroom where no one is allowed to disagree with your children rantings.
    , @BB753
    Trillion-dollar bills rotting on the sidewalks.
  18. Anonym says:
    @jim jones
    I wonder how they worked out that it would be exactly $78 trillion richer?

    $78 trillion buys a lot of windows (white flight). Someone should explain the broken window fallacy to The Economist.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

    Read More
  19. There was a recent study by a Swedish economist that concluded that mass immigration boosts the economy. I didn’t read it but I read an enthusiastic review in the local paper. “It’s so simple! The more people, the more taxpayers, the more taxes paid in, and the richer we all are!!” Literally – I’m not exaggerating one bit here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas

    There was a recent study by a Swedish economist that concluded that mass immigration boosts the economy. I didn’t read it but I read an enthusiastic review in the local paper. “It’s so simple! The more people, the more taxpayers, the more taxes paid in, and the richer we all are!!” Literally – I’m not exaggerating one bit here.
     
    I suppose a proposal that Swedish women should quit whoring it up and pumping out a passel of Swedish children per woman to make Sweden richer was not made?
  20. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    That synopsis of the 'University of Warwick' report is got to be one of the stupidest things I've read in my life.

    Now understand why I regularly trash the economics profession.

    Yep, I suppose the 9/11 attacks – probably the biggest most spectacular terrorist attack of the age – were all down to ‘lack of economic growth’ in Saudi Arabia, (whence most of the 9/11 terrorists originated), during the post 1945 timeframe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    As if the article's schemes to maintain migrant workers at a sub-citizen level haven't already had something to do with creating terrorist underclass descendants.

    But there will be money to rebuild. So much money -- you wouldn't believe.

    That's the point of this article: there's $78 trillion in hush money for the victims of 9/11's, Rotherhams, Colognes ...

    , @druid
    911 was clearly a Ziofascist inside job!
  21. @jim jones
    I wonder how they worked out that it would be exactly $78 trillion richer?

    “I wonder how they worked out that it would be exactly $78 trillion richer?”
    The Rothschild’s have a nose for numbers.

    Read More
  22. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Magic Unicorn Theory.

    - Apparently, Adam Smith and others attempted to put a rationalized, enlightenment-valued analysis on the factors which determine the 'wealth of nations'. And that was back in the 18th century.
    But, the present day Economist magazine believes in the voodoo like belief that there is a direct correlation between the density of warm bodies packed onto 'magic' soil and 'economic growth'.

    Absurd.

    Needless to say, if ‘magic unicorn theory’ was actually true – that is the notion, held as axiomatic by The Economist magazine, that human bodies ‘emit’ ‘wealth’ in the same way that they emit flatulence – then one would expect Mali, Bangladesh, Afghanistan etc etc to be the most dynamic, modernistic, wealthy localities on the planet.

    Adam Smith and co tried, in their inimitable way, to disabuse the public of such primitivism.
    In these mad mad mad insane times, this ‘theory’ which would make a hard-core Australian aborigine pre-Captain Cook witch doctor blush – even he didn’t believe that flints begat kangaroos – is the economic orthodoxy of the political class.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Economist's position here isn't exactly People = $$$, it's that we have, "over many years", created the institutions that will make anyone more productive, so everyone not here already should come (in the tens of millions, to stampede through these institutions like bulls in a china-shop, uncomprehending and envious of what they didn't make themselves).
  23. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Yep, I suppose the 9/11 attacks - probably the biggest most spectacular terrorist attack of the age - were all down to 'lack of economic growth' in Saudi Arabia, (whence most of the 9/11 terrorists originated), during the post 1945 timeframe.

    As if the article’s schemes to maintain migrant workers at a sub-citizen level haven’t already had something to do with creating terrorist underclass descendants.

    But there will be money to rebuild. So much money — you wouldn’t believe.

    That’s the point of this article: there’s $78 trillion in hush money for the victims of 9/11′s, Rotherhams, Colognes …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Oh, and after the national paywalls have come down, they'll need some of that $78 trillion to rebuild them as neighborhood paywalls (maximum border efficiency), manned by armed guards who will check your cookies -- for a subscription to the Economist.

    That would be maximum border efficiency.

  24. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Macumazahn
    A HUNDRED-DOLLAR BILL is lying on the ground. An economist walks past it. A friend asks the economist: “Didn’t you see the money there?” The economist replies: “I thought I saw something, but I must have imagined it. If there had been $100 on the ground, someone would have picked it up.”

    If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true. But occasionally it is. Michael Clemens, an economist at the Centre for Global Development, an anti-poverty think-tank in Washington, DC, argues that there are “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”. One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

    Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

    “Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.



    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

    The potential gains from open borders dwarf those of, say, completely free trade, let alone foreign aid. Yet the idea is everywhere treated as a fantasy. In most countries fewer than 10% of people favour it. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, it is a political non-starter. Nonetheless, it is worth asking what might happen if borders were, indeed, open.

    To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

    Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace. It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada. The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists. Their poverty would thus become more visible to citizens of the rich world—who would see many more Liberians and Bangladeshis waiting tables and stacking shelves—but much less severe.

    If borders were open, how many people would up sticks? Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

    Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience. Migrants must wave goodbye to familiar people, familiar customs and grandma’s cooking. Many people would rather not make that sacrifice, even for the prospect of large material rewards.

    Wages are twice as high in Germany as in Greece, and under European Union rules Greeks are free to move to Germany, but only 150,000 have done so since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2010, out of a population of 11m. The weather is awful in Frankfurt, and hardly anyone speaks Greek. Even very large disparities combined with open borders do not necessarily lead to a mass exodus. Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

    Despite these caveats, it is a fair bet that open borders would lead to very large flows of people. The gap between rich and poor countries globally is much wider than the gap between the richest and less-rich countries within Europe, and most poor countries are not Pacific-island paradises. Many are violent as well as poor, or have oppressive governments.

    Also, migration is, in the jargon, “path-dependent”. It starts with a trickle: the first person to move from country A to country B typically arrives in a place where no one speaks his language or knows the right way to cook noodles. But the second migrant—who may be his brother or cousin—has someone to show him around. As word spreads on the diaspora grapevine that country B is a good place to live, more people set off from country A. When the 1,000th migrant arrives, he finds a whole neighbourhood of his compatriots.

    So the Gallup numbers could just as well be too low. Today there are 1.4bn people in rich countries and 6bn in not-so-rich ones. It is hardly far-fetched to imagine that, over a few decades, a billion or more of those people might emigrate if there were no legal obstacle to doing so. Clearly, this would transform rich countries in unpredictable ways.

    Voters in destination states typically do not mind a bit of immigration, but fret that truly open borders would lead to them being “swamped” by foreigners. This, they fear, would make life worse, and perhaps threaten the political system that made their country worth moving to in the first place. Mass migration, they worry, would bring more crime and terrorism, lower wages for locals, an impossible strain on welfare states, horrific overcrowding and traumatic cultural disruption.

    Open questions
    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. Granted, some immigrants commit crimes, or even headline-grabbing acts of terrorism. But in America the foreign-born are only a fifth as likely to be incarcerated as the native-born. In some European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

    Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.

    Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space. And mass migration would make the world as a whole less crowded, since fertility among migrants quickly plunges until it is much closer to the norm of their host country than their country of origin.

    Would mass immigration change the culture and politics of rich countries? Undoubtedly. Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today. Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.

    Eyes on the prize
    There are certainly risks if borders are opened suddenly and without the right policies to help absorb the inflow. But nearly all these risks could be mitigated, and many of the most common objections overcome, with a bit of creative thinking.

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.

    This sounds horribly discriminatory, and it is. But it is better for the migrants than the status quo, in which they are excluded from rich-world labour markets unless they pay tens of thousands of dollars to people-smugglers—and even then they must work in the shadows and are subject to sudden deportation. Today, millions of migrants work in the Gulf, where they have no political rights at all. Despite this, they keep coming. No one is forcing them to.

    “Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say...‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?

    Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is ‘economically senseless’.

    – Bryan Caplan must have had a very sheltered life then. Or he is a bloody, ignorant damned fool.

    (Hint – where do you think America’s black population originated?).

    Read More
    • Replies: @mobi

    – Bryan Caplan must have had a very sheltered life then. Or he is a bloody, ignorant damned fool.
     
    There's a third option - both more sinister and more likely.
  25. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Bryan Caplan’s insane Open Borders is the rest. He is still not willing to open the borders of his house to anyone who likes it but you see, he is an economist, and he really, really likes his bubble. A lot more than he likes you, dumb American.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Globalists operate assuming the Efficient borders hypothesis: any border enclosing the innermost border you can personally afford to be within is redundant to you.

    It's also informally expressed as "you can't beat the border": if you can pass through one border, another one will pop up you can't afford to pass through.

    So national borders are inefficient. The market can best determine where walls should be built, their porousness inversely proportional to the wealth of those protected by them.

  26. What I really liked is the part about the Nigerians:

    Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more [by coming to the US].

    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

    To fully remove the threat to Nigerians of enslavement by Boko Haram, of course, this means that the US needs to take them all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Look what happened the last time the USA thought it a 'jolly wizard wheeze' to import Nigerian slaves.
    , @Johnny Smoggins
    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik


    Surely then, Mr. Caplan would have no issue with 50 000 or so (to start) Nigerians moving to Israel no?
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Needless to say, if 'magic unicorn theory' was actually true - that is the notion, held as axiomatic by The Economist magazine, that human bodies 'emit' 'wealth' in the same way that they emit flatulence - then one would expect Mali, Bangladesh, Afghanistan etc etc to be the most dynamic, modernistic, wealthy localities on the planet.

    Adam Smith and co tried, in their inimitable way, to disabuse the public of such primitivism.
    In these mad mad mad insane times, this 'theory' which would make a hard-core Australian aborigine pre-Captain Cook witch doctor blush - even he didn't believe that flints begat kangaroos - is the economic orthodoxy of the political class.

    The Economist’s position here isn’t exactly People = $$$, it’s that we have, “over many years”, created the institutions that will make anyone more productive, so everyone not here already should come (in the tens of millions, to stampede through these institutions like bulls in a china-shop, uncomprehending and envious of what they didn’t make themselves).

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    While simultaneously holding the view that we can't just export the institutions instead of importing the people.
  28. Beckow says:

    How is a magazine that advocates open borders, a policy that is supported by at most 10% of people, how is a magazine like that a main-stream media? Borders exist for a reason, and even the Economist seems to grudgingly accept some limits. But I see a different agenda in the article.

    When you strip the outright nonsense, the advocacy is for an enlarged and massive ‘visa-buying’ scheme (although complemented with bringing a lot of cheap labor). One thing that the elites in the Third World want more than anything else is to be able to move and live in the West. There are around 6 billion people with tens of millions of elite or quasi-elite people in the Third World. They are willing to pay for visas and they do. It is one of the current drivers of the Western economy (housing, schools, banks, …). The Economist is basically lobbying to allow that on a more masive scale – allow all elites (and lost of aspiring middle-class) from the Third World to buy their way to citizenships in the West. This is the agenda and all else is basically an attempt to distract, even the talk by both sides of ‘terrorism’ or lack of it.

    So the question is: would US, Canada, Europe, Australia be better off if the 50-60 million of the Third World rich – and the tens of millions who would accompany them in waves – be allowed to buy their way to move to the West? In some ways the huge influx of wealth would initially create more economic growth, as it has already in the main centers of Western migration like London, California, NY, Vancouver. The Economist proposal is to enlarge it and make it truly massive. And they are serious. By the way the process has been underway for decades and it might be at a point of being simply unstoppable. This is also the main tool to control the Third World countries (from India to Russia, China, Brazil) – it is at the heart of what the geo-political types call the ‘soft power’.

    The beneficiaries on both sides (the oligarchic layers both in the West and the Third World) are extremely motivated to do this – it pays enormously and it is literally the most important thing that most younger Third Worlder ‘elites’ dream about. They also control the process and can present it in the media in creative ways. The Economist is not joking and they are not stupid. They are just telling us more openly what they have already been doing.

    Read More
    • Agree: Clyde
    • Replies: @anon

    How is a magazine that advocates open borders, a policy that is supported by at most 10% of people, how is a magazine like that a main-stream media?
     
    It's similar to negotiation strategy. Start off extreme and then compromise down to what you wanted all along.

    Is a way of shifting the Overton Window in their direction. The converse is applied to opposition view points-- complete media blackout.

    , @anonymous coward

    a magazine that advocates open borders
     
    They don't. The advocate population replacement, not 'open borders'. There's a simple test: ask them if they support letting Russian tourists visit Europe visa-free and see what happens. (And that's tourists literally bringing in airplane loads of cash, not immigrants.)
    , @StillCARealist
    I worked with a guy from India who had brought his entire family to the US over the years. he was doing pretty well and had a good middle class life. I asked him how it would have been for him had he stayed in India. He was certain he'd be upper middle class there and have plenty of advantages and privileges. then had he made a mistake in emigrating? Nope. He said even if you're hugely wealthy in India, you still have to live in India. You still are surrounded by squalor and liars and filth and crowds. the problem wasn't money or lifestyle, the problem was India.
  29. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Two insufferably simple and obvious objections to ‘magic unicorn theory’.

    1/. Surely, the challenge of instituting a ‘functional state’ (apparently *the* difference between the ‘magic’ nations and the land of unicorns, is less wrenching than the wholesale pulling up of one’s ancestral roots and the decamping of entire nations, cultures, religions, ideologies, kinships, ancestries, histories etc etc to profoundly alien lands. After all the central axiom of unicorn theory is that the unicorns are fully interchangeable on *every* level – so surely that also means ‘nation building’ level – as the magic land people.

    2/. Of course, unicorn theory taken to its full, ‘logical’ extent (what other extent is there?) posits the removal of *every single individual* third world inhabitant (six billion approx and rapidly rising) and their resettlement in Europe and north America, leaving the unicorn nations *absolutely and entirely empty of human habitation*.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CK
    *absolutely and entirely empty of human habitation*. For a short while, fertile empty spaces fill quickly especially when they are unowned.
  30. Calogero says:

    The reason Western lands have less corruption is that they are mostly comprised of Westerners. Fill Scandinavia up with Africans and it will be just as corrupt as any place in Africa. BTW, why is it always a guy with a name like Caplan writing these articles? Also, why did they compare the U.S. in 1800 with today? Why not the much more recent 1965?

    Read More
  31. @unpc downunder
    "Objectors could be bribed to let it happen"

    The bribery is already happening, ask the Greeks and Italians.

    The bribery happens always and everywhere. Who gets political donations, who’s offered a high-profile public appointment, who gets published and who doesn’t.

    Yesterday BBC’s flagship radio current affairs programme devoted a five-minute slot to some retired lecturer living in a whitopia who has declared his house an independent republic still remaining in the EU. Someone who declared his house independent of the EU would be ignored (rightly IMHO) or given negative coverage.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-40634395

    The bribery starts early. Back when blogging was a newish thing in 2006 or so I was surprised to read on Laurie Penny’s blog that she’d been invited on an expenses-paid EU junket, as had some lesbian councillor in Oxford with about 50 readers a week. None of the rightie blogs (with much more reach) got such an invite.

    There’s “negative bribery” too, like having your name and address online (as happened to the entire BNP membership) or having a violent mob picket your TV appearance or even a family meal in a pub.

    Read More
  32. The Economist can take their $78T and stuff it. I am not buying it, and grade their math and underyling assumptions with an ‘F.’ Who cares about some stupid number the globalist wusses at the economist pull out of a hat. Back to intro econs 101 for the entire lot of these idiots.

    Sorry guys we have heard this crap all before, about how immigrants and immigration are going to ‘make us rich’ here in the US, and elsewhere. It is a lie on the scale of which Goebbels would be proud.

    In the real world, open borders and unfettered movement of third world people is destroying the West — or do these morons ever leave their climate-controlled offices except for runs to the airport en route to business class seating as they fly to some other climate-controlled, 5-star accommodation, destination? Do they not see what has happened to the UK, Sweden, Germany? These elitist morons are a bigger part of the problem than the invading hordes themselves.

    I would read the economist, maybe, if they paid me. Opening bid $1K annually.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas

    Sorry guys we have heard this crap all before, about how immigrants and immigration are going to ‘make us rich’ here in the US, and elsewhere. It is a lie on the scale of which Goebbels would be proud.
     
    Well, in a certain sense it seems accurate enough as far as it goes - you import, say, 10 Million peasants from the Indian subcontinent and after painstakingly training them to use toilets in their houses rather than to do the needful in the streets. American Standard can then sell Millions more toilets and Kimberly Clark can fell a few more old growth forests to produce and sell toilet tissue. And I suppose if you're a home supply owner, plumber or outlet that sells toilet tissue you get your cut.

    But it seems to me that the bulk of the profits go to the shareholders of the giant megacorps, while you get to step over all of the effluent and solids in the streets and your kids in the local public school get exotic diseases due to contact with fecal material.
  33. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Adam Smith concerned himself with such arcane ideas as ‘surplus value’, ‘division of labour, ‘comparative advantage, ‘government monopolies’, ‘effects of taxation’, ‘custom duties, taxes’, ‘restrictions on commerce’ etc etc.

    When did he advocate wholesale nation wrecking?

    Read More
  34. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Italy – defined as an ‘advanced high income’ nation, has something like 4 to 5 million unemployed workers.
    Try explaining to an unemployed Italian that his ‘sheer physical presence’ on Italian soil somehow gives him ‘work’ or the means of earning ‘wealth’.

    Read More
  35. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @for-the-record
    What I really liked is the part about the Nigerians:

    Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more [by coming to the US].

    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.
     
    To fully remove the threat to Nigerians of enslavement by Boko Haram, of course, this means that the US needs to take them all.

    Look what happened the last time the USA thought it a ‘jolly wizard wheeze’ to import Nigerian slaves.

    Read More
  36. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    As if the article's schemes to maintain migrant workers at a sub-citizen level haven't already had something to do with creating terrorist underclass descendants.

    But there will be money to rebuild. So much money -- you wouldn't believe.

    That's the point of this article: there's $78 trillion in hush money for the victims of 9/11's, Rotherhams, Colognes ...

    Oh, and after the national paywalls have come down, they’ll need some of that $78 trillion to rebuild them as neighborhood paywalls (maximum border efficiency), manned by armed guards who will check your cookies — for a subscription to the Economist.

    That would be maximum border efficiency.

    Read More
  37. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Beckow
    How is a magazine that advocates open borders, a policy that is supported by at most 10% of people, how is a magazine like that a main-stream media? Borders exist for a reason, and even the Economist seems to grudgingly accept some limits. But I see a different agenda in the article.

    When you strip the outright nonsense, the advocacy is for an enlarged and massive 'visa-buying' scheme (although complemented with bringing a lot of cheap labor). One thing that the elites in the Third World want more than anything else is to be able to move and live in the West. There are around 6 billion people with tens of millions of elite or quasi-elite people in the Third World. They are willing to pay for visas and they do. It is one of the current drivers of the Western economy (housing, schools, banks, ...). The Economist is basically lobbying to allow that on a more masive scale - allow all elites (and lost of aspiring middle-class) from the Third World to buy their way to citizenships in the West. This is the agenda and all else is basically an attempt to distract, even the talk by both sides of 'terrorism' or lack of it.

    So the question is: would US, Canada, Europe, Australia be better off if the 50-60 million of the Third World rich - and the tens of millions who would accompany them in waves - be allowed to buy their way to move to the West? In some ways the huge influx of wealth would initially create more economic growth, as it has already in the main centers of Western migration like London, California, NY, Vancouver. The Economist proposal is to enlarge it and make it truly massive. And they are serious. By the way the process has been underway for decades and it might be at a point of being simply unstoppable. This is also the main tool to control the Third World countries (from India to Russia, China, Brazil) - it is at the heart of what the geo-political types call the 'soft power'.

    The beneficiaries on both sides (the oligarchic layers both in the West and the Third World) are extremely motivated to do this - it pays enormously and it is literally the most important thing that most younger Third Worlder 'elites' dream about. They also control the process and can present it in the media in creative ways. The Economist is not joking and they are not stupid. They are just telling us more openly what they have already been doing.

    How is a magazine that advocates open borders, a policy that is supported by at most 10% of people, how is a magazine like that a main-stream media?

    It’s similar to negotiation strategy. Start off extreme and then compromise down to what you wanted all along.

    Is a way of shifting the Overton Window in their direction. The converse is applied to opposition view points– complete media blackout.

    Read More
  38. Harold says:

    So, like colonialism, but they come here for the institutions instead of us going there.

    Read More
  39. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Bryan Caplan's insane Open Borders is the rest. He is still not willing to open the borders of his house to anyone who likes it but you see, he is an economist, and he really, really likes his bubble. A lot more than he likes you, dumb American.

    Globalists operate assuming the Efficient borders hypothesis: any border enclosing the innermost border you can personally afford to be within is redundant to you.

    It’s also informally expressed as “you can’t beat the border”: if you can pass through one border, another one will pop up you can’t afford to pass through.

    So national borders are inefficient. The market can best determine where walls should be built, their porousness inversely proportional to the wealth of those protected by them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    You might have meant it as a pithy observation, but I think you hit a few nails on the head there.
  40. Calogero says:

    Do the authors of this piece also agree to make gated communities illegal?

    Read More
  41. eah says:

    Me neither.

    Read More
  42. James Fallows had The Economist figured out in an article in 1991 that is still relevant because the magazine still has disproportionate authority.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-washington-post-1991/7415/

    Read More
    • Replies: @IHTG
    Unfortunately, in the end he also figured himself out.
    , @Clyde
    Thanks. Great link debunking The Economist back in 1991. I read it all. Bill Gates makes an appearance. Whenever I flew I tried to get The Economist to while away the time. Half the articles were anti-nationalist stink bombs.
  43. @the Supreme Gentleman
    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there's no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish (e.g. renting a house to immigrants.) (Obviously this a limited philosophy.)

    For example, I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don't want to live near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring that they can live in homogenous neighborhoods; but they would have a problem with people saying that everyone in society has to forcibly abide by those rules.

    “For example I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don’t want to live to near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring they can live in homogenous neighborhoods.”

    The Economist definitely *would* have a problem with it. It’s not really a libertarian publication in the American sense (à la Reason), but more of a broadly liberal (or neoliberal, if you prefer) centrist outfit. It’s never been that squeamish about state intervention as long as it’s congenial to Davos Man. Hence, the Economist is the kind of paper that would be horrified by restrictive covenants but is perfectly happy with de facto segregation for the rich.

    Read More
  44. It’s breathtaking how stupid economists are and equally breathtaking how much influence qualification in their dismal art (not science) gives them over society (eg writing tripe like this in an influential magazine). I have to wonder, did the invention of economics as a discipline benefit society at all? (if you’re a hardcore ‘muh free markets’ type, remember Marx was also an economist)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    No argument on the stupidity of economics as a "science" or anything else (once you get past supply/demand/elasticity that's IT). Believe me, I know stupidity. Because of that, I question your last sentence here:

    (if you’re a hardcore ‘muh free markets’ type, remember Marx was also an economist)
     
    Not all economists believe as Karl Marx that "from each according to her ability, to each according to his needs*" business. You know that, right? Free markets don't need economists, that's the whole point - they don't need anyone - especially governments. Have you been to the flea market? Seen a lot of gov't regulation there? How about yard sales? Been to the doctor back in 1962? Ever watch gladiator movies?


    I could have the quote wrong here - I think that was not Karl Marx of Trier, Prussia, the "economist", but Karla Marks of Newark, New Jersey, the crack hoo-war.
  45. Sunbeam says:
    @Judah Benjamin Hur
    I like the Economist (there are a lot of interesting articles), but you can always count on it for howlers like this from the article:


    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. ...

    A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

     

    “A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth. ”

    I’m not directly replying to your comments, simply this article excerpt.

    Is there any evidence that migration fosters economic growth? Any? Under what conditions in the modern world could it possibly do so?

    Sure there are more people to pick lettuce and eat cheetos. But there are a ton of costs that aren’t assumed by Central Valley farmers, but society as a whole.

    Seems to me that immigration is a net drain on a country. Unless a bunch of Chinese are immigrating. (The Japanese and Koreans seem to be staying home now)

    And that is a whole ball of issues in itself.

    The posters here are pretty knowledgeable (or have incredible google skills). Literally where is the evidence that immigration is good. Like ever, under any circumstance?

    I suppose if you strictly have immigrants from an area where the locals have no reason to emigrate that might be true. But China really seems to be the only exception to that rule. Productive immigrants, and clear reasons they might want to leave.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Their perspective is largely based on GDP and ignores cost to the community; one imagines that they would also promote widespread use of pesticides regardless of its secondary effects on the environment or the water supply. Increasing number of divorces would be a positive thing, as it increases demand for taxable services of divorce lawyers and more usage of daycare facilities due to single-parent households would be, in the same way. Given that, even if immigrants were largely increasing the usage of immigration lawyers, it still is a plus for the GDP.

    In practice, most of the gains are made by a specific and wealthy segment and is part of the overall issues with ever decreasing real wages made by Americans.
    , @jim jones
    University College, London estimates a cost of £95 billion as a result of immigration to the UK:

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.37
  46. George says:

    Care to bet on if Uncle Sam will invite the Rohingya?

    US officials walk out of Australia-run Nauru detention centre

    Abrupt halt to screening interviews from US officials throws refugee swap programme into doubt

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/15/us-officials-walk-out-australia-nauru-detention-centre

    Read More
  47. Nico says:

    Yes, it would be disruptive. But the potential gains are so vast that objectors could be bribed to let it happen.

    There’s nothing funnier than a liberal proposing measures of patronage, corruption and privilege to keep liberal policies in place.

    Read More
  48. IHTG says:
    @PiltdownMan
    James Fallows had The Economist figured out in an article in 1991 that is still relevant because the magazine still has disproportionate authority.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-washington-post-1991/7415/

    Unfortunately, in the end he also figured himself out.

    Read More
  49. 1. The only thing anybody will want to do with their bribe money is buy real estate as far as possible away from all the new arrivals and build walls around it. Translating, the only bribe of any value to those of us opposed, is the ability to avoid encountering these third world “people”. I think this means it’s not a good idea.

    2. There is no way 78 trillion will ever materialize.

    3. Even if it did, the likelihood that any of us regular people would ever see a dime of “bribe money” is zero.

    Read More
  50. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The notion that the sudden dumping of an infinite number of warm bodies (some of them might even be workers) upon a receiving nation, any receiving nation will induce ‘wealth increase’ upon the receiving nation is prima facie absurd, indeed as is the notion that the infinite dumping of any other particular factor of production upon a nation state will somehow equate to a ‘proportionate’ increase in the ‘wealth’ of that nation.

    The correct analogy is this: a stand of trees, a heap of rude ironstone, a cowhide (still attached to the cow) a pond of water, fire-clay for bricks etc does *not* equate to one single bar of iron (that most of economically valuable of resources), nor does heaping more ironstone or appropriating more woodland mean more iron bars.
    It is the factor ‘X’ the ability and knowledge to smelt iron which is all important.

    Similarly in terms of national economies (which are the only economies we know of) such things as interest rates, exchange rates fiscal deficits, trade deficits, individual and collective capabilities, management, stewardship, government policy, specialisation of industry, terms of trade, external demand for exports, etc etc in their myriad web of linked intricacies with each other, are the determinants of ‘wealth’ creation.

    Read More
  51. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @jim jones
    I wonder how they worked out that it would be exactly $78 trillion richer?

    Give or take a mil.

    I’d love to see how all that extra cash gets divvied up. I’d like to know what my share is before I get behind this plan.

    Read More
  52. @Anonymous
    Give or take a mil.

    I'd love to see how all that extra cash gets divvied up. I'd like to know what my share is before I get behind this plan.

    As Cuba Gooding Jr. might say: Show me the money!

    Read More
  53. jb says:

    George Borjas, in his latest book, has interesting things to say about economic models, and how economists can fiddle with the assumptions — consciously or unconsciously — to get the results they were hoping to get.

    I strongly recommend the book — fair minded (Borjas doesn’t automatically agree with immigration restrictionists on every issue, and you don’t get the feeling he is crafting his arguments to support his prejudices, the way you often do with advocates on both sides of this issue), not too long, and very informative.

    Read More
  54. Clyde says:
    @PiltdownMan
    James Fallows had The Economist figured out in an article in 1991 that is still relevant because the magazine still has disproportionate authority.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-washington-post-1991/7415/

    Thanks. Great link debunking The Economist back in 1991. I read it all. Bill Gates makes an appearance. Whenever I flew I tried to get The Economist to while away the time. Half the articles were anti-nationalist stink bombs.

    Read More
  55. @Tim Howells
    There was a recent study by a Swedish economist that concluded that mass immigration boosts the economy. I didn't read it but I read an enthusiastic review in the local paper. "It's so simple! The more people, the more taxpayers, the more taxes paid in, and the richer we all are!!" Literally - I'm not exaggerating one bit here.

    There was a recent study by a Swedish economist that concluded that mass immigration boosts the economy. I didn’t read it but I read an enthusiastic review in the local paper. “It’s so simple! The more people, the more taxpayers, the more taxes paid in, and the richer we all are!!” Literally – I’m not exaggerating one bit here.

    I suppose a proposal that Swedish women should quit whoring it up and pumping out a passel of Swedish children per woman to make Sweden richer was not made?

    Read More
  56. @Buck Turgidson
    The Economist can take their $78T and stuff it. I am not buying it, and grade their math and underyling assumptions with an 'F.' Who cares about some stupid number the globalist wusses at the economist pull out of a hat. Back to intro econs 101 for the entire lot of these idiots.

    Sorry guys we have heard this crap all before, about how immigrants and immigration are going to 'make us rich' here in the US, and elsewhere. It is a lie on the scale of which Goebbels would be proud.

    In the real world, open borders and unfettered movement of third world people is destroying the West -- or do these morons ever leave their climate-controlled offices except for runs to the airport en route to business class seating as they fly to some other climate-controlled, 5-star accommodation, destination? Do they not see what has happened to the UK, Sweden, Germany? These elitist morons are a bigger part of the problem than the invading hordes themselves.

    I would read the economist, maybe, if they paid me. Opening bid $1K annually.

    Sorry guys we have heard this crap all before, about how immigrants and immigration are going to ‘make us rich’ here in the US, and elsewhere. It is a lie on the scale of which Goebbels would be proud.

    Well, in a certain sense it seems accurate enough as far as it goes – you import, say, 10 Million peasants from the Indian subcontinent and after painstakingly training them to use toilets in their houses rather than to do the needful in the streets. American Standard can then sell Millions more toilets and Kimberly Clark can fell a few more old growth forests to produce and sell toilet tissue. And I suppose if you’re a home supply owner, plumber or outlet that sells toilet tissue you get your cut.

    But it seems to me that the bulk of the profits go to the shareholders of the giant megacorps, while you get to step over all of the effluent and solids in the streets and your kids in the local public school get exotic diseases due to contact with fecal material.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Not really.

    It's extremely doubtful that '10 million Indian peasants' could survive in the modern USA without a massive transfer of taxpayers' money (welfare).
    Never mind the cost of educating their children, their old age pensions etc.

    So, a strict balance sheet analysis would show that during their entire sojourn in the USA they never generated enough cash *nett* to purchase a single sheet of toilet paper, in other words their lifetimes' 'contribution' to the USA is less than roll of toilet paper, all things being, equal. In crude terms they've left the 'waste' behind but not the means of cleaning the waste.
  57. Here’s page 01 , Steve. Change the URL to 02, 03, …, 06 for the rest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    Or just open the article in an "incognito window" (Chrome), "private tab" (Firefox) or whatever your browser calls the mode that doesn't save cookies.
  58. @Beckow
    How is a magazine that advocates open borders, a policy that is supported by at most 10% of people, how is a magazine like that a main-stream media? Borders exist for a reason, and even the Economist seems to grudgingly accept some limits. But I see a different agenda in the article.

    When you strip the outright nonsense, the advocacy is for an enlarged and massive 'visa-buying' scheme (although complemented with bringing a lot of cheap labor). One thing that the elites in the Third World want more than anything else is to be able to move and live in the West. There are around 6 billion people with tens of millions of elite or quasi-elite people in the Third World. They are willing to pay for visas and they do. It is one of the current drivers of the Western economy (housing, schools, banks, ...). The Economist is basically lobbying to allow that on a more masive scale - allow all elites (and lost of aspiring middle-class) from the Third World to buy their way to citizenships in the West. This is the agenda and all else is basically an attempt to distract, even the talk by both sides of 'terrorism' or lack of it.

    So the question is: would US, Canada, Europe, Australia be better off if the 50-60 million of the Third World rich - and the tens of millions who would accompany them in waves - be allowed to buy their way to move to the West? In some ways the huge influx of wealth would initially create more economic growth, as it has already in the main centers of Western migration like London, California, NY, Vancouver. The Economist proposal is to enlarge it and make it truly massive. And they are serious. By the way the process has been underway for decades and it might be at a point of being simply unstoppable. This is also the main tool to control the Third World countries (from India to Russia, China, Brazil) - it is at the heart of what the geo-political types call the 'soft power'.

    The beneficiaries on both sides (the oligarchic layers both in the West and the Third World) are extremely motivated to do this - it pays enormously and it is literally the most important thing that most younger Third Worlder 'elites' dream about. They also control the process and can present it in the media in creative ways. The Economist is not joking and they are not stupid. They are just telling us more openly what they have already been doing.

    a magazine that advocates open borders

    They don’t. The advocate population replacement, not ‘open borders’. There’s a simple test: ask them if they support letting Russian tourists visit Europe visa-free and see what happens. (And that’s tourists literally bringing in airplane loads of cash, not immigrants.)

    Read More
  59. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Alec Leamas

    Sorry guys we have heard this crap all before, about how immigrants and immigration are going to ‘make us rich’ here in the US, and elsewhere. It is a lie on the scale of which Goebbels would be proud.
     
