The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Why Are the Public Faces of the Economics Profession So Intellectually Self-Lobotomized on Immigration?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

One of the best kept secrets of the 21st Century is how large a role Diversity (in its various manifestations) played in housing bubble and bust of the last decade. So I’ve been slowly collecting studies by economists of the subject, such as how much worse the default rate was among minorities and immigrants. Last week in “Immigrants Delinquent on Mortgages 3.6 Times as Often as Natives,” I wrote about a recent study published in Real Estate Economics entitled “Immigrants and Mortgage Delinquency” and written by Zhenguo Lin, Yingchun Liu and Jia Xie.

Although Lin, Liu, and Xie toss in some boilerplate at the end about how obviously immigrants aren’t to blame for the bubble and bust, they had clearly read up on this question that fascinates me, citing Michelle Malkin as representative of the “media” and asserting that George W. Bush had “famously” said something at his 2002 White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership, which is famous mostly to my readers. It was a good study, showing a much greater curiosity about this crucial question than is considered seemly these days.

And it made me wish economists did more studies of the impact of immigration. Instead, we mostly see big name economists just dogmatically endorsing immigration as obviously something that all smart people know is Good.

Why, you may ask? Because immigration is Good. If you were smart, you’d know that.

So why are famous white American economists so publicly stupid on immigration? I’m using the word stupid not to mean “disagree with me,” but to mean “ignorant,” “poorly read in the literature,” “using obvious logical fallacies,” and “incurious.”

It strikes me that one big reason for the shameful behavior of most brand name economists on the analysis of immigration is the demographics of the economics profession at present, with white American economists at the top of the pyramid lording it over a lot of immigrants. The wealthy old white guys seem to assume that their immigrant underlings don’t want the immigration question studied honestly, so they discourage intelligent discussion.

But who knows? Maybe the immigrants would actually like to study immigration? Perhaps in the future when all the old white American professors have been put out to pasture and people with names like Lin, Liu, and Xie completely dominate the American economics profession, discussion of immigration won’t be so intellectually stilted.

To give some sense of the demographics of the economics profession, here is the table of contents of that recent issue of Real Estate Economics that includes that Lin, Liu, and Xie paper. I’ve put in bold all the economists with names that, judging by the first and last names, don’t sound American: e.g., Leonard Nakamura is assumed to be American and Morten Sorensen to be immigrant. I count 40 immigrant-sounding names and 36 American-sounding names. I didn’t look up the individuals (other than watching a video of Morten Sorensen, who indeed has a Scandinavian accent), so don’t take the precise numbers too seriously, but take the roughly 50-50 split as pretty indicative of the demographics.

Real Estate Economics
Cover image for Vol. 43 Issue 3

Edited By: Sumit Agarwal, Brent W. Ambrose & Abdullah Yavas

Investor Confidence as a Determinant of China’s Urban Housing Market Dynamics
Siqi Zheng, Weizeng Sun and Matthew E. Kahn

Is the FHA Creating Sustainable Homeownership?
Andrew Caplin, Anna Cororaton and Joseph Tracy

Introduction to Special Issue: Government Involvement in Residential Mortgage Markets
W. Scott Frame

How Does the Federal Reserve’s Large-Scale Asset Purchases (LSAPs) Influence Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) Yields and U.S. Mortgage Rates?
Diana Hancock and Wayne Passmore

A Spatiotemporal Solution for the Simultaneous Sale Price and Time-on-the-Market Problem
Jean Dubé and Diègo Legros

Mortgage Loan Characteristics, Unobserved Heterogeneity and the Performance of United Kingdom Securitized Subprime Loans
Gauthier Lanot and David Leece

The Effect of Mortgage Payment Reduction on Default: Evidence from the Home Affordable Refinance Program
Jun Zhu, Jared Janowiak, Lu Ji, Kadiri Karamon and Douglas McManus

The Cost of Foreclosure Delay
Larry Cordell, Liang Geng, Laurie S. Goodman and Lidan Yang

The Subprime Virus
Sumit Agarwal, Brent W. Ambrose and Yildiray Yildirim

A Tale of Two Tensions: Balancing Access to Credit and Credit Risk in Mortgage Underwriting
Marsha J. Courchane, Leonard C. Kiefer and Peter M. Zorn

Do Conspicuous Consumers Pay Higher Housing Premiums? Spatial and Temporal Variation in the United States
Kwan Ok Lee and Masaki Mori

How Do Land Auction Formats Influence the Market Structure and Aggregate Surplus of Real Estate Development?
Zhi Dong and Tien Foo Sing

The Impact of the Home Valuation Code of Conduct on Appraisal and Mortgage Outcomes
Lei Ding and Leonard Nakamura

Did Affordable Housing Legislation Contribute to the Subprime Securities Boom?
Andra C. Ghent, Rubén Hernández-Murillo and Michael T. Owyang

Do Homeowners Mark to Market? A Comparison of Self-Reported and Estimated Market Home Values During the Housing Boom and Bust
Sewin Chan, Samuel Dastrup and Ingrid Gould Ellen

Is Timing Everything? Race, Homeownership and Net Worth in the Tumultuous 2000s
Sandra J. Newman and C. Scott Holupka

The Borrower’s Perceived Risk in Mortgage Choice
Dongshin Kim and Alan J. Ziobrowski

–Nonrecourse Mortgage and Housing Price Boom, Bust, and Rebound
Te Bao and Li Ding

The Risk and Return of Commercial Real Estate: A Property Level Analysis
Liang Peng

Corporate Real Estate Ownership and Productivity Uncertainty
Daxuan Zhao and Tien Foo Sing

The Cap Rate Spread: A New Metric for Commercial Underwriting
Philip A. Seagraves and Jonathan A. Wiley

Servicers and Mortgage-Backed Securities Default: Theory and Evidence
Brent W. Ambrose, Anthony B. Sanders and Abdullah Yavas

The Disciplining Effect of Concern for Referrals: Evidence from Real Estate Agents
Lan Shi and Christina Tapia

Commercial Real Estate Rental Index: A Dynamic Panel Data Model Estimation
Xudong An, Yongheng Deng, Jeffrey D. Fisher and Maggie Rong Hu

Down Payment Saving in the United States: Evidence from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics
A. Talha Yalta

Wages, Housing Prices and Commutes
Tom Mayock

House Price Expectations: Unbiasedness and Efficiency of Forecasters
Jing Zhang

Estimating Loan-to-Value Distributions
Arthur Korteweg and Morten Sorensen

Commuting with Lost Housing Services as the Opportunity Cost
Joseph Williams

How Subprime Borrowers and Mortgage Brokers Shared the Pie
Antje Berndt, Burton Hollifield and Patrik Sandås

Immigrants and Mortgage Delinquency
Zhenguo Lin, Yingchun Liu and Jia Xie

The Long and the Short of Household Formation
Andrew Paciorek

 
Hide 97 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Ivy says:

    OT but amusing takedown of favorite New York Times buffoon David Brooks. Bonus is TNC in same article.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/19/ta-nehisi-coates-david-brooks-and-the-street-code-of-journalism.html

    Read More
    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.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/why-is-the-economics-profession-so-intellectually-self-lobotomized-on-immigration/#comment-1195050
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Rob McX says:

    The question in the title of your post seems easy to answer – nobody else studies immigration in an objective way, so why should economists? They know that any honest conclusions they come to on immigration will in effect be statements on racial differences, whether they say so explicitly or not. No other field of study faces up to the question of race either, not even biology. Many biologists start to sound like creationists when they’re cornered into making any comment on racial differences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    Exactly my view.

    Faced with science, most people retreat into religio-social points of view. Particularly when their paychecks involve perpetuating that POV.

    Immigration ideology is a special kind of cult. It has the key cognitive hallmark of religious thinking: it requires absolute suspension of disbelief of the laws of daily reality.

    http://www.pascalboyer.net/articles/CognitiveTemplates.pdf

    We're coming into a time when the logjam of denials and distractions about population genetics/immigration is putting enormous stress on the systems that require high order, uninterrupted, mass inputs of reason to function well (like infrastructure or ecosystems).

    Economics as a profession isn't about reason. It doesn't have to be. It only has to produce profits for a few, by any means. Economic pundits pick a side, and gild its scat while stinky-pooing the other side's. Whether times are good or bad, economists have a sinecure above it all, high priests of the religion of Mesopotamian city-states.

    The rest of us just try to survive all the cancerous growth ideology and "creative destruction." Those of us descended from populations whose genetics tend toward practicality and reason are the designated enemies of the ancient Near Eastern/Mediterranean orders because we in fact are.

    The big question is how long the Near East/Mediterranean-area immigrants can colonize and parasitize our societies before they collapse. Obviously we are not allowed to send them packing back to their own centers of genetic origin. That would be rational, i.e., sinful.

    How Asia factors into all this is even more interesting...and troubling.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Are Lei Ding and Li Ding separate people?

    You have quite the germ of a doo-wop song here:

    Daxuan Zhao and Tien Foo Sing,
    Jing Zhang, Liang Peng, Te Bao, Li Ding,
    Zhenguo Lin, Yingchun Liu,
    Yongheng Deng and Maggie Rong Hu,
    Jia Xie, Xudong An, Ji Dong, Lu Ji,
    Jun Zhu, Lan Shi
    and Kwak… Ok… Lee!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Perhaps in the future when all the old white American professors have been put out to pasture…

    You and what Armey?

    (Sorry, couldn’t resist…)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Why should anyone expect Economists not to be left-wing ideologues – or pushers of globalization – like almost every other branch of the “social sciences”.

    We need to get over the idea that economists are Mr. Spock’s seeking the truth. They’re driven by politics, fear and ambition, just like everyone else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew

    Why should anyone expect Economists not to be left-wing ideologues
     
    They're not nearly as bad as other social scientists. The fundamental results that economists consider the field's crowning achievements are deeply libertarian. (Yeah, I know libertarianism isn't popular here, but if it's at odds with paleoconservatism, it's at odds even more with Marxism.)

    Academic economists are obviously going to come somewhat under the influence of the overwhelmingly leftist faculty in every other department. That's unavoidable. But even there, economists are well insulated by the culture of economics, which looks down its nose at the other social sciences. The only outside field economists have any use for is mathematics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Big Bill says:

    Why are they so lobotomized?

    Good question.

    Even Michael Whitney and Michael Hudson are completely silent on immigration. Both men speak out against the impoverishment of the American worker, the FIRE economy, the bankstas, and the stagnant wages we have suffered for forty years, yet the “I-word” never passes their lips.

    A million immigrants with an average IQ something like 85 flooding Germany, 15 million equally stupid Latinos, yet they see Keynesianism as the only cure. As though Mexican and Afghani peasants and their progeny will ever be anything other than hewers of wood and carriers of water in a fully automated post-industrial economy.

    I appreciate them both for what they do, but even angels fear to tread I suppose, and particularly ageing children of the sixties. They have been suckled on white race guilt and pathological altruism their entire lives. It must be impossible to break the mental shackles their upbringing has forged.

    God bless ‘em, I hope they see the light, but I think it will take a new generation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wayne earl
    Because anyone with even a single eye that isn't completely blind knows that genocide is coming. With the hindsight of the Second World War, none want to be the next Nietchie - the brilliant man used as an excuse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. eah says:

    Because the immigrants are non-white and the Earth travels thru an aether of HBD denial — political correctness makes you stupid — remember, ‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ has a clock where it’s always “3 minutes to midnight” — that’s how close we are to the next ‘Holocaust’ — because nationalism and racism.

    Read More
    • Agree: International Jew
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Travis says:

    one prominent economist has questioned our immigration policies, Thomas Sowell

    “Questions about immigration and citizenship are questions about irreversible decisions that can permanently change the composition of the American population and the very culture of the country — perhaps in the direction of the cultures of the countries from which illegal immigrants have fled.”

    “During the era of epidemics that swept across Europe in centuries past, people fleeing from those epidemics often spread the diseases to the places to which they fled. Counterproductive and dangerous cultures can be spread to America the same way.” -Thomas Sowell

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Sowell wrote a great column, "Immigration Gambles," on April 24, 2013, which contained the following:

    While we cannot condemn all members of any group for what other members of their group have done, that does not mean that we must ignore the fact that the costs and dangers created by some groups are much greater than those created by other groups.

    Most members of most groups may be basically decent people. But if 85 percent of group A are decent and 95 percent of group B are decent, this means that there is three times as large a proportion of undesirable people in group A as in group B. Should we willfully ignore that when considering immigration laws?

    It is already known that a significant percentage of the immigrants from some countries go on welfare, while practically none from some other countries do. Some children from some countries are eager students in school and, even when they come here knowing little or no English, they go on to master the language better than many native-born Americans.

    But other children from other countries drag down educational standards and create many other problems in school, as well as forming gangs that ruin whole neighborhoods with their vandalism and violence, and cost many lives.

    Are we to shut our eyes to such differences and just lump all immigrants together, as if we are talking about abstract people in an abstract world?
     
    , @International Jew

    one prominent economist has questioned our immigration policies, Thomas Sowell
     
    Unfortunately, in the world of academic economics, Sowell is in no way "prominent". Nor was he ever.

    He's a brilliant popularizer of classical economic ideas, and if he'd been a political leftist he'd have won the Nobel Prize at least once by now. But prominent he's not, sigh.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I probably shouldn’t notice, but “the old white American professors” in that table of contents (the ones you don’t bold as likely non-native American), include these (non-first) names. I assume many of these are Jewish:

    Kahn
    Caplin
    Janowiak
    Goodman
    Kiefer
    Zorn
    Gould
    Newman
    Ziobrowski
    Fisher

    I could be wrong, perhaps some are secret alien-lizard invaders. Simple extended ethnic partiality might be one answer to your question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. @Big Bill
    Why are they so lobotomized?

    Good question.

    Even Michael Whitney and Michael Hudson are completely silent on immigration. Both men speak out against the impoverishment of the American worker, the FIRE economy, the bankstas, and the stagnant wages we have suffered for forty years, yet the "I-word" never passes their lips.

    A million immigrants with an average IQ something like 85 flooding Germany, 15 million equally stupid Latinos, yet they see Keynesianism as the only cure. As though Mexican and Afghani peasants and their progeny will ever be anything other than hewers of wood and carriers of water in a fully automated post-industrial economy.

    I appreciate them both for what they do, but even angels fear to tread I suppose, and particularly ageing children of the sixties. They have been suckled on white race guilt and pathological altruism their entire lives. It must be impossible to break the mental shackles their upbringing has forged.

    God bless 'em, I hope they see the light, but I think it will take a new generation.

    Because anyone with even a single eye that isn’t completely blind knows that genocide is coming. With the hindsight of the Second World War, none want to be the next Nietchie – the brilliant man used as an excuse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Ezra says:

    If you look at the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates, you can check that the fraction of US Ph.Ds in Economics going to US citizens has ranged between 30% and 40% in recent years. Throw in PhD’s from Canada and Europe and Sailer has likely underestimated the number of non-US origin economists in the sample.

    On the other hand, the rate of default by national origin seems more like sociology than economics. For instance, an interesting factoid was reported in the NY Times during the trial of the management of Abacus Bank of Chinatown, NYC. Loan originators at Abacus made a practice of encouraging Chinese immigrant borrowers to lie about their incomes and job titles in order to get Fannie Mae guarantees. They were not alone in that obviously. The interesting factoid was that the rate of default on these liar loans was actually minimal, less than the national average on all mortgage lending. So why do Chinese immigrants make their payments when other nationalities do not?

