Assorted links


Link #6 is broken.

Thanks, now fixed.

1. If people only hear "OPEN BORDERS!" when some of us are thinking things like "what if we had a constitutional amendment requiring a flat tax default, then whenever it got too progressive or wacked out we have a convention that reboots it to a flat tax" then TC is sort of right, except that those people also need to be told to go back to the kiddie table.

What if we opened immigration completely, but only to people who favored closed immigration?

Re: #4 Did he take the mean or the median of the starships?

Promoting Open Borders as an ideal without worrying about unilateralism as Yglesias proposes does in fact promote unilateralism. I still don't see how policy that moves the U.S. much closer to open borders while leaving welfare policy and the rest of the world's policies unchanged does not in the end make things worse off for the average citizen of the USA. Moreover, even if I am likely to be wrong, what are the proponents of Open Borders going to do if their policies just happen to worsen the polity, worsen group conflict internally, lower the average welfare (not just salaries) of the current residents of the USA, and impose large political, cultural, and social externalities? The fact that their policies are likely to stick even if the claimed benefits do not materialize seem to be treated by the Open Borders people as a Feature not a Bug.

At some point, this is just a power grab to destroy some of the property rights of existing citizens without compensation and without recourse if the outcomes are much worse than predicted by Open Borders proponents. But by stigmatizing citizens' views as illegitimate or immoral, this whole exercise serves as a prelude to dismissing their concerns and treating the costs of greater immigration as irrelevant or justly deserved.

You give a very good argument for expanding immigration incrementally, seeing what happens, and continuing to expand if the world does not end. I'm glad that you support more immigration.

By the way, your property and economic rights are already being infringed by immigration restrictions that prevent you from selling or renting your home to a willing buyer or from hiring a willing employee for your business simply because that willing buyer or employee lives in another country. Also, you are prevented from buying products and services from a willing firm that is prevented from hiring willing employees that live in another country.

The US already has massive immigration in some places . California moved from roughly 8o% European /10% Black and 10% Other to about 40% European (and declining do to aging and out migration) 35% Hispanic, 15% Black (might be a bit higher) and 10% other (mostly Asian) much through immigration and later reproduction. The educational decline is the most noticeable, dropping this State from the top 10% to the bottom 10% in a few decades , almost entirely as predictable rsult of those policy choices. Other results are less obvious and could do with some study but from what seems observable (and anecdotes are not evidence) social commity is rather lower as well.

It might behoove immigration advicates to study the example of California and the other border states , performance and general living conditions and see if the policy choices are a net benefit. From what I can tell , the policy chocies have simply made life worse.

Where those open borders advocates fail is in thinking that people are commodities, that cultures, including ethnic makeup are not worth preserving and that a trust free society of economic superrational economic actors is worthwhile or even acheibvable.

All bad premises for policy

What is the market inefficiency or market failure that is addressed by immigration restrictions? Certainly, housing is both rivalrous and excludable, hence a private good. Why wouldn't we expect markets to allocate housing efficiently. Immigrants, especially low-wage immigrants, would not appear in general to have monopoly power in the labor market, so why would their entry be inefficient?

Contra Tyler's original formulation of 500M people being "plunked into" the US, the proper formulation is, "Absent immigration restrictions, if the invisible hand of the marketplace were to guide 500M more people to settle in the US, why would we expect this natural outcome to be worse than an artificially, socially engineered outcome resulting from government-imposed immigration restrictions?" If we believe the government is really that good at massive social engineering, why stop at immigration restrictions; why not have the government assign housing (and employment) to all people in the US?

I would acknowledge the market-distorting effects of the welfare state, but it's not clear that such distortions are larger for immigrants than for natives. (As far as I know, most people on Medicare, which is by far our largest entitlement problem, are not illegal immigrants.) I am also not aware of any studies that show, within the US, that unproductive natives move to states with the most generous welfare and productive natives move to states with the least generous welfare. And, if this were true, then to the extent that we can empower states more to design their own welfare programs (e.g., block grants), productive natives and immigrants alike could still gain some relief by moving to the states with the least generous welfare. In any event, when immigration opponents discuss effects like immigrants "taking jobs" away from natives, those are hardly anti-welfare arguments.