    Well, in a certain sense it seems accurate enough as far as it goes - you import, say, 10 Million peasants from the Indian subcontinent and after painstakingly training them to use toilets in their houses rather than to do the needful in the streets. American Standard can then sell Millions more toilets and Kimberly Clark can fell a few more old growth forests to produce and sell toilet tissue. And I suppose if you're a home supply owner, plumber or outlet that sells toilet tissue you get your cut.

    But it seems to me that the bulk of the profits go to the shareholders of the giant megacorps, while you get to step over all of the effluent and solids in the streets and your kids in the local public school get exotic diseases due to contact with fecal material.

    Not really.

    It’s extremely doubtful that ’10 million Indian peasants’ could survive in the modern USA without a massive transfer of taxpayers’ money (welfare).
    Never mind the cost of educating their children, their old age pensions etc.

    So, a strict balance sheet analysis would show that during their entire sojourn in the USA they never generated enough cash *nett* to purchase a single sheet of toilet paper, in other words their lifetimes’ ‘contribution’ to the USA is less than roll of toilet paper, all things being, equal. In crude terms they’ve left the ‘waste’ behind but not the means of cleaning the waste.

    Read More
  60. @Macumazahn
    A HUNDRED-DOLLAR BILL is lying on the ground. An economist walks past it. A friend asks the economist: “Didn’t you see the money there?” The economist replies: “I thought I saw something, but I must have imagined it. If there had been $100 on the ground, someone would have picked it up.”

    If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true. But occasionally it is. Michael Clemens, an economist at the Centre for Global Development, an anti-poverty think-tank in Washington, DC, argues that there are “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”. One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

    Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

    “Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.



    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

    The potential gains from open borders dwarf those of, say, completely free trade, let alone foreign aid. Yet the idea is everywhere treated as a fantasy. In most countries fewer than 10% of people favour it. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, it is a political non-starter. Nonetheless, it is worth asking what might happen if borders were, indeed, open.

    To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

    Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace. It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada. The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists. Their poverty would thus become more visible to citizens of the rich world—who would see many more Liberians and Bangladeshis waiting tables and stacking shelves—but much less severe.

    If borders were open, how many people would up sticks? Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

    Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience. Migrants must wave goodbye to familiar people, familiar customs and grandma’s cooking. Many people would rather not make that sacrifice, even for the prospect of large material rewards.

    Wages are twice as high in Germany as in Greece, and under European Union rules Greeks are free to move to Germany, but only 150,000 have done so since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2010, out of a population of 11m. The weather is awful in Frankfurt, and hardly anyone speaks Greek. Even very large disparities combined with open borders do not necessarily lead to a mass exodus. Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

    Despite these caveats, it is a fair bet that open borders would lead to very large flows of people. The gap between rich and poor countries globally is much wider than the gap between the richest and less-rich countries within Europe, and most poor countries are not Pacific-island paradises. Many are violent as well as poor, or have oppressive governments.

    Also, migration is, in the jargon, “path-dependent”. It starts with a trickle: the first person to move from country A to country B typically arrives in a place where no one speaks his language or knows the right way to cook noodles. But the second migrant—who may be his brother or cousin—has someone to show him around. As word spreads on the diaspora grapevine that country B is a good place to live, more people set off from country A. When the 1,000th migrant arrives, he finds a whole neighbourhood of his compatriots.

    So the Gallup numbers could just as well be too low. Today there are 1.4bn people in rich countries and 6bn in not-so-rich ones. It is hardly far-fetched to imagine that, over a few decades, a billion or more of those people might emigrate if there were no legal obstacle to doing so. Clearly, this would transform rich countries in unpredictable ways.

    Voters in destination states typically do not mind a bit of immigration, but fret that truly open borders would lead to them being “swamped” by foreigners. This, they fear, would make life worse, and perhaps threaten the political system that made their country worth moving to in the first place. Mass migration, they worry, would bring more crime and terrorism, lower wages for locals, an impossible strain on welfare states, horrific overcrowding and traumatic cultural disruption.

    Open questions
    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. Granted, some immigrants commit crimes, or even headline-grabbing acts of terrorism. But in America the foreign-born are only a fifth as likely to be incarcerated as the native-born. In some European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

    Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.

    Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space. And mass migration would make the world as a whole less crowded, since fertility among migrants quickly plunges until it is much closer to the norm of their host country than their country of origin.

    Would mass immigration change the culture and politics of rich countries? Undoubtedly. Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today. Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.

    Eyes on the prize
    There are certainly risks if borders are opened suddenly and without the right policies to help absorb the inflow. But nearly all these risks could be mitigated, and many of the most common objections overcome, with a bit of creative thinking.

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.

    This sounds horribly discriminatory, and it is. But it is better for the migrants than the status quo, in which they are excluded from rich-world labour markets unless they pay tens of thousands of dollars to people-smugglers—and even then they must work in the shadows and are subject to sudden deportation. Today, millions of migrants work in the Gulf, where they have no political rights at all. Despite this, they keep coming. No one is forcing them to.

    “Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say...‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?

    “Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space.”

    No, that would create less “space”. More people per unit volume means higher density which equals less space.

    This illustrates the problem with leaving economics to economists.

    Read More
  61. @Achilles
    Was it not Bill Kristol who suggested that the surplus First World workers could be made into Soylent Green for supplying the lunch breaks of the New Americans and the New Europeans?

    Not only would that turn a cost into a benefit, but those First World workers might at any moment grab their swastikas and Confederate battle flags and put the globalists into ovens, so the better to deal with them preemptively.

    And the magic dirt turns Muslim immigrants into instant philo-Semites, so no worries there.

    Read More
  62. @anonymous
    The benefit of a modern World War is it could erase at least a billion people within a few years, while strengthening our economy as we sell goods and services to the nations we flattened, Muslims would no longer be a problem, and the more souls removed, the more efficiently we address global warming.

    Just because it seems true, doesn't make it good.

    Excellent point. Plus, back in the 1970s, there was much warning from the Left that atomic weapons would cause a Nuclear Winter. Enough of them dropped on the Middle East and we have a solution to global warming.

    Read More
  63. @the Supreme Gentleman
    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there's no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish (e.g. renting a house to immigrants.) (Obviously this a limited philosophy.)

    For example, I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don't want to live near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring that they can live in homogenous neighborhoods; but they would have a problem with people saying that everyone in society has to forcibly abide by those rules.

    Yes, there’s no contradiction, SF, but it’s not that there’s a flaw there that means libertarianism inherently means ruin to society as is going on today.

    The Economist can write what it wants (I’m not gonna read it, paywall or not paywall – hell, they put up a $10/month wall, I’ll find an $11/hr hacker!). We have people in power that are creating our problems, immigration invasion, evisceration of American manufacturing (i.e. wealth creation), devaluing of the dollar, etc. They can listen to The Economist or they can listen to us. Which have they been choosing?

    That was an easy one, but it brings me to: Why are they not following us? The problem with some of the conservatives (yes, some here) and the alt-right is that they cannot see that once you let government get out of control, it has no reason to listen to us any more! There is more profit in listening to big business (in cahoots with them) and foreign and domestic big donors. You’ve lost control, and Juan McCain of Arizona does not represent Arizonans, and Ms. Lindsey Graham of SC does not represent S. Carolinians any more than Dr. Zaius represents the apes of his district (OK, I wanted something you all could relate to ;-}

    On the other side, any libertarian who believes in open borders for America represents nobody except the deeply-institutionalized.

    Read More
  64. CK says:
    @Anonymous
    Two insufferably simple and obvious objections to 'magic unicorn theory'.

    1/. Surely, the challenge of instituting a 'functional state' (apparently *the* difference between the 'magic' nations and the land of unicorns, is less wrenching than the wholesale pulling up of one's ancestral roots and the decamping of entire nations, cultures, religions, ideologies, kinships, ancestries, histories etc etc to profoundly alien lands. After all the central axiom of unicorn theory is that the unicorns are fully interchangeable on *every* level - so surely that also means 'nation building' level - as the magic land people.

    2/. Of course, unicorn theory taken to its full, 'logical' extent (what other extent is there?) posits the removal of *every single individual* third world inhabitant (six billion approx and rapidly rising) and their resettlement in Europe and north America, leaving the unicorn nations *absolutely and entirely empty of human habitation*.

    *absolutely and entirely empty of human habitation*. For a short while, fertile empty spaces fill quickly especially when they are unowned.

    Read More
  65. DEBT AND DEMOGRAPHY

    I wrote this on May of 2017, and it still stands to describe exactly what the sneaky scoundrels at The Economist magazine are hinting at. This explains why European Christians have allowed their countries to be destroyed by mass immigration:

    No, I am not laying the mass immigration invasion currently destroying the United States at anyone’s feet. I am saying that the baby boomer generation as a whole did not do anything to stop the obvious destruction of mass immigration. My opinion is that the financialization(debt tricks) written about by Kevin Phillips was deliberately used to buy off a generation or two of Americans while the 1965 Immigration Act was doing its damage.

    I think in decades and generations, and it is clear that the type of demographic transformation underway will cause civil wars. Others are starting to see it too. Enoch Powell saw it, why didn’t they act? I think the globalized central banks bought off the natural instinct of some Americans, mostly those born before 1965.

    Read More
  66. You rubes still don’t get it. It is just as reasonable as me calling for no border walls but building walls around my mansions.

    Which is why I say:

    Make my immigration reform comprehensive, please!

    Read More
  67. Suggestion for Tom Petty: rewrite “Refugee.” Just a few words!

    We got somethin’, we both know it, we don’t talk too much about it
    Our societies, they’re the best, but somehow we doubt it
    Listen, it really matters to me, baby
    Don’t believe what they want you to believe, see

    You don’t have to let in the refugees
    (Don’t have to let in the refugees)

    Somewhere, white people, somebody must’a kicked you around some
    Tell me why you want to lay there, revel in your abandon
    Europe, it makes a big difference to me, baby
    You’re gonna have to fight to be free, you see

    [Chorus:]
    You don’t have to let in the refugees
    (Don’t have to let in the refugees)

    etc.

    Read More
  68. Orthodox says:

    Trying to Prosper Among Nigerians Like Trying to Farm in Antarctica

    Aside from the Nigerians comment, there’s others. This one doesn’t seem to understand the concept of overcrowding:

    “Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space.”

    Read More
  69. @inselaffen
    It's breathtaking how stupid economists are and equally breathtaking how much influence qualification in their dismal art (not science) gives them over society (eg writing tripe like this in an influential magazine). I have to wonder, did the invention of economics as a discipline benefit society at all? (if you're a hardcore 'muh free markets' type, remember Marx was also an economist)

    No argument on the stupidity of economics as a “science” or anything else (once you get past supply/demand/elasticity that’s IT). Believe me, I know stupidity. Because of that, I question your last sentence here:

    (if you’re a hardcore ‘muh free markets’ type, remember Marx was also an economist)

    Not all economists believe as Karl Marx that “from each according to her ability, to each according to his needs*” business. You know that, right? Free markets don’t need economists, that’s the whole point – they don’t need anyone – especially governments. Have you been to the flea market? Seen a lot of gov’t regulation there? How about yard sales? Been to the doctor back in 1962? Ever watch gladiator movies?

    I could have the quote wrong here – I think that was not Karl Marx of Trier, Prussia, the “economist”, but Karla Marks of Newark, New Jersey, the crack hoo-war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @inselaffen
    My point is mostly that followers of one branch of economic absolutism exalting it as the one true science to end all history and bring about nirvana did a lot of harm trying to reinvent humanity in their god's image before it all fell down. & Economists on the other (winning) side of history are equally fanatic, blinkered, and possibly even more destructive in the long term with the vision they're implementing post 1991.
  70. TheJester says:

    The market determines everything in The Economist’s worldview. The market (rather than genetics and evolution) separates the “men from the boys” in the survival of the fittest, so why not open borders to let the global contest begin to see who, at the end of the day, owns Park Place with four hotels and all of the railroads?

    Decades ago I read a piece in The Economist that argued against free education. The market, apparently, should decide who goes to school and who does not. Education, as it were, is just one more discriminator regarding who (and their progeny) have a right to the spoils.

    Read More
  71. Anon7 says:

    In his 1956 novel The Stars My Destination, science fiction writer Alfred Bester tries to imagine what would actually happpen if there was a “world of free movement”. Bester comes up with a different answer than The Economist.

    Bester makes use of the idea of teleportation, which he calls “jaunting”; what if anyone could simply move themselves wherever they wanted, and there was no border or wall that could stop them?

    …within three generations the entire solar system was on the jaunte. The transition was more spectacular than the change-over from horse and buggy to the gasoline age four centuries before. On three planets and eight satellites, social, legal, and economic structures crashed while the new customs and laws demanded by universal jaunting mushroomed in their place.

    There were land riots as the jaunting poor deserted slums to squat in plains and forests, raiding the livestock and wildlife… There were crashes and panics and strikes and famines as pre-jaunte industries failed.

    Plagues and pandemics raged as jaunting vagrants carried disease and vermin into defenseless countries. Malaria, elephantiasis, and the breakbone fever came north to Greenland; rabies returned to England after an absence of three hundred years. The Japanese beetle, the citrous scale, the chestnut blight, and the elm borer spread to every corner of the world, and from one forgotten pesthole in Borneo, leprosy, long imagined extinct, reappeared.

    Crime waves swept the planets and satellites as their underworlds took to jaunting with the night around the clock, and there were brutalities as the police fought them without quarter. There came a hideous return to the worst prudery of Victorianism as society fought the sexual and moral dangers of jaunting with protocol and taboo. A cruel and vicious war broke out between the Inner Planets-Venus, Terra and Mars-and the Outer Satellites . . . a war brought on by the economic and political pressures of teleportation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    This comment deserves a golden border. I did not know that. I should read Alfred Bester.
  72. The Economist magazine wants to destroy European Christian nation-states. The Economist magazine wants plunder zone regions amenable to exploitation by globalized plutocrats. The Economist magazine pushes mass immigration because it is a demographic weapon designed to destroy White nations.

    Mass immigration and the illegal alien invasion would be stopped if only White people voted in presidential elections.

    Look at this demographic map of White voters in the United States presidential election won by President Trump:

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    In New Jersey 4 counties went for Clinton. They are the ones containing Newark, Jersey City, Trenton, and Camden.
  73. eD says:

    Its been estimated that half of any increase in GDP comes directly from population increase.

    So just adding more people actually does increase GDP, in the absence of anything else, just because of how its calculated.

    Of course adding to GDP by just adding more people does not increase GDP per capita or the actual wealth most people have, in fact it decreases because of decreased availability/ increased competition for things like housing, hospital beds, school places etc.

    People should remember this whenever increases in the GDP are touted. Ireland’s GDP increased by a good amount in the first half of the nineteenth century.

    So there is some truth in that you can increase GDP by just adding more people, but the whole argument is really intellectually dishonest. The Economist is advocating a Ponzi scheme, which its articles on, well, economics usually do. By the way, global migration increases world population by allowing particular regions to evade their Malthusian limits by sending their surplus population elsewhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Back in the day, the argument that more people = more wealth, would have been dismissed summarily with the contempt it deserves.
    That was during the bulk of recorded human history during which the only acceptable currency was precious metal such as gold or silver. Governments simply could not conjure up fiat money, and the actual physical money stock of gold currency in the nation was the measure of its wealth.
    Of course, in certain places more miners meant more gold, and more slaves meant more tobacco harvested and thus more gold received. But here we are discussing a rank nonsense in which dimwits are suggesting that the *mere physical act of Europe and north America receiving a third worlder* somehow, by magic, 'creates wealth'.

    It's rubbish. It's no more 'creative of wealth' than a stampede of elephants is creative of wealth.
  74. Regor says:
    @Macumazahn
    A HUNDRED-DOLLAR BILL is lying on the ground. An economist walks past it. A friend asks the economist: “Didn’t you see the money there?” The economist replies: “I thought I saw something, but I must have imagined it. If there had been $100 on the ground, someone would have picked it up.”

    If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true. But occasionally it is. Michael Clemens, an economist at the Centre for Global Development, an anti-poverty think-tank in Washington, DC, argues that there are “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”. One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

    Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

    “Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.



    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

    The potential gains from open borders dwarf those of, say, completely free trade, let alone foreign aid. Yet the idea is everywhere treated as a fantasy. In most countries fewer than 10% of people favour it. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, it is a political non-starter. Nonetheless, it is worth asking what might happen if borders were, indeed, open.

    To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

    Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace. It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada. The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists. Their poverty would thus become more visible to citizens of the rich world—who would see many more Liberians and Bangladeshis waiting tables and stacking shelves—but much less severe.

    If borders were open, how many people would up sticks? Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

    Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience. Migrants must wave goodbye to familiar people, familiar customs and grandma’s cooking. Many people would rather not make that sacrifice, even for the prospect of large material rewards.

    Wages are twice as high in Germany as in Greece, and under European Union rules Greeks are free to move to Germany, but only 150,000 have done so since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2010, out of a population of 11m. The weather is awful in Frankfurt, and hardly anyone speaks Greek. Even very large disparities combined with open borders do not necessarily lead to a mass exodus. Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

    Despite these caveats, it is a fair bet that open borders would lead to very large flows of people. The gap between rich and poor countries globally is much wider than the gap between the richest and less-rich countries within Europe, and most poor countries are not Pacific-island paradises. Many are violent as well as poor, or have oppressive governments.

    Also, migration is, in the jargon, “path-dependent”. It starts with a trickle: the first person to move from country A to country B typically arrives in a place where no one speaks his language or knows the right way to cook noodles. But the second migrant—who may be his brother or cousin—has someone to show him around. As word spreads on the diaspora grapevine that country B is a good place to live, more people set off from country A. When the 1,000th migrant arrives, he finds a whole neighbourhood of his compatriots.

    So the Gallup numbers could just as well be too low. Today there are 1.4bn people in rich countries and 6bn in not-so-rich ones. It is hardly far-fetched to imagine that, over a few decades, a billion or more of those people might emigrate if there were no legal obstacle to doing so. Clearly, this would transform rich countries in unpredictable ways.

    Voters in destination states typically do not mind a bit of immigration, but fret that truly open borders would lead to them being “swamped” by foreigners. This, they fear, would make life worse, and perhaps threaten the political system that made their country worth moving to in the first place. Mass migration, they worry, would bring more crime and terrorism, lower wages for locals, an impossible strain on welfare states, horrific overcrowding and traumatic cultural disruption.

    Open questions
    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. Granted, some immigrants commit crimes, or even headline-grabbing acts of terrorism. But in America the foreign-born are only a fifth as likely to be incarcerated as the native-born. In some European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

    Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.

    Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space. And mass migration would make the world as a whole less crowded, since fertility among migrants quickly plunges until it is much closer to the norm of their host country than their country of origin.

    Would mass immigration change the culture and politics of rich countries? Undoubtedly. Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today. Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.

    Eyes on the prize
    There are certainly risks if borders are opened suddenly and without the right policies to help absorb the inflow. But nearly all these risks could be mitigated, and many of the most common objections overcome, with a bit of creative thinking.

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.

    This sounds horribly discriminatory, and it is. But it is better for the migrants than the status quo, in which they are excluded from rich-world labour markets unless they pay tens of thousands of dollars to people-smugglers—and even then they must work in the shadows and are subject to sudden deportation. Today, millions of migrants work in the Gulf, where they have no political rights at all. Despite this, they keep coming. No one is forcing them to.

    “Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say...‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?

    Since The Economist cannot be expected to understand how priceless something like Civilization is, someone should at least remind them of the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns and how that applies to labour as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    It would to be interesting to see an iSteve post of key ideas for understanding the world as it really is. That could include well known (but apparently not well understood) ideas like the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns and the Tragedy of the Commons as well as less known ideas like HBD and Who, Whom?

    What would be everyone's top ten of such ideas to tell a teenager? With an emphasis on ideas that are either not presented or underemphasized in current education.
  75. @the Supreme Gentleman
    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there's no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish (e.g. renting a house to immigrants.) (Obviously this a limited philosophy.)

    For example, I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don't want to live near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring that they can live in homogenous neighborhoods; but they would have a problem with people saying that everyone in society has to forcibly abide by those rules.

    But wouldn’t that be the definition of borders? A community with effectively enforced restrictions would need borders in order and allow freedom of association(and nonassociation).

    Read More
  76. @Sunbeam
    "A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth. "

    I'm not directly replying to your comments, simply this article excerpt.

    Is there any evidence that migration fosters economic growth? Any? Under what conditions in the modern world could it possibly do so?

    Sure there are more people to pick lettuce and eat cheetos. But there are a ton of costs that aren't assumed by Central Valley farmers, but society as a whole.

    Seems to me that immigration is a net drain on a country. Unless a bunch of Chinese are immigrating. (The Japanese and Koreans seem to be staying home now)

    And that is a whole ball of issues in itself.

    The posters here are pretty knowledgeable (or have incredible google skills). Literally where is the evidence that immigration is good. Like ever, under any circumstance?

    I suppose if you strictly have immigrants from an area where the locals have no reason to emigrate that might be true. But China really seems to be the only exception to that rule. Productive immigrants, and clear reasons they might want to leave.

    Their perspective is largely based on GDP and ignores cost to the community; one imagines that they would also promote widespread use of pesticides regardless of its secondary effects on the environment or the water supply. Increasing number of divorces would be a positive thing, as it increases demand for taxable services of divorce lawyers and more usage of daycare facilities due to single-parent households would be, in the same way. Given that, even if immigrants were largely increasing the usage of immigration lawyers, it still is a plus for the GDP.

    In practice, most of the gains are made by a specific and wealthy segment and is part of the overall issues with ever decreasing real wages made by Americans.

    Read More
  77. @Anon
    Even if true, richer for whom?

    The Soroses of the world.

    Also, there are things of priceless value in the world. But we can't expect THE ECONOMIST to understand that.

    According to Economist thinking, if we could get rid of all languages but one, get rid of all currencies but one, get rid of all narratives except for one, get rid of all values except for one... the world might be 700 trillion dollars richer, and that would be worth it.

    At any rate, let's see if this is true on a smaller scale. Let's open Israel's borders and let all the Muslims and Africans move in and see if the economy grows 100x.

    Btw, borders fell apart on all sides in Syria, and the nation is thriving, right?

    Well, to be a devil’s advocate, we could run a thought experiment if the US would be wealthier if there were higher barriers between state trade and travel. I would posit it would likely benefit a lot of people within each state, at the least, who would be slightly insulated from competing against the hegemonic Wal-Marts of the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    to be a devil’s advocate
     
    That's good Daniel. Keep that in mind when stand before the Great White Throne.

    we could run a thought experiment if the US would be wealthier if there were higher barriers between state trade and travel. I would posit it would likely benefit a lot of people within each state, at the least, who would be slightly insulated from competing against the hegemonic Wal-Marts of the world.
     
    You have completely missed the point. If I have a healthy country where some scoundrels are wealthier through trade restrictions, or a country where Somali police are murdering innocent yoga instructors I'll choose the former. If you want the latter, move to Sweden.
  78. @Macumazahn
    A HUNDRED-DOLLAR BILL is lying on the ground. An economist walks past it. A friend asks the economist: “Didn’t you see the money there?” The economist replies: “I thought I saw something, but I must have imagined it. If there had been $100 on the ground, someone would have picked it up.”

    If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true. But occasionally it is. Michael Clemens, an economist at the Centre for Global Development, an anti-poverty think-tank in Washington, DC, argues that there are “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”. One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

    Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

    “Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.



    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

    The potential gains from open borders dwarf those of, say, completely free trade, let alone foreign aid. Yet the idea is everywhere treated as a fantasy. In most countries fewer than 10% of people favour it. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, it is a political non-starter. Nonetheless, it is worth asking what might happen if borders were, indeed, open.

    To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

    Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace. It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada. The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists. Their poverty would thus become more visible to citizens of the rich world—who would see many more Liberians and Bangladeshis waiting tables and stacking shelves—but much less severe.

    If borders were open, how many people would up sticks? Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

    Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience. Migrants must wave goodbye to familiar people, familiar customs and grandma’s cooking. Many people would rather not make that sacrifice, even for the prospect of large material rewards.

    Wages are twice as high in Germany as in Greece, and under European Union rules Greeks are free to move to Germany, but only 150,000 have done so since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2010, out of a population of 11m. The weather is awful in Frankfurt, and hardly anyone speaks Greek. Even very large disparities combined with open borders do not necessarily lead to a mass exodus. Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

    Despite these caveats, it is a fair bet that open borders would lead to very large flows of people. The gap between rich and poor countries globally is much wider than the gap between the richest and less-rich countries within Europe, and most poor countries are not Pacific-island paradises. Many are violent as well as poor, or have oppressive governments.

    Also, migration is, in the jargon, “path-dependent”. It starts with a trickle: the first person to move from country A to country B typically arrives in a place where no one speaks his language or knows the right way to cook noodles. But the second migrant—who may be his brother or cousin—has someone to show him around. As word spreads on the diaspora grapevine that country B is a good place to live, more people set off from country A. When the 1,000th migrant arrives, he finds a whole neighbourhood of his compatriots.

    So the Gallup numbers could just as well be too low. Today there are 1.4bn people in rich countries and 6bn in not-so-rich ones. It is hardly far-fetched to imagine that, over a few decades, a billion or more of those people might emigrate if there were no legal obstacle to doing so. Clearly, this would transform rich countries in unpredictable ways.

    Voters in destination states typically do not mind a bit of immigration, but fret that truly open borders would lead to them being “swamped” by foreigners. This, they fear, would make life worse, and perhaps threaten the political system that made their country worth moving to in the first place. Mass migration, they worry, would bring more crime and terrorism, lower wages for locals, an impossible strain on welfare states, horrific overcrowding and traumatic cultural disruption.

    Open questions
    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. Granted, some immigrants commit crimes, or even headline-grabbing acts of terrorism. But in America the foreign-born are only a fifth as likely to be incarcerated as the native-born. In some European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

    Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.

    Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space. And mass migration would make the world as a whole less crowded, since fertility among migrants quickly plunges until it is much closer to the norm of their host country than their country of origin.

    Would mass immigration change the culture and politics of rich countries? Undoubtedly. Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today. Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.

    Eyes on the prize
    There are certainly risks if borders are opened suddenly and without the right policies to help absorb the inflow. But nearly all these risks could be mitigated, and many of the most common objections overcome, with a bit of creative thinking.

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.

    This sounds horribly discriminatory, and it is. But it is better for the migrants than the status quo, in which they are excluded from rich-world labour markets unless they pay tens of thousands of dollars to people-smugglers—and even then they must work in the shadows and are subject to sudden deportation. Today, millions of migrants work in the Gulf, where they have no political rights at all. Despite this, they keep coming. No one is forcing them to.

    “Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say...‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?

    intolerance for gay people

    Think of the gays! The only truly holy people. Haha.

    Read More
  79. @John Derbyshire
    Here's page 01 , Steve. Change the URL to 02, 03, ..., 06 for the rest.

    Or just open the article in an “incognito window” (Chrome), “private tab” (Firefox) or whatever your browser calls the mode that doesn’t save cookies.

    Read More
  80. J. Dart says:

    There is already one first-world territory that has de jure open borders with at least three third world hellholes: any citizen of Afghanistan, Egypt, or Venezuela can move to Svalbard and live there peacefully under Norwegian law and Norwegian institutions, thanks to the Svalbard Treaty. So why isn’t Svalbard the richest island on the planet?

    It’s a bit windy and chilly there (slightly above 0 F in the winter), but $78 trillion extra dollars should cover a lot of heating bills and roof repairs. And of course, similarly awful weather hasn’t stopped refugees from flooding into Canada, Finland, Norway proper, and other far-northern countries.

    So, instead of taking a chance on illegally sneaking into the US or Germany, why aren’t Afghan asylum-seekers flooding to Svalbard where they’ll never have to worry about being deported? Oh right, not enough of a native Norwegian population off of whom they can sponge welfare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Svalbard needs more cleaners to mop up after seed vault inundations. They asked for more engineers but those weren't on offer. Now they can fulfill their destiny.

    Query: Are there rainbows in perpetually gray sky places like Svalbard? Or do they snap that one unicorn rainbow and reuse the image as needed?
  81. And if we moved all of Detroit’s public school students to Ann Arbor’s better-managed better-funded schools, we’d increase Michigan’s total SAT score by 78 trillion points (or something).

    Same logic as this Economist article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    And if we moved all of Detroit’s public school students to Ann Arbor’s better-managed better-funded schools, we’d increase Michigan’s total SAT score by 78 trillion points (or something).

    That's an incredible reveal of their hypocrisy. Moving everyone in Central America is supposed to make the world fabulously wealthy, but sending all the ghetto kids in D.C. to Sidwell Friends? Never gunna happen.

    The argument for open borders is that Third World peoples will increase their productivity by moving to the First World and benefitting from better infrastructure, better institutions, and better government policy. That should be no less true for sending ghetto kids to private schools.

    Of course if it's the better laws that make people more productive then why not just have...colonialism.
  82. People keep telling me that, but I can never make it work. The incognito switch e.g. is no help with reading the Wall Street Journal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Lund
    Googling for the headline works for me. Each http request can have a field that says what page it came from. That way, they can see that you clicked a google link.
    , @Charles Pewitt
    Derbyshire and his troops must hold out on Long Island if we are to resist the Hillary-voting hordes that will use Connecticut to pour out of New England to attack the mid-Atlantic states. Derbyshire has prepared and personally dug anti-tank traps on various parts of Long Island -- especially close to the city where the Connecticut gap is weakest. Fulda Gap? Who cares, Connecticut Gap!

    Derbyshire's Long Island is a patriotic Republican Party vote dashingly jutting out into the Atlantic. I don't have to remind General Derbyshire that Connecticut invaders colonized New Jersey when the Dutch and Swedes still thought they were in charge. New Ark of the Covenant from Connecticut. Newark now is Africanized, alas.
    , @International Jew
    The incognito tab "trick" does work at a great many sites: nytimes.com and The Economist among them. It doesn't work at wsj.com because the WSJ is actually serious about making you pay: there you log in and they check against credentials stored at their site. Obviously, the incognito tab can't be a universal key; it won't let me into the Derbyshire family's bank account either!

    Sites like nytimes and economist, which are actually not that serious about keeping you out, store a small amount of data — called a cookie — on your computer, that includes inter alia a count of how many times you've been there. They lock you out when the count reaches some number (10, for nytimes). So using an incognito tab loses that cookie and makes nytimes think you've never been there before.

    Some of you might be wondering at this point if one site can read another's cookie. Like, could the site your employer forces you to go to, to file a dental benefit claim, see a cookie placed by unz.com, leading your employer to fire you for association with an SPLC®-certified hate group? The answer is: mo, unless unz.com wants to let them. Of course unz.com isn't going to do that (right, Ron?) But Facebook, Google, Twitter, LinkedIn and others do help in this way. So in particular, you should know that using a pseudonym to speak freely on Disqus doesn't protect you if Disqus wants to learn your Facebook identity (or your Google identity, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc).

    Bottom line, we gotta turn this ship around before we all get doxxed and fired (if not fined and imprisoned too) some time in the next decade.
    , @International Jew
    The incognito tab "trick" does work at a great many sites: nytimes.com and The Economist among them. It doesn't work at wsj.com because the WSJ is actually serious about making you pay: there you log in and they check against credentials stored at their site. Obviously, the incognito tab can't be a universal key; it won't let me into the Derbyshire family's bank account either!

    Sites like nytimes and economist, which are actually not that serious about keeping you out, store a small amount of data — called a cookie — on your computer, that includes inter alia a count of how many times you've been there. They lock you out when the count reaches some number (10, for nytimes). So using an incognito tab loses that cookie and makes nytimes think you've never been there before.

    Some of you might be wondering at this point if one site can read another's cookie. Like, could the site your employer forces you to go to, to file a dental benefit claim, see a cookie placed by unz.com, leading your employer to fire you for association with an SPLC®-certified hate group? The answer is: mo, unless unz.com wants to let them. Of course unz.com isn't going to do that (right, Ron?) But Facebook, Google, Twitter, LinkedIn and others do help in this way. So in particular, you should know that using a pseudonym to speak freely on Disqus doesn't protect you if Disqus wants to learn your Facebook identity (or your Google identity, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc).

    Bottom line, we gotta turn this ship around before we all get doxxed and fired (if not fined and imprisoned too) some time in the next decade.
    , @MEH 0910
    Lion of the Blogosphere gave this response to a reader's comment: "Thanks for the tip on how to read the WSJ for free!"

    https://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.com/2017/07/06/another-journalist-reading-my-blog/#comment-148135

    http://archive.fo/5pyD0
  83. @the Supreme Gentleman
    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there's no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish (e.g. renting a house to immigrants.) (Obviously this a limited philosophy.)

    For example, I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don't want to live near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring that they can live in homogenous neighborhoods; but they would have a problem with people saying that everyone in society has to forcibly abide by those rules.

    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there’s no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish (e.g. renting a house to immigrants.)

    A country is private property.

    Read More
  84. WGG says:

    Ok, here’s some *creative* thinking for you, Economist. America and Europe have the most to lose in your gambit, so show don’t tell. Let us build our walls, while you create a global pulsating rainbow mob of the other 85% of the world. If we like what we see, maybe we will vote to join. you. If it becomes a waking Hell, we reserve the right to bomb it to extinction.

    You’re so sure of yourselves, it should create even more investment opportunities for you doing it this way, because the West will be hedging against you. Since you guys are so right and so smart, there’s really no downside! I pity the poor suckers who bet against the United third world. These new heroes will be known as the Eighty-fivers, not just for their percentage of the world, but for their mean IQ, as well. Enjoy your riches in Kampala, boys. We sure will miss you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Great challenge, WGG - let the market decide.

    Your comment should be an OPEN LETTER to Bryan Caplan and the whole damn Economist staff. In fact, as of now, it is.

    The problem is nobody reads open letters anymore. Maybe we could all write a registered open letter and make 'em sign it. Oh, I know, get someone to "serve" it to them. I'd be glad to go to London and serve these miserable pukes.
  85. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @eD
    Its been estimated that half of any increase in GDP comes directly from population increase.

    So just adding more people actually does increase GDP, in the absence of anything else, just because of how its calculated.