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew

    So why do Chinese immigrants make their payments when other nationalities do not?
     
    I skimmed through the Lin, Liu & Xie paper and saw that they don't take account of immigrants' national origin. Funny that, as they run their regressions on a whole lot of other variables, and they seem particularly proud to have found that the longer an immigrant has been here the lower is his default risk. But they don't look into compositional effects.
    , @Bill B.
    Might this not be tied up with their arranger being a Chinese bank and their concern for their reputation in the wider Chinese community etc.?

    Whereas a black/Mexican American with a lair loan will feel much less concern to be seen to do the right thing or at least is capable of convincing himself that it is unnecessary, especially if the lender is "alien".

    The Chinese are highly capable of declaring bankruptcy and reneging on loans but like to do it for tactical reasons or of necessity after a business strategy blows up.

    The Chinese borrowers are also more likely to see the property as an investment for the future rather than a mere monetary gamble.

    Perhaps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Shared this with you via Twitter, but since it’s relevant, will post it in this thread too. Tl;dr: Elon Musk hired a former mortgage sales guy to run sales at his solar panel installation company, Solar City:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website

    in academia if you do not toe the multiculti line, your career will suffer: you will not get the grants, the promotions, the tenure.

    The grants go to those who scratch the back of the big money establishment.

    Quid pro quo…you give with the multiculti propaganda, and they give you grants and promotions.

    Big money wants economic growth, and if you want career success, you give big money what they want. You come up with studies that show that diversity is strength, that immigrants bring jobs with them (“rain follows the plow!” and jobs follow immigrants, dontcha know!).

    Quid pro quo–something for something. Academia, like government, is coin operated. Coins go in one end, and propaganda studies come out the other end.

    Plus, after decades of propaganda demonization of those who will not toe the multiculti line, many average americans see these dissenters as evil.

    No one wants to be seen as evil. No one wants to be poor.

    So you toe the line.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. MikeJa says:

    They aren’t stupid, they just don’t share your values. They see the gain for immigrant as outweighing the cost to Americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Friedrich
    … and yet they live nicely sheltered in their whites-only or high-IQ only neighbourhoods. Not in ghettos like Neukölln or Duisburg-Marxloh where you meet lots of low IQ proles from outer Europe. Yeah, sure, "outweighing the cost". You can't outway destroying a country, since a country is as good as its citizens. If you put the US' population into Somalia and Somalia's into the US, do you really believe the US would still be the same and vice versa?

    The reason they don't name the high cost that, for example, muslims in Germany create is political correctness and public death if you bare to criticize poor muslims. Muslims have such a hard time in Germany living on the dole. I mean, imagine, you have more money in Germany being jobless than in Turkey working. How dare those evil germans pay those muslims into lethargy!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Retired says:

    In pure economic theory, unrestricted immigration is like free trade. It removes imperfections in the labor market.
    No pure theory survives contact with reality but professors don’t know that. Take a long drive on Calif Highway 99 if you doubt.
    Combine that with the leftist mentality that infects so many people in academia and big business and you have brainless advocacy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    If unrestricted 'free movement of labor' ever did occur, then the division of labor, based upon national specialisation of industry, with the necessary, attendant capital stock, could never have occurred anywhere.
    The root of all wealth is the division of labor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Travis
    one prominent economist has questioned our immigration policies, Thomas Sowell

    "Questions about immigration and citizenship are questions about irreversible decisions that can permanently change the composition of the American population and the very culture of the country -- perhaps in the direction of the cultures of the countries from which illegal immigrants have fled."

    "During the era of epidemics that swept across Europe in centuries past, people fleeing from those epidemics often spread the diseases to the places to which they fled. Counterproductive and dangerous cultures can be spread to America the same way." -Thomas Sowell

    Sowell wrote a great column, “Immigration Gambles,” on April 24, 2013, which contained the following:

    While we cannot condemn all members of any group for what other members of their group have done, that does not mean that we must ignore the fact that the costs and dangers created by some groups are much greater than those created by other groups.

    Most members of most groups may be basically decent people. But if 85 percent of group A are decent and 95 percent of group B are decent, this means that there is three times as large a proportion of undesirable people in group A as in group B. Should we willfully ignore that when considering immigration laws?

    It is already known that a significant percentage of the immigrants from some countries go on welfare, while practically none from some other countries do. Some children from some countries are eager students in school and, even when they come here knowing little or no English, they go on to master the language better than many native-born Americans.

    But other children from other countries drag down educational standards and create many other problems in school, as well as forming gangs that ruin whole neighborhoods with their vandalism and violence, and cost many lives.

    Are we to shut our eyes to such differences and just lump all immigrants together, as if we are talking about abstract people in an abstract world?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "April 24, 2013"

    Presumably he was referring to the memorable events in the Boston area the preceding week starring the Tsarnaevs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. rod1963 says:

    So why are famous white American economists so publicly stupid on immigration? I’m using the word stupid not to mean “disagree with me,” but to mean “ignorant,” “poorly read in the literature,” “using obvious logical fallacies,” and “incurious.”

    Because they are mouthpieces for the oligarch/Davos set that run the show, that’s why. Hired guns that are well compensated to legitimize and promote policies to the public that are culturally and economically destructive to the host nation. And look at those who write what the oligarchs want to read, like Goolsbee or Krugman. The world is their oyster. They are wealthy men, respected and invited to all the popular parties.

    The ones who don’t are well, history. There aren’t many openings for economists who don’t stay on script given how the wealthy own most of the “think tanks”, “centers” , “institutes” and “foundations”. And if they don’t have tenure at the local college, their goose is cooked.

    I remember when I first saw this treasonous c**p in action. It was during the NAFTA debates(or what passed for them). Newspaper editorial pages were filled endless op-eds by economists praising NAFTA to the heavens. The big three news channels and CNN were just as bad. Perot wasn’t even allowed to buy air time during prime time and was forced to run ads at 4 AM in the morning.

    It was then I realized the MSM was just a organ for the powerful.

    Now if you’re a public figure and say things that run counter to the reigning globalist narrative, you’re history. Remember Lou Dobbs? He talked too much about the damage free trade and illegal immigration caused the country and he was fired for it.

    And this is they are gunning for Trump, they do not want this stuff to be part of public discussions because they’ll shut it down if given the chance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. duderino says:

    By the standards of their colleagues in the social sciences, It’s impossible to criticize immigration without sounding racist. Is there an anti-immigration argument that doesn’t assume, “they’re different than us?” You can shift the argument to culture instead of genetics, but at some point you have to make a value judgment on people who aren’t white, which just isn’t done.

    Also, A fair portion of the economists I’ve heard of are somehow connected to the Koch brothers and the AEI. There’s no refuge on the right!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    Maybe you can think tactically, and focus the initial value judgements on whites from other poor countries, like in Eastern Europe. Without the charge of racism hanging overhead, you can get a few points across that are then applicable to the melanin-endowed.
    , @rod1963
    There's more to it than race, the negative effects of immigration on the existing workforce was already verboten in the 80's long before PC/MC became ascendent.

    It boils down to this. More workers more competition for available jobs = less bargaining power for workers which in turn means lower wages and benefits.

    This is why the near universal approval of open borders by the business and political classes in the West.

    As for the economists, selling out pays much better and you don't incur the wrath of the oligarch set.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Is there an anti-immigration argument that doesn’t assume, “they’re different than us?”
     
    Yes. "Does this individual carry his own weight? Does he pay his fare?" This can be enforced without any reference to the fellow's race, religion, culture, "orientation", or whatever. Let the other side introduce that, at their own risk.

    Some of this is already on the books, eg, the "public charge" clauses. We need only enforce it.

    Maybe I should have turned in the mestizo lady I saw walk into the local food shelf today. The African lady was likely a legal refugee, so I'll let her slide-- for now-- but the Central American? No way!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s all political, Steve.

    Basically, economists fall into two camps.
    1/.
    The genuine Marxists and lefties who promote open bordes for purely ideological reasons, (in other words the adhere to the scripture Marx wrote down).
    To this group, I add so called ‘libertarians’. Although they are, ideologically, the polar opposite of Marxists, an article of faith of their cult, promulgated by their prophet is a commitment to ‘open borders’.

    2/. The pussy-whipped and the PC. Perhaps not ideologues, and perhaps somewhere, deep down they have seeds of doubt, nevertheless, the pay obsequiousness to the Holy Totem Pole, toe the line for an easy life, and mouth the right platitudes, in order ‘to get on’ and get that plaudit or promotion.
    The basic, everyday, universal, herd instinct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew

    ‘libertarians’. Although they are, ideologically, the polar opposite of Marxists, an article of faith of their cult, promulgated by their prophet is a commitment to ‘open borders’
     
    Yes and no. One of the fundamental results in economics is the Stolper-Samuelson Theorem, the gist of which is that free trade in goods is enough to equalize wages internationally -- no need to let people migrate at all.
    , @Massimo Heitor

    To this group, I add so called ‘libertarians’. Although they are, ideologically, the polar opposite of Marxists, an article of faith of their cult, promulgated by their prophet is a commitment to ‘open borders’.
     
    There are strong libertarian arguments for both sides of the immigration issue and libertarians are on both sides of the issue. Milton Friedman, arguably the godfather of "libertarians" opposed immigration in the era of the welfare state.

    Today's mass immigration to the west
    - Is forced by government.
    - Often involves direct undermining of the will of the people and voting preferences.
    - Is forced on other nations that do not want it.
    - Is a mass-scale involuntary redistribution where immigrants who choose to migrate benefit and host populations that often don't want the immigration suffer.
    - Involves epic levels of government coerced welfare state aid.
    - Involves state level suppression of political opposition.

    All of the above are outrageously anti libertarian.

    The libertarian "open border" crowd strongly advocates that you don't need to do any of the above, you don't need to provide government aid, etc, but that is basically an abstract thought experiment that has no bearing on any policy discussion or reality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. “Why Are the Public Faces of the Economics Profession So Intellectually Self-lobotomized on Immigration?”

    Because the economists know that the immigration side is the side their bread is buttered on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. robot says: • Website

    Might it help to reductio-ad-absurdam it with a ‘Proportional Immigration’ movement that incidentally draws attention to Israeli exceptionalism?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. D. K. says:

    As a first-year M.B.A. student, nearly thirty years ago, I and my group had the misfortune of being assigned an A.B.D. as the instructor for one of our mandatory Economics courses. She was a Chinese national and less-than-highly fluent in English. Every time that she was asked a question, she would whip herself around, erase whichever graph she had previously drawn, quickly draw a new one, then half turn to her inquisitor, and point to the new graph, with a look in her eye like a deer caught in headlights. Since pretty much everything that I have done since, at least, my high-school graduation has been a virtual waste of my time, I suppose that I have no particular cause to resent her being utterly, if multiculturally, ineffectual!?! I do hope that she landed herself a plumb teaching position, after eventually earning her Ph.D.– but, I hope, for the sake of my countrymen, that it was back in fascist China, rather than Stateside!?!?!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Q: Why am I getting punched in the face?
    A: Because someone wants to smash your face in.

    That’s the answer to your question, Steve. That’s the answer to all your questions.

    As you yourself have noticed with respect to Muslim immigration to Europe, among other things, “is it good for the Jews” isn’t always a good predictive model for determining which way the wind will blow. It has its limitations. Happily, my model is both simpler and more accurate.

    Try: “is it bad for the goys.”

    Read More
    • Agree: Clyde, TheLatestInDecay
    • Disagree: Leftist conservative
    • Replies: @TheLatestInDecay
    It is astonishing that this comment was published. I commend the author and the publisher.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @yesanonymous
    Q: Why am I getting punched in the face?
    A: Because someone wants to smash your face in.

    That's the answer to your question, Steve. That's the answer to all your questions.

    As you yourself have noticed with respect to Muslim immigration to Europe, among other things, "is it good for the Jews" isn't always a good predictive model for determining which way the wind will blow. It has its limitations. Happily, my model is both simpler and more accurate.

    Try: "is it bad for the goys."

    It is astonishing that this comment was published. I commend the author and the publisher.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Economics is a joke avocation. It is hard to conceive of anything more inherently fraudulent than the Nobel Prize for Peace, but the prize for/in “Economics” might be that thing. In a world lit only by Jews, “economics” can be taken, I guess, as the proper study of a generally agreed-upon thievery. No properly organized society, which took the well-being of its people as its central reason for existence, could take any of this nonsense in any way seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    And the "Nobel" prize in Economics is itself a fraud, Alfred Nobel endowed no such thing it was made up by the Swedish Central Bank.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Friedrich says:
    @MikeJa
    They aren't stupid, they just don't share your values. They see the gain for immigrant as outweighing the cost to Americans.

    … and yet they live nicely sheltered in their whites-only or high-IQ only neighbourhoods. Not in ghettos like Neukölln or Duisburg-Marxloh where you meet lots of low IQ proles from outer Europe. Yeah, sure, “outweighing the cost”. You can’t outway destroying a country, since a country is as good as its citizens. If you put the US’ population into Somalia and Somalia’s into the US, do you really believe the US would still be the same and vice versa?

    The reason they don’t name the high cost that, for example, muslims in Germany create is political correctness and public death if you bare to criticize poor muslims. Muslims have such a hard time in Germany living on the dole. I mean, imagine, you have more money in Germany being jobless than in Turkey working. How dare those evil germans pay those muslims into lethargy!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Lot says:

    A big moneymaker in US econ departments is training foreign grad students who then go back to their home countries.

    There is also a division of labor in academic economics, where the asians do the boring data collection, math, and stats work, and the white guys brainstorm, lecture tour, network, and write up the results in journals and sometimes in the popular media.

    For white economists, immigration is a great boon professionally. And don’t even get them started on all the great ethnic restaurants…

    To take a random example, here are the econ faculty at UIUC:

    http://www.economics.illinois.edu/people/

    And here are the grad students:

    http://www.economics.illinois.edu/people/graduates/

    Taking a sample of the first 15 faculty, we have 8 regular Americans, 1 Indian, 3 Koreans, 2 Persians, 1 Dutchwoman
    Grad students: 5 of the first 40 names are Americans

    So the faculty are about 55% American, the grad students about 12%.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bleuteaux
    I have a graduate degree in economics (not a Ph.D). About 50% of the students in the department were Chinese, 20% were Indian, the rest were American. This was for a practical business-oriented degree.

    I was told by the Associate Dean of the College, also a professor in the Department of Econ, that the University required them to maintain a certain headcount for students for revenue purposes.

    The insulting thing is what this does to the local labor market for this specialty. Annually, it probably graduates 2-4x the new openings for the degree in the local major metro area. That might be optimistic.

    I also found that department members (tenured professors) were unlike most business professors in that they were life long academics, as opposed to, say, the accounting faculty, who also ran consulting businesses.

    To say that they were unfamiliar with the business world or business conditions would be an understatement.

    Welcome to the dismal science.

    , @Some Economist
    "For white economists, immigration is a great boon professionally."

    I got my PhD less than five years ago from top 15 department (where Americans were about 30% of grad students and maybe 60% of faculty). The econ job market is extremely tough, and I hardly saw hundreds of graduating foreigners as a boon to my personal career. But what was astonishing was that I was probably the only person even mildly bothered by the situation; it made my experiences as a grad student and job seeker very unpleasant.

