31–40 of 75 posts
How much poverty would need to be eliminated that dismantling of welfare state becomes an acceptable trade-off?
This comment over at Bryan Caplan's blog pretty much sums it up nicely: ( http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/02/open_borders_in.... ) 1. Poverty is endogenous to population, not exogenous. Admitting a flood of poor immigrants to your country makes your country poor. All this stuff about being born on the wrong side is misleading, because the difference between the two sides is not natural resources or something…
People don't like to hear it, but this is true. Part of what makes America successful is Americans. Community and culture, not just capital. When my dad left Bangladesh, he did so partly to get away from Bengalis.
This comment over at Bryan Caplan's blog pretty much sums it up nicely: ( http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/02/open_borders_in.... ) 1. Poverty is endogenous to population, not exogenous. Admitting a flood of poor immigrants to your country makes your country poor. All this stuff about being born on the wrong side is misleading, because the difference between the two sides is not natural resources or something…
People don't like to hear it, but this is true. Part of what makes America successful is Americans. Community and culture, not just capital. When my dad left Bangladesh, he did so partly to get away from Bengalis.
I've thought about this for a long time, as an American who twice lived overseas as a bona-fide long-term resident of another country. My wife, a first-generation immigrant to the United States, is just one of many examples of first-generation immigrants to the United States I know, from many countries. From the article: "George Mason economist Bryan Caplan, whose writing at EconLog inspired Naik's interest in open b…
Social capital is important in societies. Trust between people, people's trust of authorities, trust between corporations. When people migrate from regions where there is no trust in the government, it's natural that some of these bring problems with them. You could say it's no fault of their own -- they are used to the authorities being the bad guys and don't care to follow their rules or tax law.
A special case of this question is that the destination of the immigration is the US. Let's assume this, and let's also assume that an immigrant is magically and automatically converted into a proper US citizen (believing in women's rights, having gay buddies, etc.). Now imagine that EVERYONE outside of the US immigrates to the US. Because nobody would be left outside of the US, the US could expand to cover the entir…
Sometimes it is hard to see when people are joking here.
> Is the US self-sustainable, i.e. can it function totally on its own?
There's a huge question that needs to be answered first then: who would we wage war on?
If all immigration and emigration restrictions were dropped everywhere, and anyone could freely move from any country to any country, and you were full citizen of whatever country you are living in at any given point, what would happen? Would democracy as political system prevail or would people simply move in and out of non-democratic countries depending on how their respective rules work for them? Would there be inhabitable regions on earth that are abandoned because everyone moved away? Would there be countries that attract all the "desirable" citizen while other countries collapse because they were left with "undesirable" citizens? Is there even such a thing as a generally "desirable" citizen or are people only desirable to some countries but not others? If one (but only one) of those open-border countries were to start implementing new immigration restrictions (that should be possible, after all you can leave if you don't like it), would this result in a net outflow of people and the ultimate collapse of this country? Or would the country strive and be home to some kind of elite group of people? Would the world move back to a state where every country has immigration restrictions, or would we find a different equilibrium?
I know next to nothing about immigration policy, but thinking of this as a game is quite interesting. I wonder if there are simulations where you can model scenarios like this?
I don't that is true. If given the choice a lot of people would choose to stay. Sure, you can have more material things, but you will have to go to a strange place, far from friends and family, where you are just a stranger, that possible don't even speak the language.
People who decide to emigrate is because they have strong reasons. Either your situation is desperate or your are very courageous, or both. Leaving your country is really not easy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social capital is important in societies. Trust between people, people's trust of authorities, trust between corporations. When people migrate from regions where there is no trust in the government, it's natural that some of these bring problems with them. You could say it's no fault of their own -- they are used to the authorities being the bad guys and don't care to follow their rules or tax law.
Do you think that's part of the cause of (relative) turmoil with respect to the recent influx of immigrants into the (previously) culturally uniform, high-social-capital society of Scandinavian countries such as Finland?
To Americans reading this: You have nothing to win from discrediting "the government" or "othering" it, it does you no good. Make the problem yours and solve it; no one else but you owns your country.