    Of course adding to GDP by just adding more people does not increase GDP per capita or the actual wealth most people have, in fact it decreases because of decreased availability/ increased competition for things like housing, hospital beds, school places etc.

    People should remember this whenever increases in the GDP are touted. Ireland's GDP increased by a good amount in the first half of the nineteenth century.

    So there is some truth in that you can increase GDP by just adding more people, but the whole argument is really intellectually dishonest. The Economist is advocating a Ponzi scheme, which its articles on, well, economics usually do. By the way, global migration increases world population by allowing particular regions to evade their Malthusian limits by sending their surplus population elsewhere.

    Back in the day, the argument that more people = more wealth, would have been dismissed summarily with the contempt it deserves.
    That was during the bulk of recorded human history during which the only acceptable currency was precious metal such as gold or silver. Governments simply could not conjure up fiat money, and the actual physical money stock of gold currency in the nation was the measure of its wealth.
    Of course, in certain places more miners meant more gold, and more slaves meant more tobacco harvested and thus more gold received. But here we are discussing a rank nonsense in which dimwits are suggesting that the *mere physical act of Europe and north America receiving a third worlder* somehow, by magic, ‘creates wealth’.

    It’s rubbish. It’s no more ‘creative of wealth’ than a stampede of elephants is creative of wealth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    Back in the day, the argument that more people = more wealth, would have been dismissed summarily with the contempt it deserves.
     
    At no point in human history could the relationship of population to overall wealth be dismissed summarily, including right now.

    Let's ponder a livestock farm. Farming accounting lists every single live animal as a capital asset, even if they do eat food, get sick, take up space, poop, and are generally a pain to take care of. At no point in time would you say that the wealthier farm has 10 cattle versus one that has 100 cattle, assuming the same breed. Even if you assume the small farm has extremely valuable livestock, 10X for each individual head is quite the gap to make up.

    The first American generation that will not see a rise in it's standard of living is Generation X, a generation that is the same size or slightly smaller than the generation ahead of it. If you're looking to describe "peak wealth", that would be the Baby Boomers who represent "peak population" within the generations. Oops.

    So yes, the economists are correct to think about population. Before the industrial revolution, it would have been completely obvious that the wealthiest countries were actually the most populous. (The industrial revolution does tamper with the economics of population, but not that much.)

    What economists get wrong is the idea of adding any old person to the planet or your economy will improve things, if the point is to raise the GDP.

    Let's go back to our cattle farm again. Let's assume you got wealthy running the ranch but now it's too much work. You know that you need to keep the farm running properly to maintain your wealth, but you've taken short cut after short cut in keeping the animals healthy, happy, and reproductive. The cattle are already look bad, overweight from cheap food and not enough exercise. The best cows are being asked to fill in the gaps of incompetent ranch hands and not attending to what calves they have (okay, stretch, but work with me here). You see all this and think: This farm isn't going to be as wealthy in the future. I don't want to get poor but I don't want to work either. What if we just add some chickens? I can count those as heads of cattle for a while. We'll all stay rich, but mostly me will stay rich. And as long as it lasts until I die, I'm good. My kids can deal with whatever comes next.

    But chickens aren't cattle and never will be. It's just making all the problems within the herd worse. And of course, son's ranch will be nothing like what Dad inherited.

    Economists are dressing up some solid economic theory to make it seems like it justifies lack of interest in the running the farm properly. Concerns about population and it's relationship to the economy are sound. What is not is not sound are modern conclusions and solutions, including the unwillingness to just suck it up and be poorer for a while.

  86. songbird says:

    Why exactly is it so hard to copy institutions? The Japanese did it, and they were a medieval society, existing at the time of slow moving, steam ships. Should be far easier with jets and the internet. Wasn’t the favorite book of liberals a few years ago “The World is Flat?” Or was that just before Merkel birthed the dream of a demolished Europe?

    Read More
  87. bomag says:
    @the Supreme Gentleman
    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there's no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish (e.g. renting a house to immigrants.) (Obviously this a limited philosophy.)

    For example, I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don't want to live near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring that they can live in homogenous neighborhoods; but they would have a problem with people saying that everyone in society has to forcibly abide by those rules.

    to a libertarian there’s no contradiction here… private property… no one can use the government to prevent…

    The basic contradiction is that libertarians want Big Government ™ to impose libertarian strictures on everyone in year zero, and then we can all happily live in the resulting utopia and thank them later.

    Plus, there are all the smaller contradictions that arise from cooperative agreements, such as a group bands together to maintain a road; and your immigrants use the road to rob my property; so we need a communal police force; but the police force hires an immigrant that shoots an innocent; and now we are back in today’s world.

    Read More
  88. George says:
    @the Supreme Gentleman
    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there's no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish (e.g. renting a house to immigrants.) (Obviously this a limited philosophy.)

    For example, I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don't want to live near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring that they can live in homogenous neighborhoods; but they would have a problem with people saying that everyone in society has to forcibly abide by those rules.

    Libertarians have never been in power so who knows what they would do if they ever had power.

    I have read libertarian articles claiming citizenship is sort of like stock ownership, and printing up new citizenships is sort of like stock dilution.

    I have a genius idea. There would be no citizenship except by birth to US of A parents. But being a libertarian, any citizen could sell their citizenship to anybody and leave the US. Why is this so incredibly brilliant? All the new Somali immigrants could sell their citizenship to rich Chinese and move back to Mogadishu as rich persons. Seems totally win win win to me. Trying to dump them in Somalia with a couple thou is not happening, even Israel can’t seem to do it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @njguy73

    But being a libertarian, any citizen could sell their citizenship to anybody and leave the US.
     
    I've suggested making it legal to sell US citizenship, be relegated to resident-alien status, and be allowed to stay in the US. You like?

    And no sane Somali in the US would go back at any price.

    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    I have read libertarian articles claiming citizenship is sort of like stock ownership, and printing up new citizenships is sort of like stock dilution.

     

    If a CEO could make a lot of money for himself personally by diluting the stock of the company he runs, what would a libertarian say? Would they call him a genious capitialist and that all the money he made is prima facie evidence of his goodness?
  89. Why bribe the plebes? Just force open borders on them against their will and let the Man keep that $78 trillion as personal profit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Or offer to split the $78 trillion with the plebs, and then when it doesn't materialize, refuse to give them one red cent because they are so racistly bigoted against their billion new neighbors, and pocket the one or two trillion that is actually generated.
  90. @Achmed E. Newman
    No argument on the stupidity of economics as a "science" or anything else (once you get past supply/demand/elasticity that's IT). Believe me, I know stupidity. Because of that, I question your last sentence here:

    (if you’re a hardcore ‘muh free markets’ type, remember Marx was also an economist)
     
    Not all economists believe as Karl Marx that "from each according to her ability, to each according to his needs*" business. You know that, right? Free markets don't need economists, that's the whole point - they don't need anyone - especially governments. Have you been to the flea market? Seen a lot of gov't regulation there? How about yard sales? Been to the doctor back in 1962? Ever watch gladiator movies?


    I could have the quote wrong here - I think that was not Karl Marx of Trier, Prussia, the "economist", but Karla Marks of Newark, New Jersey, the crack hoo-war.

    My point is mostly that followers of one branch of economic absolutism exalting it as the one true science to end all history and bring about nirvana did a lot of harm trying to reinvent humanity in their god’s image before it all fell down. & Economists on the other (winning) side of history are equally fanatic, blinkered, and possibly even more destructive in the long term with the vision they’re implementing post 1991.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Oh, sure, Inselaffen, no argument with that paragraph coming either. However, it was the "muh free markets" comment that made no sense to me. The free market, see, is not an "-ism" at all and needs no economists of any sort to work it out, discover it, invent in, whatever.

    It's like the Newton's 1st law: An object under no net forces will stay put or keep moving with whatever velocity it has. It doesn't care who knows that, or if anyone is even around to know that. It does what the physical law requires it to do whether discovered, named, or neither.

    Think of a free market like that, and then you will see what I mean.
  91. @Seamus Padraig
    Why bribe the plebes? Just force open borders on them against their will and let the Man keep that $78 trillion as personal profit.

    Or offer to split the $78 trillion with the plebs, and then when it doesn’t materialize, refuse to give them one red cent because they are so racistly bigoted against their billion new neighbors, and pocket the one or two trillion that is actually generated.

    Read More
  92. @Beckow
    How is a magazine that advocates open borders, a policy that is supported by at most 10% of people, how is a magazine like that a main-stream media? Borders exist for a reason, and even the Economist seems to grudgingly accept some limits. But I see a different agenda in the article.

    When you strip the outright nonsense, the advocacy is for an enlarged and massive 'visa-buying' scheme (although complemented with bringing a lot of cheap labor). One thing that the elites in the Third World want more than anything else is to be able to move and live in the West. There are around 6 billion people with tens of millions of elite or quasi-elite people in the Third World. They are willing to pay for visas and they do. It is one of the current drivers of the Western economy (housing, schools, banks, ...). The Economist is basically lobbying to allow that on a more masive scale - allow all elites (and lost of aspiring middle-class) from the Third World to buy their way to citizenships in the West. This is the agenda and all else is basically an attempt to distract, even the talk by both sides of 'terrorism' or lack of it.

    So the question is: would US, Canada, Europe, Australia be better off if the 50-60 million of the Third World rich - and the tens of millions who would accompany them in waves - be allowed to buy their way to move to the West? In some ways the huge influx of wealth would initially create more economic growth, as it has already in the main centers of Western migration like London, California, NY, Vancouver. The Economist proposal is to enlarge it and make it truly massive. And they are serious. By the way the process has been underway for decades and it might be at a point of being simply unstoppable. This is also the main tool to control the Third World countries (from India to Russia, China, Brazil) - it is at the heart of what the geo-political types call the 'soft power'.

    The beneficiaries on both sides (the oligarchic layers both in the West and the Third World) are extremely motivated to do this - it pays enormously and it is literally the most important thing that most younger Third Worlder 'elites' dream about. They also control the process and can present it in the media in creative ways. The Economist is not joking and they are not stupid. They are just telling us more openly what they have already been doing.

    I worked with a guy from India who had brought his entire family to the US over the years. he was doing pretty well and had a good middle class life. I asked him how it would have been for him had he stayed in India. He was certain he’d be upper middle class there and have plenty of advantages and privileges. then had he made a mistake in emigrating? Nope. He said even if you’re hugely wealthy in India, you still have to live in India. You still are surrounded by squalor and liars and filth and crowds. the problem wasn’t money or lifestyle, the problem was India.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Fits with Steve's definition of being poor: being poor is not having enough money to move away from other poor people.
  93. @John Derbyshire
    People keep telling me that, but I can never make it work. The incognito switch e.g. is no help with reading the Wall Street Journal.

    Googling for the headline works for me. Each http request can have a field that says what page it came from. That way, they can see that you clicked a google link.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM
    That trick for the WSJ used to work for me, but it doesn't right now. It maybe I need to clear my cache/cookies, but I haven't wanted to read much there since Trump came on the scene.
  94. njguy73 says:
    @George
    Libertarians have never been in power so who knows what they would do if they ever had power.

    I have read libertarian articles claiming citizenship is sort of like stock ownership, and printing up new citizenships is sort of like stock dilution.

    I have a genius idea. There would be no citizenship except by birth to US of A parents. But being a libertarian, any citizen could sell their citizenship to anybody and leave the US. Why is this so incredibly brilliant? All the new Somali immigrants could sell their citizenship to rich Chinese and move back to Mogadishu as rich persons. Seems totally win win win to me. Trying to dump them in Somalia with a couple thou is not happening, even Israel can't seem to do it.

    But being a libertarian, any citizen could sell their citizenship to anybody and leave the US.

    I’ve suggested making it legal to sell US citizenship, be relegated to resident-alien status, and be allowed to stay in the US. You like?

    And no sane Somali in the US would go back at any price.

    Read More
  95. Barnard says:

    I used my free article at The Economist to read about the tragic dirt on the Mississippi Delta. Don’t worry though, the SPLC is on the case.

    https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21725038-lawsuit-may-resonate-far-beyond-delta-ingenious-bid-force-improvements

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    Sometimes I wonder why I dropped The Economist.

    Then I remember.

    Years of weird "acceptable" logic and Keynesianist (i.e. crazed ass-backwards) logic, warmongering on Iran and Iraq.

    The turning point was when the declared the Afghan Show "a just and necessary war".

    But their cartoons were always top notch.
  96. Joe Sweet says:

    OT:

    http://www.rt.com/uk/396649-trump-visit-khan-london/

    If Adolf Hitler flew in today
    they’d send a limousine anyway

    Not in PC crazed Londonistan they don’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    “State visits are different from a normal visit, and at a time when the president of the USA has policies that many in our country disagree with, I am not sure it is appropriate for our government to roll out the red carpet,” Khan told CNN.
     
    That's a pretty incredible statement. Do what we tell you, or we won't recognize you as a valued and trusted ally!

    Nassim Taleb's explanation for why little vegetarian girls turn their whole family vegetarian is always instructive to keep in mind in these situations. Also, that Khan is a Muslim. That is a real issue. If the US won't be treated appropriately by a Muslim mayor, the city of London shouldn't receive a state visit.
  97. Wilkey says:
    @the Supreme Gentleman
    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there's no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish (e.g. renting a house to immigrants.) (Obviously this a limited philosophy.)

    For example, I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don't want to live near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring that they can live in homogenous neighborhoods; but they would have a problem with people saying that everyone in society has to forcibly abide by those rules.

    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there’s no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish

    A country is a form of private property. It was fought for, bled for, and paid for (via taxes). The various levels of government (federal, state, and local) hold tens of trillions of dollars worth of assets in trust for the citizens. About 40% of Americans don’t own a home. A huge fraction of the populace has negligible savings, little or no pension, and next to nothing in their 401(k). Their share in this country is the most valuable asset they own.

    Aside from pushing for open borders one of the biggest policy pushes of the rich – especially libertarians – is to eliminate the estate tax, which they like to call the “death tax.” Taxing the inheritances of billionaires is immoral. Taxing the inheritance of the poor and middle class is perfectly ok.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato

    The various levels of government (federal, state, and local) hold tens of trillions of dollars worth of assets in trust for the citizens.
     
    Unfortunately, I have to tell you something about that .....
  98. re UK acid attacks, I noted the top three London attack areas had significant African populations. One case doesn’t proof make, but it tallies with the black gangsta who said that “Somalis and Congolese introduced us to a whole new level of violence”.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4707102/Student-19-sprayed-heavily-pregnant-woman-acid.html

    “A college student sprayed a heavily pregnant woman and her partner with acid hours after they ‘argued with a group of Somali men’, a court has heard.

    The woman was left with burns to her ‘baby bump’ while her partner was hit in the face by the corrosive spray.

    Both were hospitalised after the assault with a corrosive substance in Mile End, east London, in the early hours of Tuesday, July 4.

    Mustafa Ahmed, 19, of Stepney, east London, appeared at Thames Magistrates Court on Tuesday charged with one count of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and one count of attempted wounding with intent to do GBH. “

    Read More
  99. Wilkey says:
    @International Jew
    And if we moved all of Detroit's public school students to Ann Arbor's better-managed better-funded schools, we'd increase Michigan's total SAT score by 78 trillion points (or something).

    Same logic as this Economist article.

    And if we moved all of Detroit’s public school students to Ann Arbor’s better-managed better-funded schools, we’d increase Michigan’s total SAT score by 78 trillion points (or something).

    That’s an incredible reveal of their hypocrisy. Moving everyone in Central America is supposed to make the world fabulously wealthy, but sending all the ghetto kids in D.C. to Sidwell Friends? Never gunna happen.

    The argument for open borders is that Third World peoples will increase their productivity by moving to the First World and benefitting from better infrastructure, better institutions, and better government policy. That should be no less true for sending ghetto kids to private schools.

    Of course if it’s the better laws that make people more productive then why not just have…colonialism.

    Read More
  100. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Judah Benjamin Hur
    I like the Economist (there are a lot of interesting articles), but you can always count on it for howlers like this from the article:


    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. ...

    A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

     

    “Anecdotal evidence” Mohamed Noor?

    Read More
  101. druid says:
    @Achilles
    Was it not Bill Kristol who suggested that the surplus First World workers could be made into Soylent Green for supplying the lunch breaks of the New Americans and the New Europeans?

    Not only would that turn a cost into a benefit, but those First World workers might at any moment grab their swastikas and Confederate battle flags and put the globalists into ovens, so the better to deal with them preemptively.

    I would go for Kristol’s suggestion if we started with the Ziofascist who have ruined this country, starting with him first!

    Read More
  102. res says:
    @Regor
    Since The Economist cannot be expected to understand how priceless something like Civilization is, someone should at least remind them of the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns and how that applies to labour as well.

    It would to be interesting to see an iSteve post of key ideas for understanding the world as it really is. That could include well known (but apparently not well understood) ideas like the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns and the Tragedy of the Commons as well as less known ideas like HBD and Who, Whom?

    What would be everyone’s top ten of such ideas to tell a teenager? With an emphasis on ideas that are either not presented or underemphasized in current education.

    Read More
  103. AM says:
    @Anonymous
    Back in the day, the argument that more people = more wealth, would have been dismissed summarily with the contempt it deserves.
    That was during the bulk of recorded human history during which the only acceptable currency was precious metal such as gold or silver. Governments simply could not conjure up fiat money, and the actual physical money stock of gold currency in the nation was the measure of its wealth.
    Of course, in certain places more miners meant more gold, and more slaves meant more tobacco harvested and thus more gold received. But here we are discussing a rank nonsense in which dimwits are suggesting that the *mere physical act of Europe and north America receiving a third worlder* somehow, by magic, 'creates wealth'.

    It's rubbish. It's no more 'creative of wealth' than a stampede of elephants is creative of wealth.

    Back in the day, the argument that more people = more wealth, would have been dismissed summarily with the contempt it deserves.

    At no point in human history could the relationship of population to overall wealth be dismissed summarily, including right now.

    Let’s ponder a livestock farm. Farming accounting lists every single live animal as a capital asset, even if they do eat food, get sick, take up space, poop, and are generally a pain to take care of. At no point in time would you say that the wealthier farm has 10 cattle versus one that has 100 cattle, assuming the same breed. Even if you assume the small farm has extremely valuable livestock, 10X for each individual head is quite the gap to make up.

    The first American generation that will not see a rise in it’s standard of living is Generation X, a generation that is the same size or slightly smaller than the generation ahead of it. If you’re looking to describe “peak wealth”, that would be the Baby Boomers who represent “peak population” within the generations. Oops.

    So yes, the economists are correct to think about population. Before the industrial revolution, it would have been completely obvious that the wealthiest countries were actually the most populous. (The industrial revolution does tamper with the economics of population, but not that much.)

    What economists get wrong is the idea of adding any old person to the planet or your economy will improve things, if the point is to raise the GDP.

    Let’s go back to our cattle farm again. Let’s assume you got wealthy running the ranch but now it’s too much work. You know that you need to keep the farm running properly to maintain your wealth, but you’ve taken short cut after short cut in keeping the animals healthy, happy, and reproductive. The cattle are already look bad, overweight from cheap food and not enough exercise. The best cows are being asked to fill in the gaps of incompetent ranch hands and not attending to what calves they have (okay, stretch, but work with me here). You see all this and think: This farm isn’t going to be as wealthy in the future. I don’t want to get poor but I don’t want to work either. What if we just add some chickens? I can count those as heads of cattle for a while. We’ll all stay rich, but mostly me will stay rich. And as long as it lasts until I die, I’m good. My kids can deal with whatever comes next.

    But chickens aren’t cattle and never will be. It’s just making all the problems within the herd worse. And of course, son’s ranch will be nothing like what Dad inherited.

    Economists are dressing up some solid economic theory to make it seems like it justifies lack of interest in the running the farm properly. Concerns about population and it’s relationship to the economy are sound. What is not is not sound are modern conclusions and solutions, including the unwillingness to just suck it up and be poorer for a while.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    One big flaw in this analogy, AM, is that when you keep acquiring more cattle, you need more pastureland, as you can't raise them their whole lives in feedlots (nobody wants that). A farmer can spend that money for pasture land and come out ahead with an economy of scale.

    We can have more people here, but living conditions will get harder, as we finished manifesting destiny here about 100 years back. It's much worse elsewhere, say China. Technology or no technology, China would be much better off with fewer people.

    I don't even think if you went back to medieval times, it would have been true that more people meant greater wealth PER CAPITA, which is what matters to anyone beside the King. Back then, without a big enough army, everyone would suffer so there was that reason to be big in population. That is not a reason enough now.

    I agree with your last few paragraphs on the analogy with immigration from different cultures.
    , @eD
    This is a really weird argument, but I will do my best to address it.

    1) People aren't livestock.

    2) Farms don't really work that way. And yes, you can have too much cattle.

    3) The industrial revolution didn't change things "somewhat". It changed everything, first by allowing for the substitution of human labor by machine labor, and then by enabling a literal sevenfold increase in the world's population.

    4) Pre-industrial revolution, there was a co-relation somewhat between population and wealth, though in all ages the more highly developed economies didn't need that many people, since most wealth was due to land and it had to be worked by hand, and if you had more people you could always send them out to grab more land. In addition to the machines, land is finite and there are tons more people, so this doesn't hold true as much.

    Actually, 4) is still kind of true, Muslim countries are still sending out more people to grab more land!
    , @anonymous
    Irish potato famine.

    Within memory of those alive today, China, always the world's most populous nation was wrecked by famine after famine,extreme poverty, actual starvation on the streets and the direst poverty imaginable.

    , @Jack D
    I grew up on a farm - a chicken farm, not a cattle ranch. I can tell you this - on a farm every animal has to pay its way. If there was any chicken that looked sickly, that was clearly not laying eggs, we would "cull" them from the flock - this meant wringing its neck. On a dairy farm, any cow that is not giving milk will be appearing soon on your table as hamburger. Unless we are willing to do this with humans (and I hope and pray that we never will), your analogy does not hold up at all.

    In Germany, they have been finding that something like 98% of refugees are still burdens on the welfare system after several years. The idea that uneducated African peasants, devout but illiterate villagers from rural Syria, etc. will become magically productive once they move to Hamburg (and are given free benefits that far exceed their prior lifestyle just for doing nothing) is a ridiculous fantasy.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome

    At no point in human history could the relationship of population to overall wealth be dismissed summarily

     

    Jus ask 1.3 billion Indians.

    Let’s ponder a livestock farm. Farming accounting lists every single live animal as a capital asset, even if they do eat food

     

    No, farms need to make a profit. If any animal is not in top form generating maximal revenue it is culled. The farm has finite space and facillities to maintain animals and excess over this will be sold or culled. The market will only consume a finite amount of farm produce.

    At no point in time would you say that the wealthier farm has 10 cattle versus one that has 100 cattle, assuming the same breed.

     

    Now, there's the rub.

    If you’re looking to describe “peak wealth”, that would be the Baby Boomers who represent “peak population”

     

    The population of the United States is 325 million, the highest its ever been and is increasing.
  104. res says:
    @Anonymous
    The Economist's position here isn't exactly People = $$$, it's that we have, "over many years", created the institutions that will make anyone more productive, so everyone not here already should come (in the tens of millions, to stampede through these institutions like bulls in a china-shop, uncomprehending and envious of what they didn't make themselves).

    While simultaneously holding the view that we can’t just export the institutions instead of importing the people.

    Read More
  105. druid says:
    @Anonymous
    Yep, I suppose the 9/11 attacks - probably the biggest most spectacular terrorist attack of the age - were all down to 'lack of economic growth' in Saudi Arabia, (whence most of the 9/11 terrorists originated), during the post 1945 timeframe.

    911 was clearly a Ziofascist inside job!

    Read More
  106. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    OT: David Leonhardt on listening to the other side in the NYT:

    Immigration. America is the world’s strongest country thanks in no small part to embracing ambitious, hard-working immigrants. But an anti-immigration backlash just helped elect a president, which calls for some reflection.

    It’s possible that the country would benefit from a different policy — one like Canada’s, which admits more people based on skills and fewer based on family ties. That combination could lift economic growth and reduce inequality. It is worth consideration for the political left, center and right.

    I recommend the immigration chapter in a new book by the legal scholar Peter Schuck, “One Nation Undecided: Clear Thinking About Five Hard Issues That Divide Us.” I’m also rereading research on the upward mobility of recent immigrants to see if it’s less encouraging than I’d like.

    Yes, the immigration debate is stained by racism and lies. But it also involves trade-offs.

    Here’s the top comment:

    Mr. Leonhardt, let’s include religious tolerance as another issue to discuss. Exclusion, persecution and discrimination because of religious affiliation is prohibited by the Constitution, yet the president and his legions made this topic a religious crusade that galvanized and rallied the Republican hordes and sympathizers to fever pitch. Vigilante killings of Muslims and innocent Americans who defended their right to worship as they please have been an unwelcome and alarming occurrence since this president was elected.

    Religious profiling has become commonplace as bearded men and women dressed in hijabs or burkas arouse suspicion in public just because of how they look. I doubt that the Founding Fathers would approve of such naked prejudice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Absolutely. Alexander Hamilton would have totally approved of women in burkas. Totally. All of American history is a tabula rasa on which we are free to project our Current Year fashionable beliefs. George Washington would have approved of gay marriage. Jefferson would have defended the right to choose your own gender pronouns. Etc.

    Muslims arouse suspicion "just" because of how they look. It's not as if people have any rational reason to fear people in Muslim garb. What have Muslims ever done to justify such suspicion? Well, except for 9/11, Nice, Birmingham, Paris, London, Brussels, etc.?
  107. druid says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    Excellent point. Plus, back in the 1970s, there was much warning from the Left that atomic weapons would cause a Nuclear Winter. Enough of them dropped on the Middle East and we have a solution to global warming.

    Good idea. Drop it right on Tel Aviv!

    Read More
  108. AM says:
    @Peter Lund
    Googling for the headline works for me. Each http request can have a field that says what page it came from. That way, they can see that you clicked a google link.

    That trick for the WSJ used to work for me, but it doesn’t right now. It maybe I need to clear my cache/cookies, but I haven’t wanted to read much there since Trump came on the scene.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BenjaminL
    The WSJ got rid of the "Google the headline" and incognito workarounds, I think; however, they left the Twitter loophole.

    Try to find the article on Twitter, then click on the link to the WSJ article that is contained within the tweet (it will be a "t.co..." link) and that should work.

    Example: https://t.co/30JJYL9VpO
    , @penskefile
    That doesn't work for me on the WSJ any longer either. I've tried using different browsers, different devices, VPN, incognito/private browsing mode etc...
  109. jim jones says:
    @Sunbeam
    "A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth. "

    I'm not directly replying to your comments, simply this article excerpt.

    Is there any evidence that migration fosters economic growth? Any? Under what conditions in the modern world could it possibly do so?

    Sure there are more people to pick lettuce and eat cheetos. But there are a ton of costs that aren't assumed by Central Valley farmers, but society as a whole.

    Seems to me that immigration is a net drain on a country. Unless a bunch of Chinese are immigrating. (The Japanese and Koreans seem to be staying home now)

    And that is a whole ball of issues in itself.

    The posters here are pretty knowledgeable (or have incredible google skills). Literally where is the evidence that immigration is good. Like ever, under any circumstance?

    I suppose if you strictly have immigrants from an area where the locals have no reason to emigrate that might be true. But China really seems to be the only exception to that rule. Productive immigrants, and clear reasons they might want to leave.

    University College, London estimates a cost of £95 billion as a result of immigration to the UK:

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.37

    Read More
    • Replies: @fish

    University College, London estimates a cost of £95 billion as a result of immigration to the UK:
     
    See…..you do have to spend money to make money…..specifcally 78 trillion bazillion dollars for a mere £95 B. It's just sound economics!
    , @Sunbeam
    Which brings to mind a couple of questions.

    1) How much of that is due to the numbers of "elite" trader/financial/corporate people who go to London because of the city? Bringing their beautiful money with them.

    2) How much is due to various persons who came to the UK one step ahead of a firing squad (I'd have to google but London has been home to a fascinating number of people who used to lead countries and presumably looted them). Bringing their beautiful money with them and renting or buying palatial establishments in London (Always London).

    I might add Assad himself was an optometrist or something in London and from all accounts would have still been there if his brother had not died.

    3) How do I know I can trust the people who made this analysis? Because I'd think that the general uselessness of Pakistani's outweight 1) and 2).
    , @Sunbeam
    Sorry Mr. Jones, my brain farted and I missed the "cost" in what you wrote.

    Hmmmm how's everyone doing after all that Kool-Aid BTW?
  110. Steve, you can use incognito browsers with Chrome to bypass access limits enforced through cookies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Steve, you can use incognito browsers with Chrome to bypass access limits enforced through cookies.

    I see... undocumented browsing. Information wants to be free!
  111. @StillCARealist
    I worked with a guy from India who had brought his entire family to the US over the years. he was doing pretty well and had a good middle class life. I asked him how it would have been for him had he stayed in India. He was certain he'd be upper middle class there and have plenty of advantages and privileges. then had he made a mistake in emigrating? Nope. He said even if you're hugely wealthy in India, you still have to live in India. You still are surrounded by squalor and liars and filth and crowds. the problem wasn't money or lifestyle, the problem was India.

    Fits with Steve’s definition of being poor: being poor is not having enough money to move away from other poor people.

    Read More
  112. @Joe Sweet
    OT:

    www.rt.com/uk/396649-trump-visit-khan-london/

    If Adolf Hitler flew in today
    they'd send a limousine anyway

    Not in PC crazed Londonistan they don't.

    “State visits are different from a normal visit, and at a time when the president of the USA has policies that many in our country disagree with, I am not sure it is appropriate for our government to roll out the red carpet,” Khan told CNN.

    That’s a pretty incredible statement. Do what we tell you, or we won’t recognize you as a valued and trusted ally!

    Nassim Taleb’s explanation for why little vegetarian girls turn their whole family vegetarian is always instructive to keep in mind in these situations. Also, that Khan is a Muslim. That is a real issue. If the US won’t be treated appropriately by a Muslim mayor, the city of London shouldn’t receive a state visit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Neither of Chrissie Hynde's parents went vegetarian. Much to their credit.
  113. El Dato says:
    @Wilkey
    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there’s no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish

    A country is a form of private property. It was fought for, bled for, and paid for (via taxes). The various levels of government (federal, state, and local) hold tens of trillions of dollars worth of assets in trust for the citizens. About 40% of Americans don't own a home. A huge fraction of the populace has negligible savings, little or no pension, and next to nothing in their 401(k). Their share in this country is the most valuable asset they own.

    Aside from pushing for open borders one of the biggest policy pushes of the rich - especially libertarians - is to eliminate the estate tax, which they like to call the "death tax." Taxing the inheritances of billionaires is immoral. Taxing the inheritance of the poor and middle class is perfectly ok.

    The various levels of government (federal, state, and local) hold tens of trillions of dollars worth of assets in trust for the citizens.

    Unfortunately, I have to tell you something about that …..

    Read More
  114. @inselaffen
    My point is mostly that followers of one branch of economic absolutism exalting it as the one true science to end all history and bring about nirvana did a lot of harm trying to reinvent humanity in their god's image before it all fell down. & Economists on the other (winning) side of history are equally fanatic, blinkered, and possibly even more destructive in the long term with the vision they're implementing post 1991.

    Oh, sure, Inselaffen, no argument with that paragraph coming either. However, it was the “muh free markets” comment that made no sense to me. The free market, see, is not an “-ism” at all and needs no economists of any sort to work it out, discover it, invent in, whatever.

    It’s like the Newton’s 1st law: An object under no net forces will stay put or keep moving with whatever velocity it has. It doesn’t care who knows that, or if anyone is even around to know that. It does what the physical law requires it to do whether discovered, named, or neither.

    Think of a free market like that, and then you will see what I mean.

    Read More
  115. El Dato says:
    @Barnard
    I used my free article at The Economist to read about the tragic dirt on the Mississippi Delta. Don't worry though, the SPLC is on the case.

    https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21725038-lawsuit-may-resonate-far-beyond-delta-ingenious-bid-force-improvements

    Sometimes I wonder why I dropped The Economist.

    Then I remember.

    Years of weird “acceptable” logic and Keynesianist (i.e. crazed ass-backwards) logic, warmongering on Iran and Iraq.

    The turning point was when the declared the Afghan Show “a just and necessary war”.

    But their cartoons were always top notch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonguy

    But their cartoons were always top notch.
     
    The "Trouble with Mergers" cover was pretty fun too.
  116. fish says:
    @jim jones
    University College, London estimates a cost of £95 billion as a result of immigration to the UK:

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.37

    University College, London estimates a cost of £95 billion as a result of immigration to the UK:

    See…..you do have to spend money to make money…..specifcally 78 trillion bazillion dollars for a mere £95 B. It’s just sound economics!

    Read More
  117. @John Derbyshire
    People keep telling me that, but I can never make it work. The incognito switch e.g. is no help with reading the Wall Street Journal.

    Derbyshire and his troops must hold out on Long Island if we are to resist the Hillary-voting hordes that will use Connecticut to pour out of New England to attack the mid-Atlantic states. Derbyshire has prepared and personally dug anti-tank traps on various parts of Long Island — especially close to the city where the Connecticut gap is weakest. Fulda Gap? Who cares, Connecticut Gap!

    Derbyshire’s Long Island is a patriotic Republican Party vote dashingly jutting out into the Atlantic. I don’t have to remind General Derbyshire that Connecticut invaders colonized New Jersey when the Dutch and Swedes still thought they were in charge. New Ark of the Covenant from Connecticut. Newark now is Africanized, alas.

    Read More
  118. Lurker says:
    @Macumazahn
    A HUNDRED-DOLLAR BILL is lying on the ground. An economist walks past it. A friend asks the economist: “Didn’t you see the money there?” The economist replies: “I thought I saw something, but I must have imagined it. If there had been $100 on the ground, someone would have picked it up.”

    If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true. But occasionally it is. Michael Clemens, an economist at the Centre for Global Development, an anti-poverty think-tank in Washington, DC, argues that there are “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”. One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

    Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

    “Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.