    I've tried to think of why the number of non-Americans being admitted to econ programs has gone up so much in the past 20 years, and I don't think it's just money. A PhD program doesn't typically get tuition though from its students. Students either get fellowships or tuition remission through being a teaching or research assistant. By admitting more foreign grad students, they are getting some cheaper labor for sure. But they trade more on prestige, and if admitting 50 good foreigners produces 2 excellent researchers, it's worth it. And why should these old guys on admissions and hiring committees care? It's like homeowners in the Bay Area supporting "anti-sprawl" measures, I guess.

    "There is also a division of labor in academic economics, where the asians do the boring data collection, math, and stats work, and the white guys brainstorm, lecture tour, network, and write up the results in journals and sometimes in the popular media."

    The whole Asians being better at quant stuff goes away at this level, but they do tend to be worse at integrating knowledge so they tend specialize more the in context-free pure econometrics or macro, for instance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Romanian says:
    @duderino
    By the standards of their colleagues in the social sciences, It's impossible to criticize immigration without sounding racist. Is there an anti-immigration argument that doesn't assume, "they're different than us?" You can shift the argument to culture instead of genetics, but at some point you have to make a value judgment on people who aren't white, which just isn't done.

    Also, A fair portion of the economists I've heard of are somehow connected to the Koch brothers and the AEI. There's no refuge on the right!

    Maybe you can think tactically, and focus the initial value judgements on whites from other poor countries, like in Eastern Europe. Without the charge of racism hanging overhead, you can get a few points across that are then applicable to the melanin-endowed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The German government, no less, lectures us that this current ‘camp of the saints’ wave is ‘good’ and has arrived ‘just at the right time’ as if it was a fortuitous accident orchestrated by the great gods of The Economist.

    The reason they say this is because the German government insists that due to ‘dire German demographics’ the young immigrants will do the work to pay for the pensions of elderly Germans. Apparently that’s the thought in the immigrants’ minds when they deign to bless Germany with their presence.

    Anyway, a moment’s thought tells us that this is all pure nonsense.In time immigrants age just like the rest of us and – shock horror! – require pensions themselves and cease to pay taxes.
    So, at best, it can only possibly be a temporary postponement of a pension crisis. At worst, it’s the preliminary of a Ponzi scheme which in a surprisingly short time will require the entire youth cohort of several earths each year to enrol in order to stay solvent.

    That said, every single piece of academic research on the subject tells us that *during the course of their working lifetimes* third world immigrants to Europe take out far more from tax revenues than they pay in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Silber
    ...the German government insists that due to ‘dire German demographics’ the young immigrants will do the work to pay for the pensions of elderly Germans...</i

    Atlas the Welfare Bum.
    , @Formerly CARealist
    "That said, every single piece of academic research on the subject tells us that *during the course of their working lifetimes* third world immigrants to Europe take out far more from tax revenues than they pay in."

    Don't a good a majority of citizens take out more than they pay in? In all the western countries?

    I wonder if someone could tell me what a taxpayer would have to contribute to actually pay for all the "free" stuff they get over a lifetime. On average. I assume it would be even more in Europe where there's more "free" bennies available.

    It makes me wonder where they money is coming from to pay for all this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Clyde says:

    You can say the same about free trade. That every university economist is lobotomized on it. It took a Korean economist teaching in England, Ha-Joon Chang, to write:
    “Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism”

    http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986

    The book got good circulation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. @Harry Baldwin
    Sowell wrote a great column, "Immigration Gambles," on April 24, 2013, which contained the following:

    While we cannot condemn all members of any group for what other members of their group have done, that does not mean that we must ignore the fact that the costs and dangers created by some groups are much greater than those created by other groups.

    Most members of most groups may be basically decent people. But if 85 percent of group A are decent and 95 percent of group B are decent, this means that there is three times as large a proportion of undesirable people in group A as in group B. Should we willfully ignore that when considering immigration laws?

    It is already known that a significant percentage of the immigrants from some countries go on welfare, while practically none from some other countries do. Some children from some countries are eager students in school and, even when they come here knowing little or no English, they go on to master the language better than many native-born Americans.

    But other children from other countries drag down educational standards and create many other problems in school, as well as forming gangs that ruin whole neighborhoods with their vandalism and violence, and cost many lives.

    Are we to shut our eyes to such differences and just lump all immigrants together, as if we are talking about abstract people in an abstract world?
     

    “April 24, 2013″

    Presumably he was referring to the memorable events in the Boston area the preceding week starring the Tsarnaevs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Regor says:

    I think the problem started at the very origin of Economics as a field of study, with its progenitors Jean-Baptist Say, Adam Smith and David Ricardo being committed classical liberals.

    Their enlightenment influences precluded them from making any fatalistic inferences about the different levels of development and wealth creation found in different nations. According to them, any nation that followed their advice on free trade and minimal state interference would achieve substantial economic development, regardless of race, culture, religion and so on.

    Nearly all other economic theories that propagated in the West since then are derived, in one way or another, from classical economics, including Marxism.

    The only fundamentally different economic theory that came later and had a powerful influence on some nations is the German Historical school. As you would expect from Germans in the 19th century, their school does not share the optimistic attitude of its Anglo counterpart, adopting instead a very cautious view of economic governance. Ironically, it had a major influence over the US during its vital industrialization period.

    European and Oriental economists who express skepticism about mass immigration and other topics considered sacred cows nowadays might have been influenced by the Historical school.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. @Anonymous
    The German government, no less, lectures us that this current 'camp of the saints' wave is 'good' and has arrived 'just at the right time' as if it was a fortuitous accident orchestrated by the great gods of The Economist.

    The reason they say this is because the German government insists that due to 'dire German demographics' the young immigrants will do the work to pay for the pensions of elderly Germans. Apparently that's the thought in the immigrants' minds when they deign to bless Germany with their presence.

    Anyway, a moment's thought tells us that this is all pure nonsense.In time immigrants age just like the rest of us and - shock horror! - require pensions themselves and cease to pay taxes.
    So, at best, it can only possibly be a temporary postponement of a pension crisis. At worst, it's the preliminary of a Ponzi scheme which in a surprisingly short time will require the entire youth cohort of several earths each year to enrol in order to stay solvent.

    That said, every single piece of academic research on the subject tells us that *during the course of their working lifetimes* third world immigrants to Europe take out far more from tax revenues than they pay in.

    …the German government insists that due to ‘dire German demographics’ the young immigrants will do the work to pay for the pensions of elderly Germans…</i

    Atlas the Welfare Bum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Retired
    In pure economic theory, unrestricted immigration is like free trade. It removes imperfections in the labor market.
    No pure theory survives contact with reality but professors don't know that. Take a long drive on Calif Highway 99 if you doubt.
    Combine that with the leftist mentality that infects so many people in academia and big business and you have brainless advocacy.

    If unrestricted ‘free movement of labor’ ever did occur, then the division of labor, based upon national specialisation of industry, with the necessary, attendant capital stock, could never have occurred anywhere.
    The root of all wealth is the division of labor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Suppose, theoretically, that absolute 'freedom of movement of labor' as in the idealized case, espoused by Caplan, actually existed.
    Now, this would imply a uniform global income, due to our good friends Messrs Supply & Demand, and this typical income would be somewhere near the 'median' offered by India and sub Saharan Africa - with purchasing power - and thus ultimately investment in fixed, productive assets commensurate with this.

    Now, look at the world beating industries that defined the last century. Micro electronics, computers, passenger airliners, motor powered vehicles, electricity etc etc.
    All these industries were more or less developed in the USA. They were all dependent on huge rates of capital investment in plant and machinery, let alone R and D.
    Do you really think that a USA with the wage and income levels somewhere a little to the north of India's could have developed those industries.
    And thus, those industries, and the concomitant higher incomes and economic progress for all of the planet, would never have existed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Bleuteaux says:
    @Lot
    A big moneymaker in US econ departments is training foreign grad students who then go back to their home countries.

    There is also a division of labor in academic economics, where the asians do the boring data collection, math, and stats work, and the white guys brainstorm, lecture tour, network, and write up the results in journals and sometimes in the popular media.

    For white economists, immigration is a great boon professionally. And don't even get them started on all the great ethnic restaurants...

    To take a random example, here are the econ faculty at UIUC:

    http://www.economics.illinois.edu/people/

    And here are the grad students:

    http://www.economics.illinois.edu/people/graduates/

    Taking a sample of the first 15 faculty, we have 8 regular Americans, 1 Indian, 3 Koreans, 2 Persians, 1 Dutchwoman
    Grad students: 5 of the first 40 names are Americans

    So the faculty are about 55% American, the grad students about 12%.

    I have a graduate degree in economics (not a Ph.D). About 50% of the students in the department were Chinese, 20% were Indian, the rest were American. This was for a practical business-oriented degree.

    I was told by the Associate Dean of the College, also a professor in the Department of Econ, that the University required them to maintain a certain headcount for students for revenue purposes.

    The insulting thing is what this does to the local labor market for this specialty. Annually, it probably graduates 2-4x the new openings for the degree in the local major metro area. That might be optimistic.

    I also found that department members (tenured professors) were unlike most business professors in that they were life long academics, as opposed to, say, the accounting faculty, who also ran consulting businesses.

    To say that they were unfamiliar with the business world or business conditions would be an understatement.

    Welcome to the dismal science.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. anowow says:

    Americans sacrificing the good of other Americans for ostensibly noble goals, but with a degree of self-interest- a pretty common tale.

    Open borders advocates are a specific manifestation of the cause of American dysfunction- myopic self-righteousness and greed, which are universal problems, combined with hyper-individualism and universalism, which are American and Anglo-Saxon.

    Myopic greed and hypocrisy is not limited to the elites. I’d include suv drivers (might as well give that money directly to Venezuela and Al Qaida and the TX trash who have played a role in destroying this country), military contractors/the military (“serve”?, who do they serve, the South Koreans or Kurds?) and ungrateful retirees with bad health habits.

    The elites can get by with what they do because we are a diseased society. Elites are a manifestation of the societies which they rule.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Myopic greed and hypocrisy is not limited to the elites. I’d include suv drivers (might as well give that money directly to Venezuela and Al Qaida and the TX trash who have played a role in destroying this country)....
     
    Why are you scapegoating Texans?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. I’m beginning to think that the best way to undermine our politically correct culture, to reinvigorate an empirical study of humanity, and maybe, just maybe, to foster traditional conservatism is to let in hordes of Chinese, Indians, and Hispanics.

    Not kidding. Wherever you find progressivism, you will find whites and white ideas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill B.
    "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. countenance says: • Website

    I think part of the explanation is the very nature of the social science itself. Economics is hostile to nationalism because nationalism interferes with economic calculations, models, theories and practice. This is why the word “economism” is a cuss word among nationalists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    More generally, ideology impedes science. Only a stupid nationalist would dismiss economics out of hand, but one would also be stupid to prioritize economic growth above all else.
    , @ben tillman

    I think part of the explanation is the very nature of the social science itself. Economics is hostile to nationalism because nationalism interferes with economic calculations, models, theories and practice.
     
    How? I can't see any way it interferes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. AndrewR says:

    Because pointing out negative effects of immigration naturally leads to calls for immigration restriction. The Chosen Ones and their useful idiot pets would have us believe that immigration restriction is morally equivalent conquest, empire, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. AndrewR says:
    @countenance
    I think part of the explanation is the very nature of the social science itself. Economics is hostile to nationalism because nationalism interferes with economic calculations, models, theories and practice. This is why the word "economism" is a cuss word among nationalists.

    More generally, ideology impedes science. Only a stupid nationalist would dismiss economics out of hand, but one would also be stupid to prioritize economic growth above all else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Lot
    A big moneymaker in US econ departments is training foreign grad students who then go back to their home countries.

    There is also a division of labor in academic economics, where the asians do the boring data collection, math, and stats work, and the white guys brainstorm, lecture tour, network, and write up the results in journals and sometimes in the popular media.

    For white economists, immigration is a great boon professionally. And don't even get them started on all the great ethnic restaurants...

    To take a random example, here are the econ faculty at UIUC:

    http://www.economics.illinois.edu/people/

    And here are the grad students:

    http://www.economics.illinois.edu/people/graduates/

    Taking a sample of the first 15 faculty, we have 8 regular Americans, 1 Indian, 3 Koreans, 2 Persians, 1 Dutchwoman
    Grad students: 5 of the first 40 names are Americans

    So the faculty are about 55% American, the grad students about 12%.

    “For white economists, immigration is a great boon professionally.”

    I got my PhD less than five years ago from top 15 department (where Americans were about 30% of grad students and maybe 60% of faculty). The econ job market is extremely tough, and I hardly saw hundreds of graduating foreigners as a boon to my personal career. But what was astonishing was that I was probably the only person even mildly bothered by the situation; it made my experiences as a grad student and job seeker very unpleasant.

    I’ve tried to think of why the number of non-Americans being admitted to econ programs has gone up so much in the past 20 years, and I don’t think it’s just money. A PhD program doesn’t typically get tuition though from its students. Students either get fellowships or tuition remission through being a teaching or research assistant. By admitting more foreign grad students, they are getting some cheaper labor for sure. But they trade more on prestige, and if admitting 50 good foreigners produces 2 excellent researchers, it’s worth it. And why should these old guys on admissions and hiring committees care? It’s like homeowners in the Bay Area supporting “anti-sprawl” measures, I guess.

    “There is also a division of labor in academic economics, where the asians do the boring data collection, math, and stats work, and the white guys brainstorm, lecture tour, network, and write up the results in journals and sometimes in the popular media.”

    The whole Asians being better at quant stuff goes away at this level, but they do tend to be worse at integrating knowledge so they tend specialize more the in context-free pure econometrics or macro, for instance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    But what was astonishing was that I was probably the only person even mildly bothered by the situation; it made my experiences as a grad student and job seeker very unpleasant.
     
    Some of my old white tenured professors used the freedom of the classroom to say some politically incorrect things that today would get them a twitter mobbed. It helped that my typical senior-level class was 90% or even 100% male, and 80% white/20% quiet hierarchy-respecting asian immigrant. Once you get to the harder classes, the SJWs had all self-selected out.

    A PhD program doesn’t typically get tuition though from its students.
     
    Maybe not at the top-15 program you went to, but there are plenty of schools outside that range, like UIUC for instance. There is also the "pay tuition for the MA and if you don't flunk out you can teach your way through the Ph.D." setup. This is kept quiet, however, as respectable schools are not supposed to have unfunded Ph.D. students. Neither the school nor the student has any incentive to admit what is going on.

    The whole Asians being better at quant stuff goes away at this level, but they do tend to be worse at integrating knowledge so they tend specialize more the in context-free pure econometrics or macro, for instance.
     
    I have sometimes wondered if there is a high-level crossover where the NE Asian math advantage peters out due to what some evidence suggests is a lower IQ SD. If there is a crossover however, I doubt it is so low as the level of a typical econ grad student. There is a precedent for this with a old age black/white mortality crossover:

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-black-white-mortality-crossover/

    Nonetheless, if the asian economists are 5% worse than the Americans at the math and 30% worse at writing/networking, their comparative advantage at the data grinding will place them into that role.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Luke Lea says: • Website

    Why are economists blind on this issue? Maybe because they worship at the shrine of global economic efficiency?