Re: #3 This article reminds me of those psychology professors who run experiments solely on their 18-21-year-old students . Ok, you've found a list of shows that 18-21-year-old students like to watch and how they watch them. I'm not sure how you generalize from there.

You could be right, but I'm in my 40s and the article rings mostly true to me, although I would add Amazon Prime to the discussion. I'll get around to The Sopranos when Netflix & Prime run out of quality content or someone buys it for me as a Christmas or birthday gift. For people of child-making age, having a child results in an ideal time to get intentionally behind on current TV shows; my TV doesn't demand my attention anywhere near as effectively as my infant. So I cut both cords (coaxial and umbilical) around the same time and I'm now reaping the rewards, with tons of quality streamable free content.

I found the article strange because all the shows it says aren't on Netflix... are on Netflix. Does the author mean "not streaming"? Most of the best movies aren't streaming.

I'm rewatching the Sopranos right now... on Netflix.

You're watching the Sopranos on a DVD player. Not Netflix.

Through DVDs rented through Netflix. Don't be pedantic.

To most people Netflix Streaming = Netflix. I have no statistics, but anecdotally most people I know with Netflix subscriptions only have streaming subscriptions.

When you tell someone "X is on Netflix now," it is assumed you mean streaming because _of course_ they have it on dvd, but most people only have streaming subscriptions.

Streaming is so much more convenient that for a large portion of people if it's not available streaming it is not relevant and "not on Netflix." Even if it is.

If going to a video store and renting a dvd is a convenience level of 1, then Netflix's dvd plan is a convenience level of 10, but streaming is 100 or even 1000. With streaming you could watch a season of The Sopranos in a weekend, or over the course of a couple weeks or a month. With the same-cost dvd plan (1 disc) it would take you a minimum of 11 days if you sent every disc back the day after you got it. And you have to watch in pre-determined chunks. Got time for two episodes tonight, too bad, you only have one left on the disc and it'll be three days before the next one comes. Some people are fine with that, but for most people convenience and price are the top two factors. And if two options are the same price and one is significantly more convenient, they will go with convenience even if it means a smaller selection.

I have to agree with the author that by not offering their episodes on iTunes or Amazon in a timely manner, or even offering a streaming-only subscription, HBO will find it's relevancy start to fade further. Especially as cable networks like AMC have capitalized on streaming with Mad Men and Breaking Bad. Without being able to catch up easily on Netflix, I doubt Breaking Bad would have had 10 million viewers for the finale.

#1 - In b4 "immigrants are genetically inferior and anyone who thinks otherwise has Asperger's Syndrome."

How about, the distribution of alleles varies across genetic populations? And anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant and/or a mindless PC drone? How about, culture is heritable and matters?

It's funny that Caplan wants to talk about slavery when the entire purpose of immigration is to import a permanent slave caste into America. Or the person in the other thread pointing out that Saudi Arabia is a great example of immigrants not being granted full rights...because they can't go to the authorities and are treated like slaves.

Keyhole Solutions in Action:

#4: perhaps I'm thinking inside the box, but why all fiction starships are simply massive? All the inner volume is occupied by what?

Fuel, reaction mass, other spaceships, radiation shielding, empty space instead of radiation shielding, beamlines for those particles that go in your wacky quantum drive. Stuff.

Reality might be different.

Why so large? Surely you'd want lots of space in a multi-generation starship?

Otherwise you wouldn't be able to re-cycle human waste and garbage into food and potable water. And it would be claustrophobic- no fake sun, or other simulation of Earth..

Imagine being condemned to spend the remainder of your life in an economy-class airplane seat!

Obviously, the author never read much David Weber. All of the ships on that chart would have fit inside of any one of thousands of his starships. Once you can build in space with robotic labor and and asteroid belt for resources, why wouldn't you build huge ships?

Really if you have great robots why would you send humans? Well for the story of course,no one cares about robots (mostly)

IMO a lot of SF was written in the expanding population phase where the well developed societies have tons of adventurous people ready for space. I don't see that meeting reality , population aging is not good for space travel, John Glenn aside.