    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

    The potential gains from open borders dwarf those of, say, completely free trade, let alone foreign aid. Yet the idea is everywhere treated as a fantasy. In most countries fewer than 10% of people favour it. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, it is a political non-starter. Nonetheless, it is worth asking what might happen if borders were, indeed, open.

    To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

    Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace. It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada. The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists. Their poverty would thus become more visible to citizens of the rich world—who would see many more Liberians and Bangladeshis waiting tables and stacking shelves—but much less severe.

    If borders were open, how many people would up sticks? Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

    Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience. Migrants must wave goodbye to familiar people, familiar customs and grandma’s cooking. Many people would rather not make that sacrifice, even for the prospect of large material rewards.

    Wages are twice as high in Germany as in Greece, and under European Union rules Greeks are free to move to Germany, but only 150,000 have done so since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2010, out of a population of 11m. The weather is awful in Frankfurt, and hardly anyone speaks Greek. Even very large disparities combined with open borders do not necessarily lead to a mass exodus. Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

    Despite these caveats, it is a fair bet that open borders would lead to very large flows of people. The gap between rich and poor countries globally is much wider than the gap between the richest and less-rich countries within Europe, and most poor countries are not Pacific-island paradises. Many are violent as well as poor, or have oppressive governments.

    Also, migration is, in the jargon, “path-dependent”. It starts with a trickle: the first person to move from country A to country B typically arrives in a place where no one speaks his language or knows the right way to cook noodles. But the second migrant—who may be his brother or cousin—has someone to show him around. As word spreads on the diaspora grapevine that country B is a good place to live, more people set off from country A. When the 1,000th migrant arrives, he finds a whole neighbourhood of his compatriots.

    So the Gallup numbers could just as well be too low. Today there are 1.4bn people in rich countries and 6bn in not-so-rich ones. It is hardly far-fetched to imagine that, over a few decades, a billion or more of those people might emigrate if there were no legal obstacle to doing so. Clearly, this would transform rich countries in unpredictable ways.

    Voters in destination states typically do not mind a bit of immigration, but fret that truly open borders would lead to them being “swamped” by foreigners. This, they fear, would make life worse, and perhaps threaten the political system that made their country worth moving to in the first place. Mass migration, they worry, would bring more crime and terrorism, lower wages for locals, an impossible strain on welfare states, horrific overcrowding and traumatic cultural disruption.

    Open questions
    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. Granted, some immigrants commit crimes, or even headline-grabbing acts of terrorism. But in America the foreign-born are only a fifth as likely to be incarcerated as the native-born. In some European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

    Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.

    Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space. And mass migration would make the world as a whole less crowded, since fertility among migrants quickly plunges until it is much closer to the norm of their host country than their country of origin.

    Would mass immigration change the culture and politics of rich countries? Undoubtedly. Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today. Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.

    Eyes on the prize
    There are certainly risks if borders are opened suddenly and without the right policies to help absorb the inflow. But nearly all these risks could be mitigated, and many of the most common objections overcome, with a bit of creative thinking.

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.

    This sounds horribly discriminatory, and it is. But it is better for the migrants than the status quo, in which they are excluded from rich-world labour markets unless they pay tens of thousands of dollars to people-smugglers—and even then they must work in the shadows and are subject to sudden deportation. Today, millions of migrants work in the Gulf, where they have no political rights at all. Despite this, they keep coming. No one is forcing them to.

    “Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say...‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?

    If this is true then I agree with the earlier commenter – lets try an open borders experiment in Israel first. Or Marin County.

    Read More
  119. @WGG
    Ok, here's some *creative* thinking for you, Economist. America and Europe have the most to lose in your gambit, so show don't tell. Let us build our walls, while you create a global pulsating rainbow mob of the other 85% of the world. If we like what we see, maybe we will vote to join. you. If it becomes a waking Hell, we reserve the right to bomb it to extinction.

    You're so sure of yourselves, it should create even more investment opportunities for you doing it this way, because the West will be hedging against you. Since you guys are so right and so smart, there's really no downside! I pity the poor suckers who bet against the United third world. These new heroes will be known as the Eighty-fivers, not just for their percentage of the world, but for their mean IQ, as well. Enjoy your riches in Kampala, boys. We sure will miss you.

    Great challenge, WGG – let the market decide.

    Your comment should be an OPEN LETTER to Bryan Caplan and the whole damn Economist staff. In fact, as of now, it is.

    The problem is nobody reads open letters anymore. Maybe we could all write a registered open letter and make ‘em sign it. Oh, I know, get someone to “serve” it to them. I’d be glad to go to London and serve these miserable pukes.

    Read More
  120. druid says:
    @YetAnotherAnon
    re UK acid attacks, I noted the top three London attack areas had significant African populations. One case doesn't proof make, but it tallies with the black gangsta who said that "Somalis and Congolese introduced us to a whole new level of violence".

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4707102/Student-19-sprayed-heavily-pregnant-woman-acid.html


    "A college student sprayed a heavily pregnant woman and her partner with acid hours after they 'argued with a group of Somali men', a court has heard.

    The woman was left with burns to her 'baby bump' while her partner was hit in the face by the corrosive spray.

    Both were hospitalised after the assault with a corrosive substance in Mile End, east London, in the early hours of Tuesday, July 4.

    Mustafa Ahmed, 19, of Stepney, east London, appeared at Thames Magistrates Court on Tuesday charged with one count of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and one count of attempted wounding with intent to do GBH. "
     

    deport him and his family

    Read More
  121. @AM

    Back in the day, the argument that more people = more wealth, would have been dismissed summarily with the contempt it deserves.
     
    At no point in human history could the relationship of population to overall wealth be dismissed summarily, including right now.

    Let's ponder a livestock farm. Farming accounting lists every single live animal as a capital asset, even if they do eat food, get sick, take up space, poop, and are generally a pain to take care of. At no point in time would you say that the wealthier farm has 10 cattle versus one that has 100 cattle, assuming the same breed. Even if you assume the small farm has extremely valuable livestock, 10X for each individual head is quite the gap to make up.

    The first American generation that will not see a rise in it's standard of living is Generation X, a generation that is the same size or slightly smaller than the generation ahead of it. If you're looking to describe "peak wealth", that would be the Baby Boomers who represent "peak population" within the generations. Oops.

    So yes, the economists are correct to think about population. Before the industrial revolution, it would have been completely obvious that the wealthiest countries were actually the most populous. (The industrial revolution does tamper with the economics of population, but not that much.)

    What economists get wrong is the idea of adding any old person to the planet or your economy will improve things, if the point is to raise the GDP.

    Let's go back to our cattle farm again. Let's assume you got wealthy running the ranch but now it's too much work. You know that you need to keep the farm running properly to maintain your wealth, but you've taken short cut after short cut in keeping the animals healthy, happy, and reproductive. The cattle are already look bad, overweight from cheap food and not enough exercise. The best cows are being asked to fill in the gaps of incompetent ranch hands and not attending to what calves they have (okay, stretch, but work with me here). You see all this and think: This farm isn't going to be as wealthy in the future. I don't want to get poor but I don't want to work either. What if we just add some chickens? I can count those as heads of cattle for a while. We'll all stay rich, but mostly me will stay rich. And as long as it lasts until I die, I'm good. My kids can deal with whatever comes next.

    But chickens aren't cattle and never will be. It's just making all the problems within the herd worse. And of course, son's ranch will be nothing like what Dad inherited.

    Economists are dressing up some solid economic theory to make it seems like it justifies lack of interest in the running the farm properly. Concerns about population and it's relationship to the economy are sound. What is not is not sound are modern conclusions and solutions, including the unwillingness to just suck it up and be poorer for a while.

    One big flaw in this analogy, AM, is that when you keep acquiring more cattle, you need more pastureland, as you can’t raise them their whole lives in feedlots (nobody wants that). A farmer can spend that money for pasture land and come out ahead with an economy of scale.

    We can have more people here, but living conditions will get harder, as we finished manifesting destiny here about 100 years back. It’s much worse elsewhere, say China. Technology or no technology, China would be much better off with fewer people.

    I don’t even think if you went back to medieval times, it would have been true that more people meant greater wealth PER CAPITA, which is what matters to anyone beside the King. Back then, without a big enough army, everyone would suffer so there was that reason to be big in population. That is not a reason enough now.

    I agree with your last few paragraphs on the analogy with immigration from different cultures.

    Read More
  122. @the Supreme Gentleman
    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there's no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish (e.g. renting a house to immigrants.) (Obviously this a limited philosophy.)

    For example, I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don't want to live near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring that they can live in homogenous neighborhoods; but they would have a problem with people saying that everyone in society has to forcibly abide by those rules.

    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there’s no contradiction here: …

    Sorry Supreme, these “Open Borders libertarians” are full of obvious contradictions:

    1) Shared ownership.
    People have a shared property right in their nation. This is not a complicated idea–it’s common, stock ownership, partnerships, condo associations. By analogy think “county club”. The owners (or their ancestors) have done work to build it and make it nice. They pay to maintain it and keep it nice. And they benefit–fellow owners they can get along with and enjoy associating with and less crowding, etc.–precisely from the restriction of ownership.

    Open borders libertarians advocate stealing that shared ownership and giving it out to whoever wants it. It’s like tearing down the fence of your country club and saying everyone’s entitled to play on the course your own and pay for. Or Steve’s “dumb Steve” example of a company’s board printing new stock and giving it away to their friends.

    A very simple test of this is … could you sell it? Could you sell citizenship in the US or Canada or Germany or France? Obviously yes. I has real marketplace value. Value that belongs to the citizens of those nations.

    And the Open Borders goons agitate to give that value away! This isn’t “libertarianism” it’s some sort of radical redistributive socialism. That’s the real “Open Borders” program–theft!

    2) Freedom of Association.

    For example, I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don’t want to live near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring that they can live in homogenous neighborhoods

    Maybe some do. But
    a) That’s not the situation that actually exists. We no longer have freedom of association.
    b) The Open Borders goons do not advocate any linkage or “deal” where we get Open Borders along with Freedom of Association. Rather they agitate for Open Borders without Freedom of Association. In other words, they really don’t believe in or care about Freedom of Association, they care about breaking borders.
    c) Once you have “Open Borders” there is zero chance you’d ever get Freedom of Association. The huge benefit of immigration to non-whites is the opportunity for them to be around whites–enjoy the peace, prosperity and rule of law whites create, suck on their welfare system and–for some–get “even” by taking white women and otherwise hurting whites (sticking their nose in diversity, crime, terrorism). Once you have Open Borders the hordes are not going to vote to let whites to move away from them into their own mini-nations nor vote to cut back welfare. It’s just abjectly silly.

    ~

    That’s it–silliness. It’s either silliness or hate. The Open Borders loons as far as I can tell are motivated either by the same old ethnic resentments–they seem to be heavily Jewish or minority immigrants–or by some sort of autistic “religious” belief characteristic of an 18-year old “I’ve-got-this-idea-and-if-everyone-would-just-follow-it-everyone-would-be-great” ‘intellectual’.

    But their program Open Borders program has nothing to do with liberty. It’s a program of socialist pie-in-the-sky utopianism–communism writ big. And like the communist utopia, the Open Borders utopia would actually be an orgy of destruction of the hard work of millions over centuries. It’s a program of massive world wide theft.

    Read More
  123. The article endorses a worldwide kafala system, as currently practiced in the Persian/Arabian Gulf:

    Today, millions of migrants work in the Gulf, where they have no political rights at all. Despite this, they keep coming. No one is forcing them to.

    No one is forcing them, but they are often tricking or lying to them. As reported by, you know, The Economist:

    “OUR workers are treated worst in the Gulf,” says Walden Bello, a Filipino parliamentarian, referring to those of his countrymen who seek their fortune abroad. Millions of migrants, mainly from Asia and Africa, work in the Gulf and in the wider Middle East. Many pay up to $3,000 to recruitment agencies, only to find themselves working long hours for a pittance and with no time off in jobs that often differ vastly from the ones they signed up for back home. Mistreatment, including the sexual sort, is relatively common. The International Labour Organisation (ILO), a UN body, reckons that 600,000 workers in the region can be classed as victims of trafficking.

    https://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21583291-attempts-improve-lot-migrants-working-middle-east-are-unlikely

    Having a huge class of workers without rights can lead to some pretty bad situations. For example:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/maid-falling-ethiopian-kuwait-woman-films-domestic-workers-a7662381.html

    Read More
  124. Jack D says:
    @jim jones
    I wonder how they worked out that it would be exactly $78 trillion richer?

    $78 to call a cell phone in Mexico times a trillion phone calls. They forgot to mention that the whole $78 trillion goes to Carlos S(a)lim.

    Read More
  125. eD says:
    @AM

    Back in the day, the argument that more people = more wealth, would have been dismissed summarily with the contempt it deserves.
     
    At no point in human history could the relationship of population to overall wealth be dismissed summarily, including right now.

    Let's ponder a livestock farm. Farming accounting lists every single live animal as a capital asset, even if they do eat food, get sick, take up space, poop, and are generally a pain to take care of. At no point in time would you say that the wealthier farm has 10 cattle versus one that has 100 cattle, assuming the same breed. Even if you assume the small farm has extremely valuable livestock, 10X for each individual head is quite the gap to make up.

    The first American generation that will not see a rise in it's standard of living is Generation X, a generation that is the same size or slightly smaller than the generation ahead of it. If you're looking to describe "peak wealth", that would be the Baby Boomers who represent "peak population" within the generations. Oops.

    So yes, the economists are correct to think about population. Before the industrial revolution, it would have been completely obvious that the wealthiest countries were actually the most populous. (The industrial revolution does tamper with the economics of population, but not that much.)

    What economists get wrong is the idea of adding any old person to the planet or your economy will improve things, if the point is to raise the GDP.

    Let's go back to our cattle farm again. Let's assume you got wealthy running the ranch but now it's too much work. You know that you need to keep the farm running properly to maintain your wealth, but you've taken short cut after short cut in keeping the animals healthy, happy, and reproductive. The cattle are already look bad, overweight from cheap food and not enough exercise. The best cows are being asked to fill in the gaps of incompetent ranch hands and not attending to what calves they have (okay, stretch, but work with me here). You see all this and think: This farm isn't going to be as wealthy in the future. I don't want to get poor but I don't want to work either. What if we just add some chickens? I can count those as heads of cattle for a while. We'll all stay rich, but mostly me will stay rich. And as long as it lasts until I die, I'm good. My kids can deal with whatever comes next.

    But chickens aren't cattle and never will be. It's just making all the problems within the herd worse. And of course, son's ranch will be nothing like what Dad inherited.

    Economists are dressing up some solid economic theory to make it seems like it justifies lack of interest in the running the farm properly. Concerns about population and it's relationship to the economy are sound. What is not is not sound are modern conclusions and solutions, including the unwillingness to just suck it up and be poorer for a while.

    This is a really weird argument, but I will do my best to address it.

    1) People aren’t livestock.

    2) Farms don’t really work that way. And yes, you can have too much cattle.

    3) The industrial revolution didn’t change things “somewhat”. It changed everything, first by allowing for the substitution of human labor by machine labor, and then by enabling a literal sevenfold increase in the world’s population.

    4) Pre-industrial revolution, there was a co-relation somewhat between population and wealth, though in all ages the more highly developed economies didn’t need that many people, since most wealth was due to land and it had to be worked by hand, and if you had more people you could always send them out to grab more land. In addition to the machines, land is finite and there are tons more people, so this doesn’t hold true as much.

    Actually, 4) is still kind of true, Muslim countries are still sending out more people to grab more land!

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    1) People aren’t livestock.
     
    If cattle, pigs, chickens, horses and the like are economic assets in accounting, why aren't people? Just negating the statement doesn't make it so. I also pointed out the issue of future projections of Gen X's wealth and it's relative size compared to Boomers. The theory seems to hold correct right now in the current year. I need more of an argument than "No way Jose".

    2) Farms don’t really work that way. And yes, you can have too much cattle.
     
    Agreed on the later statement. Feed costs can go up, etc, etc. It does not negate my point about the net worth of a 10 cattle farm versus a 100 cattle farm. Please elaborate on what I'm missing farm wise. I'm interested, but blanket statements don't help me.

    It changed everything, first by allowing for the substitution of human labor by machine labor, and then by enabling a literal sevenfold increase in the world’s population.
     
    Which in turn reduced "feed" costs, which in turn gave more people more free time to come with increasingly clever ways to continue to be clever and rich.

    I've never experienced famine, here at peak population, and the wealthiest person alive in 1700 had nothing compared to what I have in terms of creature comforts and medical care. But it takes a lot of people to run modernity, even as we attempt to reduce our need for them. The machines don't run themselves nor did they invent themselves. You need a lot of clever people to invent a computers, build them, and run the internet. The issue is the low skilled labor finding jobs in such an environment.

    4) Pre-industrial revolution, there was a co-relation somewhat between population and wealth
     
    Nods are good about pre-industrial revolution. My initial post was reacting to the idea that it was "always" obvious people were not assets. :) It's only slightly less obvious now.
    , @Jack D
    We are on the verge of a 2nd Industrial Revolution - the AI Revolution - that will eliminate a vast number of jobs. Entire job categories that currently employ millions will largely disappear - truck driver, cab driver, fast food worker, retail clerk. Even so-called skilled professions - paralegal, radiologist, pharmacist, translator, court reporter, etc. will be largely replaced by bots who will produce measurably better results and fewer errors than the humans who are currently doing these jobs. The 1st Industrial Revolution demanded a certain amount of labor but the AI Revolution will take away many more jobs than it creates.

    There won't be enough jobs for the native born in the West let alone hordes of immigrants so the ideas in this article could not be more ill timed.
    , @Thea
    We could very easily be livestock for some far superior Cthulu like alien species that keeps itself hidden from us. We would never know.
    , @Tex

    1) People aren’t livestock.

    2) Farms don’t really work that way. And yes, you can have too much cattle.
     
    Very important points.

    The cattle argument misses the fact that cattle are a form of wealth while people organize, distribute, and enjoy the wealth. In this case though, only the wealth can reproduce the wealth. A bigger herd is worth more than a smaller one, if the cattle in the bigger herd aren't underweight, infected with rinderpest, wild scrub cattle, etc.

    Leaving aside the very real issues of overgrazing, it's a bit like making the argument that the wealthy ranch has twice as many cowboys as the poor one. So hire more cowboys and your ranch will be rich!
  126. Rod1963 says:

    The Economist is a fabian socialist/globalist rag.

    That said the whole purpose behind the Neoglobalists policy of open borders is to destroy wages and benefits so as to enrich those at the top.

    By making labor so plentiful that people will fight over some crappy job with no bennies is a capitalist’s wet dream come true.

    And by destroying nations and cultures across the world, it ensures no one will be able to rise against the new ruling elite.

    And the rest will be less than serfs – think of the lowest caste in India. That’s the fate of humanity if these elites get their way.

    The bottom line is people who promote this evil shit need to be dealt with. They are a clear and present danger to humanity.

    Read More
  127. A world with total freedom of movement would make the Top 300 people $78 Trillion richer … there, fixed it for y’all. It would lower the rest of us to a standard of living and security somewhere between Africa and Latin America.

    As for reducing terrorism, only because what we call terrorism now would simply be defined down to everyday crime on the mean streets.

    Read More
  128. BenjaminL says:
    @AM
    That trick for the WSJ used to work for me, but it doesn't right now. It maybe I need to clear my cache/cookies, but I haven't wanted to read much there since Trump came on the scene.

    The WSJ got rid of the “Google the headline” and incognito workarounds, I think; however, they left the Twitter loophole.

    Try to find the article on Twitter, then click on the link to the WSJ article that is contained within the tweet (it will be a “t.co…” link) and that should work.

    Example: https://t.co/30JJYL9VpO

    Read More
  129. The Economist magazine thinks central banker monetary extremism is great. The Economist says open borders mass immigration will increase world GDP by $78 trillion. The Economist magazine scribbling whores will say anything to push nation-wrecking mass immigration and globalization.

    The balance sheet of the European Central Bank is full of debt-based fiat currency euro units to the tune of 4.23 trillion euros. That is close to the entirety of Japanese GDP. The ECB seems to be the primary purchaser of government bonds for many European governments. There is no doubt that the ECB buys loads of European corporate bonds too.

    President Trump has gone after Comcast, which made me damn happy. It is an obscure magazine, but a lot of politician boobs read The Economist magazine, and it would be nice if President Trump said that The Economist is full of banker beans.

    Read More
  130. Jack D says:
    @Macumazahn
    A HUNDRED-DOLLAR BILL is lying on the ground. An economist walks past it. A friend asks the economist: “Didn’t you see the money there?” The economist replies: “I thought I saw something, but I must have imagined it. If there had been $100 on the ground, someone would have picked it up.”

    If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true. But occasionally it is. Michael Clemens, an economist at the Centre for Global Development, an anti-poverty think-tank in Washington, DC, argues that there are “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”. One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

    Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

    “Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.



    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

    The potential gains from open borders dwarf those of, say, completely free trade, let alone foreign aid. Yet the idea is everywhere treated as a fantasy. In most countries fewer than 10% of people favour it. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, it is a political non-starter. Nonetheless, it is worth asking what might happen if borders were, indeed, open.

    To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

    Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace. It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada. The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists. Their poverty would thus become more visible to citizens of the rich world—who would see many more Liberians and Bangladeshis waiting tables and stacking shelves—but much less severe.

    If borders were open, how many people would up sticks? Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

    Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience. Migrants must wave goodbye to familiar people, familiar customs and grandma’s cooking. Many people would rather not make that sacrifice, even for the prospect of large material rewards.

    Wages are twice as high in Germany as in Greece, and under European Union rules Greeks are free to move to Germany, but only 150,000 have done so since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2010, out of a population of 11m. The weather is awful in Frankfurt, and hardly anyone speaks Greek. Even very large disparities combined with open borders do not necessarily lead to a mass exodus. Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

    Despite these caveats, it is a fair bet that open borders would lead to very large flows of people. The gap between rich and poor countries globally is much wider than the gap between the richest and less-rich countries within Europe, and most poor countries are not Pacific-island paradises. Many are violent as well as poor, or have oppressive governments.

    Also, migration is, in the jargon, “path-dependent”. It starts with a trickle: the first person to move from country A to country B typically arrives in a place where no one speaks his language or knows the right way to cook noodles. But the second migrant—who may be his brother or cousin—has someone to show him around. As word spreads on the diaspora grapevine that country B is a good place to live, more people set off from country A. When the 1,000th migrant arrives, he finds a whole neighbourhood of his compatriots.

    So the Gallup numbers could just as well be too low. Today there are 1.4bn people in rich countries and 6bn in not-so-rich ones. It is hardly far-fetched to imagine that, over a few decades, a billion or more of those people might emigrate if there were no legal obstacle to doing so. Clearly, this would transform rich countries in unpredictable ways.

    Voters in destination states typically do not mind a bit of immigration, but fret that truly open borders would lead to them being “swamped” by foreigners. This, they fear, would make life worse, and perhaps threaten the political system that made their country worth moving to in the first place. Mass migration, they worry, would bring more crime and terrorism, lower wages for locals, an impossible strain on welfare states, horrific overcrowding and traumatic cultural disruption.

    Open questions
    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. Granted, some immigrants commit crimes, or even headline-grabbing acts of terrorism. But in America the foreign-born are only a fifth as likely to be incarcerated as the native-born. In some European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

    Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.

    Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space. And mass migration would make the world as a whole less crowded, since fertility among migrants quickly plunges until it is much closer to the norm of their host country than their country of origin.

    Would mass immigration change the culture and politics of rich countries? Undoubtedly. Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today. Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.

    Eyes on the prize
    There are certainly risks if borders are opened suddenly and without the right policies to help absorb the inflow. But nearly all these risks could be mitigated, and many of the most common objections overcome, with a bit of creative thinking.

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.

    This sounds horribly discriminatory, and it is. But it is better for the migrants than the status quo, in which they are excluded from rich-world labour markets unless they pay tens of thousands of dollars to people-smugglers—and even then they must work in the shadows and are subject to sudden deportation. Today, millions of migrants work in the Gulf, where they have no political rights at all. Despite this, they keep coming. No one is forcing them to.

    “Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say...‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?

    Even a Gulf Emirates style system of imported temporary laborers with no citizenship rights has many downsides, but such a system is inconceivable in the West. Even if we started out with such a system and they double-triple swore that the guest workers could never achieve full citizenship, how long would it be before there were pleas for “amnesty” and the granting of full citizenship to the foreign workers (and their wives, children, grandmas, siblings, etc.)? It would be done in salami slice fashion – OF COURSE we must grant full citizenship to the American born children of guest workers – that’s in the Constitution (somehow though no one can point to the specific words). But what about the children of guest workers who come here as babies or young children? And so on until the whole salami is on the table.

    As Democrats continue to alienate working class whites and upscale blue state whites forget to reproduce, the Democrats are in perpetual need of fresh immigrant blood to refresh their voter pool. If amnesty can’t be achieved democratically in the legislative branch they will do end runs thru the Democrat controlled executive or judicial branches. How do I know this will happen? Because it already has.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    they double-triple swore
     
    We need to start replacing the "double-triple swearing" BS (aka lying through their teeth) with binding contracts. For example, make the 1965 Immigration Act read that if the country demographics do change more than X% then immigration is shut down (rather than lying about how demographics won't change).
  131. AM says:
    @eD
    This is a really weird argument, but I will do my best to address it.

    1) People aren't livestock.

    2) Farms don't really work that way. And yes, you can have too much cattle.

    3) The industrial revolution didn't change things "somewhat". It changed everything, first by allowing for the substitution of human labor by machine labor, and then by enabling a literal sevenfold increase in the world's population.

    4) Pre-industrial revolution, there was a co-relation somewhat between population and wealth, though in all ages the more highly developed economies didn't need that many people, since most wealth was due to land and it had to be worked by hand, and if you had more people you could always send them out to grab more land. In addition to the machines, land is finite and there are tons more people, so this doesn't hold true as much.

    Actually, 4) is still kind of true, Muslim countries are still sending out more people to grab more land!

    1) People aren’t livestock.

    If cattle, pigs, chickens, horses and the like are economic assets in accounting, why aren’t people? Just negating the statement doesn’t make it so. I also pointed out the issue of future projections of Gen X’s wealth and it’s relative size compared to Boomers. The theory seems to hold correct right now in the current year. I need more of an argument than “No way Jose”.

    2) Farms don’t really work that way. And yes, you can have too much cattle.

    Agreed on the later statement. Feed costs can go up, etc, etc. It does not negate my point about the net worth of a 10 cattle farm versus a 100 cattle farm. Please elaborate on what I’m missing farm wise. I’m interested, but blanket statements don’t help me.

    It changed everything, first by allowing for the substitution of human labor by machine labor, and then by enabling a literal sevenfold increase in the world’s population.

    Which in turn reduced “feed” costs, which in turn gave more people more free time to come with increasingly clever ways to continue to be clever and rich.

    I’ve never experienced famine, here at peak population, and the wealthiest person alive in 1700 had nothing compared to what I have in terms of creature comforts and medical care. But it takes a lot of people to run modernity, even as we attempt to reduce our need for them. The machines don’t run themselves nor did they invent themselves. You need a lot of clever people to invent a computers, build them, and run the internet. The issue is the low skilled labor finding jobs in such an environment.

    4) Pre-industrial revolution, there was a co-relation somewhat between population and wealth

    Nods are good about pre-industrial revolution. My initial post was reacting to the idea that it was “always” obvious people were not assets. :) It’s only slightly less obvious now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tex

    If cattle, pigs, chickens, horses and the like are economic assets in accounting, why aren’t people?
     
    I'd go with, because the cattle, pigs, chickens, and horses don't get a say as to whether they will turned into hamburgers, leather pants, or mcnuggets. Unless of course you propose a more old-fashioned type of social relations, before that pesky 13th amendment.

    It does not negate my point about the net worth of a 10 cattle farm versus a 100 cattle farm.
     
    Back in the heyday of ranching, there were huge differences in the value of cattle based on biology. Texas longhorns were worth less than "improved" breeds because of weight, tractability, and disease transmission. Scrub cattle were worth a lot less than short horns that put on more weight. Ranchers were known to shoot scrub bulls to prevent them breeding with their costly improved breeds and thus diluting the bloodline. The longhorns carried tick fever, which was highly lethal to other breeds. There were many internal blockades, legal and otherwise, to stop longhorns from entering areas where ranchers and farmers feared disease.

    10 pasture-fed, high weight, fancy breed cattle might be worth more than 100 skinny, disease-ridden, scrubbies. In math, Quantity x Unit Price=Extension Price.

    Volume alone isn't the sole determination of value.
  132. Ivy says:
    @J. Dart
    There is already one first-world territory that has de jure open borders with at least three third world hellholes: any citizen of Afghanistan, Egypt, or Venezuela can move to Svalbard and live there peacefully under Norwegian law and Norwegian institutions, thanks to the Svalbard Treaty. So why isn't Svalbard the richest island on the planet?

    It's a bit windy and chilly there (slightly above 0 F in the winter), but $78 trillion extra dollars should cover a lot of heating bills and roof repairs. And of course, similarly awful weather hasn't stopped refugees from flooding into Canada, Finland, Norway proper, and other far-northern countries.

    So, instead of taking a chance on illegally sneaking into the US or Germany, why aren't Afghan asylum-seekers flooding to Svalbard where they'll never have to worry about being deported? Oh right, not enough of a native Norwegian population off of whom they can sponge welfare.

    Svalbard needs more cleaners to mop up after seed vault inundations. They asked for more engineers but those weren’t on offer. Now they can fulfill their destiny.

    Query: Are there rainbows in perpetually gray sky places like Svalbard? Or do they snap that one unicorn rainbow and reuse the image as needed?

    Read More
  133. Jack D says:
    @eD
    This is a really weird argument, but I will do my best to address it.

    1) People aren't livestock.

    2) Farms don't really work that way. And yes, you can have too much cattle.

    3) The industrial revolution didn't change things "somewhat". It changed everything, first by allowing for the substitution of human labor by machine labor, and then by enabling a literal sevenfold increase in the world's population.

    4) Pre-industrial revolution, there was a co-relation somewhat between population and wealth, though in all ages the more highly developed economies didn't need that many people, since most wealth was due to land and it had to be worked by hand, and if you had more people you could always send them out to grab more land. In addition to the machines, land is finite and there are tons more people, so this doesn't hold true as much.

    Actually, 4) is still kind of true, Muslim countries are still sending out more people to grab more land!

    We are on the verge of a 2nd Industrial Revolution – the AI Revolution – that will eliminate a vast number of jobs. Entire job categories that currently employ millions will largely disappear – truck driver, cab driver, fast food worker, retail clerk. Even so-called skilled professions – paralegal, radiologist, pharmacist, translator, court reporter, etc. will be largely replaced by bots who will produce measurably better results and fewer errors than the humans who are currently doing these jobs. The 1st Industrial Revolution demanded a certain amount of labor but the AI Revolution will take away many more jobs than it creates.

    There won’t be enough jobs for the native born in the West let alone hordes of immigrants so the ideas in this article could not be more ill timed.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis, Charles Pewitt
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    Brenda Walker of VDARE says:

    Automation makes immigration obsolete.

     

    Brenda Walker says:

    Legalization (with work permits) IS Amnesty.

     

    , @Brutusale
    My brother is up from Florida this week for a skillz update as an Amazon industrial drone warrior. He told me over drinks last night that the goal is a human-free warehouse by 2019.

    He was amused when I asked what happens to him when the drones program/repair themselves.
    , @Lot

    Even so-called skilled professions – paralegal, radiologist, pharmacist, translator, court reporter, etc.
     
    If this were happening, we would see an increase in productivity growth (more getting done with fewer human workers). In fact, we don't.

    Entire job categories that currently employ millions will largely disappear
     
    So? This has already largely happened to mail sorters, word processors/typing pool girls, TV repairmen. There is once again no evidence this is happening faster now than in the past, if anything it is happening more slowly.

    I think Tyler Cowen's pessimism about technological change from 2011 has held up pretty darn well.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Stagnation
    , @International Jew
    To believe that, you either need to be someone without much programming experience, or an AI researcher angling for a research grant.
  134. Thea says:
    @res
    It would to be interesting to see an iSteve post of key ideas for understanding the world as it really is. That could include well known (but apparently not well understood) ideas like the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns and the Tragedy of the Commons as well as less known ideas like HBD and Who, Whom?

    What would be everyone's top ten of such ideas to tell a teenager? With an emphasis on ideas that are either not presented or underemphasized in current education.

    Law of female journalists

    Read More
  135. Sunbeam says:
    @jim jones
    University College, London estimates a cost of £95 billion as a result of immigration to the UK:

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.37

    Which brings to mind a couple of questions.

    1) How much of that is due to the numbers of “elite” trader/financial/corporate people who go to London because of the city? Bringing their beautiful money with them.

    2) How much is due to various persons who came to the UK one step ahead of a firing squad (I’d have to google but London has been home to a fascinating number of people who used to lead countries and presumably looted them). Bringing their beautiful money with them and renting or buying palatial establishments in London (Always London).

    I might add Assad himself was an optometrist or something in London and from all accounts would have still been there if his brother had not died.

    3) How do I know I can trust the people who made this analysis? Because I’d think that the general uselessness of Pakistani’s outweight 1) and 2).

    Read More
  136. Thea says:
    @eD
    This is a really weird argument, but I will do my best to address it.

    1) People aren't livestock.

    2) Farms don't really work that way. And yes, you can have too much cattle.

    3) The industrial revolution didn't change things "somewhat". It changed everything, first by allowing for the substitution of human labor by machine labor, and then by enabling a literal sevenfold increase in the world's population.

    4) Pre-industrial revolution, there was a co-relation somewhat between population and wealth, though in all ages the more highly developed economies didn't need that many people, since most wealth was due to land and it had to be worked by hand, and if you had more people you could always send them out to grab more land. In addition to the machines, land is finite and there are tons more people, so this doesn't hold true as much.

    Actually, 4) is still kind of true, Muslim countries are still sending out more people to grab more land!