    Read More
    • Replies: @notsaying
    I would think you are right about thoughts of "global economic efficiency" clouding out thoughts of what benefits us here in America.

    Certainly from what I can see, there seems to be an assumption that blind and unquestioning support of "free trade" is a must. That most of the people we trade with put their own interests first while pretending to go along with our free trade obsession hasn't sunk in yet with American elites and who knows if and when it will?

    It might not be much of a leap to go from supporting "free trade" in goods and services to supporting the free flow of labor around the world for these people.

    Maybe when our current downward spiral starts affecting them, their friends and families, the economist will start thinking about what is fair and sustainable for us here in America and forget about trying to force the world to operate like we want it to.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Anonymous
    The German government, no less, lectures us that this current 'camp of the saints' wave is 'good' and has arrived 'just at the right time' as if it was a fortuitous accident orchestrated by the great gods of The Economist.

    The reason they say this is because the German government insists that due to 'dire German demographics' the young immigrants will do the work to pay for the pensions of elderly Germans. Apparently that's the thought in the immigrants' minds when they deign to bless Germany with their presence.

    Anyway, a moment's thought tells us that this is all pure nonsense.In time immigrants age just like the rest of us and - shock horror! - require pensions themselves and cease to pay taxes.
    So, at best, it can only possibly be a temporary postponement of a pension crisis. At worst, it's the preliminary of a Ponzi scheme which in a surprisingly short time will require the entire youth cohort of several earths each year to enrol in order to stay solvent.

    That said, every single piece of academic research on the subject tells us that *during the course of their working lifetimes* third world immigrants to Europe take out far more from tax revenues than they pay in.

    “That said, every single piece of academic research on the subject tells us that *during the course of their working lifetimes* third world immigrants to Europe take out far more from tax revenues than they pay in.”

    Don’t a good a majority of citizens take out more than they pay in? In all the western countries?

    I wonder if someone could tell me what a taxpayer would have to contribute to actually pay for all the “free” stuff they get over a lifetime. On average. I assume it would be even more in Europe where there’s more “free” bennies available.

    It makes me wonder where they money is coming from to pay for all this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Why do you think that most western nations are mired in debt?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Brian Caplan is an economist who wrote an excellent book called Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. He’s also a huge open borders cheerleader.

    Which is weird because the book is mostly a lucid defense of nature vs. nurture — lots of discussion of twins studies, etc. The central argument is that, since genes matter waaaaaay more toward determining adult outcomes, we parents should just chill out, stop taking parenting so seriously, and have more kids.

    But if genes are so much more important than cultural environment, wouldn’t that caution someone against inviting Third World genes into this country? I’ve seen an open borders blog post he wrote, though, and the tone was one of bewilderment, as in, ‘How can you imbeciles NOT want to invite the Third World into our country???’

    The bewilderment is mutual.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rod1963
    Caplan is playing both sides but ultimately he's supporting the globalists/corporations and the destruction of the West with his rabid support of open borders.

    The fact is, if he didn't support the corporate side of things, he wouldn't be where he is. In the end he's just another sellout.

    He knows demographics is destiny and that corporations love larger labor pools as they lower wages and benefits and increase competition, good for them bad for everyone else. This is the bottom line on why business wants open borders, it means more money in their pockets. They do not care about long term damage.

    As for nature vs. nurture. It's both. You put kids in a environment where sociopathy and fanaticism are part and parcel of life and you'll turn out monsters not a kid fit for MIT.
    , @Massimo Heitor

    But if genes are so much more important than cultural environment, wouldn’t that caution someone against inviting Third World genes into this country?
     
    You are presuming a loyalty to the existing people of the first world nation. Bryan Caplan is quite clearly opposed to this loyalty.

    If you are more interested in a strictly individual meritocracy, mass migration and national IQ/gene equalization pushes things in that direction. It neutralizes the group advantages/disadvantages of being born into a particular nation/culture.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. J1234 says:

    Most economists live the university life, or have in the past, and there’s a major non-academic requirement (unspoken) for those who want to be academics. And we all know what that is. I’m not sure the “old white professors” were any less acquiescent to liberal university political views, at least in terms of immigration since that game changing legislation of the mid 1960′s.

    And of course, economists pale in comparison to journalists. This is from a couple of months ago. I linked to the comment section to illustrate how far out of touch journalism is with the American people when it comes to immigration. To see the video, click on the picture.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/changing_lanes/2015/08/31/why_people_support_trump-comments.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. The suggestions that there is some coercion of conformity is absurd. “Open Borders” super champion, Bryan Caplan, for example, is about as contrarian as you can get. He is anti-liberal establishment on almost every issue except immigration. Even this crowd doesn’t question his intellectual independence. Tabarrok and John H Cochrane are in similar buckets.

    My theory on why has three points:

    Point #1: While there is no overt coercion, people are shaped by their work culture, and people who live/work most of their lives in academia are deeply shaped by it. Academia accentuates strictly individual merit with group academic loyalties (school colors, school symbols, etc). Group affiliations of religion/race/ethnicity/nationality are allowed but institutionally downplayed. What is perceived as a negative of destroying the ethnic distinct character of a nation like Italy/France/Japan/Germany is a debatable point to much of academia. Bryan Caplan argues that destruction of Italian/French/Japanese ownership of their nations is a strict positive, which is extreme even for academia and definitely not coerced conformity.

    Point #2: Even those that agree that unwanted mass immigration imposes a real cost to host societies, the benefit to the immigrants is still larger, and basically justify taking from one group to give to the other. To quote Bryan Caplan, “But hard evidence that immigration has major drawbacks is not enough. The proponent of immigration restrictions also has to show that there is no cheaper or more humane way to mitigate the evils of immigration.”

    Point #3: The benefit to an immigrant is much more visceral, visible, and measurable than the loss of the host population. The loses aren’t obscure, even President Obama wrote of the intense grief faced by white communities in Michigan and Illinois on the receiving end of black migration from inside the US. But watching masses of immigrants risk life and limb to escape Africa and enter Europe is more powerful.

    Addendum: John Cochrane writes, “In the Soviet era, there were walls and guards with guns, and we deplored that people were not allowed to cross the border. Is it that different that the guards with guns are on the other side of the walls?”. As the same Cochrane would say when debating other issues, this is a “silly argument” fabricated to back a debate agenda. Is locking random strangers inside of your home the same as locking your doors to prevent random strangers from entering? That is completely absurd. Many of these Open Borders arguments, especially those made by Bryan Caplan, Cochrane, and Tabarrok are well beyond bounds of reason and logic. They probably don’t even believe their own arguments, but they are just so deeply committed, and professional debaters that push their cause no matter what. Almost all of the Open Borders arguments apply directly to an Open Doors policy of eliminating private property ownership, which none of the libertarians support.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag
    He is anti-liberal establishment on almost every issue except immigration.

    That kind of ruins the whole thing.

    Even those that agree that unwanted mass immigration imposes a real cost to host societies, the benefit to the immigrants is still larger, and basically justify taking from one group to give to the other.

    I hear Libertarians taking this line, but it exposes them as the leftist wealth re-distributors that they are; just another group of short term thinkers that promise good times for all.
    , @anon

    The suggestions that there is some coercion of conformity is absurd. “Open Borders” super champion, Bryan Caplan, for example, is about as contrarian as you can get.
     
    1) The coercion doesn't have to apply to everyone involved. There are very large numbers of Jewish pundits who support open borders for everyone but Israel who clearly don't really believe mass immigration and diversity are good or they'd want it for Israel too and are simply lying in what they believe are their ethnic interests.

    2) Economists argue about everything so the idea that there is total conformity on this issue without coercion on those who would otherwise disagree is nonsense.

    Some economists may genuinely think it's a good thing, some will be being paid by the corporate oligarchy to say it's a good thing but there would be some disagreement even if just out of contrariness - they don't publicly disagree because any opposition to immigration would be attacked as racist.

    3) The only people who could get away with making a counter argument without the racism charge would be non-white (but at the cost of their future career in the West) or tenured white who are nearing retirement anyway and decide not to care.

    4) There is a second case however - non-white academics in the West may not want to risk their career (and may not want immigration into the West stopped anyway) but academics outside the West may care about what happens to their home if the same destructive ideology is applied there.

    So if there's an alternative economics of immigration it's likely to come out of China, Korea, India, Russia etc.

    5) The simplest counter argument to the mainstream economic nonsense is housing.

    The corporate oligarchy and their minions in the media see mass immigration as wages going down and revenue up (cos more people) so more profit.

    The reality is if you have mass immigration without building the housing *first* then housing costs will go up, discretionary income will go down and revenue will go down. So they get their lower or stagnant wage costs and then scratch their heads why their revenue is down.

    There's more reasons than that of course but in a nutshell this incredibly simple point sums up a large part of the reason for the gradual economic collapse of the West over the last 20 years or so (50 really but greatly accelerated in the last 20).

    You're saying not a single person in academia can figure out such an obvious point?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Paul Collier’s book _Exodus_ is worth reading. He has a keen analytical mind.

    One controversial point I recall him making empirically–gun crime in the UK was almost unknown among the indigenous criminals. It went up in part with the immigration of Jamaicans. Jamaicans have a gun crime homicide rate about 100x that of the native British (picking an index year 20 or 30 years back.

    More generally, Collier notes that the tension is not simply about immigration but about the right of the immigrant to bring in relatives.

    As an economist, he has the habit of making models.

    As my econometrics prof liked to say: “All models are wrong. Some models are useful.”

    sorry if I’m repeating earlier comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. Crank says:

    My first day of class in Econ 101 at UCLA, the professor started off with a joke that went something like this:

    A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island and their only food source is canned food supplies. They don’t have the means to open the cans. The physicist ponders the situation and opines that if they were to strike a can at it’s weak spot with a properly shaped stone, they could punch a hole that would allow them to empty the contents. The chemist suggests that if they, instead, heat the can to a certain temp, the reactions inside would build up pressure and the can would burst. They both look at the economist for his view, at which time he pauses and ponders the situation and then says “First, let’s assume the can is open . . .”

    That strikes me as how economists deal with immigration. They just assume away all the unpleasant realities in their models. Assume we don’t have a massive welfare state and social safety net which the immigrants (and their children and children’s children) will use disproportionately. Assume we don’t have expensive public schools to which they (and their children and their children’s children) will contribute very little tax money but will contribute a disproportionate number of students. Assume they will pay for their own health care, rather than going to emergency rooms and stiffing the facility or disproportionately using Medicaid and available free services. Assume they (and their children and their children’s children) have no greater inclination to crime than the native population – and use underclass black crime rates to help your cause. Assume that all human capital is fungible, and that the native born population that loses out on unskilled blue collar work opportunities to illegal immigrants will just become accountants or doctors or lawyers or bankers instead.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. If you aren’t a nationalist, why care?

    There is a better division of humanity then skin color. There is the stupid group and there is the smart group. While they aren’t quite as visible as skin color, they are easy enough to figure out and this trait have massively more predictive power then vulnerability to sunburns. Why divide people by cosmetic features or historical accidents involving place of birth when one could do it by more fundamental properties directly?

    The smart people can figure out the whole boarder within a boarder thing, the smarter people can figure out how to leverage a larger population. It is not something to really worry about.

    As for the stupid people, why care particularly much about a sub group of them? A IQ 85 African American will probably not have a life trajectory that different from IQ 85 white person or IQ 85 person anywhere, especially from the outside perspective from people outside this group.
    ——————-
    Its really amusing sometimes to read some libertarian economist’s blog has many of the same prediction as stuff that shows up on isteve but lead to a completely reversed conclusions on whether it is a good thing. The nationalist feelings and nationalist concept of some sort of “equality within a nation” concept is viewed as inefficiency or danger.

    A society with a sense of solidarity maybe the greatest limit to a certain demographic of smart people. (I mean a certain mentality, not ex-religion) Atomized individuals in a incoherent and fragmented social order is easy to out maneuver.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew

    As for the stupid people, why care particularly much about a sub group of them?
     
    So, between your dull but nice son and some brilliant guy in Japan whom you've never met, whose welfare are you more concerned with?

    Now for "son" substitute "nephew", tgen "cousin", etc.
    , @anowow
    Why are we even forced to choose? One does hear the argument from folks who are opposed to more Latino immigration that Asians are model migrants and we should let more in, or let more Europeans in, etc.

    Why the choice? The premise is flawed. It's assumed that more people coming in is a given, a force of nature. It isn't. It is a choice, a national choice, a series of choices made by lots of Americans, but it is still a choice. We CAN change our minds, if we were so inclined.

    And your premise about smart people is flawed. Do smart people always have only the interest of other smart people at heart? We hear a lot about xenophobes among the host country, but what worries me is ethnic nepotism and networking among newcomers. We see it were smart people who move here often advocate for other smart [and stupid] people from their homelands. I'd add skills to that. Skills and smarts don't always make for good neighbors.

    It's basically about not wanting to condemn our children to an overcrowded rat race. I've been to East Asia, they are hard workers, but they are intense and ambitious, at least the ones most likely to come here.

    I'm not sure large numbers of folks like that will contribute to my grandchildren's quality of life. I certainly don't want more of the sort of diaspora groups that Amy Chua says hold the key to be successful- a bunch of intelligent neurotic a-holes. Trust me, we've already had two such groups: Puritans and Eastern European Ashkenazi, and we may not survive the kinds of policies they've forced on the rest of us.


    I don't want my kids competing for a spot at a university with a tiger mom's kids who may or not feel alienated towards my people. Maybe the US could let California break away along with Texas, we could then benefit from all that techie innovation, the way other countries benefit from US innovation now, but we wouldn't have to deal with the societal or economic changes and dislocations.

    , @Bill Jones
    "There is a better division of humanity then skin color. There is the stupid group and there is the smart group."
    Societies succeed because they've built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
    Immigrants who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. a bit OT. A fascinating article to read between the lines of.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/nyregion/query-for-home-buyers-in-a-long-island-hamlet-are-you-german.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

    I am very interested in knowing more of what communities can do to maintain the ethnic makeup of their town.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Formerly CARealist
    "That said, every single piece of academic research on the subject tells us that *during the course of their working lifetimes* third world immigrants to Europe take out far more from tax revenues than they pay in."

    Don't a good a majority of citizens take out more than they pay in? In all the western countries?

    I wonder if someone could tell me what a taxpayer would have to contribute to actually pay for all the "free" stuff they get over a lifetime. On average. I assume it would be even more in Europe where there's more "free" bennies available.

    It makes me wonder where they money is coming from to pay for all this.

    Why do you think that most western nations are mired in debt?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    If unrestricted 'free movement of labor' ever did occur, then the division of labor, based upon national specialisation of industry, with the necessary, attendant capital stock, could never have occurred anywhere.
    The root of all wealth is the division of labor.

    Suppose, theoretically, that absolute ‘freedom of movement of labor’ as in the idealized case, espoused by Caplan, actually existed.
    Now, this would imply a uniform global income, due to our good friends Messrs Supply & Demand, and this typical income would be somewhere near the ‘median’ offered by India and sub Saharan Africa – with purchasing power – and thus ultimately investment in fixed, productive assets commensurate with this.

