sartresue
Veteran
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 71
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
18 Aug 2010, 10:40 am
visagrunt wrote:
codarac wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Immigration, even illegal immigration, is a net win for the receiving country.
Every person is a consumer, and every consumer's needs must be met by creating new supply. While some of Keynes' work has been revised and improved upon, the general rejection of Say's Law, and the demonstration that it is failure of aggregate demand that leads to economic downturns still holds.
Every person is a consumer, and every consumer's needs must be met by creating new supply. While some of Keynes' work has been revised and improved upon, the general rejection of Say's Law, and the demonstration that it is failure of aggregate demand that leads to economic downturns still holds.
This is such simplistic propaganda rubbish it's hard to know where to start.
I notice that you never actually get around to starting.
Quote:
It is an example of the Broken Window fallacy: the idea that increased economic activity is a good in itself.
Actually, it is not an example of the Broken Window Fallacy because that fails to examine aggregate demand on a macroeconomic scale. You need to demonstrate that in the absence of the demand created by the additional population that there would be alternative demand to take up the excess production that would exist, and further, that this demand is not being met.
Also, the Broken Window Fallacy does not assume any additional supply. But undocumented residents (or illegal immigrants, if you prefer), produce more than they consume.
Quote:
It also (on a related note) ignores the effects of immigration that can't so easily be measured by economic statistics, such as the detrimental effect immigration can have on the host population's social capital (see the work of [liberal] Harvard professor Robert Putnam) and genetic interests (see the work of Australian academic Frank Salter).
I think that Putnam's work is interesting, but there are flaws that need to be corrected before it can serve as a strong public policy guide. First, it is limited to the United States. The political culture of the United States creates pressures on social capital that may exist as externalities to migration in se. If his research were reproducible in Canada and Australia, I would be more convinced. On the other hand, if it is not, then the public policy correction lies not in restricting migration, but in identifying and addressing the externalities.
Take racism, for example. The politics of race in the United States have developed outside of the context of migration. So is distrust of one racial community for another within a geographic area a product of migration, or a product of US political history?
Also, I think his baseline is poorly chosen, falling as it does at the end of the Baby Boom. I would prefer to see a longer view, but the historical data are likely unavailable.
I am not familiar with Salter's work, so I will take some time to find it before offering a reply.
Quote:
It also (of course) ignores the effect of racial differences in IQ. (If population growth - more mouths to feed - were so key to economic growth, we might expect to see Africa economically outperforming Europe by now.)
I would be interested to see reliable research on racial differences in IQ. Given the limited probative value of IQ testing in the first place, I am not certain that it would be much more than agitprop.
As for the circumstance of Africa, one cannot ignore the supply side of the equation. Increased demand without increased production is just as damaging as a failure of aggregate demand. The difference is, of course, that undocumented residents produce more than they consume.
Quote:
But really, your post was just the sort of thing one should expect from someone who also tries to sell the idea of gay marriage by telling us how much it will benefit us "economically".
Perhaps next you can tell us how immigration and gay marriage will help us reduce our carbon emissions. Or perhaps you have already done so and I've missed it?
Perhaps next you can tell us how immigration and gay marriage will help us reduce our carbon emissions. Or perhaps you have already done so and I've missed it?
Economic arguments are not the only arguments in favour of same-sex marriage. They are, however, the arguments that resonate most strongly with libertarian conservatives. My advocacy for same-sex marriage also includes legal and ethical arguments, too. But you probably missed them, too.
The Kristalnacht Fallacy topic
Terrorism as economic stimulus? The nazis did so, but it was horribly evil.
Immigration is not terrorism, unless, of course, the immigrants are terrorists.
And the UN Charter should be changed, and then perhaps there will be a reduction in smuggling. I do not think that Sri Lanka cares if Tamils leave, but if they were given the money, then they might change their minds., being as corrupt as they are.
Australia managed to send the "rustbucket" away from their sphere of influence, (and rather heartlessly I might add), but this sends a clear message that human smuggling will not be tolerated.