    We could very easily be livestock for some far superior Cthulu like alien species that keeps itself hidden from us. We would never know.

    Read More
  137. Sunbeam says:
    @jim jones
    University College, London estimates a cost of £95 billion as a result of immigration to the UK:

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.37

    Sorry Mr. Jones, my brain farted and I missed the “cost” in what you wrote.

    Hmmmm how’s everyone doing after all that Kool-Aid BTW?

    Read More
  138. @Jack D
    We are on the verge of a 2nd Industrial Revolution - the AI Revolution - that will eliminate a vast number of jobs. Entire job categories that currently employ millions will largely disappear - truck driver, cab driver, fast food worker, retail clerk. Even so-called skilled professions - paralegal, radiologist, pharmacist, translator, court reporter, etc. will be largely replaced by bots who will produce measurably better results and fewer errors than the humans who are currently doing these jobs. The 1st Industrial Revolution demanded a certain amount of labor but the AI Revolution will take away many more jobs than it creates.

    There won't be enough jobs for the native born in the West let alone hordes of immigrants so the ideas in this article could not be more ill timed.

    Brenda Walker of VDARE says:

    Automation makes immigration obsolete.

    Brenda Walker says:

    Legalization (with work permits) IS Amnesty.

    Read More
  139. res says:
    @Jack D
    Even a Gulf Emirates style system of imported temporary laborers with no citizenship rights has many downsides, but such a system is inconceivable in the West. Even if we started out with such a system and they double-triple swore that the guest workers could never achieve full citizenship, how long would it be before there were pleas for "amnesty" and the granting of full citizenship to the foreign workers (and their wives, children, grandmas, siblings, etc.)? It would be done in salami slice fashion - OF COURSE we must grant full citizenship to the American born children of guest workers - that's in the Constitution (somehow though no one can point to the specific words). But what about the children of guest workers who come here as babies or young children? And so on until the whole salami is on the table.

    As Democrats continue to alienate working class whites and upscale blue state whites forget to reproduce, the Democrats are in perpetual need of fresh immigrant blood to refresh their voter pool. If amnesty can't be achieved democratically in the legislative branch they will do end runs thru the Democrat controlled executive or judicial branches. How do I know this will happen? Because it already has.

    they double-triple swore

    We need to start replacing the “double-triple swearing” BS (aka lying through their teeth) with binding contracts. For example, make the 1965 Immigration Act read that if the country demographics do change more than X% then immigration is shut down (rather than lying about how demographics won’t change).

    Read More
  140. Jack D says:
    @Macumazahn
    A HUNDRED-DOLLAR BILL is lying on the ground. An economist walks past it. A friend asks the economist: “Didn’t you see the money there?” The economist replies: “I thought I saw something, but I must have imagined it. If there had been $100 on the ground, someone would have picked it up.”

    If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true. But occasionally it is. Michael Clemens, an economist at the Centre for Global Development, an anti-poverty think-tank in Washington, DC, argues that there are “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”. One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

    Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

    “Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.



    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

    The potential gains from open borders dwarf those of, say, completely free trade, let alone foreign aid. Yet the idea is everywhere treated as a fantasy. In most countries fewer than 10% of people favour it. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, it is a political non-starter. Nonetheless, it is worth asking what might happen if borders were, indeed, open.

    To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

    Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace. It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada. The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists. Their poverty would thus become more visible to citizens of the rich world—who would see many more Liberians and Bangladeshis waiting tables and stacking shelves—but much less severe.

    If borders were open, how many people would up sticks? Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

    Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience. Migrants must wave goodbye to familiar people, familiar customs and grandma’s cooking. Many people would rather not make that sacrifice, even for the prospect of large material rewards.

    Wages are twice as high in Germany as in Greece, and under European Union rules Greeks are free to move to Germany, but only 150,000 have done so since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2010, out of a population of 11m. The weather is awful in Frankfurt, and hardly anyone speaks Greek. Even very large disparities combined with open borders do not necessarily lead to a mass exodus. Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

    Despite these caveats, it is a fair bet that open borders would lead to very large flows of people. The gap between rich and poor countries globally is much wider than the gap between the richest and less-rich countries within Europe, and most poor countries are not Pacific-island paradises. Many are violent as well as poor, or have oppressive governments.

    Also, migration is, in the jargon, “path-dependent”. It starts with a trickle: the first person to move from country A to country B typically arrives in a place where no one speaks his language or knows the right way to cook noodles. But the second migrant—who may be his brother or cousin—has someone to show him around. As word spreads on the diaspora grapevine that country B is a good place to live, more people set off from country A. When the 1,000th migrant arrives, he finds a whole neighbourhood of his compatriots.

    So the Gallup numbers could just as well be too low. Today there are 1.4bn people in rich countries and 6bn in not-so-rich ones. It is hardly far-fetched to imagine that, over a few decades, a billion or more of those people might emigrate if there were no legal obstacle to doing so. Clearly, this would transform rich countries in unpredictable ways.

    Voters in destination states typically do not mind a bit of immigration, but fret that truly open borders would lead to them being “swamped” by foreigners. This, they fear, would make life worse, and perhaps threaten the political system that made their country worth moving to in the first place. Mass migration, they worry, would bring more crime and terrorism, lower wages for locals, an impossible strain on welfare states, horrific overcrowding and traumatic cultural disruption.

    Open questions
    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. Granted, some immigrants commit crimes, or even headline-grabbing acts of terrorism. But in America the foreign-born are only a fifth as likely to be incarcerated as the native-born. In some European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

    Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.

    Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space. And mass migration would make the world as a whole less crowded, since fertility among migrants quickly plunges until it is much closer to the norm of their host country than their country of origin.

    Would mass immigration change the culture and politics of rich countries? Undoubtedly. Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today. Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.

    Eyes on the prize
    There are certainly risks if borders are opened suddenly and without the right policies to help absorb the inflow. But nearly all these risks could be mitigated, and many of the most common objections overcome, with a bit of creative thinking.

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.

    This sounds horribly discriminatory, and it is. But it is better for the migrants than the status quo, in which they are excluded from rich-world labour markets unless they pay tens of thousands of dollars to people-smugglers—and even then they must work in the shadows and are subject to sudden deportation. Today, millions of migrants work in the Gulf, where they have no political rights at all. Despite this, they keep coming. No one is forcing them to.

    “Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say...‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?

    Here’s an idea. Instead of making Africans, Mexicans, Indians, etc. move to the US to increase the value of their labor, let them stay home (all other things being equal, most people would prefer to remain in their native land where they have friends, family, familiar foods and customs, etc.) and the West will import into these countries the legal structures and physical infrastructure to make these people productive – we’ll build railroads, schools, courthouses, etc. for them and import civil servants to administer these in an efficient way instead of corrupt local elites. What we can do is split up the various third world countries among the advanced nations – the British will get India, the French will get Syria, the Spanish and Portuguese will get Latin America, and so on until each 3rd world country is under the protection of some advanced Western nation. Even small European countries such as Belgium and Denmark will be assigned a few countries or islands for them to protect and nurture. Wouldn’t that be a great idea instead of uprooting countless millions from their native lands?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    Back Jack, do it again; wheel turning, round and round.

    https://youtu.be/sil76t2X_DE
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Instead of making Africans, Mexicans, Indians, etc. move to the US to increase the value of their labor, let them stay home (all other things being equal, most people would prefer to remain in their native land where they have friends, family, familiar foods and customs, etc.) and the West will import into these countries the legal structures and physical infrastructure to make these people productive – we’ll build railroads, schools, courthouses, etc. for them and import civil servants to administer these in an efficient way instead of corrupt local elites.
     
    You have describe imperialism well Jack. And as John Derbyshire has pointed out, at least for British rule, the imperial system was much better for the colonies than what followed.

    But your prescription, though better for those you have identified above, will be roundly condemned by the advocates of a system that murdered more than 100 million people in the 20th century. We are ruled by the adherents of a death cult.

    Great idea Jack, but its implementation is utterly hopeless. At least hopeless in the short run.
  141. Pericles says:
    @Anonymous
    Magic Unicorn Theory.

    - Apparently, Adam Smith and others attempted to put a rationalized, enlightenment-valued analysis on the factors which determine the 'wealth of nations'. And that was back in the 18th century.
    But, the present day Economist magazine believes in the voodoo like belief that there is a direct correlation between the density of warm bodies packed onto 'magic' soil and 'economic growth'.

    Absurd.

    Adding more third world bodies might not mean more workers but in the west at least implies increased government spending, which means increased GDP, which is great. Are you not amused?

    Read More
  142. Pericles says:
    @Achilles
    Was it not Bill Kristol who suggested that the surplus First World workers could be made into Soylent Green for supplying the lunch breaks of the New Americans and the New Europeans?

    Not only would that turn a cost into a benefit, but those First World workers might at any moment grab their swastikas and Confederate battle flags and put the globalists into ovens, so the better to deal with them preemptively.

    Was it not Bill Kristol who suggested that the surplus First World workers could be made into Soylent Green for supplying the lunch breaks of the New Americans and the New Europeans?

    Hmmm. Would there be ovens involved? Asking for a friend.

    Read More
  143. anonn says:

    The whole article is worth reading. You can’t go even one paragraph before finding some stunningly idiotic tripe. This should be handed out to anyone on the right or the left who is tempted, for even a second, by libertarianism. They really believe this garbage.

    If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true. But occasionally it is…. One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders….Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.
    “Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik…“Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik.

    Bryan Caplan, a wealthy and successful economist, does not know what a commodity is.

    If borders were open, how many people would up sticks? Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

    This would also lead to civil wars in every single one of the countries so affected, and would likely double the carbon emissions coming from the West. This would accelerate climate change, making today’s worst-case scenarios inevitable. Much of the globe would be uninhabitable within our childrens’ lifetimes. Great, thanks libertarians!

    Today there are 1.4bn people in rich countries and 6bn in not-so-rich ones. It is hardly far-fetched to imagine that, over a few decades, a billion or more of those people might emigrate if there were no legal obstacle to doing so. Clearly, this would transform rich countries in unpredictable ways….
    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it…
    Would mass immigration change the culture and politics of rich countries? Undoubtedly. Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today. Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.

    Much worse that the prospect of an Islamist government is the prospect of slightly higher taxes for billionaires.

    “Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say…‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?

    Don’t worry about the schools being worse, at least the GDP is higher. Don’t worry that you can’t afford rent or food, at least the GDP is higher. Don’t worry about crime, at least the GDP is higher.
    All of the mitigation in the world isn’t going to help the workers in the West from the damage that’s being done to them by these terrible ideas. I would propose, instead, that $78 trillion of unearned wealth be confiscated from Mr Caplan and the assorted parasites who support him, and given to the workers whose lives he proposes to ruin.
    The best way to improve the lives of the 1-5 billion people Mr Caplan proposes to move to the West would be to parachute thousands of AK-47s into their villages and support them crushing the capitalist neoliberal looters running their terrible countries.

    Read More
  144. Sean says:

    Contrary to what scientists will tell you, evolution does show a definite long term trend towards improvement. So does the planet’s economy. Yes, we are going to get the border-less world sooner or later and yes it will be extremely efficient with exponential advancement for humanity. The irony is that the hyper-progress of a cooperating planet must destroy it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato

    Contrary to what scientists will tell you, evolution does show a definite long term trend towards improvement.
     
    Wrong. Only to complexity if the environment allows for it it.

    Once the environment doesn't permit it, it's back to dwarf elephants, hardy rodents and tardigrades.


    So does the planet’s economy.
     
    Again, only if the environment permits it. Civilizations do not necessarily hold over the long run, they may crash & burn and shed headcount fiercely.

    Anyone who thinks there is a magic improvement arrow should revise his basic assumptions. This is also the completely bonkers magic assumption underlying Whig Historiography.

  145. Olorin says:
    @the Supreme Gentleman
    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there's no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish (e.g. renting a house to immigrants.) (Obviously this a limited philosophy.)

    For example, I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don't want to live near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring that they can live in homogenous neighborhoods; but they would have a problem with people saying that everyone in society has to forcibly abide by those rules.

    no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms

    IOW, utopia for lawyers and accountants.

    Read More
  146. @AM
    That trick for the WSJ used to work for me, but it doesn't right now. It maybe I need to clear my cache/cookies, but I haven't wanted to read much there since Trump came on the scene.

    That doesn’t work for me on the WSJ any longer either. I’ve tried using different browsers, different devices, VPN, incognito/private browsing mode etc…

    Read More
  147. @Jack D
    Here's an idea. Instead of making Africans, Mexicans, Indians, etc. move to the US to increase the value of their labor, let them stay home (all other things being equal, most people would prefer to remain in their native land where they have friends, family, familiar foods and customs, etc.) and the West will import into these countries the legal structures and physical infrastructure to make these people productive - we'll build railroads, schools, courthouses, etc. for them and import civil servants to administer these in an efficient way instead of corrupt local elites. What we can do is split up the various third world countries among the advanced nations - the British will get India, the French will get Syria, the Spanish and Portuguese will get Latin America, and so on until each 3rd world country is under the protection of some advanced Western nation. Even small European countries such as Belgium and Denmark will be assigned a few countries or islands for them to protect and nurture. Wouldn't that be a great idea instead of uprooting countless millions from their native lands?

    Back Jack, do it again; wheel turning, round and round.

    Read More
  148. The key error is the rationalistic belief that people are fungible (e.g. economic units). They aren’t.

    Rationalism is the manipulation of abstract symbols without regard for their referents, leading to cascading errors when propositions containing them are put into practice. On paper, the word “people” looks like an algebraic “x.” Everything becomes like working an equation: “People create value. Therefore, more people, more value!” While this looks logical on paper, left unexamined are such questions as: which people? Serial killers? People with an IQ of 50? The rationalist sweeps reality aside: “People = people! Therefore, my ideal society follows logically!!”

    “Magic soil” or a cargo cult mentality is simply an instance of rationalism. “The means of production” are regarded as a given in the Economist’s equation; they are simply THERE somehow, to be used. (“Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system.”) Where did these usufructs come from? Who maintains them and what for? To a rationalist, these questions fall outside the current equation and therefore their referents effectively do not exist.

    Reducing life to an equation leaves out many moving parts. But if you point that out to a rationalist, the response will be:

    1. You are too stupid to understand abstractions. I have a degree in this!!

    or else

    2. I’m an idealist. Sure, in real life my equations end up creating mountains of corpses and vast areas of smoking ruins, but I think we must always shoot for the stars!

    Read More
  149. Tex says:
    @eD
    This is a really weird argument, but I will do my best to address it.

    1) People aren't livestock.

    2) Farms don't really work that way. And yes, you can have too much cattle.

    3) The industrial revolution didn't change things "somewhat". It changed everything, first by allowing for the substitution of human labor by machine labor, and then by enabling a literal sevenfold increase in the world's population.

    4) Pre-industrial revolution, there was a co-relation somewhat between population and wealth, though in all ages the more highly developed economies didn't need that many people, since most wealth was due to land and it had to be worked by hand, and if you had more people you could always send them out to grab more land. In addition to the machines, land is finite and there are tons more people, so this doesn't hold true as much.

    Actually, 4) is still kind of true, Muslim countries are still sending out more people to grab more land!

    1) People aren’t livestock.

    2) Farms don’t really work that way. And yes, you can have too much cattle.

    Very important points.

    The cattle argument misses the fact that cattle are a form of wealth while people organize, distribute, and enjoy the wealth. In this case though, only the wealth can reproduce the wealth. A bigger herd is worth more than a smaller one, if the cattle in the bigger herd aren’t underweight, infected with rinderpest, wild scrub cattle, etc.

    Leaving aside the very real issues of overgrazing, it’s a bit like making the argument that the wealthy ranch has twice as many cowboys as the poor one. So hire more cowboys and your ranch will be rich!

    Read More
  150. El Dato says:
    @Sean
    Contrary to what scientists will tell you, evolution does show a definite long term trend towards improvement. So does the planet's economy. Yes, we are going to get the border-less world sooner or later and yes it will be extremely efficient with exponential advancement for humanity. The irony is that the hyper-progress of a cooperating planet must destroy it.

    Contrary to what scientists will tell you, evolution does show a definite long term trend towards improvement.

    Wrong. Only to complexity if the environment allows for it it.

    Once the environment doesn’t permit it, it’s back to dwarf elephants, hardy rodents and tardigrades.

    So does the planet’s economy.

    Again, only if the environment permits it. Civilizations do not necessarily hold over the long run, they may crash & burn and shed headcount fiercely.

    Anyone who thinks there is a magic improvement arrow should revise his basic assumptions. This is also the completely bonkers magic assumption underlying Whig Historiography.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    This is also the completely bonkers magic assumption underlying Whig Historiography.
     
    You mean the strawman version of Whig historians.
    , @Sean
    We have capitalism and modern humans, by my way of thinking both are indisputably better than what went before, and not just more "complex". Scientists don't claim there is a an evolutionary trend toward complexity if the environment permits it. Steven Jay Gould 's book Wonderful Life said the evolution of multi-celled animals, mammals and humans was entirely contingent (like the welfare of the town was on the lead character in the Capra film). Gould said there was an series of unlikely occurrences (including random mass disaster extinctions of the otherwise most viable species) producing the fluke emergence of modern humans (ie intelligence). Although he doesn't say so, it follows that even on a planet such as Earth, the evolution of technology-capable intelligent life is about as likely as a rollover lottery win and Earth is surely the only place it ever happened in the entire history of the Universe. Consistent with the aforementioned humans-are-a-fluke argument, there is no sign of alien radio wave communication in the Universe. But to me it lacks credibility that technological capable aliens never existed and we are the unique result of a series of freakish coincidences, just as it is unbelievable James Stewart's character was the only man his wife in the film could have married.

    The French have agreed to Macron's deal, which is to sell out to international capital rather than accept the losses its leveraging caused.Mass extinction events loomed large in the emergence of the lineages that led to modern humans, and increasingly deep financial crashes caused by the banks are the economic analogy. Massive leveraging is still an integral part of capitalism (which is the most effective wealth-creator). The next crash will lead to people being faced with the prospect of kissing their country's borders or their financial future goodbye. Like the Scots giving up their independence from England after Scotland's Darien Scheme ended in disaster, the West will sell out and get rid of borders for the avoidance of pauperisation.

  151. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The ultimate refutation is this:
    Surely, if massive uncontrolled immigration of paupers was *the* determinant of ‘wealth’, surely Bangladesh, as just one example, would court the mass immigration of Nigerians or Malians or Afghanis etc etc.
    But somehow Caplan never but never advocates *that*, he would probably use the same epithets ‘absurd’, ‘garbage’ used here.
    But surely, the whole point of dogmatic pompous ‘economic laws’ is that they apply *generally*, otherwise they are pretty damned worthless as ‘laws’ or even correlations.

    Read More
  152. OT

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-17/germany-infectious-diseases-spreading-migrants-settle

    “A new report by the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the federal government’s central institution for monitoring and preventing diseases, confirms an across-the-board increase in disease since 2015, when Germany took in an unprecedented number of migrants.

    The Infectious Disease Epidemiology Annual Report — which was published on July 12, 2017 and provides data on the status of more than 50 infectious diseases in Germany during 2016 — offers the first glimpse into the public health consequences of the massive influx of migrants in late 2015.

    The report shows increased incidences in Germany of adenoviral conjunctivitis, botulism, chicken pox, cholera, cryptosporidiosis, dengue fever, echinococcosis, enterohemorrhagic E. coli, giardiasis, haemophilus influenza, Hantavirus, hepatitis, hemorrhagic fever, HIV/AIDS, leprosy, louse-borne relapsing fever, malaria, measles, meningococcal disease, meningoencephalitis, mumps, paratyphoid, rubella, shigellosis, syphilis, toxoplasmosis, trichinellosis, tuberculosis, tularemia, typhus and whooping cough.”

    Also OT – a Google employee has a good play with people’s data and doesn’t like what he finds. One or two little gold nuggets among the boilerplate.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/09/everybody-lies-how-google-reveals-darkest-secrets-seth-stephens-davidowitz

    “Muslims are the only group stereotyped as terrorists. When a Muslim American plays into this stereotype (by shooting dead 14 of their colleagues at a Christmas party – no hate there – YAA) , the response can be instantaneous and vicious. Google search data can give us a minute-by-minute peek into such eruptions of hate-fuelled rage.

    I think the degree to which people are self-absorbed is pretty shocking.

    When Trump became president, all my friends said how anxious they were, they couldn’t sleep because they’re so concerned about immigrants and the Muslim ban. But from the data you can see that in liberal parts of the country there wasn’t a rise in anxiety when Trump was elected. When people were waking up at 3am in a cold sweat, their searches were about their job, their health, their relationship – they’re not concerned about the Muslim ban or global warming.

    Was the Google search data telling you that Trump was going to win?
    I did see that Trump was going to win. You saw clearly that African American turnout was going to be way down, because in cities with 95% black people there was a collapse in searches for voting information. That was a big reason Hillary Clinton did so much worse than the polls suggested.”

    Read More
  153. Fredrik says:
    @Anonymous
    Hey, you dropped the "But in America" immigrants commit less crime than natives into the ellipsis -- that's important stuff.

    How many more howlers?


    Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs... might vote for an Islamist government...

    ... But nearly all these risks could be mitigated ... with a bit of creative thinking.
     

    "Creative thinking":

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime.

    ... If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits?
     

    We didn't think to restrict the welfare benefits of African migrant workers into the twentieth generation because we weren't thinking creatively back then.

    ... ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?
     
    This time we undergo political upheaval on an unimaginable scale just to import a foreign worker underclass for the enrichment the Economist class, they'll be cutting us a slice of the pie. Promise!

    To be fair. What you quoted sounds like justification for Apartheid or Gulf servitude.

    Bring them “here” but treat them like sub-humans.

    With a little creative thinking from people concerned for the future of their homes this could and should be shot down easily.

    Read More
  154. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @AM

    Back in the day, the argument that more people = more wealth, would have been dismissed summarily with the contempt it deserves.
     
    At no point in human history could the relationship of population to overall wealth be dismissed summarily, including right now.

    Let's ponder a livestock farm. Farming accounting lists every single live animal as a capital asset, even if they do eat food, get sick, take up space, poop, and are generally a pain to take care of. At no point in time would you say that the wealthier farm has 10 cattle versus one that has 100 cattle, assuming the same breed. Even if you assume the small farm has extremely valuable livestock, 10X for each individual head is quite the gap to make up.

    The first American generation that will not see a rise in it's standard of living is Generation X, a generation that is the same size or slightly smaller than the generation ahead of it. If you're looking to describe "peak wealth", that would be the Baby Boomers who represent "peak population" within the generations. Oops.

    So yes, the economists are correct to think about population. Before the industrial revolution, it would have been completely obvious that the wealthiest countries were actually the most populous. (The industrial revolution does tamper with the economics of population, but not that much.)

    What economists get wrong is the idea of adding any old person to the planet or your economy will improve things, if the point is to raise the GDP.

    Let's go back to our cattle farm again. Let's assume you got wealthy running the ranch but now it's too much work. You know that you need to keep the farm running properly to maintain your wealth, but you've taken short cut after short cut in keeping the animals healthy, happy, and reproductive. The cattle are already look bad, overweight from cheap food and not enough exercise. The best cows are being asked to fill in the gaps of incompetent ranch hands and not attending to what calves they have (okay, stretch, but work with me here). You see all this and think: This farm isn't going to be as wealthy in the future. I don't want to get poor but I don't want to work either. What if we just add some chickens? I can count those as heads of cattle for a while. We'll all stay rich, but mostly me will stay rich. And as long as it lasts until I die, I'm good. My kids can deal with whatever comes next.

    But chickens aren't cattle and never will be. It's just making all the problems within the herd worse. And of course, son's ranch will be nothing like what Dad inherited.

    Economists are dressing up some solid economic theory to make it seems like it justifies lack of interest in the running the farm properly. Concerns about population and it's relationship to the economy are sound. What is not is not sound are modern conclusions and solutions, including the unwillingness to just suck it up and be poorer for a while.

    Irish potato famine.

    Within memory of those alive today, China, always the world’s most populous nation was wrecked by famine after famine,extreme poverty, actual starvation on the streets and the direst poverty imaginable.

    Read More
  155. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Would it be possible to institute this ideology/morality/religion of The Economist under some kind of Georgist system (i.e. tax land ownership and nothing else)? The people who benefit from foreign hordes tend to be top-hatted capitalists, rentier class, or politicians on the make, on the shared basic principle of “Privatize the profit, socialize the cost.” It would squeeze native born non-homeowners too, of course. But if the lil’ DREAMers had to pay more in order to live near to the grunt peasant jobs, and the fat cats had to design their personnel strategy to not depend on the 9-5 operation of sweatshop-factories of unskilled warm bodies but mechanization instead, then the migration flow would be restrained by equilibrium, right? As opposed to what we have now, where the illegals come & stay without making any cost-benefit judgments because they’ll soak up the DirecTV during spells of unemployment, which is abetted by the government paying people not to work. It’s exploitation of the fuzzy line of artificial private/public property distinctions. Anyway, I agree w/ whoever said The Economist sounds like a magazine written for corrupt plutocrats in Hellholistan thinking of b.s. cover stories to finangle visas for their extended brood.

    Read More
  156. Tex says:
    @AM

    1) People aren’t livestock.
     
    If cattle, pigs, chickens, horses and the like are economic assets in accounting, why aren't people? Just negating the statement doesn't make it so. I also pointed out the issue of future projections of Gen X's wealth and it's relative size compared to Boomers. The theory seems to hold correct right now in the current year. I need more of an argument than "No way Jose".

    2) Farms don’t really work that way. And yes, you can have too much cattle.
     
    Agreed on the later statement. Feed costs can go up, etc, etc. It does not negate my point about the net worth of a 10 cattle farm versus a 100 cattle farm. Please elaborate on what I'm missing farm wise. I'm interested, but blanket statements don't help me.

    It changed everything, first by allowing for the substitution of human labor by machine labor, and then by enabling a literal sevenfold increase in the world’s population.
     
    Which in turn reduced "feed" costs, which in turn gave more people more free time to come with increasingly clever ways to continue to be clever and rich.

    I've never experienced famine, here at peak population, and the wealthiest person alive in 1700 had nothing compared to what I have in terms of creature comforts and medical care. But it takes a lot of people to run modernity, even as we attempt to reduce our need for them. The machines don't run themselves nor did they invent themselves. You need a lot of clever people to invent a computers, build them, and run the internet. The issue is the low skilled labor finding jobs in such an environment.

    4) Pre-industrial revolution, there was a co-relation somewhat between population and wealth
     
    Nods are good about pre-industrial revolution. My initial post was reacting to the idea that it was "always" obvious people were not assets. :) It's only slightly less obvious now.

    If cattle, pigs, chickens, horses and the like are economic assets in accounting, why aren’t people?

    I’d go with, because the cattle, pigs, chickens, and horses don’t get a say as to whether they will turned into hamburgers, leather pants, or mcnuggets. Unless of course you propose a more old-fashioned type of social relations, before that pesky 13th amendment.

    It does not negate my point about the net worth of a 10 cattle farm versus a 100 cattle farm.

    Back in the heyday of ranching, there were huge differences in the value of cattle based on biology. Texas longhorns were worth less than “improved” breeds because of weight, tractability, and disease transmission. Scrub cattle were worth a lot less than short horns that put on more weight. Ranchers were known to shoot scrub bulls to prevent them breeding with their costly improved breeds and thus diluting the bloodline. The longhorns carried tick fever, which was highly lethal to other breeds. There were many internal blockades, legal and otherwise, to stop longhorns from entering areas where ranchers and farmers feared disease.

    10 pasture-fed, high weight, fancy breed cattle might be worth more than 100 skinny, disease-ridden, scrubbies. In math, Quantity x Unit Price=Extension Price.

    Volume alone isn’t the sole determination of value.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    I’d go with, because the cattle, pigs, chickens, and horses don’t get a say as to whether they will turned into hamburgers, leather pants, or mcnuggets. Unless of course you propose a more old-fashioned type of social relations, before that pesky 13th amendment.
     
    LOL! There seems to a consistent set of moral objections to an entirely economic question. So let's go to the bad old days to see if I can be clearer.

    If you owned a plantation in the South circa 1750 and asked for an audit of your finances, the slaves would count. Not only would they count, they would be filed under capital assets, and subject to the usual accounting that deals with that. The more healthy able-bodied slaves you owned, the greater your net worth, end of statement. Jefferson was one of the richest men in Virginia and he owned a all sorts of slaves, along with land.

    Slaves had a market value, affected by the same factors that affect livestock animals. I know the comparison to animals offends deeply, sometimes to people in other contexts, are quite happy to point out that the Earth is completely over populated and certainly someone else should stop eating/and or stop having children. grin

    Anyway, part of the reason it became fashionable in the North particularly to free slaves was the recognition out that slaves were indeed capital assets, increasingly expensive, inflexible, and illiquid. The popularity of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations encouraged the use of disposable, ie day labor. If someone got sick or hurt while working, they weren't your problem! Boy, that was big moral advance.

    But I digress. The point is that people are, in purely economic terms, assets just like livestock animals. If they are not formally to an employer, they certainly are to a nation-state. It doesn't matter what you feel about that classification, because it's not a moral judgement and it's not a discussion about the morality of the thing.

    Back in the heyday of ranching, there were huge differences in the value of cattle based on biology.
     
    Yes, I address this in my original post. The differences in quality could be assigned a market value and then you add them all up and get the value of the general asset. However, was there a breed that was really 10X the worst breed? Roughly speaking my example still holds, even with variations in quality. In an apples to apples comparison, a ranch with 10 longhorns will still have a smaller net worth than a ranch with 100 longhorns.
  157. Brutusale says:
    @Jack D
    We are on the verge of a 2nd Industrial Revolution - the AI Revolution - that will eliminate a vast number of jobs. Entire job categories that currently employ millions will largely disappear - truck driver, cab driver, fast food worker, retail clerk. Even so-called skilled professions - paralegal, radiologist, pharmacist, translator, court reporter, etc. will be largely replaced by bots who will produce measurably better results and fewer errors than the humans who are currently doing these jobs. The 1st Industrial Revolution demanded a certain amount of labor but the AI Revolution will take away many more jobs than it creates.

    There won't be enough jobs for the native born in the West let alone hordes of immigrants so the ideas in this article could not be more ill timed.

    My brother is up from Florida this week for a skillz update as an Amazon industrial drone warrior. He told me over drinks last night that the goal is a human-free warehouse by 2019.

    He was amused when I asked what happens to him when the drones program/repair themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The crossover will happen very quickly - in a few short years we will go from the point where we permit self driving cars on the road to the point where we no longer allow humans to drive at all.

    For decades, people struggled to build a chess program that could beat the top grandmaster and the one that finally did it ran on a huge supercomputer. Nowadays, there are chess programs that run on ordinary desktop computers that are far better than any human chess player who has ever lived or will ever live. Human grandmasters no longer even bother to play such programs because they would lose 95% of the time - the machines can only play each other. Humans remain the same but the hardware and software just keeps getting better and better.

    https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/196554-a-new-computer-chess-champion-is-crowned-and-the-continued-demise-of-human-grandmasters

    (Since that article was written 2 1/2 years ago the chess program Elo ratings have gone up around another 70 points).
  158. mobi says:
    @Anonymous
    Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is 'economically senseless'.

    - Bryan Caplan must have had a very sheltered life then. Or he is a bloody, ignorant damned fool.


    (Hint - where do you think America's black population originated?).

    – Bryan Caplan must have had a very sheltered life then. Or he is a bloody, ignorant damned fool.

    There’s a third option – both more sinister and more likely.

    Read More
  159. Dr. Doom says:

    And flush with $78 Trillion Dollars, you might be able to pay the debt they admit they have and part of the $120 or more Trillion in Off-budget debts and Unfunded Liabilities. Like the “Social Security Trust Fund” which are just IOUs when they looted it to pay for even moar spending programs. If you wanna see that great profit, all you have to do is add the cheap chalupas to the security jobs, alarm systems and higher insurance rates. Just ignore the shattered lives, destroyed towns and cities, and the infrastructure that looks like a Post Apocalyptic World.
    Moonbeam Brown has been talking up the huge surplus that brown waves have brought to Caleeforneeya. He just needs about 100 Billion in higher taxes and fees to keep spending at current levels. Fortunately for this Liar, Leftists have the Math skills of Traumatic Brain Injury Barbie.

    Read More
  160. Lot says:
    @Anonymous
    Hey, you dropped the "But in America" immigrants commit less crime than natives into the ellipsis -- that's important stuff.

    How many more howlers?


    Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs... might vote for an Islamist government...

    ... But nearly all these risks could be mitigated ... with a bit of creative thinking.
     

    "Creative thinking":

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime.

    ... If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits?
     

    We didn't think to restrict the welfare benefits of African migrant workers into the twentieth generation because we weren't thinking creatively back then.

    ... ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?
     
    This time we undergo political upheaval on an unimaginable scale just to import a foreign worker underclass for the enrichment the Economist class, they'll be cutting us a slice of the pie. Promise!

    If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits?

    Why not assume a can opener?

    Go below if you don’t remember the joke

    [MORE]

    A physicist, a chemist and an economist find themselves stranded on a desert island with nothing to eat. One day, they find a cache of canned goods washed ashore on the beach. However, they have no way to open the cans.

    After pondering the problem for a while, the chemist says “I think i have an idea. It will take us a few days, but if we take some of the seawater, and concentrate it, we can eventually get a solution corrosive enough to eat through the top of the can.”

    He’s barely finished before the physicist interrupts him “Wait! I’ve got an even better idea. It shouldn’t take us more than a day. We collect some sand from the beach, then we build a fire and melt the sand into glass to make a lens. We use the lens to focus the rays of the sun until they melt through the top of the can”

    But the economist interrupts him “wait! wait! I’ve got an even better idea. I know how we can open the cans right now… OK… First, assume a can opener”

    Read More
  161. Steve S. said:

    Or offer to split the $78 trillion with the plebs, and then when it doesn’t materialize, refuse to give them one red cent because they are so racistly bigoted against their billion new neighbors, and pocket the one or two trillion that is actually generated

    Actually the offer to split the gains from open borders immigration has been partially made good. But itr has materialised in the form of financial gains, rather than factoral earnings or fiscal benefits. That is, immigrants drive asset price appreciation in property and equity markets. Mainly through higher population density and forced pension fund savings channelled into the stock market. It is a lifetime stock, raher than an annual flow. That is capitalism, pure and simple.