    Now, look at the world beating industries that defined the last century. Micro electronics, computers, passenger airliners, motor powered vehicles, electricity etc etc.
    All these industries were more or less developed in the USA. They were all dependent on huge rates of capital investment in plant and machinery, let alone R and D.
    Do you really think that a USA with the wage and income levels somewhere a little to the north of India’s could have developed those industries.
    And thus, those industries, and the concomitant higher incomes and economic progress for all of the planet, would never have existed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Honesthughgrant
    Why should anyone expect Economists not to be left-wing ideologues - or pushers of globalization - like almost every other branch of the "social sciences".

    We need to get over the idea that economists are Mr. Spock's seeking the truth. They're driven by politics, fear and ambition, just like everyone else.

    Why should anyone expect Economists not to be left-wing ideologues

    They’re not nearly as bad as other social scientists. The fundamental results that economists consider the field’s crowning achievements are deeply libertarian. (Yeah, I know libertarianism isn’t popular here, but if it’s at odds with paleoconservatism, it’s at odds even more with Marxism.)

    Academic economists are obviously going to come somewhat under the influence of the overwhelmingly leftist faculty in every other department. That’s unavoidable. But even there, economists are well insulated by the culture of economics, which looks down its nose at the other social sciences. The only outside field economists have any use for is mathematics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Travis
    one prominent economist has questioned our immigration policies, Thomas Sowell

    "Questions about immigration and citizenship are questions about irreversible decisions that can permanently change the composition of the American population and the very culture of the country -- perhaps in the direction of the cultures of the countries from which illegal immigrants have fled."

    "During the era of epidemics that swept across Europe in centuries past, people fleeing from those epidemics often spread the diseases to the places to which they fled. Counterproductive and dangerous cultures can be spread to America the same way." -Thomas Sowell

    one prominent economist has questioned our immigration policies, Thomas Sowell

    Unfortunately, in the world of academic economics, Sowell is in no way “prominent”. Nor was he ever.

    He’s a brilliant popularizer of classical economic ideas, and if he’d been a political leftist he’d have won the Nobel Prize at least once by now. But prominent he’s not, sigh.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Ezra
    If you look at the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates, you can check that the fraction of US Ph.Ds in Economics going to US citizens has ranged between 30% and 40% in recent years. Throw in PhD's from Canada and Europe and Sailer has likely underestimated the number of non-US origin economists in the sample.

    On the other hand, the rate of default by national origin seems more like sociology than economics. For instance, an interesting factoid was reported in the NY Times during the trial of the management of Abacus Bank of Chinatown, NYC. Loan originators at Abacus made a practice of encouraging Chinese immigrant borrowers to lie about their incomes and job titles in order to get Fannie Mae guarantees. They were not alone in that obviously. The interesting factoid was that the rate of default on these liar loans was actually minimal, less than the national average on all mortgage lending. So why do Chinese immigrants make their payments when other nationalities do not?

    So why do Chinese immigrants make their payments when other nationalities do not?

    I skimmed through the Lin, Liu & Xie paper and saw that they don’t take account of immigrants’ national origin. Funny that, as they run their regressions on a whole lot of other variables, and they seem particularly proud to have found that the longer an immigrant has been here the lower is his default risk. But they don’t look into compositional effects.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Anonymous
    It's all political, Steve.

    Basically, economists fall into two camps.
    1/.
    The genuine Marxists and lefties who promote open bordes for purely ideological reasons, (in other words the adhere to the scripture Marx wrote down).
    To this group, I add so called 'libertarians'. Although they are, ideologically, the polar opposite of Marxists, an article of faith of their cult, promulgated by their prophet is a commitment to 'open borders'.

    2/. The pussy-whipped and the PC. Perhaps not ideologues, and perhaps somewhere, deep down they have seeds of doubt, nevertheless, the pay obsequiousness to the Holy Totem Pole, toe the line for an easy life, and mouth the right platitudes, in order 'to get on' and get that plaudit or promotion.
    The basic, everyday, universal, herd instinct.

    ‘libertarians’. Although they are, ideologically, the polar opposite of Marxists, an article of faith of their cult, promulgated by their prophet is a commitment to ‘open borders’

    Yes and no. One of the fundamental results in economics is the Stolper-Samuelson Theorem, the gist of which is that free trade in goods is enough to equalize wages internationally — no need to let people migrate at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. rod1963 says:
    @duderino
    By the standards of their colleagues in the social sciences, It's impossible to criticize immigration without sounding racist. Is there an anti-immigration argument that doesn't assume, "they're different than us?" You can shift the argument to culture instead of genetics, but at some point you have to make a value judgment on people who aren't white, which just isn't done.

    Also, A fair portion of the economists I've heard of are somehow connected to the Koch brothers and the AEI. There's no refuge on the right!

    There’s more to it than race, the negative effects of immigration on the existing workforce was already verboten in the 80′s long before PC/MC became ascendent.

    It boils down to this. More workers more competition for available jobs = less bargaining power for workers which in turn means lower wages and benefits.

    This is why the near universal approval of open borders by the business and political classes in the West.

    As for the economists, selling out pays much better and you don’t incur the wrath of the oligarch set.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. rod1963 says:
    @Anonymous
    Brian Caplan is an economist who wrote an excellent book called Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. He's also a huge open borders cheerleader.

    Which is weird because the book is mostly a lucid defense of nature vs. nurture -- lots of discussion of twins studies, etc. The central argument is that, since genes matter waaaaaay more toward determining adult outcomes, we parents should just chill out, stop taking parenting so seriously, and have more kids.

    But if genes are so much more important than cultural environment, wouldn't that caution someone against inviting Third World genes into this country? I've seen an open borders blog post he wrote, though, and the tone was one of bewilderment, as in, 'How can you imbeciles NOT want to invite the Third World into our country???'

    The bewilderment is mutual.

    Caplan is playing both sides but ultimately he’s supporting the globalists/corporations and the destruction of the West with his rabid support of open borders.

    The fact is, if he didn’t support the corporate side of things, he wouldn’t be where he is. In the end he’s just another sellout.

    He knows demographics is destiny and that corporations love larger labor pools as they lower wages and benefits and increase competition, good for them bad for everyone else. This is the bottom line on why business wants open borders, it means more money in their pockets. They do not care about long term damage.

    As for nature vs. nurture. It’s both. You put kids in a environment where sociopathy and fanaticism are part and parcel of life and you’ll turn out monsters not a kid fit for MIT.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @TheLatestInDecay
    Economics is a joke avocation. It is hard to conceive of anything more inherently fraudulent than the Nobel Prize for Peace, but the prize for/in "Economics" might be that thing. In a world lit only by Jews, "economics" can be taken, I guess, as the proper study of a generally agreed-upon thievery. No properly organized society, which took the well-being of its people as its central reason for existence, could take any of this nonsense in any way seriously.

    And the “Nobel” prize in Economics is itself a fraud, Alfred Nobel endowed no such thing it was made up by the Swedish Central Bank.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. An old economics joke: You could lay all the world’s economists end to end and they still would not reach a conclusion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. @duderino
    By the standards of their colleagues in the social sciences, It's impossible to criticize immigration without sounding racist. Is there an anti-immigration argument that doesn't assume, "they're different than us?" You can shift the argument to culture instead of genetics, but at some point you have to make a value judgment on people who aren't white, which just isn't done.

    Also, A fair portion of the economists I've heard of are somehow connected to the Koch brothers and the AEI. There's no refuge on the right!

    Is there an anti-immigration argument that doesn’t assume, “they’re different than us?”

    Yes. “Does this individual carry his own weight? Does he pay his fare?” This can be enforced without any reference to the fellow’s race, religion, culture, “orientation”, or whatever. Let the other side introduce that, at their own risk.

    Some of this is already on the books, eg, the “public charge” clauses. We need only enforce it.

    Maybe I should have turned in the mestizo lady I saw walk into the local food shelf today. The African lady was likely a legal refugee, so I’ll let her slide– for now– but the Central American? No way!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. bomag says:
    @Massimo Heitor
    The suggestions that there is some coercion of conformity is absurd. "Open Borders" super champion, Bryan Caplan, for example, is about as contrarian as you can get. He is anti-liberal establishment on almost every issue except immigration. Even this crowd doesn't question his intellectual independence. Tabarrok and John H Cochrane are in similar buckets.

    My theory on why has three points:

    Point #1: While there is no overt coercion, people are shaped by their work culture, and people who live/work most of their lives in academia are deeply shaped by it. Academia accentuates strictly individual merit with group academic loyalties (school colors, school symbols, etc). Group affiliations of religion/race/ethnicity/nationality are allowed but institutionally downplayed. What is perceived as a negative of destroying the ethnic distinct character of a nation like Italy/France/Japan/Germany is a debatable point to much of academia. Bryan Caplan argues that destruction of Italian/French/Japanese ownership of their nations is a strict positive, which is extreme even for academia and definitely not coerced conformity.

    Point #2: Even those that agree that unwanted mass immigration imposes a real cost to host societies, the benefit to the immigrants is still larger, and basically justify taking from one group to give to the other. To quote Bryan Caplan, "But hard evidence that immigration has major drawbacks is not enough. The proponent of immigration restrictions also has to show that there is no cheaper or more humane way to mitigate the evils of immigration."

    Point #3: The benefit to an immigrant is much more visceral, visible, and measurable than the loss of the host population. The loses aren't obscure, even President Obama wrote of the intense grief faced by white communities in Michigan and Illinois on the receiving end of black migration from inside the US. But watching masses of immigrants risk life and limb to escape Africa and enter Europe is more powerful.

    Addendum: John Cochrane writes, "In the Soviet era, there were walls and guards with guns, and we deplored that people were not allowed to cross the border. Is it that different that the guards with guns are on the other side of the walls?". As the same Cochrane would say when debating other issues, this is a "silly argument" fabricated to back a debate agenda. Is locking random strangers inside of your home the same as locking your doors to prevent random strangers from entering? That is completely absurd. Many of these Open Borders arguments, especially those made by Bryan Caplan, Cochrane, and Tabarrok are well beyond bounds of reason and logic. They probably don't even believe their own arguments, but they are just so deeply committed, and professional debaters that push their cause no matter what. Almost all of the Open Borders arguments apply directly to an Open Doors policy of eliminating private property ownership, which none of the libertarians support.

    He is anti-liberal establishment on almost every issue except immigration.

    That kind of ruins the whole thing.

    Even those that agree that unwanted mass immigration imposes a real cost to host societies, the benefit to the immigrants is still larger, and basically justify taking from one group to give to the other.

    I hear Libertarians taking this line, but it exposes them as the leftist wealth re-distributors that they are; just another group of short term thinkers that promise good times for all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Massimo Heitor
    The suggestions that there is some coercion of conformity is absurd. "Open Borders" super champion, Bryan Caplan, for example, is about as contrarian as you can get. He is anti-liberal establishment on almost every issue except immigration. Even this crowd doesn't question his intellectual independence. Tabarrok and John H Cochrane are in similar buckets.

    My theory on why has three points:

    Point #1: While there is no overt coercion, people are shaped by their work culture, and people who live/work most of their lives in academia are deeply shaped by it. Academia accentuates strictly individual merit with group academic loyalties (school colors, school symbols, etc). Group affiliations of religion/race/ethnicity/nationality are allowed but institutionally downplayed. What is perceived as a negative of destroying the ethnic distinct character of a nation like Italy/France/Japan/Germany is a debatable point to much of academia. Bryan Caplan argues that destruction of Italian/French/Japanese ownership of their nations is a strict positive, which is extreme even for academia and definitely not coerced conformity.

    Point #2: Even those that agree that unwanted mass immigration imposes a real cost to host societies, the benefit to the immigrants is still larger, and basically justify taking from one group to give to the other. To quote Bryan Caplan, "But hard evidence that immigration has major drawbacks is not enough. The proponent of immigration restrictions also has to show that there is no cheaper or more humane way to mitigate the evils of immigration."

    Point #3: The benefit to an immigrant is much more visceral, visible, and measurable than the loss of the host population. The loses aren't obscure, even President Obama wrote of the intense grief faced by white communities in Michigan and Illinois on the receiving end of black migration from inside the US. But watching masses of immigrants risk life and limb to escape Africa and enter Europe is more powerful.

    Addendum: John Cochrane writes, "In the Soviet era, there were walls and guards with guns, and we deplored that people were not allowed to cross the border. Is it that different that the guards with guns are on the other side of the walls?". As the same Cochrane would say when debating other issues, this is a "silly argument" fabricated to back a debate agenda. Is locking random strangers inside of your home the same as locking your doors to prevent random strangers from entering? That is completely absurd. Many of these Open Borders arguments, especially those made by Bryan Caplan, Cochrane, and Tabarrok are well beyond bounds of reason and logic. They probably don't even believe their own arguments, but they are just so deeply committed, and professional debaters that push their cause no matter what. Almost all of the Open Borders arguments apply directly to an Open Doors policy of eliminating private property ownership, which none of the libertarians support.

    The suggestions that there is some coercion of conformity is absurd. “Open Borders” super champion, Bryan Caplan, for example, is about as contrarian as you can get.

    1) The coercion doesn’t have to apply to everyone involved. There are very large numbers of Jewish pundits who support open borders for everyone but Israel who clearly don’t really believe mass immigration and diversity are good or they’d want it for Israel too and are simply lying in what they believe are their ethnic interests.

    2) Economists argue about everything so the idea that there is total conformity on this issue without coercion on those who would otherwise disagree is nonsense.

    Some economists may genuinely think it’s a good thing, some will be being paid by the corporate oligarchy to say it’s a good thing but there would be some disagreement even if just out of contrariness – they don’t publicly disagree because any opposition to immigration would be attacked as racist.

    3) The only people who could get away with making a counter argument without the racism charge would be non-white (but at the cost of their future career in the West) or tenured white who are nearing retirement anyway and decide not to care.

    4) There is a second case however – non-white academics in the West may not want to risk their career (and may not want immigration into the West stopped anyway) but academics outside the West may care about what happens to their home if the same destructive ideology is applied there.

    So if there’s an alternative economics of immigration it’s likely to come out of China, Korea, India, Russia etc.

    5) The simplest counter argument to the mainstream economic nonsense is housing.

    The corporate oligarchy and their minions in the media see mass immigration as wages going down and revenue up (cos more people) so more profit.

    The reality is if you have mass immigration without building the housing *first* then housing costs will go up, discretionary income will go down and revenue will go down. So they get their lower or stagnant wage costs and then scratch their heads why their revenue is down.

    There’s more reasons than that of course but in a nutshell this incredibly simple point sums up a large part of the reason for the gradual economic collapse of the West over the last 20 years or so (50 really but greatly accelerated in the last 20).

    You’re saying not a single person in academia can figure out such an obvious point?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    There are very large numbers of Jewish pundits who support open borders for everyone but Israel
     
    There is some of this, but it is overblown. Most Jews do seem consistent. Many Jews advocate open borders for Israel and many Jews oppose mass immigration to Europe.

    the idea that there is total conformity on this issue without coercion
     
    There is _not_ total conformity among economists. Just among the few PhD economists that I have read, legends Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman both opposed today's style of mass immigration. Arnold Kling is a polite skeptic: he has stressed that this is a much broader cultural issue, it's not a technical economic matter, he feels that economists shouldn't be driving that debate, and has expressed criticism of the libertarian basis for open borders.

    I can google the top living economists, and most names I've never heard of, and can't quickly find their position on immigration. Many may not have taken a public position on the issue.

    Almost everyone supports immigration, but these people are way too powerful to be easily coerced:

    Immigration reform is good for the economy, says pretty much everyone.