My guess is that while it makes poor stories, any society that is developed enough for massive space ships won't need them and will be stable enough to have little demand for them. I guess I am a bit perverse and would like to see stories about that and the nature of societies. I suspect that such societies will probably be very authoritarian as well, with heavily coercive psychiatry mainly to keep the more highly natal and religious ideologs in check, basically a magnification of current rends to drugging students and mass peddling of mind altering drugs

Thats assuming that said ideologs (In the US Mormons and Quiverfull types) haven't taken over by raw numbers (or been dispalced by a culture transfer from low development countries loweirng development (c.f Rome for a lower tech example) the later of course would make for poor SF ave in the Heinlien vein.

Also I'd love for someone tonote that private spaceships beyond the litle aircraft like deals we manage now or maybe Serenity espeically ones with FTL drives are a threat to well everyone. Take something like the original Enterprise, its impulse drives alone without weapon systems or FTL could accelrate the ship enough that it could easily reach 25% of the speed of late. Showing my geek side, the ship masses 400k metric tons. At full impluse thats a lot of energy, probably enough to blow a planet into scrap.

All that said while crossovers are noty my thing, my inner 12 year old thought it rocked.

Most SF spaceships aren't much bigger than a typical cruise ship, and often smaller. Also, a lot of the size stuff depends on assumptions about mobility. "Independence Day" giant ships were moving a whole civilization from one planet to the next, and appeared to be multi-generational ships, probably using non-faster-than-light drive. If you have FTL drive, you can make ships smaller as trips take less time. If you have relatively cheap FTL drives (ie, Star Trek), you can have very small trading ships with tiny crews.

Most SF writers seem to have intuited that if FTL drive is expensive (or doesn't exist), ships have to be big and are civilization-level expenses. If FTL is cheap, the ships can be small and affordable to corporate-sized entities or even individuals. This seems right to me...

It's funny how so many privileged people are so concerned about "open borders", as if the current restrictions on immigration are a serious problem that we need to deal with right away.

"OMG, we dont have open borders, lets put it on the top of the list of things to discuss. We do realize that no other countries have open borders, but thats because they are all stupid. If we open our borders we will get richer than everybody else."

Forget about unemployment, the debt, poverty and all those boring things.

Please lets have a chattering class obsessed with discussing "open borders" instead of real problems.
Please spend your energy and privileged positions promoting something that clearly most ordinary americans dont want. And then, please mock those people as being "scared".

>Forget about unemployment, the debt, poverty and all those boring things.

Surely all those things will improve for the immigrants? Or do they not count?

Why should they? I care about my wife more than your wife, my daughter more than your daughter, my country more than your or some other person's country, and on and on.

You care more about your wife and daughter than your neighbor's wife and daughter. You might help your wife and daughter, but not your neighbor's wife and daughter, to find a job. However, I would hope that you would oppose any laws that prevented willing employers from hiring your neighbor's wife and daughter. You do acknowledge that your neighbor's wife and daughter have (negative) rights, don't you? You may not be obligated to help them in the way you help your own wife and daughter, but I would hope that you would refrain from infringing on their rights to help themselves.

.We care more for ourselves, our families, our country than we do for other families and other countries. It is pretty easy.

No reason for you to keep asking your silly questions in all your comments. It is just boring.

They dont count as much. Is that hard to understand?

Do you care as much about me, as about your own children?

It is easy to understand. The world divided up into a lot of countries, each country kind of responsibel for its people. Japan has the japanese as their top prioirty, Portugal the portugese and so on.
Im not interested in improving "poverty" for immigrants, if it makes the situation worse for a lot of americans.

But it is nice to know for the ordinary citizen, that they should not expect society to care more about them than it does about any of the worlds other 7 billion people.

No matter that they build this society, paid taxes for decades, risked their lifes in wars e.g. - everybody on the planet should "count" equally when considering uemployment, debt. poverty and related questions.

I, like the kids, am Netflix-only. My impressions when I travel or house-sit now are that (1) commercials are weird, and (2) an infrequent dose of Colbert/Stewart is good.

"Know More" just looks stupid, so I went no further. Design matters.

Great auto-interview by Janet Yellen a half century ago, and a great pick for Fed Chair.

Comments for this post are closed