    Substantial benefits have accrued to metropolitan members of the upper-middle class, about 1/3 of eligible voters, maybe 1/2 of actual voters. Of course most benefits have accrued to the one percent who are approximately 100% of the political donor class.

    No wonder that the most vitriolic aspects of the debate boil down to insult exchanges accross the class divide ie pointy-headed liberal elites v knuckle-dragging red necked tribalists.

    So its basically a Wall Street & Mean Street v Main Street deal.

    Not surpisingly this aspect of OB immigration is toned down since the naked class warfare aspect is pretty obvious. Pparticulaly to those native born members of working and middle classes who share little of the capital gains but endure most of the capital losses and negative externalities.

    The MSM then reframe the issue from Class War to Culture War whence the opponents of OB can easily be potrayed as wearing the black hats.

    Does anyone really think that Right-wing economic liberals, who by definition have most of the money and can put most politicians in their pockets, would have agreed to such a massive social disruption unless there was a massive remuneration in store?

    Read More
  162. Jack D says:
    @Brutusale
    My brother is up from Florida this week for a skillz update as an Amazon industrial drone warrior. He told me over drinks last night that the goal is a human-free warehouse by 2019.

    He was amused when I asked what happens to him when the drones program/repair themselves.

    The crossover will happen very quickly – in a few short years we will go from the point where we permit self driving cars on the road to the point where we no longer allow humans to drive at all.

    For decades, people struggled to build a chess program that could beat the top grandmaster and the one that finally did it ran on a huge supercomputer. Nowadays, there are chess programs that run on ordinary desktop computers that are far better than any human chess player who has ever lived or will ever live. Human grandmasters no longer even bother to play such programs because they would lose 95% of the time – the machines can only play each other. Humans remain the same but the hardware and software just keeps getting better and better.

    https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/196554-a-new-computer-chess-champion-is-crowned-and-the-continued-demise-of-human-grandmasters

    (Since that article was written 2 1/2 years ago the chess program Elo ratings have gone up around another 70 points).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Thanks for a glimpse into that world. I can't believe it is 18 years since Kasparov was defeated. Time flies.

    The future is scary.
  163. Lot says:
    @El Dato

    Contrary to what scientists will tell you, evolution does show a definite long term trend towards improvement.
     
    Wrong. Only to complexity if the environment allows for it it.

    Once the environment doesn't permit it, it's back to dwarf elephants, hardy rodents and tardigrades.


    So does the planet’s economy.
     
    Again, only if the environment permits it. Civilizations do not necessarily hold over the long run, they may crash & burn and shed headcount fiercely.

    Anyone who thinks there is a magic improvement arrow should revise his basic assumptions. This is also the completely bonkers magic assumption underlying Whig Historiography.

    This is also the completely bonkers magic assumption underlying Whig Historiography.

    You mean the strawman version of Whig historians.

    Read More
  164. Lot says:
    @Jack D
    We are on the verge of a 2nd Industrial Revolution - the AI Revolution - that will eliminate a vast number of jobs. Entire job categories that currently employ millions will largely disappear - truck driver, cab driver, fast food worker, retail clerk. Even so-called skilled professions - paralegal, radiologist, pharmacist, translator, court reporter, etc. will be largely replaced by bots who will produce measurably better results and fewer errors than the humans who are currently doing these jobs. The 1st Industrial Revolution demanded a certain amount of labor but the AI Revolution will take away many more jobs than it creates.

    There won't be enough jobs for the native born in the West let alone hordes of immigrants so the ideas in this article could not be more ill timed.

    Even so-called skilled professions – paralegal, radiologist, pharmacist, translator, court reporter, etc.

    If this were happening, we would see an increase in productivity growth (more getting done with fewer human workers). In fact, we don’t.

    Entire job categories that currently employ millions will largely disappear

    So? This has already largely happened to mail sorters, word processors/typing pool girls, TV repairmen. There is once again no evidence this is happening faster now than in the past, if anything it is happening more slowly.

    I think Tyler Cowen’s pessimism about technological change from 2011 has held up pretty darn well.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Stagnation

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Everything will remain about the same until it changes. That's the nature of inflection points. How long will the interval be between the 1st robot ordering system and the time when McDonald's no longer has human cashiers? Between the 1st robot truck driver and the day that there are no longer any human truck drivers? If you really think that nothing is going to change as a result of AI you are going to be in for a rude surprise.
  165. Jack D says:
    @Anon
    OT: David Leonhardt on listening to the other side in the NYT:

    Immigration. America is the world’s strongest country thanks in no small part to embracing ambitious, hard-working immigrants. But an anti-immigration backlash just helped elect a president, which calls for some reflection.

    It’s possible that the country would benefit from a different policy — one like Canada’s, which admits more people based on skills and fewer based on family ties. That combination could lift economic growth and reduce inequality. It is worth consideration for the political left, center and right.

    I recommend the immigration chapter in a new book by the legal scholar Peter Schuck, “One Nation Undecided: Clear Thinking About Five Hard Issues That Divide Us.” I’m also rereading research on the upward mobility of recent immigrants to see if it’s less encouraging than I’d like.

    Yes, the immigration debate is stained by racism and lies. But it also involves trade-offs.
     
    Here's the top comment:

    Mr. Leonhardt, let's include religious tolerance as another issue to discuss. Exclusion, persecution and discrimination because of religious affiliation is prohibited by the Constitution, yet the president and his legions made this topic a religious crusade that galvanized and rallied the Republican hordes and sympathizers to fever pitch. Vigilante killings of Muslims and innocent Americans who defended their right to worship as they please have been an unwelcome and alarming occurrence since this president was elected.

    Religious profiling has become commonplace as bearded men and women dressed in hijabs or burkas arouse suspicion in public just because of how they look. I doubt that the Founding Fathers would approve of such naked prejudice.
     

    Absolutely. Alexander Hamilton would have totally approved of women in burkas. Totally. All of American history is a tabula rasa on which we are free to project our Current Year fashionable beliefs. George Washington would have approved of gay marriage. Jefferson would have defended the right to choose your own gender pronouns. Etc.

    Muslims arouse suspicion “just” because of how they look. It’s not as if people have any rational reason to fear people in Muslim garb. What have Muslims ever done to justify such suspicion? Well, except for 9/11, Nice, Birmingham, Paris, London, Brussels, etc.?

    Read More
  166. Anonym says:
    @of_ice_and_rock
    Steve, you can use incognito browsers with Chrome to bypass access limits enforced through cookies.

    Steve, you can use incognito browsers with Chrome to bypass access limits enforced through cookies.

    I see… undocumented browsing. Information wants to be free!

    Read More
  167. Jack D says:
    @Lot

    Even so-called skilled professions – paralegal, radiologist, pharmacist, translator, court reporter, etc.
     
    If this were happening, we would see an increase in productivity growth (more getting done with fewer human workers). In fact, we don't.

    Entire job categories that currently employ millions will largely disappear
     
    So? This has already largely happened to mail sorters, word processors/typing pool girls, TV repairmen. There is once again no evidence this is happening faster now than in the past, if anything it is happening more slowly.

    I think Tyler Cowen's pessimism about technological change from 2011 has held up pretty darn well.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Stagnation

    Everything will remain about the same until it changes. That’s the nature of inflection points. How long will the interval be between the 1st robot ordering system and the time when McDonald’s no longer has human cashiers? Between the 1st robot truck driver and the day that there are no longer any human truck drivers? If you really think that nothing is going to change as a result of AI you are going to be in for a rude surprise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    How long will the interval be between the 1st robot ordering system and the time when McDonald’s no longer has human cashiers?
     
    Around 2006 I first saw a fast food ordering kiosk with a touch screen. I used it a couple times and it worked, but that location never has long lines so it was pointless.

    It got removed about six months later, and 11 years later there is still no automated ordering system. The same location has a sign saying "hiring all shifts, starting pay $12/hr."

    So we are now at 11 years or more and counting as an answer to your question.

    Between the 1st robot truck driver and the day that there are no longer any human truck drivers?
     
    How long between the first robot truck driver and the first truck that gets hacked and delivers $500,000 worth of cargo to the hacker?

    How long since the development of driver-less passenger trains do we still have drivers? A quick search indicates 40 years and counting.

    It is not that we won't have jobs displaced by technology. The problem Cowen identified is that the low hanging fruit is long ago picked.
  168. Anonym says:
    @Jack D
    The crossover will happen very quickly - in a few short years we will go from the point where we permit self driving cars on the road to the point where we no longer allow humans to drive at all.

    For decades, people struggled to build a chess program that could beat the top grandmaster and the one that finally did it ran on a huge supercomputer. Nowadays, there are chess programs that run on ordinary desktop computers that are far better than any human chess player who has ever lived or will ever live. Human grandmasters no longer even bother to play such programs because they would lose 95% of the time - the machines can only play each other. Humans remain the same but the hardware and software just keeps getting better and better.

    https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/196554-a-new-computer-chess-champion-is-crowned-and-the-continued-demise-of-human-grandmasters

    (Since that article was written 2 1/2 years ago the chess program Elo ratings have gone up around another 70 points).

    Thanks for a glimpse into that world. I can’t believe it is 18 years since Kasparov was defeated. Time flies.

    The future is scary.

    Read More
  169. Jack D says:
    @AM

    Back in the day, the argument that more people = more wealth, would have been dismissed summarily with the contempt it deserves.
     
    At no point in human history could the relationship of population to overall wealth be dismissed summarily, including right now.

    Let's ponder a livestock farm. Farming accounting lists every single live animal as a capital asset, even if they do eat food, get sick, take up space, poop, and are generally a pain to take care of. At no point in time would you say that the wealthier farm has 10 cattle versus one that has 100 cattle, assuming the same breed. Even if you assume the small farm has extremely valuable livestock, 10X for each individual head is quite the gap to make up.

    The first American generation that will not see a rise in it's standard of living is Generation X, a generation that is the same size or slightly smaller than the generation ahead of it. If you're looking to describe "peak wealth", that would be the Baby Boomers who represent "peak population" within the generations. Oops.

    So yes, the economists are correct to think about population. Before the industrial revolution, it would have been completely obvious that the wealthiest countries were actually the most populous. (The industrial revolution does tamper with the economics of population, but not that much.)

    What economists get wrong is the idea of adding any old person to the planet or your economy will improve things, if the point is to raise the GDP.

    Let's go back to our cattle farm again. Let's assume you got wealthy running the ranch but now it's too much work. You know that you need to keep the farm running properly to maintain your wealth, but you've taken short cut after short cut in keeping the animals healthy, happy, and reproductive. The cattle are already look bad, overweight from cheap food and not enough exercise. The best cows are being asked to fill in the gaps of incompetent ranch hands and not attending to what calves they have (okay, stretch, but work with me here). You see all this and think: This farm isn't going to be as wealthy in the future. I don't want to get poor but I don't want to work either. What if we just add some chickens? I can count those as heads of cattle for a while. We'll all stay rich, but mostly me will stay rich. And as long as it lasts until I die, I'm good. My kids can deal with whatever comes next.

    But chickens aren't cattle and never will be. It's just making all the problems within the herd worse. And of course, son's ranch will be nothing like what Dad inherited.

    Economists are dressing up some solid economic theory to make it seems like it justifies lack of interest in the running the farm properly. Concerns about population and it's relationship to the economy are sound. What is not is not sound are modern conclusions and solutions, including the unwillingness to just suck it up and be poorer for a while.

    I grew up on a farm – a chicken farm, not a cattle ranch. I can tell you this – on a farm every animal has to pay its way. If there was any chicken that looked sickly, that was clearly not laying eggs, we would “cull” them from the flock – this meant wringing its neck. On a dairy farm, any cow that is not giving milk will be appearing soon on your table as hamburger. Unless we are willing to do this with humans (and I hope and pray that we never will), your analogy does not hold up at all.

    In Germany, they have been finding that something like 98% of refugees are still burdens on the welfare system after several years. The idea that uneducated African peasants, devout but illiterate villagers from rural Syria, etc. will become magically productive once they move to Hamburg (and are given free benefits that far exceed their prior lifestyle just for doing nothing) is a ridiculous fantasy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    Unless we are willing to do this with humans (and I hope and pray that we never will), your analogy does not hold up at all.
     
    The analogy is 100% within the realm of economics. There's no particular moral discussion to be had, if I may, about looking purely at the economic angle.

    The point is simply to demonstrate that the numbers of humans within the borders affects the wealth of a nation. It's a quite sound economic principle, even if the current ranch owners government is applying it like entitled, indifferent maroons.

  170. AM says:
    @BenjaminL
    The WSJ got rid of the "Google the headline" and incognito workarounds, I think; however, they left the Twitter loophole.

    Try to find the article on Twitter, then click on the link to the WSJ article that is contained within the tweet (it will be a "t.co..." link) and that should work.

    Example: https://t.co/30JJYL9VpO

    Thank you. Good to know.

    Read More
  171. anonguy says:
    @El Dato
    Sometimes I wonder why I dropped The Economist.

    Then I remember.

    Years of weird "acceptable" logic and Keynesianist (i.e. crazed ass-backwards) logic, warmongering on Iran and Iraq.

    The turning point was when the declared the Afghan Show "a just and necessary war".

    But their cartoons were always top notch.

    But their cartoons were always top notch.

    The “Trouble with Mergers” cover was pretty fun too.

    Read More
  172. - This article primarily cites the infamous, Bryan Caplan.

    - For a good argument against immigration from a similar academic economist, read Garett Jones, https://twitter.com/garettjones. The gist of his argument is that the nation and culture that a person lives in really do shape individual outcomes more so than measures of individual skill or effort. But, that important culture is created by the people that live there. If you repopulate a nation with a different people, you will get a different culture. He considers the cultures of present US, Europe, Canada, and Australia delicate jewels that should be preserved. Large levels of immigration can destroy their current culture that makes them special.

    - Academics do have areas of expertise where they are legitimate experts, and their voices deserve heightened recognition. But academics also have opinions outside their area of expertise that don’t deserve such heightened recognition. As economist Arnold Kling, former coblogger of Caplan says, the issue of this type of immigration and radical demographic reconfiguration of the globe is not generally an economic issue, the academic expertise of economists isn’t the most appropriate in analyzing the issue. Economists are often opinionated on politics and issues like immigration, but their opinions aren’t particularly relevant to the issue, and don’t deserve expertise recognitions. Bryan Caplan boasts that he takes the “broad” view of economics, where he explores any subject that interests him, and feels comfortable asserting subject expertise. This isn’t warranted.

    A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

    With open borders or mass immigration, you admit both the victims and the villains of corrosive culture. You don’t have such horrific destructive culture like that of the Islamic and Jihadi extremists in the United States because the people that create that culture have not been allowed in in large numbers.

    That is starting to change in the US and Europe: A leading political figure in the US who leads the Women’s March, openly declares waging “jihad” against the US president.

    In Europe, Jewish communities that were safe for decades from the horrors of Islamic culture are no longer safe, and have recently been pressured to hide or flee from new Islamic demographics recently given entry into Europe.

    Yes, it would be disruptive. But the potential gains are so vast that objectors could be bribed to let it happen

    This kind of flippant, giddy, almost maniacal attitude towards overriding the laws of nations, overturning elections, even overturning the heart of democracy, undermining the premise of nation states, and radical reconfiguration of the global order should be a big red flag.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    In Europe, Jewish communities that were safe for decades from the horrors of Islamic culture are no longer safe

    Get The Women & Jews To Safety!
  173. notice says:

    No signatory for the Economist article?

    No author at that magazine willing to put his name over it? That’s printed grafitti in a way isn’t it?

    A borderless world would eventually have a one-world currency and a one-world government. It would leave nowhere to run if the economy or the government went bad.

    Make gated communities and private schools illegal and none of these people would be clamoring for open borders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    "No signatory for the Economist article?
    No author at that magazine willing to put his name over it? That’s printed grafitti in a way isn’t it?"

    There are never any signatories on articles in the Economist. The better to cultivate an aura of ex cathedra.
    , @MBlanc46
    None of their pieces are signed.
  174. AM says:
    @Tex

    If cattle, pigs, chickens, horses and the like are economic assets in accounting, why aren’t people?
     
    I'd go with, because the cattle, pigs, chickens, and horses don't get a say as to whether they will turned into hamburgers, leather pants, or mcnuggets. Unless of course you propose a more old-fashioned type of social relations, before that pesky 13th amendment.

    It does not negate my point about the net worth of a 10 cattle farm versus a 100 cattle farm.
     
    Back in the heyday of ranching, there were huge differences in the value of cattle based on biology. Texas longhorns were worth less than "improved" breeds because of weight, tractability, and disease transmission. Scrub cattle were worth a lot less than short horns that put on more weight. Ranchers were known to shoot scrub bulls to prevent them breeding with their costly improved breeds and thus diluting the bloodline. The longhorns carried tick fever, which was highly lethal to other breeds. There were many internal blockades, legal and otherwise, to stop longhorns from entering areas where ranchers and farmers feared disease.

    10 pasture-fed, high weight, fancy breed cattle might be worth more than 100 skinny, disease-ridden, scrubbies. In math, Quantity x Unit Price=Extension Price.

    Volume alone isn't the sole determination of value.

    I’d go with, because the cattle, pigs, chickens, and horses don’t get a say as to whether they will turned into hamburgers, leather pants, or mcnuggets. Unless of course you propose a more old-fashioned type of social relations, before that pesky 13th amendment.

    LOL! There seems to a consistent set of moral objections to an entirely economic question. So let’s go to the bad old days to see if I can be clearer.

    If you owned a plantation in the South circa 1750 and asked for an audit of your finances, the slaves would count. Not only would they count, they would be filed under capital assets, and subject to the usual accounting that deals with that. The more healthy able-bodied slaves you owned, the greater your net worth, end of statement. Jefferson was one of the richest men in Virginia and he owned a all sorts of slaves, along with land.

    Slaves had a market value, affected by the same factors that affect livestock animals. I know the comparison to animals offends deeply, sometimes to people in other contexts, are quite happy to point out that the Earth is completely over populated and certainly someone else should stop eating/and or stop having children. grin

    Anyway, part of the reason it became fashionable in the North particularly to free slaves was the recognition out that slaves were indeed capital assets, increasingly expensive, inflexible, and illiquid. The popularity of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations encouraged the use of disposable, ie day labor. If someone got sick or hurt while working, they weren’t your problem! Boy, that was big moral advance.

    But I digress. The point is that people are, in purely economic terms, assets just like livestock animals. If they are not formally to an employer, they certainly are to a nation-state. It doesn’t matter what you feel about that classification, because it’s not a moral judgement and it’s not a discussion about the morality of the thing.

    Back in the heyday of ranching, there were huge differences in the value of cattle based on biology.

    Yes, I address this in my original post. The differences in quality could be assigned a market value and then you add them all up and get the value of the general asset. However, was there a breed that was really 10X the worst breed? Roughly speaking my example still holds, even with variations in quality. In an apples to apples comparison, a ranch with 10 longhorns will still have a smaller net worth than a ranch with 100 longhorns.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    'Assets' are defined as entities which 'earn income'.

    If the people concerned do not 'earn income' - undoubtedly the case with low skilled third world immigrants to the USA when considered in a strict fiscal profit/loss account regarding taxpayer support and/or the value of their economic output compared to the burden they impose on economic activity, then the US economy as a whole loses money due to their presence.

    Such entities are described as 'liabilities'.
  175. @Macumazahn
    A HUNDRED-DOLLAR BILL is lying on the ground. An economist walks past it. A friend asks the economist: “Didn’t you see the money there?” The economist replies: “I thought I saw something, but I must have imagined it. If there had been $100 on the ground, someone would have picked it up.”

    If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true. But occasionally it is. Michael Clemens, an economist at the Centre for Global Development, an anti-poverty think-tank in Washington, DC, argues that there are “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”. One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

    Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

    “Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.



    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

    The potential gains from open borders dwarf those of, say, completely free trade, let alone foreign aid. Yet the idea is everywhere treated as a fantasy. In most countries fewer than 10% of people favour it. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, it is a political non-starter. Nonetheless, it is worth asking what might happen if borders were, indeed, open.

    To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

    Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace. It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada. The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists. Their poverty would thus become more visible to citizens of the rich world—who would see many more Liberians and Bangladeshis waiting tables and stacking shelves—but much less severe.

    If borders were open, how many people would up sticks? Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

    Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience. Migrants must wave goodbye to familiar people, familiar customs and grandma’s cooking. Many people would rather not make that sacrifice, even for the prospect of large material rewards.

    Wages are twice as high in Germany as in Greece, and under European Union rules Greeks are free to move to Germany, but only 150,000 have done so since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2010, out of a population of 11m. The weather is awful in Frankfurt, and hardly anyone speaks Greek. Even very large disparities combined with open borders do not necessarily lead to a mass exodus. Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

    Despite these caveats, it is a fair bet that open borders would lead to very large flows of people. The gap between rich and poor countries globally is much wider than the gap between the richest and less-rich countries within Europe, and most poor countries are not Pacific-island paradises. Many are violent as well as poor, or have oppressive governments.

    Also, migration is, in the jargon, “path-dependent”. It starts with a trickle: the first person to move from country A to country B typically arrives in a place where no one speaks his language or knows the right way to cook noodles. But the second migrant—who may be his brother or cousin—has someone to show him around. As word spreads on the diaspora grapevine that country B is a good place to live, more people set off from country A. When the 1,000th migrant arrives, he finds a whole neighbourhood of his compatriots.

    So the Gallup numbers could just as well be too low. Today there are 1.4bn people in rich countries and 6bn in not-so-rich ones. It is hardly far-fetched to imagine that, over a few decades, a billion or more of those people might emigrate if there were no legal obstacle to doing so. Clearly, this would transform rich countries in unpredictable ways.

    Voters in destination states typically do not mind a bit of immigration, but fret that truly open borders would lead to them being “swamped” by foreigners. This, they fear, would make life worse, and perhaps threaten the political system that made their country worth moving to in the first place. Mass migration, they worry, would bring more crime and terrorism, lower wages for locals, an impossible strain on welfare states, horrific overcrowding and traumatic cultural disruption.

    Open questions
    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. Granted, some immigrants commit crimes, or even headline-grabbing acts of terrorism. But in America the foreign-born are only a fifth as likely to be incarcerated as the native-born. In some European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

    Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.

    Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space. And mass migration would make the world as a whole less crowded, since fertility among migrants quickly plunges until it is much closer to the norm of their host country than their country of origin.

    Would mass immigration change the culture and politics of rich countries? Undoubtedly. Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today. Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.

    Eyes on the prize
    There are certainly risks if borders are opened suddenly and without the right policies to help absorb the inflow. But nearly all these risks could be mitigated, and many of the most common objections overcome, with a bit of creative thinking.

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.

    This sounds horribly discriminatory, and it is. But it is better for the migrants than the status quo, in which they are excluded from rich-world labour markets unless they pay tens of thousands of dollars to people-smugglers—and even then they must work in the shadows and are subject to sudden deportation. Today, millions of migrants work in the Gulf, where they have no political rights at all. Despite this, they keep coming. No one is forcing them to.

    “Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say...‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?

    Once you understand that different groups of people are, well, different, not because of culture but because of DNA, your entire argument falls apart.

    Humans are not widgets. Law and order does not magically appear in some areas and not others.

    You, sir, are a child, and it is time to put away childish things. No need to read beyond this point, but here it is.

    On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

    And just why do you think that is so? Colonialism. Mean white people. Gremlins. The ever popular Magic Dirt.

    Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

    Gosh, only 1/3 of Africa – what’s that, around a billion people – would emigrate to Europe and the U.S. Geez, what I was I worried about.

    Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.

    Wait, who’s side are you on again?

    Seriously, I could do this all night, but it’s getting silly. Stay in the classroom where no one is allowed to disagree with your children rantings.

    Read More
  176. AM says:
    @Jack D
    I grew up on a farm - a chicken farm, not a cattle ranch. I can tell you this - on a farm every animal has to pay its way. If there was any chicken that looked sickly, that was clearly not laying eggs, we would "cull" them from the flock - this meant wringing its neck. On a dairy farm, any cow that is not giving milk will be appearing soon on your table as hamburger. Unless we are willing to do this with humans (and I hope and pray that we never will), your analogy does not hold up at all.

    In Germany, they have been finding that something like 98% of refugees are still burdens on the welfare system after several years. The idea that uneducated African peasants, devout but illiterate villagers from rural Syria, etc. will become magically productive once they move to Hamburg (and are given free benefits that far exceed their prior lifestyle just for doing nothing) is a ridiculous fantasy.

    Unless we are willing to do this with humans (and I hope and pray that we never will), your analogy does not hold up at all.

    The analogy is 100% within the realm of economics. There’s no particular moral discussion to be had, if I may, about looking purely at the economic angle.

    The point is simply to demonstrate that the numbers of humans within the borders affects the wealth of a nation. It’s a quite sound economic principle, even if the current ranch owners government is applying it like entitled, indifferent maroons.

    Read More
  177. Lot says:
    @Jack D
    Everything will remain about the same until it changes. That's the nature of inflection points. How long will the interval be between the 1st robot ordering system and the time when McDonald's no longer has human cashiers? Between the 1st robot truck driver and the day that there are no longer any human truck drivers? If you really think that nothing is going to change as a result of AI you are going to be in for a rude surprise.

    How long will the interval be between the 1st robot ordering system and the time when McDonald’s no longer has human cashiers?

    Around 2006 I first saw a fast food ordering kiosk with a touch screen. I used it a couple times and it worked, but that location never has long lines so it was pointless.

    It got removed about six months later, and 11 years later there is still no automated ordering system. The same location has a sign saying “hiring all shifts, starting pay $12/hr.”

    So we are now at 11 years or more and counting as an answer to your question.

    Between the 1st robot truck driver and the day that there are no longer any human truck drivers?

    How long between the first robot truck driver and the first truck that gets hacked and delivers $500,000 worth of cargo to the hacker?

    How long since the development of driver-less passenger trains do we still have drivers? A quick search indicates 40 years and counting.

    It is not that we won’t have jobs displaced by technology. The problem Cowen identified is that the low hanging fruit is long ago picked.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    How long since the development of driver-less passenger trains do we still have drivers? A quick search indicates 40 years and counting.
     
    Yes, exactly. Uber and all sorts of techy companies are determined to have driverless cars. Did anyone ask for them? Does it really benefit anyone but Uber and a few truck companies? If you don't want to drive to work, in many place there's already public transport or van shares and the like.

    Planes have been almost completely automated for decades and 2 pilots are still required for commercial flights. How comfortable would you be if the pilot got to the end of the run way, told the stewardess to hit the equivalent of the "go" button, and left the plane entirely? My understanding is the level of technology is close to that.

    Wake me up when the human factor, mental or as in your good example, a hack isn't going to play a part here. It matters, despite what the techies dream about.
  178. Yep, one doesn’t need to subscribe to read the same old tired apologetic’s on free trade that the globalist and there incestuous siblings the neocon’s keep to trying foist on us. They love the hypothesis but have so few real life examples of it actually working for the average Joe & Jane.

    Read More
  179. Daniel H says:
    @Judah Benjamin Hur
    I like the Economist (there are a lot of interesting articles), but you can always count on it for howlers like this from the article:


    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. ...

    A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

     

    >>but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. …

    That’s good enough persuasion for me.

    Read More
  180. Hubbub says:
    @jim jones
    I wonder how they worked out that it would be exactly $78 trillion richer?

    When you’re dealing in ‘pie in the sky’, any figure is a good as another, so make it big and outlandish.

    Read More
  181. MBlanc46 says:

    I have a subscription. I’ll see about posting the content. I wonder how much of that 78 trillion would be taken from my pocket, and to whom it eould be given.

    Read More
  182. anonguy says:

    Wow, here is what is going to come out of the Damond shooting.

    Nobody really has any idea of how many police shootings occure in the US every year. A couple of private sources have been trying to figure this out the past 2 years, picture is murky, but looking like ~3/day.

    Killed, not shot.

    That is a lot.

    It also appears, based upon spotty evidence admittedly, that there may have been a huge increase, maybe even 3x since y2k, in police killings in the U.S.

    I knew this Damond thing was going to be good.

    Bonus points, guys, assuming there has been this secular trend, why?

    Anyhow, an unseen death trend, like the Opioid Crisis or the, can’t remember the name, drug that killed so many people without being noticed.

    Anyhow, expect a huge discussion about why the U.S. needs to have police execute 1000 people a year.

    p.s. I know one factor that almost nobody mentions..

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan

    Nobody really has any idea of how many police shootings occure in the US every year. A couple of private sources have been trying to figure this out the past 2 years, picture is murky, but looking like ~3/day.
     
    It doesn't seem that murky. There was, until Ferguson, significant under-reporting by police precincts to the federally mandated Justice Department database and might still be, but these private sources have been doing a pretty good job of gathering up the data.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

    http://killedbypolice.net/
    , @MBlanc46
    More likely: Black immgrant cop, white woman. Down the memory hole.
  183. @Dan Hayes
    Judah,

    As usual the Economist is guided/blinded by the bitch god of unfettered capitalism!

    If you merged Gene Roddenberry with Malcolm Forbes, you’d get the Economist. Comically naive and absurdly free market.

    Read More
  184. MBlanc46 says:

    Here’s the piece:

    If borders were open
    A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer

    Yes, it would be disruptive. But the potential gains are so vast that objectors could be bribed to let it happen

    Print edition | The World If
    Jul 13th 2017
    A HUNDRED-DOLLAR BILL is lying on the ground. An economist walks past it. A friend asks the economist: “Didn’t you see the money there?” The economist replies: “I thought I saw something, but I must have imagined it. If there had been $100 on the ground, someone would have picked it up.”

    If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true. But occasionally it is. Michael Clemens, an economist at the Centre for Global Development, an anti-poverty think-tank in Washington, DC, argues that there are “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”. One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

    Latest updates
    How the nursing home lobby blocked reforms in Louisiana
    DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA
    4 HOURS AGO
    Restrictions are lifted on the last airline affected by America’s laptop ban
    GULLIVER
    7 HOURS AGO
    How a countryʼs perceived openness affects its clout abroad
    GRAPHIC DETAIL
    7 HOURS AGO
    A new drug of choice in the Gulf
    MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA
    10 HOURS AGO
    South-East Asia’s future looks prosperous but illiberal
    ASIA
    10 HOURS AGO
    Events in Iceland explain years of famine in Europe’s Dark Ages
    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
    11 HOURS AGO
    See all updates
    Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

    “Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.

    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

    The potential gains from open borders dwarf those of, say, completely free trade, let alone foreign aid. Yet the idea is everywhere treated as a fantasy. In most countries fewer than 10% of people favour it. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, it is a political non-starter. Nonetheless, it is worth asking what might happen if borders were, indeed, open.

    To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

    Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace. It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada. The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists. Their poverty would thus become more visible to citizens of the rich world—who would see many more Liberians and Bangladeshis waiting tables and stacking shelves—but much less severe.

    If borders were open, how many people would up sticks? Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

    Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience. Migrants must wave goodbye to familiar people, familiar customs and grandma’s cooking. Many people would rather not make that sacrifice, even for the prospect of large material rewards.

    Wages are twice as high in Germany as in Greece, and under European Union rules Greeks are free to move to Germany, but only 150,000 have done so since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2010, out of a population of 11m. The weather is awful in Frankfurt, and hardly anyone speaks Greek. Even very large disparities combined with open borders do not necessarily lead to a mass exodus. Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

    Despite these caveats, it is a fair bet that open borders would lead to very large flows of people. The gap between rich and poor countries globally is much wider than the gap between the richest and less-rich countries within Europe, and most poor countries are not Pacific-island paradises. Many are violent as well as poor, or have oppressive governments.

    Also, migration is, in the jargon, “path-dependent”. It starts with a trickle: the first person to move from country A to country B typically arrives in a place where no one speaks his language or knows the right way to cook noodles. But the second migrant—who may be his brother or cousin—has someone to show him around. As word spreads on the diaspora grapevine that country B is a good place to live, more people set off from country A. When the 1,000th migrant arrives, he finds a whole neighbourhood of his compatriots.

    So the Gallup numbers could just as well be too low. Today there are 1.4bn people in rich countries and 6bn in not-so-rich ones. It is hardly far-fetched to imagine that, over a few decades, a billion or more of those people might emigrate if there were no legal obstacle to doing so. Clearly, this would transform rich countries in unpredictable ways.

    Voters in destination states typically do not mind a bit of immigration, but fret that truly open borders would lead to them being “swamped” by foreigners. This, they fear, would make life worse, and perhaps threaten the political system that made their country worth moving to in the first place. Mass migration, they worry, would bring more crime and terrorism, lower wages for locals, an impossible strain on welfare states, horrific overcrowding and traumatic cultural disruption.

    Open questions
    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. Granted, some immigrants commit crimes, or even headline-grabbing acts of terrorism. But in America the foreign-born are only a fifth as likely to be incarcerated as the native-born. In some European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

    Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.

    Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space. And mass migration would make the world as a whole less crowded, since fertility among migrants quickly plunges until it is much closer to the norm of their host country than their country of origin.

    Would mass immigration change the culture and politics of rich countries? Undoubtedly. Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today. Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.

    Eyes on the prize
    There are certainly risks if borders are opened suddenly and without the right policies to help absorb the inflow. But nearly all these risks could be mitigated, and many of the most common objections overcome, with a bit of creative thinking.

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.

    This sounds horribly discriminatory, and it is. But it is better for the migrants than the status quo, in which they are excluded from rich-world labour markets unless they pay tens of thousands of dollars to people-smugglers—and even then they must work in the shadows and are subject to sudden deportation. Today, millions of migrants work in the Gulf, where they have no political rights at all. Despite this, they keep coming. No one is forcing them to.