    More than 100 conservative economists signed a letter from the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, arguing that immigration reform is good for the economy. The letter, which included signatures from former Bush adviser Glenn Hubbard and famed tax-hater Arthur Laffer, urges lawmakers to pass “a broad-based immigration reform bill.”


    , @Massimo Heitor

    The reality is if you have mass immigration without building the housing *first* then housing costs will go up, discretionary income will go down and revenue will go down. So they get their lower or stagnant wage costs and then scratch their heads why their revenue is down.

    There’s more reasons than that of course but in a nutshell this incredibly simple point sums up a large part of the reason for the gradual economic collapse of the West over the last 20 years or so (50 really but greatly accelerated in the last 20).
     
    This is the absolute worst argument against mass immigration, particularly in the US, where there is plenty of unused housing stock, and plenty of untapped building capacity. Housing supply/prices really is a strictly technical economic issue and I actually trust the economists on that. I trust the economists far less on the cultural impact, the tribal rivalries that result, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Olorin says:
    @Rob McX
    The question in the title of your post seems easy to answer - nobody else studies immigration in an objective way, so why should economists? They know that any honest conclusions they come to on immigration will in effect be statements on racial differences, whether they say so explicitly or not. No other field of study faces up to the question of race either, not even biology. Many biologists start to sound like creationists when they're cornered into making any comment on racial differences.

    Exactly my view.

    Faced with science, most people retreat into religio-social points of view. Particularly when their paychecks involve perpetuating that POV.

    Immigration ideology is a special kind of cult. It has the key cognitive hallmark of religious thinking: it requires absolute suspension of disbelief of the laws of daily reality.

    http://www.pascalboyer.net/articles/CognitiveTemplates.pdf

    We’re coming into a time when the logjam of denials and distractions about population genetics/immigration is putting enormous stress on the systems that require high order, uninterrupted, mass inputs of reason to function well (like infrastructure or ecosystems).

    Economics as a profession isn’t about reason. It doesn’t have to be. It only has to produce profits for a few, by any means. Economic pundits pick a side, and gild its scat while stinky-pooing the other side’s. Whether times are good or bad, economists have a sinecure above it all, high priests of the religion of Mesopotamian city-states.

    The rest of us just try to survive all the cancerous growth ideology and “creative destruction.” Those of us descended from populations whose genetics tend toward practicality and reason are the designated enemies of the ancient Near Eastern/Mediterranean orders because we in fact are.

    The big question is how long the Near East/Mediterranean-area immigrants can colonize and parasitize our societies before they collapse. Obviously we are not allowed to send them packing back to their own centers of genetic origin. That would be rational, i.e., sinful.

    How Asia factors into all this is even more interesting…and troubling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. conatus says:

    Here are some decent numbers squeezed out of the usually reluctant CRS(Congressional Research Service). The author must be the mysterious one armed man(otherwise they would have inserted the phrase ‘on the other hand’).
    Thanks to Sen. Jeff Sessions and Rep Dave Brat(the guy who defeated Cantor).

    CRS numbers below from here

    http://www.rollcall.com/news/memo_to_gop_curb_immigration_or_quit_commentary-244263-1.html?zkPrintable=true

    “According to the Congressional Research Service, from 1945 to 1970 — as the foreign-born population fell — the bottom 90 percent of wage earners saw an 82.5 percent increase in their wages. During this time, millions of prior immigrants were able to climb out of the tenements and into the middle class.

    In 1965, Congress passed a new immigration law which helped produce an unprecedented wave of low-skilled immigration. The foreign-born population more than quadrupled, from fewer than 10 million in 1970 to more than 42 million today. In 1970, fewer than 1 in 21 residents were foreign-born, today it is approaching 1 in 7. In cities such as Los Angeles and New York, almost 4 in 10 current residents were born in another country. One-fifth of our residents now speak a language other than English at home. One-quarter of our residents is now either an immigrant or born to immigrant parents.

    This ongoing immigration wave continues during a time when workers are being replaced with automation, when record numbers are living on welfare and when manufacturing plants are closing their doors. All of this has combined to help create an immense wage-compressing surplus of labor: 66 million working-age residents are not working. Real average hourly earnings are lower now than they were in 1973.

    The Congressional Research Service reports that during the 43 years between 1970 and 2013 — when the foreign-born population grew 325 percent — incomes for the bottom 90 percent of earners fell nearly 8 percent.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. Ask Robin Hanson.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Circa 2009-2010 there was a prominent article in the USA media describing the Federal Reserve’s “capture of the economics profession”… it might have been a Blomberg article.

    The reality is that any western economist who desires a career trajectory upwards must bow to the priesthood at the Fed and accept all of the Fed’s doctrine.

    Federal Reserve is a mafia skim operation of course, but their crimes are protected by the Fed’s political operations. Mass immigration is a delightful lubricant that opens up all sorts of other opportunities for crime in a nation. Denninger has blogged about these issues for years. Many others also. Russ Winter is hardcore.

    That is the fundamental answer to iSteve’s question. All other answers are downstream from the Federal Reserve.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. notsaying says:
    @Luke Lea
    Why are economists blind on this issue? Maybe because they worship at the shrine of global economic efficiency?

    I would think you are right about thoughts of “global economic efficiency” clouding out thoughts of what benefits us here in America.

    Certainly from what I can see, there seems to be an assumption that blind and unquestioning support of “free trade” is a must. That most of the people we trade with put their own interests first while pretending to go along with our free trade obsession hasn’t sunk in yet with American elites and who knows if and when it will?

    It might not be much of a leap to go from supporting “free trade” in goods and services to supporting the free flow of labor around the world for these people.

    Maybe when our current downward spiral starts affecting them, their friends and families, the economist will start thinking about what is fair and sustainable for us here in America and forget about trying to force the world to operate like we want it to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. notsaying says:

    One thing to look forward to is what happens when today’s immigrants realize just how much they and their families futures are threatened by continuing to bring in too many new immigrants.

    These are people who got here by looking after their own interests.

    It could be that sooner than any of us expect, some of the most vocal critics of more new immigrants will be immigrants — as well as their American-born children who want and need jobs here.

    This is something that the Democratic Party shows no sign of having considered and that may cost them tens of millions of immigrant voters someday. It would serve them right if it does.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. Rob McX says:

    The doctrine of free trade is not as pernicious as that of free movement of people and labour (i.e. open borders), but it’s not far off.

    The duty of the rulers of any nation state is to follow a trade policy that’s best for its people and in the long term for their descendants.. Free trade may sometimes serve that purpose. But if followed without exception, it’s guaranteed to ruin any country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. @Anonymous
    It's all political, Steve.

    Basically, economists fall into two camps.
    1/.
    The genuine Marxists and lefties who promote open bordes for purely ideological reasons, (in other words the adhere to the scripture Marx wrote down).
    To this group, I add so called 'libertarians'. Although they are, ideologically, the polar opposite of Marxists, an article of faith of their cult, promulgated by their prophet is a commitment to 'open borders'.

    2/. The pussy-whipped and the PC. Perhaps not ideologues, and perhaps somewhere, deep down they have seeds of doubt, nevertheless, the pay obsequiousness to the Holy Totem Pole, toe the line for an easy life, and mouth the right platitudes, in order 'to get on' and get that plaudit or promotion.
    The basic, everyday, universal, herd instinct.

    To this group, I add so called ‘libertarians’. Although they are, ideologically, the polar opposite of Marxists, an article of faith of their cult, promulgated by their prophet is a commitment to ‘open borders’.

    There are strong libertarian arguments for both sides of the immigration issue and libertarians are on both sides of the issue. Milton Friedman, arguably the godfather of “libertarians” opposed immigration in the era of the welfare state.

    Today’s mass immigration to the west
    - Is forced by government.
    - Often involves direct undermining of the will of the people and voting preferences.
    - Is forced on other nations that do not want it.
    - Is a mass-scale involuntary redistribution where immigrants who choose to migrate benefit and host populations that often don’t want the immigration suffer.
    - Involves epic levels of government coerced welfare state aid.
    - Involves state level suppression of political opposition.

    All of the above are outrageously anti libertarian.

    The libertarian “open border” crowd strongly advocates that you don’t need to do any of the above, you don’t need to provide government aid, etc, but that is basically an abstract thought experiment that has no bearing on any policy discussion or reality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @anon

    The suggestions that there is some coercion of conformity is absurd. “Open Borders” super champion, Bryan Caplan, for example, is about as contrarian as you can get.
     
    1) The coercion doesn't have to apply to everyone involved. There are very large numbers of Jewish pundits who support open borders for everyone but Israel who clearly don't really believe mass immigration and diversity are good or they'd want it for Israel too and are simply lying in what they believe are their ethnic interests.

    2) Economists argue about everything so the idea that there is total conformity on this issue without coercion on those who would otherwise disagree is nonsense.

    Some economists may genuinely think it's a good thing, some will be being paid by the corporate oligarchy to say it's a good thing but there would be some disagreement even if just out of contrariness - they don't publicly disagree because any opposition to immigration would be attacked as racist.

    3) The only people who could get away with making a counter argument without the racism charge would be non-white (but at the cost of their future career in the West) or tenured white who are nearing retirement anyway and decide not to care.

    4) There is a second case however - non-white academics in the West may not want to risk their career (and may not want immigration into the West stopped anyway) but academics outside the West may care about what happens to their home if the same destructive ideology is applied there.

    So if there's an alternative economics of immigration it's likely to come out of China, Korea, India, Russia etc.

    5) The simplest counter argument to the mainstream economic nonsense is housing.

    The corporate oligarchy and their minions in the media see mass immigration as wages going down and revenue up (cos more people) so more profit.

    The reality is if you have mass immigration without building the housing *first* then housing costs will go up, discretionary income will go down and revenue will go down. So they get their lower or stagnant wage costs and then scratch their heads why their revenue is down.

    There's more reasons than that of course but in a nutshell this incredibly simple point sums up a large part of the reason for the gradual economic collapse of the West over the last 20 years or so (50 really but greatly accelerated in the last 20).

    You're saying not a single person in academia can figure out such an obvious point?

    There are very large numbers of Jewish pundits who support open borders for everyone but Israel

    There is some of this, but it is overblown. Most Jews do seem consistent. Many Jews advocate open borders for Israel and many Jews oppose mass immigration to Europe.

    the idea that there is total conformity on this issue without coercion

    There is _not_ total conformity among economists. Just among the few PhD economists that I have read, legends Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman both opposed today’s style of mass immigration. Arnold Kling is a polite skeptic: he has stressed that this is a much broader cultural issue, it’s not a technical economic matter, he feels that economists shouldn’t be driving that debate, and has expressed criticism of the libertarian basis for open borders.

    I can google the top living economists, and most names I’ve never heard of, and can’t quickly find their position on immigration. Many may not have taken a public position on the issue.

    Almost everyone supports immigration, but these people are way too powerful to be easily coerced:

    Immigration reform is good for the economy, says pretty much everyone.

    More than 100 conservative economists signed a letter from the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, arguing that immigration reform is good for the economy. The letter, which included signatures from former Bush adviser Glenn Hubbard and famed tax-hater Arthur Laffer, urges lawmakers to pass “a broad-based immigration reform bill.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Jimi says:

    An exception to this pattern is of course David Brat, an economics PhD and professor, who defeated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

    I wonder why he isn’t taking a more visible role since his victory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. @Asian_dude
    If you aren't a nationalist, why care?

    There is a better division of humanity then skin color. There is the stupid group and there is the smart group. While they aren't quite as visible as skin color, they are easy enough to figure out and this trait have massively more predictive power then vulnerability to sunburns. Why divide people by cosmetic features or historical accidents involving place of birth when one could do it by more fundamental properties directly?

    The smart people can figure out the whole boarder within a boarder thing, the smarter people can figure out how to leverage a larger population. It is not something to really worry about.

    As for the stupid people, why care particularly much about a sub group of them? A IQ 85 African American will probably not have a life trajectory that different from IQ 85 white person or IQ 85 person anywhere, especially from the outside perspective from people outside this group.
    -------------------
    Its really amusing sometimes to read some libertarian economist's blog has many of the same prediction as stuff that shows up on isteve but lead to a completely reversed conclusions on whether it is a good thing. The nationalist feelings and nationalist concept of some sort of "equality within a nation" concept is viewed as inefficiency or danger.

    A society with a sense of solidarity maybe the greatest limit to a certain demographic of smart people. (I mean a certain mentality, not ex-religion) Atomized individuals in a incoherent and fragmented social order is easy to out maneuver.

    As for the stupid people, why care particularly much about a sub group of them?

    So, between your dull but nice son and some brilliant guy in Japan whom you’ve never met, whose welfare are you more concerned with?

    Now for “son” substitute “nephew”, tgen “cousin”, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    So, between your dull but nice son and some brilliant guy in Japan whom you’ve never met, whose welfare are you more concerned with?

     

    People in the West abort 90% of Down Syndrome pregnancies, even though they result in the nicest people in town. So, no, many are not interested in a "dull but nice son"!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. JDG1980 says:

    There’s an✡ther dem✡graphic fact ab✡ut the ec✡n✡mics pr✡fessi✡n that might als✡ play a r✡le in this…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. anowow says:
    @Asian_dude
    If you aren't a nationalist, why care?

    There is a better division of humanity then skin color. There is the stupid group and there is the smart group. While they aren't quite as visible as skin color, they are easy enough to figure out and this trait have massively more predictive power then vulnerability to sunburns. Why divide people by cosmetic features or historical accidents involving place of birth when one could do it by more fundamental properties directly?

    The smart people can figure out the whole boarder within a boarder thing, the smarter people can figure out how to leverage a larger population. It is not something to really worry about.

    As for the stupid people, why care particularly much about a sub group of them? A IQ 85 African American will probably not have a life trajectory that different from IQ 85 white person or IQ 85 person anywhere, especially from the outside perspective from people outside this group.
    -------------------
    Its really amusing sometimes to read some libertarian economist's blog has many of the same prediction as stuff that shows up on isteve but lead to a completely reversed conclusions on whether it is a good thing. The nationalist feelings and nationalist concept of some sort of "equality within a nation" concept is viewed as inefficiency or danger.

    A society with a sense of solidarity maybe the greatest limit to a certain demographic of smart people. (I mean a certain mentality, not ex-religion) Atomized individuals in a incoherent and fragmented social order is easy to out maneuver.

    Why are we even forced to choose? One does hear the argument from folks who are opposed to more Latino immigration that Asians are model migrants and we should let more in, or let more Europeans in, etc.

    Why the choice? The premise is flawed. It’s assumed that more people coming in is a given, a force of nature. It isn’t. It is a choice, a national choice, a series of choices made by lots of Americans, but it is still a choice. We CAN change our minds, if we were so inclined.

    And your premise about smart people is flawed. Do smart people always have only the interest of other smart people at heart? We hear a lot about xenophobes among the host country, but what worries me is ethnic nepotism and networking among newcomers. We see it were smart people who move here often advocate for other smart [and stupid] people from their homelands. I’d add skills to that. Skills and smarts don’t always make for good neighbors.

    It’s basically about not wanting to condemn our children to an overcrowded rat race. I’ve been to East Asia, they are hard workers, but they are intense and ambitious, at least the ones most likely to come here.

    I’m not sure large numbers of folks like that will contribute to my grandchildren’s quality of life. I certainly don’t want more of the sort of diaspora groups that Amy Chua says hold the key to be successful- a bunch of intelligent neurotic a-holes. Trust me, we’ve already had two such groups: Puritans and Eastern European Ashkenazi, and we may not survive the kinds of policies they’ve forced on the rest of us.

    I don’t want my kids competing for a spot at a university with a tiger mom’s kids who may or not feel alienated towards my people. Maybe the US could let California break away along with Texas, we could then benefit from all that techie innovation, the way other countries benefit from US innovation now, but we wouldn’t have to deal with the societal or economic changes and dislocations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Puritans and Eastern European Ashkenazi, and we may not survive the kinds of policies they’ve forced on the rest of us.
     
    What was the most recent policy Puritans "forced" on the rest of us? The closest thing in my lifetime is the UCC taking on the Reagan Administration because the latter loosened the moral censorship on the radio. And the UCC lost, so we get to hear the F-word on the radio, at least embedded in a song.

    Jeez, the Puritans lost Boston by the Civil War. Calvin Coolidge and the police strike was their last hurrah.
    , @ben tillman

    Why are we even forced to choose? One does hear the argument from folks who are opposed to more Latino immigration that Asians are model migrants and we should let more in, or let more Europeans in, etc.

    Why the choice? The premise is flawed. It’s assumed that more people coming in is a given, a force of nature. It isn’t. It is a choice, a national choice, a series of choices made by lots of Americans, but it is still a choice. We CAN change our minds, if we were so inclined.

    And your premise about smart people is flawed. Do smart people always have only the interest of other smart people at heart?
     
    It's flawed for more reasons than that. If we want to focus on the welfare of smart people to the exclusion of their less-intelligent relatives, how do Asians even enter the discussion? We can do "cognitive elitism" without them, if that's what we want. Asian dude is attempting to convince us, clumsily, to hand over our stuff.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @anon

    The suggestions that there is some coercion of conformity is absurd. “Open Borders” super champion, Bryan Caplan, for example, is about as contrarian as you can get.
     
    1) The coercion doesn't have to apply to everyone involved. There are very large numbers of Jewish pundits who support open borders for everyone but Israel who clearly don't really believe mass immigration and diversity are good or they'd want it for Israel too and are simply lying in what they believe are their ethnic interests.

    2) Economists argue about everything so the idea that there is total conformity on this issue without coercion on those who would otherwise disagree is nonsense.

    Some economists may genuinely think it's a good thing, some will be being paid by the corporate oligarchy to say it's a good thing but there would be some disagreement even if just out of contrariness - they don't publicly disagree because any opposition to immigration would be attacked as racist.

    3) The only people who could get away with making a counter argument without the racism charge would be non-white (but at the cost of their future career in the West) or tenured white who are nearing retirement anyway and decide not to care.

    4) There is a second case however - non-white academics in the West may not want to risk their career (and may not want immigration into the West stopped anyway) but academics outside the West may care about what happens to their home if the same destructive ideology is applied there.

    So if there's an alternative economics of immigration it's likely to come out of China, Korea, India, Russia etc.

    5) The simplest counter argument to the mainstream economic nonsense is housing.

    The corporate oligarchy and their minions in the media see mass immigration as wages going down and revenue up (cos more people) so more profit.

    The reality is if you have mass immigration without building the housing *first* then housing costs will go up, discretionary income will go down and revenue will go down. So they get their lower or stagnant wage costs and then scratch their heads why their revenue is down.

    There's more reasons than that of course but in a nutshell this incredibly simple point sums up a large part of the reason for the gradual economic collapse of the West over the last 20 years or so (50 really but greatly accelerated in the last 20).

    You're saying not a single person in academia can figure out such an obvious point?

    The reality is if you have mass immigration without building the housing *first* then housing costs will go up, discretionary income will go down and revenue will go down. So they get their lower or stagnant wage costs and then scratch their heads why their revenue is down.

    There’s more reasons than that of course but in a nutshell this incredibly simple point sums up a large part of the reason for the gradual economic collapse of the West over the last 20 years or so (50 really but greatly accelerated in the last 20).

    This is the absolute worst argument against mass immigration, particularly in the US, where there is plenty of unused housing stock, and plenty of untapped building capacity. Housing supply/prices really is a strictly technical economic issue and I actually trust the economists on that. I trust the economists far less on the cultural impact, the tribal rivalries that result, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    This is the absolute worst argument against mass immigration
     
    It's the best argument against the lie that mass immigration creates prosperity as it's something almost every one has personal experience of: increased housing costs, less discretionary spending = creeping economic necrosis across the entire western economy.

    Most Jews do seem consistent. Many Jews advocate open borders for Israel and many Jews oppose mass immigration to Europe.
     
    Such carefully chosen words are as bad as lying.

    The point was how many Jewish pundits who say mass immigration and diversity is a good thing for the US call for mass immigration and diversity for Israel?

    None that I know of (although I expect there are a few I don't know about).

    So they are clearly lying when they say they believe it is good for the US because if they thought it was good they'd want it for Israel.

    So we can discount all of their reasons for saying they think it's good because they are lying - they don't think it's good at all.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @International Jew

    As for the stupid people, why care particularly much about a sub group of them?
     
    So, between your dull but nice son and some brilliant guy in Japan whom you've never met, whose welfare are you more concerned with?

    Now for "son" substitute "nephew", tgen "cousin", etc.

    So, between your dull but nice son and some brilliant guy in Japan whom you’ve never met, whose welfare are you more concerned with?

    People in the West abort 90% of Down Syndrome pregnancies, even though they result in the nicest people in town. So, no, many are not interested in a “dull but nice son”!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @anowow
    Why are we even forced to choose? One does hear the argument from folks who are opposed to more Latino immigration that Asians are model migrants and we should let more in, or let more Europeans in, etc.

    Why the choice? The premise is flawed. It's assumed that more people coming in is a given, a force of nature. It isn't. It is a choice, a national choice, a series of choices made by lots of Americans, but it is still a choice. We CAN change our minds, if we were so inclined.

    And your premise about smart people is flawed. Do smart people always have only the interest of other smart people at heart? We hear a lot about xenophobes among the host country, but what worries me is ethnic nepotism and networking among newcomers. We see it were smart people who move here often advocate for other smart [and stupid] people from their homelands. I'd add skills to that. Skills and smarts don't always make for good neighbors.

    It's basically about not wanting to condemn our children to an overcrowded rat race. I've been to East Asia, they are hard workers, but they are intense and ambitious, at least the ones most likely to come here.

    I'm not sure large numbers of folks like that will contribute to my grandchildren's quality of life. I certainly don't want more of the sort of diaspora groups that Amy Chua says hold the key to be successful- a bunch of intelligent neurotic a-holes. Trust me, we've already had two such groups: Puritans and Eastern European Ashkenazi, and we may not survive the kinds of policies they've forced on the rest of us.


    I don't want my kids competing for a spot at a university with a tiger mom's kids who may or not feel alienated towards my people. Maybe the US could let California break away along with Texas, we could then benefit from all that techie innovation, the way other countries benefit from US innovation now, but we wouldn't have to deal with the societal or economic changes and dislocations.

    Puritans and Eastern European Ashkenazi, and we may not survive the kinds of policies they’ve forced on the rest of us.

    What was the most recent policy Puritans “forced” on the rest of us? The closest thing in my lifetime is the UCC taking on the Reagan Administration because the latter loosened the moral censorship on the radio. And the UCC lost, so we get to hear the F-word on the radio, at least embedded in a song.

    Jeez, the Puritans lost Boston by the Civil War. Calvin Coolidge and the police strike was their last hurrah.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anowow
    Puritans' descendants the WASPs and their ideological descendants from other groups exert a huge influence on US policies.

    That said, there is a strong Mid-Atlantic Quaker tradition of nonsense, which has influenced Left and Centrist policies in this country.

    Southerners would have gone fighting abroad, but they would have done it more in a straight up imperial or filibustering in its 19th century sense way. A Southern expedition abroad wouldn't involve this Messianic, City on the Hill nonsense and girls education and purple fingers idiocy.

    All the money we dump in the 3rd world, along with our self-righteous devious meddling is an old Puritan tradition. Save the Haiwaiians, teach them the proper sexual positions, and, oh, btw, grab the land. Yankee Hypocrisy at its best.

    Despite his lack of popularity in his paternal homeland (a product of his cowboy persona), Dubya and his policies are as much a product of New England as Texas.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Why divide people by cosmetic features or historical accidents involving place of birth when one could do it by more fundamental properties directly?”

    Because place of birth is typically highly correlated with genetic distance. Cosmetic features are often highly correlated with genetic distance. Genetic distance is “kinship”.

    Do you have no interest in the well-being of your kin?

    Define “fundamental properties” please. Do they outweigh kinship? If you and your mate are both overflowing with good fundamental properties, but have a child who, alas, do to the luck of the genetic draw or unfortunate circumstances, is very under-endowed with good fundamental properties, do you discard them like used toilet paper?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Asian_dude

    Because place of birth is typically highly correlated with genetic distance. Cosmetic features are often highly correlated with genetic distance. Genetic distance is “kinship”. Do you have no interest in the well-being of your kin?
     
    In a world when one could easily share absolutely nothing with one's kin aside from history and perhaps a bit of genetics, somewhat.

    It is culture that is the out growth of a certain mental make up (in its abilities and preferences) that matters to me. People that is on the other side of possible empathy might as well be an alien species regardless of how they have the same genes defining hair follicles.

    I mean I am posting on isteve instead of socializing with my kin~

    Societies succeed because they’ve built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
     
    "Societies" can go through two culture revolutions killing social capital on the heels of communist megadeaths, persistent civil war and being the losing front line in ww2 and still sorta succeed. Societies can be duck taped together to stomp on all local rivals following massive dislocation and death and that after being spread across continents without territory for millennia.

    If that is doable, immigration is just minor.

    If HBD shows us something, if you disintegrate certain societies the people inside them would rebuild. Perhaps some brittle complexity and inefficient extravagance would be lost, however the profound and timeless functional strategy would survive as long as the larger environment remains.
    --------------------
    Instead of immigration, this is a era of radical social change as revolutions to communications, media, work, and reproduction occurs every generation. It is self evident that for practical purposes modern "white" culture do not share all that much from that of the beginning of the 20th C, just from all the complaints posted here.

    We are moving into uncharted territories whether you want it or not, there is no looking back.

    We hear a lot about xenophobes among the host country, but what worries me is ethnic nepotism and networking among newcomers. We see it were smart people who move here often advocate for other smart [and stupid] people from their homelands.
     
    What worries me is people that advocate for other people from their homelands, even if they are living at home. (The perks of living at certain homelands is that bomber aircraft can be deployed for the purpose of banana plantations) Boarders just don't mean very much when so much flows through it, even if people is somehow kept out of it.

    In any case, if modernity managed to dissolve kinship identity for smart people so successfully already, it'd take a dumb newcomers to retain them.

    It’s basically about not wanting to condemn our children to an overcrowded rat race.
     
    It seems like much of isteve posters are just interested in extended self interest as opposed to having a real ideology that extends to cover any significant part of humanity or further future.

    Well, a interest group that isn't winning against better funded and more numerous opponents isn't exact something to feel about from the perspective of an outsider.

    In any case, protectionism lasts only so long.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Asian_dude
    If you aren't a nationalist, why care?

    There is a better division of humanity then skin color. There is the stupid group and there is the smart group. While they aren't quite as visible as skin color, they are easy enough to figure out and this trait have massively more predictive power then vulnerability to sunburns. Why divide people by cosmetic features or historical accidents involving place of birth when one could do it by more fundamental properties directly?

    The smart people can figure out the whole boarder within a boarder thing, the smarter people can figure out how to leverage a larger population. It is not something to really worry about.

    As for the stupid people, why care particularly much about a sub group of them? A IQ 85 African American will probably not have a life trajectory that different from IQ 85 white person or IQ 85 person anywhere, especially from the outside perspective from people outside this group.
    -------------------
    Its really amusing sometimes to read some libertarian economist's blog has many of the same prediction as stuff that shows up on isteve but lead to a completely reversed conclusions on whether it is a good thing. The nationalist feelings and nationalist concept of some sort of "equality within a nation" concept is viewed as inefficiency or danger.

    A society with a sense of solidarity maybe the greatest limit to a certain demographic of smart people. (I mean a certain mentality, not ex-religion) Atomized individuals in a incoherent and fragmented social order is easy to out maneuver.

    “There is a better division of humanity then skin color. There is the stupid group and there is the smart group.”
    Societies succeed because they’ve built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
    Immigrants who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. […] economics. Related: Reference points. Related: Strangling the golden goose. Related: Why are economists so stupid on […]

    Read More
  84. Lot says:
    @Some Economist
    "For white economists, immigration is a great boon professionally."

    I got my PhD less than five years ago from top 15 department (where Americans were about 30% of grad students and maybe 60% of faculty). The econ job market is extremely tough, and I hardly saw hundreds of graduating foreigners as a boon to my personal career. But what was astonishing was that I was probably the only person even mildly bothered by the situation; it made my experiences as a grad student and job seeker very unpleasant.

    I've tried to think of why the number of non-Americans being admitted to econ programs has gone up so much in the past 20 years, and I don't think it's just money. A PhD program doesn't typically get tuition though from its students. Students either get fellowships or tuition remission through being a teaching or research assistant. By admitting more foreign grad students, they are getting some cheaper labor for sure. But they trade more on prestige, and if admitting 50 good foreigners produces 2 excellent researchers, it's worth it. And why should these old guys on admissions and hiring committees care? It's like homeowners in the Bay Area supporting "anti-sprawl" measures, I guess.

    "There is also a division of labor in academic economics, where the asians do the boring data collection, math, and stats work, and the white guys brainstorm, lecture tour, network, and write up the results in journals and sometimes in the popular media."

    The whole Asians being better at quant stuff goes away at this level, but they do tend to be worse at integrating knowledge so they tend specialize more the in context-free pure econometrics or macro, for instance.

    But what was astonishing was that I was probably the only person even mildly bothered by the situation; it made my experiences as a grad student and job seeker very unpleasant.

    Some of my old white tenured professors used the freedom of the classroom to say some politically incorrect things that today would get them a twitter mobbed. It helped that my typical senior-level class was 90% or even 100% male, and 80% white/20% quiet hierarchy-respecting asian immigrant. Once you get to the harder classes, the SJWs had all self-selected out.

    A PhD program doesn’t typically get tuition though from its students.

    Maybe not at the top-15 program you went to, but there are plenty of schools outside that range, like UIUC for instance. There is also the “pay tuition for the MA and if you don’t flunk out you can teach your way through the Ph.D.” setup. This is kept quiet, however, as respectable schools are not supposed to have unfunded Ph.D. students. Neither the school nor the student has any incentive to admit what is going on.

    The whole Asians being better at quant stuff goes away at this level, but they do tend to be worse at integrating knowledge so they tend specialize more the in context-free pure econometrics or macro, for instance.

    I have sometimes wondered if there is a high-level crossover where the NE Asian math advantage peters out due to what some evidence suggests is a lower IQ SD. If there is a crossover however, I doubt it is so low as the level of a typical econ grad student. There is a precedent for this with a old age black/white mortality crossover:

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-black-white-mortality-crossover/

    Nonetheless, if the asian economists are 5% worse than the Americans at the math and 30% worse at writing/networking, their comparative advantage at the data grinding will place them into that role.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. anowow says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Puritans and Eastern European Ashkenazi, and we may not survive the kinds of policies they’ve forced on the rest of us.
     