    “Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say…‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It comes down to the argument for prostitution.

    Gee, pretty girl, do you know you are sitting on a million bucks?

    Fortunately, most women have enough natural sense of self-worth and decency they don't become prostitutes. It's a disgusting thing in the cold light of day. But they have been around since, well, forever.

    So think about it. Most good looking young women who do go down that road DO make a million dollars (gross) today. Not truck stop lot lizards and ghetto street whores, but girls in major cities that go to the escort agencies. If they work six years, fifty weeks a year, three weeks a month, in New York or DC it's very doable.

    At the end they are burned out wrecks, have several STDs some of which like herpes are incurable, and-almost invariably-they are dead broke. They tend to die young, some will go into some career where they can survive, a few will marry one of their insanely rich johns and when he dumps her for a newer model she'll get a nest egg she can live on, if he has the decency to set her up in an irrevocable trust. But the pattern is so clear few can avoid understanding the consequences.

    Immigration is pimping your nation, literally. It means making a whore out of her.
    And the people most responsible not only know the consequences, they want them to happen.

    That is what we are dealing with here.
  185. Somewhere there’s another economist at a second-rate university kicking himself because his study only showed a $56 trillion benefit and therefore got beat out for the story.

    Read More
  186. @the Supreme Gentleman
    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there's no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish (e.g. renting a house to immigrants.) (Obviously this a limited philosophy.)

    For example, I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don't want to live near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring that they can live in homogenous neighborhoods; but they would have a problem with people saying that everyone in society has to forcibly abide by those rules.

    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there’s no contradiction here

    To hell with charity. I want a country I can live in, and hand over to my descendants as a country they can live in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Based on your personality, any descendents of yours would likely be either the product of rape or of sperm bank donations.
  187. @Judah Benjamin Hur
    I like the Economist (there are a lot of interesting articles), but you can always count on it for howlers like this from the article:


    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. ...

    A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

     

    The assertions of the Economist are false, and if they had to pay the costs of migration their position would magically reverse.

    Read More
  188. @jim jones
    I wonder how they worked out that it would be exactly $78 trillion richer?

    I wonder how they worked out that it would be exactly $78 trillion richer?

    They got there through base, dishonest fabrication. No one not completely full of faeces would presume to offer such a bogus number in service of the whores that run the West.

    Read More
  189. @John Derbyshire
    People keep telling me that, but I can never make it work. The incognito switch e.g. is no help with reading the Wall Street Journal.

    The incognito tab “trick” does work at a great many sites: nytimes.com and The Economist among them. It doesn’t work at wsj.com because the WSJ is actually serious about making you pay: there you log in and they check against credentials stored at their site. Obviously, the incognito tab can’t be a universal key; it won’t let me into the Derbyshire family’s bank account either!

    Sites like nytimes and economist, which are actually not that serious about keeping you out, store a small amount of data — called a cookie — on your computer, that includes inter alia a count of how many times you’ve been there. They lock you out when the count reaches some number (10, for nytimes). So using an incognito tab loses that cookie and makes nytimes think you’ve never been there before.

    Some of you might be wondering at this point if one site can read another’s cookie. Like, could the site your employer forces you to go to, to file a dental benefit claim, see a cookie placed by unz.com, leading your employer to fire you for association with an SPLC®-certified hate group? The answer is: mo, unless unz.com wants to let them. Of course unz.com isn’t going to do that (right, Ron?) But Facebook, Google, Twitter, LinkedIn and others do help in this way. So in particular, you should know that using a pseudonym to speak freely on Disqus doesn’t protect you if Disqus wants to learn your Facebook identity (or your Google identity, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc).

    Bottom line, we gotta turn this ship around before we all get doxxed and fired (if not fined and imprisoned too) some time in the next decade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    Does not work on the Economist for me. Neither does googling the headline work anymore. It used to work also on Stratfor. Don't look at me like that! I was a poor student who grew up to be a frugal adult! :P
  190. @John Derbyshire
    People keep telling me that, but I can never make it work. The incognito switch e.g. is no help with reading the Wall Street Journal.

    The incognito tab “trick” does work at a great many sites: nytimes.com and The Economist among them. It doesn’t work at wsj.com because the WSJ is actually serious about making you pay: there you log in and they check against credentials stored at their site. Obviously, the incognito tab can’t be a universal key; it won’t let me into the Derbyshire family’s bank account either!

    Sites like nytimes and economist, which are actually not that serious about keeping you out, store a small amount of data — called a cookie — on your computer, that includes inter alia a count of how many times you’ve been there. They lock you out when the count reaches some number (10, for nytimes). So using an incognito tab loses that cookie and makes nytimes think you’ve never been there before.

    Some of you might be wondering at this point if one site can read another’s cookie. Like, could the site your employer forces you to go to, to file a dental benefit claim, see a cookie placed by unz.com, leading your employer to fire you for association with an SPLC®-certified hate group? The answer is: mo, unless unz.com wants to let them. Of course unz.com isn’t going to do that (right, Ron?) But Facebook, Google, Twitter, LinkedIn and others do help in this way. So in particular, you should know that using a pseudonym to speak freely on Disqus doesn’t protect you if Disqus wants to learn your Facebook identity (or your Google identity, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc).

    Bottom line, we gotta turn this ship around before we all get doxxed and fired (if not fined and imprisoned too) some time in the next decade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    Hmm, a bug. I got that https error, and I pressed "Submit" again, curious to know if Ron's duplicate-comment detector still works if a "transaction" has been interrupted. I guess not.
  191. @Daniel Chieh
    Well, to be a devil's advocate, we could run a thought experiment if the US would be wealthier if there were higher barriers between state trade and travel. I would posit it would likely benefit a lot of people within each state, at the least, who would be slightly insulated from competing against the hegemonic Wal-Marts of the world.

    to be a devil’s advocate

    That’s good Daniel. Keep that in mind when stand before the Great White Throne.

    we could run a thought experiment if the US would be wealthier if there were higher barriers between state trade and travel. I would posit it would likely benefit a lot of people within each state, at the least, who would be slightly insulated from competing against the hegemonic Wal-Marts of the world.

    You have completely missed the point. If I have a healthy country where some scoundrels are wealthier through trade restrictions, or a country where Somali police are murdering innocent yoga instructors I’ll choose the former. If you want the latter, move to Sweden.

    Read More
  192. That might be true, but I suspect close to a 100 percent of it would be absorbed the international banking cartel.

    Read More
  193. @International Jew
    The incognito tab "trick" does work at a great many sites: nytimes.com and The Economist among them. It doesn't work at wsj.com because the WSJ is actually serious about making you pay: there you log in and they check against credentials stored at their site. Obviously, the incognito tab can't be a universal key; it won't let me into the Derbyshire family's bank account either!

    Sites like nytimes and economist, which are actually not that serious about keeping you out, store a small amount of data — called a cookie — on your computer, that includes inter alia a count of how many times you've been there. They lock you out when the count reaches some number (10, for nytimes). So using an incognito tab loses that cookie and makes nytimes think you've never been there before.

    Some of you might be wondering at this point if one site can read another's cookie. Like, could the site your employer forces you to go to, to file a dental benefit claim, see a cookie placed by unz.com, leading your employer to fire you for association with an SPLC®-certified hate group? The answer is: mo, unless unz.com wants to let them. Of course unz.com isn't going to do that (right, Ron?) But Facebook, Google, Twitter, LinkedIn and others do help in this way. So in particular, you should know that using a pseudonym to speak freely on Disqus doesn't protect you if Disqus wants to learn your Facebook identity (or your Google identity, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc).

    Bottom line, we gotta turn this ship around before we all get doxxed and fired (if not fined and imprisoned too) some time in the next decade.

    Hmm, a bug. I got that https error, and I pressed “Submit” again, curious to know if Ron’s duplicate-comment detector still works if a “transaction” has been interrupted. I guess not.

    Read More
  194. @Jack D
    Here's an idea. Instead of making Africans, Mexicans, Indians, etc. move to the US to increase the value of their labor, let them stay home (all other things being equal, most people would prefer to remain in their native land where they have friends, family, familiar foods and customs, etc.) and the West will import into these countries the legal structures and physical infrastructure to make these people productive - we'll build railroads, schools, courthouses, etc. for them and import civil servants to administer these in an efficient way instead of corrupt local elites. What we can do is split up the various third world countries among the advanced nations - the British will get India, the French will get Syria, the Spanish and Portuguese will get Latin America, and so on until each 3rd world country is under the protection of some advanced Western nation. Even small European countries such as Belgium and Denmark will be assigned a few countries or islands for them to protect and nurture. Wouldn't that be a great idea instead of uprooting countless millions from their native lands?

    Instead of making Africans, Mexicans, Indians, etc. move to the US to increase the value of their labor, let them stay home (all other things being equal, most people would prefer to remain in their native land where they have friends, family, familiar foods and customs, etc.) and the West will import into these countries the legal structures and physical infrastructure to make these people productive – we’ll build railroads, schools, courthouses, etc. for them and import civil servants to administer these in an efficient way instead of corrupt local elites.

    You have describe imperialism well Jack. And as John Derbyshire has pointed out, at least for British rule, the imperial system was much better for the colonies than what followed.

    But your prescription, though better for those you have identified above, will be roundly condemned by the advocates of a system that murdered more than 100 million people in the 20th century. We are ruled by the adherents of a death cult.

    Great idea Jack, but its implementation is utterly hopeless. At least hopeless in the short run.

    Read More
  195. @Jack D
    We are on the verge of a 2nd Industrial Revolution - the AI Revolution - that will eliminate a vast number of jobs. Entire job categories that currently employ millions will largely disappear - truck driver, cab driver, fast food worker, retail clerk. Even so-called skilled professions - paralegal, radiologist, pharmacist, translator, court reporter, etc. will be largely replaced by bots who will produce measurably better results and fewer errors than the humans who are currently doing these jobs. The 1st Industrial Revolution demanded a certain amount of labor but the AI Revolution will take away many more jobs than it creates.

    There won't be enough jobs for the native born in the West let alone hordes of immigrants so the ideas in this article could not be more ill timed.

    To believe that, you either need to be someone without much programming experience, or an AI researcher angling for a research grant.

    Read More
  196. AM says:
    @Lot

    How long will the interval be between the 1st robot ordering system and the time when McDonald’s no longer has human cashiers?
     
    Around 2006 I first saw a fast food ordering kiosk with a touch screen. I used it a couple times and it worked, but that location never has long lines so it was pointless.

    It got removed about six months later, and 11 years later there is still no automated ordering system. The same location has a sign saying "hiring all shifts, starting pay $12/hr."

    So we are now at 11 years or more and counting as an answer to your question.

    Between the 1st robot truck driver and the day that there are no longer any human truck drivers?
     
    How long between the first robot truck driver and the first truck that gets hacked and delivers $500,000 worth of cargo to the hacker?

    How long since the development of driver-less passenger trains do we still have drivers? A quick search indicates 40 years and counting.

    It is not that we won't have jobs displaced by technology. The problem Cowen identified is that the low hanging fruit is long ago picked.

    How long since the development of driver-less passenger trains do we still have drivers? A quick search indicates 40 years and counting.

    Yes, exactly. Uber and all sorts of techy companies are determined to have driverless cars. Did anyone ask for them? Does it really benefit anyone but Uber and a few truck companies? If you don’t want to drive to work, in many place there’s already public transport or van shares and the like.

    Planes have been almost completely automated for decades and 2 pilots are still required for commercial flights. How comfortable would you be if the pilot got to the end of the run way, told the stewardess to hit the equivalent of the “go” button, and left the plane entirely? My understanding is the level of technology is close to that.

    Wake me up when the human factor, mental or as in your good example, a hack isn’t going to play a part here. It matters, despite what the techies dream about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EdwardM

    Did anyone ask for them? Does it really benefit anyone but Uber and a few truck companies?
     
    Got to disagree here. Driverless cars would be an incredible benefit in a lot of circumstances. Wouldn't it be nice to sleep, read, stare into space, get drunk, etc. on your commute? Driving, especially in traffic, is draining. You could live three hours away in a nice area instead of some close-in suburb that still takes an hour to commute. This would be in your own private space to your specifications, not a public or shared vehicle that serves someone else's needs. Think of how car design might change; every car could be a mini-RV designed for leisure, or efficiency, instead of being constrained to address limitations of the driver.

    You'd never have to worry about parking, walking in the rain to your car, etc. It could drop you off and pick you up wherever you want and drive around in circles or park somewhere farther away in the meantime.

    My grandmother, who wants to maintain some independence but can't drive, would certainly benefit as well from a driverless car. As would anyone with children to shuttle around. As would the blind.

    Plus the economics of on-demand availability would be compelling for those who chose to participate in car sharing. You could have cars running basically 24 hours per day, which would eventually reduce costs and traffic once the system reached a critical mass of adoption. Liability and traffic fine risks would be much less for the individual driver; insurance would presumably take different forms but would be beneficial to the driver. At the same time, traffic could move much faster (cars closer together, operating at higher speeds) by being freed from risks of human error.
  197. MEH 0910 says:
    @John Derbyshire
    People keep telling me that, but I can never make it work. The incognito switch e.g. is no help with reading the Wall Street Journal.

    Lion of the Blogosphere gave this response to a reader’s comment: “Thanks for the tip on how to read the WSJ for free!”

    https://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.com/2017/07/06/another-journalist-reading-my-blog/#comment-148135

    http://archive.fo/5pyD0

    Read More
  198. @George
    Libertarians have never been in power so who knows what they would do if they ever had power.

    I have read libertarian articles claiming citizenship is sort of like stock ownership, and printing up new citizenships is sort of like stock dilution.

    I have a genius idea. There would be no citizenship except by birth to US of A parents. But being a libertarian, any citizen could sell their citizenship to anybody and leave the US. Why is this so incredibly brilliant? All the new Somali immigrants could sell their citizenship to rich Chinese and move back to Mogadishu as rich persons. Seems totally win win win to me. Trying to dump them in Somalia with a couple thou is not happening, even Israel can't seem to do it.

    I have read libertarian articles claiming citizenship is sort of like stock ownership, and printing up new citizenships is sort of like stock dilution.

    If a CEO could make a lot of money for himself personally by diluting the stock of the company he runs, what would a libertarian say? Would they call him a genious capitialist and that all the money he made is prima facie evidence of his goodness?

    Read More
  199. Polynikes says:
    @the Supreme Gentleman
    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there's no contradiction here: no one has to let anyone else use their private property (like a website or a house) except on contractually agreed upon terms, but no one can use the government to prevent other people from doing with their private property what they wish (e.g. renting a house to immigrants.) (Obviously this a limited philosophy.)

    For example, I assume most open borders libertarians would have no problem with people who don't want to live near immigrants/non-whites signing contracts ensuring that they can live in homogenous neighborhoods; but they would have a problem with people saying that everyone in society has to forcibly abide by those rules.

    Lol…tell me libertarians aren’t this dumb…

    A constitutionalist need only day that the constitution is a contract between the people and their government (I.e. the original meaning of constitution). Then the a nations people are easily able to exclude noncitizens, or non parties to the contract.

    Easy peasy, but likely to intellectually taxing for the economist type folks.

    Read More
  200. @AM

    Back in the day, the argument that more people = more wealth, would have been dismissed summarily with the contempt it deserves.
     
    At no point in human history could the relationship of population to overall wealth be dismissed summarily, including right now.

    Let's ponder a livestock farm. Farming accounting lists every single live animal as a capital asset, even if they do eat food, get sick, take up space, poop, and are generally a pain to take care of. At no point in time would you say that the wealthier farm has 10 cattle versus one that has 100 cattle, assuming the same breed. Even if you assume the small farm has extremely valuable livestock, 10X for each individual head is quite the gap to make up.

    The first American generation that will not see a rise in it's standard of living is Generation X, a generation that is the same size or slightly smaller than the generation ahead of it. If you're looking to describe "peak wealth", that would be the Baby Boomers who represent "peak population" within the generations. Oops.

    So yes, the economists are correct to think about population. Before the industrial revolution, it would have been completely obvious that the wealthiest countries were actually the most populous. (The industrial revolution does tamper with the economics of population, but not that much.)

    What economists get wrong is the idea of adding any old person to the planet or your economy will improve things, if the point is to raise the GDP.

    Let's go back to our cattle farm again. Let's assume you got wealthy running the ranch but now it's too much work. You know that you need to keep the farm running properly to maintain your wealth, but you've taken short cut after short cut in keeping the animals healthy, happy, and reproductive. The cattle are already look bad, overweight from cheap food and not enough exercise. The best cows are being asked to fill in the gaps of incompetent ranch hands and not attending to what calves they have (okay, stretch, but work with me here). You see all this and think: This farm isn't going to be as wealthy in the future. I don't want to get poor but I don't want to work either. What if we just add some chickens? I can count those as heads of cattle for a while. We'll all stay rich, but mostly me will stay rich. And as long as it lasts until I die, I'm good. My kids can deal with whatever comes next.

    But chickens aren't cattle and never will be. It's just making all the problems within the herd worse. And of course, son's ranch will be nothing like what Dad inherited.

    Economists are dressing up some solid economic theory to make it seems like it justifies lack of interest in the running the farm properly. Concerns about population and it's relationship to the economy are sound. What is not is not sound are modern conclusions and solutions, including the unwillingness to just suck it up and be poorer for a while.

    At no point in human history could the relationship of population to overall wealth be dismissed summarily

    Jus ask 1.3 billion Indians.

    Let’s ponder a livestock farm. Farming accounting lists every single live animal as a capital asset, even if they do eat food

    No, farms need to make a profit. If any animal is not in top form generating maximal revenue it is culled. The farm has finite space and facillities to maintain animals and excess over this will be sold or culled. The market will only consume a finite amount of farm produce.

    At no point in time would you say that the wealthier farm has 10 cattle versus one that has 100 cattle, assuming the same breed.

    Now, there’s the rub.

    If you’re looking to describe “peak wealth”, that would be the Baby Boomers who represent “peak population”

    The population of the United States is 325 million, the highest its ever been and is increasing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    Jus ask 1.3 billion Indians.
     
    India is a wealthier country right now then when she had less population. However, because of the nature of being Indian and Indian culture they are not as wealthy as the US. There many reasons she's poor as she is, including adopted European style socialism before getting wealthy, which cemented the corruption of the society. Paradoxically, the whole place might be wealthier and better off if we stopped skimming their best of their capital assets.

    No, farms need to make a profit. If any animal is not in top form generating maximal revenue it is culled. The farm has finite space and facillities to maintain animals and excess over this will be sold or culled. The market will only consume a finite amount of farm produce.
     
    The ability to cull non-producing asset doesn't mean anything for the point of recognizing that economically people are capital assets. A non-living capital asset that cannot scrapped at will, for instance, is spent fuel rods in nuclear plants. Once their useful life is done, the plant still has to pay to the store them. One way to handle that on the book is their value goes to zero and the expenses are rolled into the overhead expenses the plant/farm. It's not to odd declare they were never a capital asset in the first place.

    The thing is I'm not advocating for endless big farms/populations because you are correct about finite spaces,etc. The point is, however, that the observation that people are economic assets cannot be simply dismissed because it makes it easy to advocate for population control/border control.

    The population of the United States is 325 million, the highest its ever been and is increasing.
     
    I took the extra step of breaking the view down to defacto European natives and comparing populations within that, so that it was apples to apples as possible. I'm not sure what your point is, because it was never mine. My original post made it clear that you couldn't just add any old stock to your farm and hope for it to work out. It massively oversimplifies the relationship of population to wealth.
  201. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Chrisnonymous

    “State visits are different from a normal visit, and at a time when the president of the USA has policies that many in our country disagree with, I am not sure it is appropriate for our government to roll out the red carpet,” Khan told CNN.
     
    That's a pretty incredible statement. Do what we tell you, or we won't recognize you as a valued and trusted ally!

    Nassim Taleb's explanation for why little vegetarian girls turn their whole family vegetarian is always instructive to keep in mind in these situations. Also, that Khan is a Muslim. That is a real issue. If the US won't be treated appropriately by a Muslim mayor, the city of London shouldn't receive a state visit.

    Neither of Chrissie Hynde’s parents went vegetarian. Much to their credit.

    Read More
  202. @for-the-record
    What I really liked is the part about the Nigerians:

    Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more [by coming to the US].

    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.
     
    To fully remove the threat to Nigerians of enslavement by Boko Haram, of course, this means that the US needs to take them all.

    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik

    Surely then, Mr. Caplan would have no issue with 50 000 or so (to start) Nigerians moving to Israel no?

    Read More
  203. Unfortunately, Steve’s civility and apparent superiority of Irony Based Points are not good enough anymore.

    bored identity will use this opportunity to paraphrase his favorite Kenyan philosopher:

    “If you got your dandy, globalist rag – you didn’t built that paywall!”

    Therefore, bored identity can play this game to the end of NY Times;

    “Show me any egregiously overconfident, echo-chambering media outlet with their 50-foot paywall , and I’ll show you a decent society undermining ’51-foot ladder’ adage , that actually works.”

    Without further ado;
    there’s your The Economist US Edition (July 8-14), unbearably 92 pages long issue, to be widely shared in our glorious whishy – washy bordless world:

    http://www.ebook3000.com/The-Economist-USA—July-8-14–2017_458638.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The link is correct but somehow unz.com corrupts it. But if you go to ebook3000.com and search for Economist it will get you there.
  204. @anonguy
    Wow, here is what is going to come out of the Damond shooting.

    Nobody really has any idea of how many police shootings occure in the US every year. A couple of private sources have been trying to figure this out the past 2 years, picture is murky, but looking like ~3/day.

    Killed, not shot.

    That is a lot.

    It also appears, based upon spotty evidence admittedly, that there may have been a huge increase, maybe even 3x since y2k, in police killings in the U.S.

    I knew this Damond thing was going to be good.

    Bonus points, guys, assuming there has been this secular trend, why?

    Anyhow, an unseen death trend, like the Opioid Crisis or the, can't remember the name, drug that killed so many people without being noticed.

    Anyhow, expect a huge discussion about why the U.S. needs to have police execute 1000 people a year.

    p.s. I know one factor that almost nobody mentions..

    Nobody really has any idea of how many police shootings occure in the US every year. A couple of private sources have been trying to figure this out the past 2 years, picture is murky, but looking like ~3/day.

    It doesn’t seem that murky. There was, until Ferguson, significant under-reporting by police precincts to the federally mandated Justice Department database and might still be, but these private sources have been doing a pretty good job of gathering up the data.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

    http://killedbypolice.net/

    Read More
  205. BB753 says:
    @Macumazahn
    A HUNDRED-DOLLAR BILL is lying on the ground. An economist walks past it. A friend asks the economist: “Didn’t you see the money there?” The economist replies: “I thought I saw something, but I must have imagined it. If there had been $100 on the ground, someone would have picked it up.”

    If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true. But occasionally it is. Michael Clemens, an economist at the Centre for Global Development, an anti-poverty think-tank in Washington, DC, argues that there are “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”. One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

    Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

    “Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.



    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

    The potential gains from open borders dwarf those of, say, completely free trade, let alone foreign aid. Yet the idea is everywhere treated as a fantasy. In most countries fewer than 10% of people favour it. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, it is a political non-starter. Nonetheless, it is worth asking what might happen if borders were, indeed, open.

    To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

    Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace. It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada. The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists. Their poverty would thus become more visible to citizens of the rich world—who would see many more Liberians and Bangladeshis waiting tables and stacking shelves—but much less severe.

    If borders were open, how many people would up sticks? Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

    Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience. Migrants must wave goodbye to familiar people, familiar customs and grandma’s cooking. Many people would rather not make that sacrifice, even for the prospect of large material rewards.

    Wages are twice as high in Germany as in Greece, and under European Union rules Greeks are free to move to Germany, but only 150,000 have done so since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2010, out of a population of 11m. The weather is awful in Frankfurt, and hardly anyone speaks Greek. Even very large disparities combined with open borders do not necessarily lead to a mass exodus. Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

    Despite these caveats, it is a fair bet that open borders would lead to very large flows of people. The gap between rich and poor countries globally is much wider than the gap between the richest and less-rich countries within Europe, and most poor countries are not Pacific-island paradises. Many are violent as well as poor, or have oppressive governments.

    Also, migration is, in the jargon, “path-dependent”. It starts with a trickle: the first person to move from country A to country B typically arrives in a place where no one speaks his language or knows the right way to cook noodles. But the second migrant—who may be his brother or cousin—has someone to show him around. As word spreads on the diaspora grapevine that country B is a good place to live, more people set off from country A. When the 1,000th migrant arrives, he finds a whole neighbourhood of his compatriots.

    So the Gallup numbers could just as well be too low. Today there are 1.4bn people in rich countries and 6bn in not-so-rich ones. It is hardly far-fetched to imagine that, over a few decades, a billion or more of those people might emigrate if there were no legal obstacle to doing so. Clearly, this would transform rich countries in unpredictable ways.

    Voters in destination states typically do not mind a bit of immigration, but fret that truly open borders would lead to them being “swamped” by foreigners. This, they fear, would make life worse, and perhaps threaten the political system that made their country worth moving to in the first place. Mass migration, they worry, would bring more crime and terrorism, lower wages for locals, an impossible strain on welfare states, horrific overcrowding and traumatic cultural disruption.

    Open questions
    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. Granted, some immigrants commit crimes, or even headline-grabbing acts of terrorism. But in America the foreign-born are only a fifth as likely to be incarcerated as the native-born. In some European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

    Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.

    Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space. And mass migration would make the world as a whole less crowded, since fertility among migrants quickly plunges until it is much closer to the norm of their host country than their country of origin.

    Would mass immigration change the culture and politics of rich countries? Undoubtedly. Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today. Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.

    Eyes on the prize
    There are certainly risks if borders are opened suddenly and without the right policies to help absorb the inflow. But nearly all these risks could be mitigated, and many of the most common objections overcome, with a bit of creative thinking.

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.

    This sounds horribly discriminatory, and it is. But it is better for the migrants than the status quo, in which they are excluded from rich-world labour markets unless they pay tens of thousands of dollars to people-smugglers—and even then they must work in the shadows and are subject to sudden deportation. Today, millions of migrants work in the Gulf, where they have no political rights at all. Despite this, they keep coming. No one is forcing them to.

    “Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say...‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?

    Trillion-dollar bills rotting on the sidewalks.

    Read More
  206. Mr. Anon says:
    @Judah Benjamin Hur
    I like the Economist (there are a lot of interesting articles), but you can always count on it for howlers like this from the article:


    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. ...

    A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

     

    I like the Economist (there are a lot of interesting articles)…..

    Although “interesting” is no guarantee of them being “correct”. There is a well known phenomenon where – often – when one has personal knowledge of a news story, the account in the paper or magazine is wrong. That is certainly true of “The Economist”.

    Read More
  207. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @AM

    I’d go with, because the cattle, pigs, chickens, and horses don’t get a say as to whether they will turned into hamburgers, leather pants, or mcnuggets. Unless of course you propose a more old-fashioned type of social relations, before that pesky 13th amendment.
     
    LOL! There seems to a consistent set of moral objections to an entirely economic question. So let's go to the bad old days to see if I can be clearer.

    If you owned a plantation in the South circa 1750 and asked for an audit of your finances, the slaves would count. Not only would they count, they would be filed under capital assets, and subject to the usual accounting that deals with that. The more healthy able-bodied slaves you owned, the greater your net worth, end of statement. Jefferson was one of the richest men in Virginia and he owned a all sorts of slaves, along with land.

    Slaves had a market value, affected by the same factors that affect livestock animals. I know the comparison to animals offends deeply, sometimes to people in other contexts, are quite happy to point out that the Earth is completely over populated and certainly someone else should stop eating/and or stop having children. grin

    Anyway, part of the reason it became fashionable in the North particularly to free slaves was the recognition out that slaves were indeed capital assets, increasingly expensive, inflexible, and illiquid. The popularity of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations encouraged the use of disposable, ie day labor. If someone got sick or hurt while working, they weren't your problem! Boy, that was big moral advance.

    But I digress. The point is that people are, in purely economic terms, assets just like livestock animals. If they are not formally to an employer, they certainly are to a nation-state. It doesn't matter what you feel about that classification, because it's not a moral judgement and it's not a discussion about the morality of the thing.

    Back in the heyday of ranching, there were huge differences in the value of cattle based on biology.
     
    Yes, I address this in my original post. The differences in quality could be assigned a market value and then you add them all up and get the value of the general asset. However, was there a breed that was really 10X the worst breed? Roughly speaking my example still holds, even with variations in quality. In an apples to apples comparison, a ranch with 10 longhorns will still have a smaller net worth than a ranch with 100 longhorns.

    ‘Assets’ are defined as entities which ‘earn income’.

    If the people concerned do not ‘earn income’ – undoubtedly the case with low skilled third world immigrants to the USA when considered in a strict fiscal profit/loss account regarding taxpayer support and/or the value of their economic output compared to the burden they impose on economic activity, then the US economy as a whole loses money due to their presence.

    Such entities are described as ‘liabilities’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    You also have the problem of "externalities". Say I have a machine that belches pollutants that gives other people asthma. To my company, the machine is profitable because I don't have to account for the medical costs, which are paid by others.

    Likewise, if I hire an imported laborer for $10/hr. he appears to be profitable on my books, because I don't have to pay to educate his 3 kids or for when they over show up at the emergency room or have to be incarcerated as juvenile delinquents or when they break into houses or become Islamic terrorists, etc., etc. etc.

    Generally speaking, the key to the great wealth of the elites is figuring out a (legal) way to privatize profits while shifting costs onto others. If you can shift the expenses onto someone else, then the most destructive activities (e.g. selling deadly drugs) can be profitable to YOU.

    , @AM

    ‘Assets’ are defined as entities which ‘earn income’.
     
    Umm..no. Assets are the resources required to earn income. It's a subtle but important difference.

    The warehouses that Amazon buys do not earn income directly, but they must have them in order to produce income. They are capital assets that are actually nothing but expenses.

    The entity itself needs to have a net profit over time (sometimes a very long time), which is why accrual accounting was invented and refined in the first place, to handle Amazaons and other complex business entities.

    If the people concerned do not ‘earn income’ – undoubtedly the case with low skilled third world immigrants to the USA when considered in a strict fiscal profit/loss account regarding taxpayer support and/or the value of their economic output compared to the burden they impose on economic activity, then the US economy as a whole loses money due to their presence.
     
    This is a valid point, but I'm starting to suspect here that the real issue is that a)I've compared people to farm animals and b)I'm complicating what's clearly a nice, easy talking point. It turns out the globalists are broadly correct about the impact of numbers of humans on the economy, it's just they're using it as an excuse for cheap labor and generally not doing their job.
  208. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @MBlanc46
    Here's the piece:

    If borders were open
    A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer

    Yes, it would be disruptive. But the potential gains are so vast that objectors could be bribed to let it happen


    Print edition | The World If
    Jul 13th 2017
    A HUNDRED-DOLLAR BILL is lying on the ground. An economist walks past it. A friend asks the economist: “Didn’t you see the money there?” The economist replies: “I thought I saw something, but I must have imagined it. If there had been $100 on the ground, someone would have picked it up.”

    If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true. But occasionally it is. Michael Clemens, an economist at the Centre for Global Development, an anti-poverty think-tank in Washington, DC, argues that there are “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”. One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

    Latest updates
    How the nursing home lobby blocked reforms in Louisiana
    DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA
    4 HOURS AGO
    Restrictions are lifted on the last airline affected by America's laptop ban
    GULLIVER
    7 HOURS AGO
    How a countryʼs perceived openness affects its clout abroad
    GRAPHIC DETAIL
    7 HOURS AGO
    A new drug of choice in the Gulf
    MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA
    10 HOURS AGO
    South-East Asia’s future looks prosperous but illiberal
    ASIA
    10 HOURS AGO
    Events in Iceland explain years of famine in Europe’s Dark Ages
    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
    11 HOURS AGO
    See all updates
    Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

    “Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.

    “Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

    The potential gains from open borders dwarf those of, say, completely free trade, let alone foreign aid. Yet the idea is everywhere treated as a fantasy. In most countries fewer than 10% of people favour it. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, it is a political non-starter. Nonetheless, it is worth asking what might happen if borders were, indeed, open.

    To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

    Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace. It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada. The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists. Their poverty would thus become more visible to citizens of the rich world—who would see many more Liberians and Bangladeshis waiting tables and stacking shelves—but much less severe.

    If borders were open, how many people would up sticks? Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

    Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience. Migrants must wave goodbye to familiar people, familiar customs and grandma’s cooking. Many people would rather not make that sacrifice, even for the prospect of large material rewards.

    Wages are twice as high in Germany as in Greece, and under European Union rules Greeks are free to move to Germany, but only 150,000 have done so since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2010, out of a population of 11m. The weather is awful in Frankfurt, and hardly anyone speaks Greek. Even very large disparities combined with open borders do not necessarily lead to a mass exodus. Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

    Despite these caveats, it is a fair bet that open borders would lead to very large flows of people. The gap between rich and poor countries globally is much wider than the gap between the richest and less-rich countries within Europe, and most poor countries are not Pacific-island paradises. Many are violent as well as poor, or have oppressive governments.

    Also, migration is, in the jargon, “path-dependent”. It starts with a trickle: the first person to move from country A to country B typically arrives in a place where no one speaks his language or knows the right way to cook noodles. But the second migrant—who may be his brother or cousin—has someone to show him around. As word spreads on the diaspora grapevine that country B is a good place to live, more people set off from country A. When the 1,000th migrant arrives, he finds a whole neighbourhood of his compatriots.

    So the Gallup numbers could just as well be too low. Today there are 1.4bn people in rich countries and 6bn in not-so-rich ones. It is hardly far-fetched to imagine that, over a few decades, a billion or more of those people might emigrate if there were no legal obstacle to doing so. Clearly, this would transform rich countries in unpredictable ways.