    What was the most recent policy Puritans "forced" on the rest of us? The closest thing in my lifetime is the UCC taking on the Reagan Administration because the latter loosened the moral censorship on the radio. And the UCC lost, so we get to hear the F-word on the radio, at least embedded in a song.

    Jeez, the Puritans lost Boston by the Civil War. Calvin Coolidge and the police strike was their last hurrah.

    Puritans’ descendants the WASPs and their ideological descendants from other groups exert a huge influence on US policies.

    That said, there is a strong Mid-Atlantic Quaker tradition of nonsense, which has influenced Left and Centrist policies in this country.

    Southerners would have gone fighting abroad, but they would have done it more in a straight up imperial or filibustering in its 19th century sense way. A Southern expedition abroad wouldn’t involve this Messianic, City on the Hill nonsense and girls education and purple fingers idiocy.

    All the money we dump in the 3rd world, along with our self-righteous devious meddling is an old Puritan tradition. Save the Haiwaiians, teach them the proper sexual positions, and, oh, btw, grab the land. Yankee Hypocrisy at its best.

    Despite his lack of popularity in his paternal homeland (a product of his cowboy persona), Dubya and his policies are as much a product of New England as Texas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @anonymous
    "Why divide people by cosmetic features or historical accidents involving place of birth when one could do it by more fundamental properties directly?"


    Because place of birth is typically highly correlated with genetic distance. Cosmetic features are often highly correlated with genetic distance. Genetic distance is "kinship".

    Do you have no interest in the well-being of your kin?

    Define "fundamental properties" please. Do they outweigh kinship? If you and your mate are both overflowing with good fundamental properties, but have a child who, alas, do to the luck of the genetic draw or unfortunate circumstances, is very under-endowed with good fundamental properties, do you discard them like used toilet paper?

    Because place of birth is typically highly correlated with genetic distance. Cosmetic features are often highly correlated with genetic distance. Genetic distance is “kinship”. Do you have no interest in the well-being of your kin?

    In a world when one could easily share absolutely nothing with one’s kin aside from history and perhaps a bit of genetics, somewhat.

    It is culture that is the out growth of a certain mental make up (in its abilities and preferences) that matters to me. People that is on the other side of possible empathy might as well be an alien species regardless of how they have the same genes defining hair follicles.

    I mean I am posting on isteve instead of socializing with my kin~

    Societies succeed because they’ve built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.

    “Societies” can go through two culture revolutions killing social capital on the heels of communist megadeaths, persistent civil war and being the losing front line in ww2 and still sorta succeed. Societies can be duck taped together to stomp on all local rivals following massive dislocation and death and that after being spread across continents without territory for millennia.

    If that is doable, immigration is just minor.

    If HBD shows us something, if you disintegrate certain societies the people inside them would rebuild. Perhaps some brittle complexity and inefficient extravagance would be lost, however the profound and timeless functional strategy would survive as long as the larger environment remains.
    ——————–
    Instead of immigration, this is a era of radical social change as revolutions to communications, media, work, and reproduction occurs every generation. It is self evident that for practical purposes modern “white” culture do not share all that much from that of the beginning of the 20th C, just from all the complaints posted here.

    We are moving into uncharted territories whether you want it or not, there is no looking back.

    We hear a lot about xenophobes among the host country, but what worries me is ethnic nepotism and networking among newcomers. We see it were smart people who move here often advocate for other smart [and stupid] people from their homelands.

    What worries me is people that advocate for other people from their homelands, even if they are living at home. (The perks of living at certain homelands is that bomber aircraft can be deployed for the purpose of banana plantations) Boarders just don’t mean very much when so much flows through it, even if people is somehow kept out of it.

    In any case, if modernity managed to dissolve kinship identity for smart people so successfully already, it’d take a dumb newcomers to retain them.

    It’s basically about not wanting to condemn our children to an overcrowded rat race.

    It seems like much of isteve posters are just interested in extended self interest as opposed to having a real ideology that extends to cover any significant part of humanity or further future.

    Well, a interest group that isn’t winning against better funded and more numerous opponents isn’t exact something to feel about from the perspective of an outsider.

    In any case, protectionism lasts only so long.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Anonymous
    Brian Caplan is an economist who wrote an excellent book called Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. He's also a huge open borders cheerleader.

    Which is weird because the book is mostly a lucid defense of nature vs. nurture -- lots of discussion of twins studies, etc. The central argument is that, since genes matter waaaaaay more toward determining adult outcomes, we parents should just chill out, stop taking parenting so seriously, and have more kids.

    But if genes are so much more important than cultural environment, wouldn't that caution someone against inviting Third World genes into this country? I've seen an open borders blog post he wrote, though, and the tone was one of bewilderment, as in, 'How can you imbeciles NOT want to invite the Third World into our country???'

    The bewilderment is mutual.

    But if genes are so much more important than cultural environment, wouldn’t that caution someone against inviting Third World genes into this country?

    You are presuming a loyalty to the existing people of the first world nation. Bryan Caplan is quite clearly opposed to this loyalty.

    If you are more interested in a strictly individual meritocracy, mass migration and national IQ/gene equalization pushes things in that direction. It neutralizes the group advantages/disadvantages of being born into a particular nation/culture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Massimo Heitor

    The reality is if you have mass immigration without building the housing *first* then housing costs will go up, discretionary income will go down and revenue will go down. So they get their lower or stagnant wage costs and then scratch their heads why their revenue is down.

    There’s more reasons than that of course but in a nutshell this incredibly simple point sums up a large part of the reason for the gradual economic collapse of the West over the last 20 years or so (50 really but greatly accelerated in the last 20).
     
    This is the absolute worst argument against mass immigration, particularly in the US, where there is plenty of unused housing stock, and plenty of untapped building capacity. Housing supply/prices really is a strictly technical economic issue and I actually trust the economists on that. I trust the economists far less on the cultural impact, the tribal rivalries that result, etc.

    This is the absolute worst argument against mass immigration

    It’s the best argument against the lie that mass immigration creates prosperity as it’s something almost every one has personal experience of: increased housing costs, less discretionary spending = creeping economic necrosis across the entire western economy.

    Most Jews do seem consistent. Many Jews advocate open borders for Israel and many Jews oppose mass immigration to Europe.

    Such carefully chosen words are as bad as lying.

    The point was how many Jewish pundits who say mass immigration and diversity is a good thing for the US call for mass immigration and diversity for Israel?

    None that I know of (although I expect there are a few I don’t know about).

    So they are clearly lying when they say they believe it is good for the US because if they thought it was good they’d want it for Israel.

    So we can discount all of their reasons for saying they think it’s good because they are lying – they don’t think it’s good at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “It seems like much of isteve posters are just interested in extended self interest as opposed to having a real ideology that extends to cover any significant part of humanity or further future.”

    I think you are doomed to be extremely disappointed if you put your faith in “real ideology”. A lot of life is about extended self-interest. Which doesn’t mean you discount other’s self-interest, a civil society needs people to be able to do that well.

    It seems a young man’s dream to think the answer is “ideology”, but it is admittedly a powerful dream that has a lot of sway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Bill B. says:
    @Seth Largo
    I'm beginning to think that the best way to undermine our politically correct culture, to reinvigorate an empirical study of humanity, and maybe, just maybe, to foster traditional conservatism is to let in hordes of Chinese, Indians, and Hispanics.

    Not kidding. Wherever you find progressivism, you will find whites and white ideas.

    “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Bill B. says:
    @Ezra
    If you look at the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates, you can check that the fraction of US Ph.Ds in Economics going to US citizens has ranged between 30% and 40% in recent years. Throw in PhD's from Canada and Europe and Sailer has likely underestimated the number of non-US origin economists in the sample.

    On the other hand, the rate of default by national origin seems more like sociology than economics. For instance, an interesting factoid was reported in the NY Times during the trial of the management of Abacus Bank of Chinatown, NYC. Loan originators at Abacus made a practice of encouraging Chinese immigrant borrowers to lie about their incomes and job titles in order to get Fannie Mae guarantees. They were not alone in that obviously. The interesting factoid was that the rate of default on these liar loans was actually minimal, less than the national average on all mortgage lending. So why do Chinese immigrants make their payments when other nationalities do not?

    Might this not be tied up with their arranger being a Chinese bank and their concern for their reputation in the wider Chinese community etc.?

    Whereas a black/Mexican American with a lair loan will feel much less concern to be seen to do the right thing or at least is capable of convincing himself that it is unnecessary, especially if the lender is “alien”.

    The Chinese are highly capable of declaring bankruptcy and reneging on loans but like to do it for tactical reasons or of necessity after a business strategy blows up.

    The Chinese borrowers are also more likely to see the property as an investment for the future rather than a mere monetary gamble.

    Perhaps.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @anowow
    Americans sacrificing the good of other Americans for ostensibly noble goals, but with a degree of self-interest- a pretty common tale.

    Open borders advocates are a specific manifestation of the cause of American dysfunction- myopic self-righteousness and greed, which are universal problems, combined with hyper-individualism and universalism, which are American and Anglo-Saxon.


    Myopic greed and hypocrisy is not limited to the elites. I'd include suv drivers (might as well give that money directly to Venezuela and Al Qaida and the TX trash who have played a role in destroying this country), military contractors/the military ("serve"?, who do they serve, the South Koreans or Kurds?) and ungrateful retirees with bad health habits.

    The elites can get by with what they do because we are a diseased society. Elites are a manifestation of the societies which they rule.

    Myopic greed and hypocrisy is not limited to the elites. I’d include suv drivers (might as well give that money directly to Venezuela and Al Qaida and the TX trash who have played a role in destroying this country)….

    Why are you scapegoating Texans?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anowow
    The state enabled Lyndon Johnson, Phil Graham, Charlie Wilson and George W. Bush, not to mention a host of other political scoundrels.

    Ron Paul's career doesn't go near to making up for all that Texas has done to this country.

    Texas' political influence on the rest of the country has been consistently bad.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @countenance
    I think part of the explanation is the very nature of the social science itself. Economics is hostile to nationalism because nationalism interferes with economic calculations, models, theories and practice. This is why the word "economism" is a cuss word among nationalists.

    I think part of the explanation is the very nature of the social science itself. Economics is hostile to nationalism because nationalism interferes with economic calculations, models, theories and practice.

    How? I can’t see any way it interferes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @anowow
    Why are we even forced to choose? One does hear the argument from folks who are opposed to more Latino immigration that Asians are model migrants and we should let more in, or let more Europeans in, etc.

    Why the choice? The premise is flawed. It's assumed that more people coming in is a given, a force of nature. It isn't. It is a choice, a national choice, a series of choices made by lots of Americans, but it is still a choice. We CAN change our minds, if we were so inclined.

    And your premise about smart people is flawed. Do smart people always have only the interest of other smart people at heart? We hear a lot about xenophobes among the host country, but what worries me is ethnic nepotism and networking among newcomers. We see it were smart people who move here often advocate for other smart [and stupid] people from their homelands. I'd add skills to that. Skills and smarts don't always make for good neighbors.

    It's basically about not wanting to condemn our children to an overcrowded rat race. I've been to East Asia, they are hard workers, but they are intense and ambitious, at least the ones most likely to come here.

    I'm not sure large numbers of folks like that will contribute to my grandchildren's quality of life. I certainly don't want more of the sort of diaspora groups that Amy Chua says hold the key to be successful- a bunch of intelligent neurotic a-holes. Trust me, we've already had two such groups: Puritans and Eastern European Ashkenazi, and we may not survive the kinds of policies they've forced on the rest of us.


    I don't want my kids competing for a spot at a university with a tiger mom's kids who may or not feel alienated towards my people. Maybe the US could let California break away along with Texas, we could then benefit from all that techie innovation, the way other countries benefit from US innovation now, but we wouldn't have to deal with the societal or economic changes and dislocations.

    Why are we even forced to choose? One does hear the argument from folks who are opposed to more Latino immigration that Asians are model migrants and we should let more in, or let more Europeans in, etc.

    Why the choice? The premise is flawed. It’s assumed that more people coming in is a given, a force of nature. It isn’t. It is a choice, a national choice, a series of choices made by lots of Americans, but it is still a choice. We CAN change our minds, if we were so inclined.

    And your premise about smart people is flawed. Do smart people always have only the interest of other smart people at heart?

    It’s flawed for more reasons than that. If we want to focus on the welfare of smart people to the exclusion of their less-intelligent relatives, how do Asians even enter the discussion? We can do “cognitive elitism” without them, if that’s what we want. Asian dude is attempting to convince us, clumsily, to hand over our stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anowow
    Yep, God bless him, he is trying. Unfortunately he's not coming from a group known for their linguistic dexterity. If only other groups were as awkward.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. anowow says:
    @ben tillman

    Myopic greed and hypocrisy is not limited to the elites. I’d include suv drivers (might as well give that money directly to Venezuela and Al Qaida and the TX trash who have played a role in destroying this country)....
     
    Why are you scapegoating Texans?

    The state enabled Lyndon Johnson, Phil Graham, Charlie Wilson and George W. Bush, not to mention a host of other political scoundrels.

    Ron Paul’s career doesn’t go near to making up for all that Texas has done to this country.

    Texas’ political influence on the rest of the country has been consistently bad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. (Late and slightly OT, sorry:) From a recent Journal of Labor Economics–a top field journal–an entire issue on immigration: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/679275

    It includes one article providing support for the idea that fewer women are entering STEM partly due to immigration. I haven’t read it, so I don’t know whether the idea is that they’re more sensitive to the wage stagnancy than men are or that non-American men tend to be more difficult to work with for women. I doubt the authors speculate on the latter, but I’m guessing it’s not a topic they’re unfamiliar with.

    Does Immigration Affect Whether US Natives Major in Science and Engineering?

    Authors:
    Pia M. Orrenius, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
    Madeline Zavodny, Agnes Scott College

    Abstract:
    Immigration may affect the likelihood that US natives major in science or engineering. Foreign-born students may crowd US natives out of science or engineering, or they may have positive spillovers on US natives that attract or retain them in those fields. This study uses data on college majors from the 2009–11 American Community Surveys to examine the effect of the immigrant share in US natives’ age cohort while they are in high school or in college. We find some evidence that immigration adversely affects whether US-born women who graduated from college majored in a science or engineering field.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. anowow says:
    @ben tillman

    Why are we even forced to choose? One does hear the argument from folks who are opposed to more Latino immigration that Asians are model migrants and we should let more in, or let more Europeans in, etc.

    Why the choice? The premise is flawed. It’s assumed that more people coming in is a given, a force of nature. It isn’t. It is a choice, a national choice, a series of choices made by lots of Americans, but it is still a choice. We CAN change our minds, if we were so inclined.

    And your premise about smart people is flawed. Do smart people always have only the interest of other smart people at heart?
     
    It's flawed for more reasons than that. If we want to focus on the welfare of smart people to the exclusion of their less-intelligent relatives, how do Asians even enter the discussion? We can do "cognitive elitism" without them, if that's what we want. Asian dude is attempting to convince us, clumsily, to hand over our stuff.

    Yep, God bless him, he is trying. Unfortunately he’s not coming from a group known for their linguistic dexterity. If only other groups were as awkward.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?