    Voters in destination states typically do not mind a bit of immigration, but fret that truly open borders would lead to them being “swamped” by foreigners. This, they fear, would make life worse, and perhaps threaten the political system that made their country worth moving to in the first place. Mass migration, they worry, would bring more crime and terrorism, lower wages for locals, an impossible strain on welfare states, horrific overcrowding and traumatic cultural disruption.

    Open questions
    If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. Granted, some immigrants commit crimes, or even headline-grabbing acts of terrorism. But in America the foreign-born are only a fifth as likely to be incarcerated as the native-born. In some European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

    Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.


    Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space. And mass migration would make the world as a whole less crowded, since fertility among migrants quickly plunges until it is much closer to the norm of their host country than their country of origin.

    Would mass immigration change the culture and politics of rich countries? Undoubtedly. Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today. Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.

    Eyes on the prize
    There are certainly risks if borders are opened suddenly and without the right policies to help absorb the inflow. But nearly all these risks could be mitigated, and many of the most common objections overcome, with a bit of creative thinking.

    If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.

    This sounds horribly discriminatory, and it is. But it is better for the migrants than the status quo, in which they are excluded from rich-world labour markets unless they pay tens of thousands of dollars to people-smugglers—and even then they must work in the shadows and are subject to sudden deportation. Today, millions of migrants work in the Gulf, where they have no political rights at all. Despite this, they keep coming. No one is forcing them to.

    “Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say...‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?

    It comes down to the argument for prostitution.

    Gee, pretty girl, do you know you are sitting on a million bucks?

    Fortunately, most women have enough natural sense of self-worth and decency they don’t become prostitutes. It’s a disgusting thing in the cold light of day. But they have been around since, well, forever.

    So think about it. Most good looking young women who do go down that road DO make a million dollars (gross) today. Not truck stop lot lizards and ghetto street whores, but girls in major cities that go to the escort agencies. If they work six years, fifty weeks a year, three weeks a month, in New York or DC it’s very doable.

    At the end they are burned out wrecks, have several STDs some of which like herpes are incurable, and-almost invariably-they are dead broke. They tend to die young, some will go into some career where they can survive, a few will marry one of their insanely rich johns and when he dumps her for a newer model she’ll get a nest egg she can live on, if he has the decency to set her up in an irrevocable trust. But the pattern is so clear few can avoid understanding the consequences.

    Immigration is pimping your nation, literally. It means making a whore out of her.
    And the people most responsible not only know the consequences, they want them to happen.

    That is what we are dealing with here.

    Read More
  209. @Massimo Heitor
    - This article primarily cites the infamous, Bryan Caplan.

    - For a good argument against immigration from a similar academic economist, read Garett Jones, https://twitter.com/garettjones. The gist of his argument is that the nation and culture that a person lives in really do shape individual outcomes more so than measures of individual skill or effort. But, that important culture is created by the people that live there. If you repopulate a nation with a different people, you will get a different culture. He considers the cultures of present US, Europe, Canada, and Australia delicate jewels that should be preserved. Large levels of immigration can destroy their current culture that makes them special.

    - Academics do have areas of expertise where they are legitimate experts, and their voices deserve heightened recognition. But academics also have opinions outside their area of expertise that don't deserve such heightened recognition. As economist Arnold Kling, former coblogger of Caplan says, the issue of this type of immigration and radical demographic reconfiguration of the globe is not generally an economic issue, the academic expertise of economists isn't the most appropriate in analyzing the issue. Economists are often opinionated on politics and issues like immigration, but their opinions aren't particularly relevant to the issue, and don't deserve expertise recognitions. Bryan Caplan boasts that he takes the "broad" view of economics, where he explores any subject that interests him, and feels comfortable asserting subject expertise. This isn't warranted.

    A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.
     
    With open borders or mass immigration, you admit both the victims and the villains of corrosive culture. You don't have such horrific destructive culture like that of the Islamic and Jihadi extremists in the United States because the people that create that culture have not been allowed in in large numbers.

    That is starting to change in the US and Europe: A leading political figure in the US who leads the Women's March, openly declares waging "jihad" against the US president.

    In Europe, Jewish communities that were safe for decades from the horrors of Islamic culture are no longer safe, and have recently been pressured to hide or flee from new Islamic demographics recently given entry into Europe.

    Yes, it would be disruptive. But the potential gains are so vast that objectors could be bribed to let it happen
     
    This kind of flippant, giddy, almost maniacal attitude towards overriding the laws of nations, overturning elections, even overturning the heart of democracy, undermining the premise of nation states, and radical reconfiguration of the global order should be a big red flag.

    In Europe, Jewish communities that were safe for decades from the horrors of Islamic culture are no longer safe

    Get The Women & Jews To Safety!

    Read More
  210. AndrewR says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    But, to be charitable, to a libertarian there’s no contradiction here
     
    To hell with charity. I want a country I can live in, and hand over to my descendants as a country they can live in.

    Based on your personality, any descendents of yours would likely be either the product of rape or of sperm bank donations.

    Read More
  211. Jack D says:
    @bored identity
    Unfortunately, Steve's civility and apparent superiority of Irony Based Points are not good enough anymore.

    bored identity will use this opportunity to paraphrase his favorite Kenyan philosopher:

    "If you got your dandy, globalist rag - you didn't built that paywall!"


    Therefore, bored identity can play this game to the end of NY Times;

    "Show me any egregiously overconfident, echo-chambering media outlet with their 50-foot paywall , and I'll show you a decent society undermining '51-foot ladder' adage , that actually works."


    Without further ado;
    there's your The Economist US Edition (July 8-14), unbearably 92 pages long issue, to be widely shared in our glorious whishy - washy bordless world:

    http://www.ebook3000.com/The-Economist-USA---July-8-14--2017_458638.html

    The link is correct but somehow unz.com corrupts it. But if you go to ebook3000.com and search for Economist it will get you there.

    Read More
  212. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous
    'Assets' are defined as entities which 'earn income'.

    If the people concerned do not 'earn income' - undoubtedly the case with low skilled third world immigrants to the USA when considered in a strict fiscal profit/loss account regarding taxpayer support and/or the value of their economic output compared to the burden they impose on economic activity, then the US economy as a whole loses money due to their presence.

    Such entities are described as 'liabilities'.

    You also have the problem of “externalities”. Say I have a machine that belches pollutants that gives other people asthma. To my company, the machine is profitable because I don’t have to account for the medical costs, which are paid by others.

    Likewise, if I hire an imported laborer for $10/hr. he appears to be profitable on my books, because I don’t have to pay to educate his 3 kids or for when they over show up at the emergency room or have to be incarcerated as juvenile delinquents or when they break into houses or become Islamic terrorists, etc., etc. etc.

    Generally speaking, the key to the great wealth of the elites is figuring out a (legal) way to privatize profits while shifting costs onto others. If you can shift the expenses onto someone else, then the most destructive activities (e.g. selling deadly drugs) can be profitable to YOU.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    Likewise, if I hire an imported laborer for $10/hr. he appears to be profitable on my books, because I don’t have to pay to educate his 3 kids or for when they over show up at the emergency room or have to be incarcerated as juvenile delinquents or when they break into houses or become Islamic terrorists, etc., etc. etc.
     
    I mostly agree with your post. But because I'm stinker ;) , I'm going to point out that this line of thinking is exactly the line of thinking that was causing some people to voluntarily free their slaves before it was outlawed.

    Slaves, you have to pay for their medical care, food, and kids. Retirement not so much, because most people's infirm old age didn't really exist until now. But Day laborers, pay'em for the day and if they break a leg, what's it to you?

    What's remarkable is that post WWIII employment and daily relationships are much closer to Masater/Slave or Lord/Serf than day laborer models. Anyone with a full-time job, with retirement plans, health care, etc is asking for a level of care from their employer that is much closer to lord/serf. The obvious difference is that it's voluntary on the part of the employee and it's a critical difference. But still..it's kinda funny how labor seems to work through time.

  213. AM says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    At no point in human history could the relationship of population to overall wealth be dismissed summarily

     

    Jus ask 1.3 billion Indians.

    Let’s ponder a livestock farm. Farming accounting lists every single live animal as a capital asset, even if they do eat food

     

    No, farms need to make a profit. If any animal is not in top form generating maximal revenue it is culled. The farm has finite space and facillities to maintain animals and excess over this will be sold or culled. The market will only consume a finite amount of farm produce.

    At no point in time would you say that the wealthier farm has 10 cattle versus one that has 100 cattle, assuming the same breed.

     

    Now, there's the rub.

    If you’re looking to describe “peak wealth”, that would be the Baby Boomers who represent “peak population”

     

    The population of the United States is 325 million, the highest its ever been and is increasing.

    Jus ask 1.3 billion Indians.

    India is a wealthier country right now then when she had less population. However, because of the nature of being Indian and Indian culture they are not as wealthy as the US. There many reasons she’s poor as she is, including adopted European style socialism before getting wealthy, which cemented the corruption of the society. Paradoxically, the whole place might be wealthier and better off if we stopped skimming their best of their capital assets.

    No, farms need to make a profit. If any animal is not in top form generating maximal revenue it is culled. The farm has finite space and facillities to maintain animals and excess over this will be sold or culled. The market will only consume a finite amount of farm produce.

    The ability to cull non-producing asset doesn’t mean anything for the point of recognizing that economically people are capital assets. A non-living capital asset that cannot scrapped at will, for instance, is spent fuel rods in nuclear plants. Once their useful life is done, the plant still has to pay to the store them. One way to handle that on the book is their value goes to zero and the expenses are rolled into the overhead expenses the plant/farm. It’s not to odd declare they were never a capital asset in the first place.

    The thing is I’m not advocating for endless big farms/populations because you are correct about finite spaces,etc. The point is, however, that the observation that people are economic assets cannot be simply dismissed because it makes it easy to advocate for population control/border control.

    The population of the United States is 325 million, the highest its ever been and is increasing.

    I took the extra step of breaking the view down to defacto European natives and comparing populations within that, so that it was apples to apples as possible. I’m not sure what your point is, because it was never mine. My original post made it clear that you couldn’t just add any old stock to your farm and hope for it to work out. It massively oversimplifies the relationship of population to wealth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D

    One way to handle that on the book is their value goes to zero and the expenses are rolled into the overhead expenses the plant/farm. It’s not to odd declare they were never a capital asset in the first place.
     
    That's not correct. What you have to do is take a reserve on your books for the cleanup liability or future storage cost. If you correctly account for these costs, then what may appear to be a net asset may in fact be a net liability. Lets say a fuel rod will generate $10,000 worth of electricity during its useful lifespan but the cost of storing this highly radioactive spent fuel rod for the next 10,000 years is $1 million (some of which you will pay and some of which you may attempt to shift onto the taxpayers). If you don't account properly, then it looks like the fuel rod is a profitable asset - it only costs you say $2,000 and will produce revenue of $10,000 so it's a great deal . But if you did the proper life cycle accounting you'd say don't build this plant because in the long run the costs are going to far exceed the benefits.
  214. @notice
    No signatory for the Economist article?

    No author at that magazine willing to put his name over it? That's printed grafitti in a way isn't it?

    A borderless world would eventually have a one-world currency and a one-world government. It would leave nowhere to run if the economy or the government went bad.

    Make gated communities and private schools illegal and none of these people would be clamoring for open borders.

    “No signatory for the Economist article?
    No author at that magazine willing to put his name over it? That’s printed grafitti in a way isn’t it?”

    There are never any signatories on articles in the Economist. The better to cultivate an aura of ex cathedra.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Judah Benjamin Hur

    The cover of anonymity for the magazine's writers is an important part of its omniscient stance, among other reasons because it conceals the extreme youth of much of the staff. "The magazine is written by young people pretending to be old people," says Michael Lewis, the author of "Liar's Poker," who now lives in England. "If American readers got a look at the pimply complexions of their economic gurus, they would cancel their subscriptions in droves."
     
    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-washington-post-1991/7415/
  215. AM says:
    @Anonymous
    'Assets' are defined as entities which 'earn income'.

    If the people concerned do not 'earn income' - undoubtedly the case with low skilled third world immigrants to the USA when considered in a strict fiscal profit/loss account regarding taxpayer support and/or the value of their economic output compared to the burden they impose on economic activity, then the US economy as a whole loses money due to their presence.

    Such entities are described as 'liabilities'.

    ‘Assets’ are defined as entities which ‘earn income’.

    Umm..no. Assets are the resources required to earn income. It’s a subtle but important difference.

    The warehouses that Amazon buys do not earn income directly, but they must have them in order to produce income. They are capital assets that are actually nothing but expenses.

    The entity itself needs to have a net profit over time (sometimes a very long time), which is why accrual accounting was invented and refined in the first place, to handle Amazaons and other complex business entities.

    If the people concerned do not ‘earn income’ – undoubtedly the case with low skilled third world immigrants to the USA when considered in a strict fiscal profit/loss account regarding taxpayer support and/or the value of their economic output compared to the burden they impose on economic activity, then the US economy as a whole loses money due to their presence.

    This is a valid point, but I’m starting to suspect here that the real issue is that a)I’ve compared people to farm animals and b)I’m complicating what’s clearly a nice, easy talking point. It turns out the globalists are broadly correct about the impact of numbers of humans on the economy, it’s just they’re using it as an excuse for cheap labor and generally not doing their job.

    Read More
  216. AM says:
    @Jack D
    You also have the problem of "externalities". Say I have a machine that belches pollutants that gives other people asthma. To my company, the machine is profitable because I don't have to account for the medical costs, which are paid by others.

    Likewise, if I hire an imported laborer for $10/hr. he appears to be profitable on my books, because I don't have to pay to educate his 3 kids or for when they over show up at the emergency room or have to be incarcerated as juvenile delinquents or when they break into houses or become Islamic terrorists, etc., etc. etc.

    Generally speaking, the key to the great wealth of the elites is figuring out a (legal) way to privatize profits while shifting costs onto others. If you can shift the expenses onto someone else, then the most destructive activities (e.g. selling deadly drugs) can be profitable to YOU.

    Likewise, if I hire an imported laborer for $10/hr. he appears to be profitable on my books, because I don’t have to pay to educate his 3 kids or for when they over show up at the emergency room or have to be incarcerated as juvenile delinquents or when they break into houses or become Islamic terrorists, etc., etc. etc.

    I mostly agree with your post. But because I’m stinker ;) , I’m going to point out that this line of thinking is exactly the line of thinking that was causing some people to voluntarily free their slaves before it was outlawed.

    Slaves, you have to pay for their medical care, food, and kids. Retirement not so much, because most people’s infirm old age didn’t really exist until now. But Day laborers, pay’em for the day and if they break a leg, what’s it to you?

    What’s remarkable is that post WWIII employment and daily relationships are much closer to Masater/Slave or Lord/Serf than day laborer models. Anyone with a full-time job, with retirement plans, health care, etc is asking for a level of care from their employer that is much closer to lord/serf. The obvious difference is that it’s voluntary on the part of the employee and it’s a critical difference. But still..it’s kinda funny how labor seems to work through time.

    Read More
  217. Romanian says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    Globalists operate assuming the Efficient borders hypothesis: any border enclosing the innermost border you can personally afford to be within is redundant to you.

    It's also informally expressed as "you can't beat the border": if you can pass through one border, another one will pop up you can't afford to pass through.

    So national borders are inefficient. The market can best determine where walls should be built, their porousness inversely proportional to the wealth of those protected by them.

    You might have meant it as a pithy observation, but I think you hit a few nails on the head there.

    Read More
  218. MBlanc46 says:
    @anonguy
    Wow, here is what is going to come out of the Damond shooting.

    Nobody really has any idea of how many police shootings occure in the US every year. A couple of private sources have been trying to figure this out the past 2 years, picture is murky, but looking like ~3/day.

    Killed, not shot.

    That is a lot.

    It also appears, based upon spotty evidence admittedly, that there may have been a huge increase, maybe even 3x since y2k, in police killings in the U.S.

    I knew this Damond thing was going to be good.

    Bonus points, guys, assuming there has been this secular trend, why?

    Anyhow, an unseen death trend, like the Opioid Crisis or the, can't remember the name, drug that killed so many people without being noticed.

    Anyhow, expect a huge discussion about why the U.S. needs to have police execute 1000 people a year.

    p.s. I know one factor that almost nobody mentions..

    More likely: Black immgrant cop, white woman. Down the memory hole.

    Read More
  219. MBlanc46 says:
    @notice
    No signatory for the Economist article?

    No author at that magazine willing to put his name over it? That's printed grafitti in a way isn't it?

    A borderless world would eventually have a one-world currency and a one-world government. It would leave nowhere to run if the economy or the government went bad.

    Make gated communities and private schools illegal and none of these people would be clamoring for open borders.

    None of their pieces are signed.

    Read More
  220. anarchyst says:
    @anonguy
    OT, but this Australian women shot by the Minneapolis police officer story is going to be incredibly more embarrassing than it already is.

    You know, whenever the cops shoot anyone, there is immediately some at least lame attempt by the relevant PD to exculpate the officer - he felt threatened, that sort of thing.

    Nothing at all here. And there is an unimpeachable witness, the driver cop, who I don't believe is going to take a fall or keep a blue line of silence here.

    I'm kinda wondering what went on in the squad car in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, was the driver cop fearing for his life from his partner, etc?

    He's going to spill all the beans and we are going to hear all about it. Australian media won't let this story die despite the efforts of our domestic MSM.

    Police are the only “protected” group in America that can literally murder someone with impunity and get away with it. The magic words are “I feared for my life” and will get just about any police officer off, with a paid vacation to boot. Too bad the same tactic cannot be used by honest law-abiding citizens. An honest citizen would be tried, convicted and incarcerated for these same actions as committed by police officers.
    Due to training in Israeli police tactics (not suitable for American law enforcement), the “thin blue line” has become an occupying force for all American citizens. The militarization of American police has created an “us vs. them” attitude, regarding the citizens as mere “slaves” (lesser beings) able to be “pushed around” by police because THEY CAN…
    Quite often, police bark commands to citizens, demanding immediate compliance. The trouble starts when multiple officer bark conflicting commands, and then end up murdering the citizen for failing to react fast enough…
    Any police officer who cannot disarm a person holding a knife, stick, or rake without resorting to “lethal force” has no business being involved in “law enforcement”.
    One solution is to take any awards given to citizens for police misconduct from the police pension funds–not from the municipality’s general fund or insurance company. You can bet that if that were the norm, police would “clean up their acts” in a hurry…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Judah Benjamin Hur

    Police are the only “protected” group in America that can literally murder someone with impunity and get away with it. The magic words are “I feared for my life” and will get just about any police officer off, with a paid vacation to boot.
     
    Medical errors (or worse) kill 250,000 a year in America and health care professionals rarely get in trouble.
  221. Jack D says:
    @AM

    Jus ask 1.3 billion Indians.
     
    India is a wealthier country right now then when she had less population. However, because of the nature of being Indian and Indian culture they are not as wealthy as the US. There many reasons she's poor as she is, including adopted European style socialism before getting wealthy, which cemented the corruption of the society. Paradoxically, the whole place might be wealthier and better off if we stopped skimming their best of their capital assets.

    No, farms need to make a profit. If any animal is not in top form generating maximal revenue it is culled. The farm has finite space and facillities to maintain animals and excess over this will be sold or culled. The market will only consume a finite amount of farm produce.
     
    The ability to cull non-producing asset doesn't mean anything for the point of recognizing that economically people are capital assets. A non-living capital asset that cannot scrapped at will, for instance, is spent fuel rods in nuclear plants. Once their useful life is done, the plant still has to pay to the store them. One way to handle that on the book is their value goes to zero and the expenses are rolled into the overhead expenses the plant/farm. It's not to odd declare they were never a capital asset in the first place.

    The thing is I'm not advocating for endless big farms/populations because you are correct about finite spaces,etc. The point is, however, that the observation that people are economic assets cannot be simply dismissed because it makes it easy to advocate for population control/border control.

    The population of the United States is 325 million, the highest its ever been and is increasing.
     
    I took the extra step of breaking the view down to defacto European natives and comparing populations within that, so that it was apples to apples as possible. I'm not sure what your point is, because it was never mine. My original post made it clear that you couldn't just add any old stock to your farm and hope for it to work out. It massively oversimplifies the relationship of population to wealth.

    One way to handle that on the book is their value goes to zero and the expenses are rolled into the overhead expenses the plant/farm. It’s not to odd declare they were never a capital asset in the first place.

    That’s not correct. What you have to do is take a reserve on your books for the cleanup liability or future storage cost. If you correctly account for these costs, then what may appear to be a net asset may in fact be a net liability. Lets say a fuel rod will generate $10,000 worth of electricity during its useful lifespan but the cost of storing this highly radioactive spent fuel rod for the next 10,000 years is $1 million (some of which you will pay and some of which you may attempt to shift onto the taxpayers). If you don’t account properly, then it looks like the fuel rod is a profitable asset – it only costs you say $2,000 and will produce revenue of $10,000 so it’s a great deal . But if you did the proper life cycle accounting you’d say don’t build this plant because in the long run the costs are going to far exceed the benefits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    That’s not correct. What you have to do is take a reserve on your books for the cleanup liability or future storage cost.
     
    I appreciate the correction. I knew that I was just knowledgeable enough only to conjecture on how fuel rods were accounted for over their lifespan and in retrospect I should have made that clearer in my post.

    My point was that because you can't "scrap" a human at will that it doesn't stop them from being a capital asset of some form, just like a nuclear fuel rod or a livestock animal, when thinking in strictly economic terms. It's the concept I was trying to flesh out with my responses on this thread. Thanks again for clearing up the actual accounting method.

  222. Romanian says: • Website
    @Anon7
    In his 1956 novel The Stars My Destination, science fiction writer Alfred Bester tries to imagine what would actually happpen if there was a "world of free movement". Bester comes up with a different answer than The Economist.

    Bester makes use of the idea of teleportation, which he calls "jaunting"; what if anyone could simply move themselves wherever they wanted, and there was no border or wall that could stop them?

    ...within three generations the entire solar system was on the jaunte. The transition was more spectacular than the change-over from horse and buggy to the gasoline age four centuries before. On three planets and eight satellites, social, legal, and economic structures crashed while the new customs and laws demanded by universal jaunting mushroomed in their place.

    There were land riots as the jaunting poor deserted slums to squat in plains and forests, raiding the livestock and wildlife... There were crashes and panics and strikes and famines as pre-jaunte industries failed.

    Plagues and pandemics raged as jaunting vagrants carried disease and vermin into defenseless countries. Malaria, elephantiasis, and the breakbone fever came north to Greenland; rabies returned to England after an absence of three hundred years. The Japanese beetle, the citrous scale, the chestnut blight, and the elm borer spread to every corner of the world, and from one forgotten pesthole in Borneo, leprosy, long imagined extinct, reappeared.

    Crime waves swept the planets and satellites as their underworlds took to jaunting with the night around the clock, and there were brutalities as the police fought them without quarter. There came a hideous return to the worst prudery of Victorianism as society fought the sexual and moral dangers of jaunting with protocol and taboo. A cruel and vicious war broke out between the Inner Planets-Venus, Terra and Mars-and the Outer Satellites . . . a war brought on by the economic and political pressures of teleportation.

     

    This comment deserves a golden border. I did not know that. I should read Alfred Bester.

    Read More
  223. Romanian says: • Website
    @International Jew
    The incognito tab "trick" does work at a great many sites: nytimes.com and The Economist among them. It doesn't work at wsj.com because the WSJ is actually serious about making you pay: there you log in and they check against credentials stored at their site. Obviously, the incognito tab can't be a universal key; it won't let me into the Derbyshire family's bank account either!

    Sites like nytimes and economist, which are actually not that serious about keeping you out, store a small amount of data — called a cookie — on your computer, that includes inter alia a count of how many times you've been there. They lock you out when the count reaches some number (10, for nytimes). So using an incognito tab loses that cookie and makes nytimes think you've never been there before.

    Some of you might be wondering at this point if one site can read another's cookie. Like, could the site your employer forces you to go to, to file a dental benefit claim, see a cookie placed by unz.com, leading your employer to fire you for association with an SPLC®-certified hate group? The answer is: mo, unless unz.com wants to let them. Of course unz.com isn't going to do that (right, Ron?) But Facebook, Google, Twitter, LinkedIn and others do help in this way. So in particular, you should know that using a pseudonym to speak freely on Disqus doesn't protect you if Disqus wants to learn your Facebook identity (or your Google identity, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc).

    Bottom line, we gotta turn this ship around before we all get doxxed and fired (if not fined and imprisoned too) some time in the next decade.

    Does not work on the Economist for me. Neither does googling the headline work anymore. It used to work also on Stratfor. Don’t look at me like that! I was a poor student who grew up to be a frugal adult! :P

    Read More
  224. Sean says:
    @El Dato

    Contrary to what scientists will tell you, evolution does show a definite long term trend towards improvement.
     
    Wrong. Only to complexity if the environment allows for it it.

    Once the environment doesn't permit it, it's back to dwarf elephants, hardy rodents and tardigrades.


    So does the planet’s economy.
     
    Again, only if the environment permits it. Civilizations do not necessarily hold over the long run, they may crash & burn and shed headcount fiercely.

    Anyone who thinks there is a magic improvement arrow should revise his basic assumptions. This is also the completely bonkers magic assumption underlying Whig Historiography.

    We have capitalism and modern humans, by my way of thinking both are indisputably better than what went before, and not just more “complex”. Scientists don’t claim there is a an evolutionary trend toward complexity if the environment permits it. Steven Jay Gould ‘s book Wonderful Life said the evolution of multi-celled animals, mammals and humans was entirely contingent (like the welfare of the town was on the lead character in the Capra film). Gould said there was an series of unlikely occurrences (including random mass disaster extinctions of the otherwise most viable species) producing the fluke emergence of modern humans (ie intelligence). Although he doesn’t say so, it follows that even on a planet such as Earth, the evolution of technology-capable intelligent life is about as likely as a rollover lottery win and Earth is surely the only place it ever happened in the entire history of the Universe. Consistent with the aforementioned humans-are-a-fluke argument, there is no sign of alien radio wave communication in the Universe. But to me it lacks credibility that technological capable aliens never existed and we are the unique result of a series of freakish coincidences, just as it is unbelievable James Stewart’s character was the only man his wife in the film could have married.

    The French have agreed to Macron’s deal, which is to sell out to international capital rather than accept the losses its leveraging caused.Mass extinction events loomed large in the emergence of the lineages that led to modern humans, and increasingly deep financial crashes caused by the banks are the economic analogy. Massive leveraging is still an integral part of capitalism (which is the most effective wealth-creator). The next crash will lead to people being faced with the prospect of kissing their country’s borders or their financial future goodbye. Like the Scots giving up their independence from England after Scotland’s Darien Scheme ended in disaster, the West will sell out and get rid of borders for the avoidance of pauperisation.

    Read More
  225. EdwardM says:

    So what they are talking about basically global one-world government + communism + free movement of people. Not sure if there is a name for such a system or it was tried in some form across the USSR communist diaspora.

    If one accepts arguendo that open borders would improve productivity and therefore the wealth of the world — to the point where everyone could be provided a decent existence — the “bribery” they are talking about is basically just a global, centralized redistribution of wealth. So individuals and companies would operate in a pseudo-free market, but then ultimately the state would commandeer all surplus and redistribute it in furtherance of its social goals. Sounds like a definition of fascism.* It would depend, among other fallacies, on the clear thinking and good will of the governing class.

    I guess in their view, freedom of expression and association could exist in principle, except that there would be no mechanism for people to collectively change this system (i.e., democracy) or to address the corruption that would inevitably be rife.

    It’s not a bad thought experiment to consider such a system because it’s what the globalist elites really want and because it is plausible that this is what the world will look like in 100-200 years.

    *The closest example in today’s world that I can think of is Gulf Arab countries (as applied to their own citizens). They are rich enough for everyone to live comfortably. They provide the veneer of economic freedom, but at the macro level resources are allocated and redistributed by the monarchy, with all of the waste and corruption that that entails. And of course citizens are not at liberty to engage in politics, other than private squabbling and jockeying for good will among the people who make the decisions. So under the Economist’s scenario, if the wealth materialized, the world might look something like Oman.

    Read More
  226. @kaganovitch
    "No signatory for the Economist article?
    No author at that magazine willing to put his name over it? That’s printed grafitti in a way isn’t it?"

    There are never any signatories on articles in the Economist. The better to cultivate an aura of ex cathedra.

    The cover of anonymity for the magazine’s writers is an important part of its omniscient stance, among other reasons because it conceals the extreme youth of much of the staff. “The magazine is written by young people pretending to be old people,” says Michael Lewis, the author of “Liar’s Poker,” who now lives in England. “If American readers got a look at the pimply complexions of their economic gurus, they would cancel their subscriptions in droves.”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-washington-post-1991/7415/

    Read More
  227. @anarchyst
    Police are the only "protected" group in America that can literally murder someone with impunity and get away with it. The magic words are "I feared for my life" and will get just about any police officer off, with a paid vacation to boot. Too bad the same tactic cannot be used by honest law-abiding citizens. An honest citizen would be tried, convicted and incarcerated for these same actions as committed by police officers.
    Due to training in Israeli police tactics (not suitable for American law enforcement), the "thin blue line" has become an occupying force for all American citizens. The militarization of American police has created an "us vs. them" attitude, regarding the citizens as mere "slaves" (lesser beings) able to be "pushed around" by police because THEY CAN...
    Quite often, police bark commands to citizens, demanding immediate compliance. The trouble starts when multiple officer bark conflicting commands, and then end up murdering the citizen for failing to react fast enough...
    Any police officer who cannot disarm a person holding a knife, stick, or rake without resorting to "lethal force" has no business being involved in "law enforcement".
    One solution is to take any awards given to citizens for police misconduct from the police pension funds--not from the municipality's general fund or insurance company. You can bet that if that were the norm, police would "clean up their acts" in a hurry...

    Police are the only “protected” group in America that can literally murder someone with impunity and get away with it. The magic words are “I feared for my life” and will get just about any police officer off, with a paid vacation to boot.

    Medical errors (or worse) kill 250,000 a year in America and health care professionals rarely get in trouble.

    Read More
  228. AM says:
    @Jack D

    One way to handle that on the book is their value goes to zero and the expenses are rolled into the overhead expenses the plant/farm. It’s not to odd declare they were never a capital asset in the first place.
     
    That's not correct. What you have to do is take a reserve on your books for the cleanup liability or future storage cost. If you correctly account for these costs, then what may appear to be a net asset may in fact be a net liability. Lets say a fuel rod will generate $10,000 worth of electricity during its useful lifespan but the cost of storing this highly radioactive spent fuel rod for the next 10,000 years is $1 million (some of which you will pay and some of which you may attempt to shift onto the taxpayers). If you don't account properly, then it looks like the fuel rod is a profitable asset - it only costs you say $2,000 and will produce revenue of $10,000 so it's a great deal . But if you did the proper life cycle accounting you'd say don't build this plant because in the long run the costs are going to far exceed the benefits.

    That’s not correct. What you have to do is take a reserve on your books for the cleanup liability or future storage cost.

    I appreciate the correction. I knew that I was just knowledgeable enough only to conjecture on how fuel rods were accounted for over their lifespan and in retrospect I should have made that clearer in my post.

    My point was that because you can’t “scrap” a human at will that it doesn’t stop them from being a capital asset of some form, just like a nuclear fuel rod or a livestock animal, when thinking in strictly economic terms. It’s the concept I was trying to flesh out with my responses on this thread. Thanks again for clearing up the actual accounting method.

    Read More
  229. EdwardM says:
    @AM

    How long since the development of driver-less passenger trains do we still have drivers? A quick search indicates 40 years and counting.
     
    Yes, exactly. Uber and all sorts of techy companies are determined to have driverless cars. Did anyone ask for them? Does it really benefit anyone but Uber and a few truck companies? If you don't want to drive to work, in many place there's already public transport or van shares and the like.

    Planes have been almost completely automated for decades and 2 pilots are still required for commercial flights. How comfortable would you be if the pilot got to the end of the run way, told the stewardess to hit the equivalent of the "go" button, and left the plane entirely? My understanding is the level of technology is close to that.

    Wake me up when the human factor, mental or as in your good example, a hack isn't going to play a part here. It matters, despite what the techies dream about.

    Did anyone ask for them? Does it really benefit anyone but Uber and a few truck companies?

    Got to disagree here. Driverless cars would be an incredible benefit in a lot of circumstances. Wouldn’t it be nice to sleep, read, stare into space, get drunk, etc. on your commute? Driving, especially in traffic, is draining. You could live three hours away in a nice area instead of some close-in suburb that still takes an hour to commute. This would be in your own private space to your specifications, not a public or shared vehicle that serves someone else’s needs. Think of how car design might change; every car could be a mini-RV designed for leisure, or efficiency, instead of being constrained to address limitations of the driver.

    You’d never have to worry about parking, walking in the rain to your car, etc. It could drop you off and pick you up wherever you want and drive around in circles or park somewhere farther away in the meantime.

    My grandmother, who wants to maintain some independence but can’t drive, would certainly benefit as well from a driverless car. As would anyone with children to shuttle around. As would the blind.

    Plus the economics of on-demand availability would be compelling for those who chose to participate in car sharing. You could have cars running basically 24 hours per day, which would eventually reduce costs and traffic once the system reached a critical mass of adoption. Liability and traffic fine risks would be much less for the individual driver; insurance would presumably take different forms but would be beneficial to the driver. At the same time, traffic could move much faster (cars closer together, operating at higher speeds) by being freed from risks of human error.

    Read More
  230. @Charles Pewitt
    The Economist magazine wants to destroy European Christian nation-states. The Economist magazine wants plunder zone regions amenable to exploitation by globalized plutocrats. The Economist magazine pushes mass immigration because it is a demographic weapon designed to destroy White nations.

    Mass immigration and the illegal alien invasion would be stopped if only White people voted in presidential elections.

    Look at this demographic map of White voters in the United States presidential election won by President Trump:

    https://twitter.com/Amazing_Maps/status/887031693651177472

    In New Jersey 4 counties went for Clinton. They are the ones containing Newark, Jersey City, Trenton, and Camden.

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored