Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Unintendend Consequences

Re: Unintendend Consequences

Gil — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:44:07 -0000

"From a purely economic perspective, it has been proven that slave labor couldn't compete with free labor and that fact was the primary reason slavery eventually ended in societies that had both free and slave labor. What this means is that slave holder costs of taking care of slaves was higher than what he would have paid them had they been free." - mandeville.

How quaint is not that free labour can be cheaper (though not always) than slave labour such that slave labour loses its relative economic value? How quaint that the condition of free labour weren't really that different from slavery except for the right to 'leave'. However slavery was all-in-all ultimately outlawed not merely 'phased out'. What do Libertarians think of slave-owners who tried to hold out to the end and how they hated government telling them what to do about slavery? Let alone the Confederates who thought that should Negros be protected from slavery with the Declaration of Independence then that document is fundamentally wrong?

By the same token, how quaint the immigration debate keeps coming back to Mexico? Why is that? Why not Europe or China or South America or Africa? Cheap labour south of the border? Native-born Americans would be working for $5 a day if it weren't dang guvmint hence the need to look abroad?

On the other, Australians are kicking themselves that they lost Dr Zhengrong Shi. He wanted $7 million to start a solar panel company, he was knocked back, he went to China where they are trying to 'brain-drain' other countries, he get the money, founds SunTech and the rest is, as they say, is history. B'oh!

Re: Unintendend Consequences

Chris — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:47:29 -0000

J Bowen, if this demographic is so wonderful, why is nearly half of the FBI's wanted-for-murder list populated by illegals from Latin America?

If you think this is because the proximity of Latin America makes for an easy escape from the FBI, tell me why not even one Canadian is on that list?

Re: Unintendend Consequences

mandeville — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:45:40 -0000

I went to the 'division of labor' site and saw a post on slavery reparations where a member of a former slave's family was asking the slave holding family for over a billion dollars based on the original lost wages of $11,000.

From a purely economic perspective, it has been proven that slave labor couldn't compete with free labor and that fact was the primary reason slavery eventually ended in societies that had both free and slave labor. What this means is that slave holder costs of taking care of slaves was higher than what he would have paid them had they been free.

A better question would be if the decendants of slaves could sue those who originally sold them into slavery.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

mandeville — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:30:15 -0000

The Dems want the Mexican votes. We'll never have closed borders. They tend to come here when the economic opportunities are good. A stategy could be to tax them fully as citizens without letting them have any social benefits (welfare, unemployment insurance, social security, etc.)for a required time period. But again, the Dems wouldn't have this.

Taxation without representation should be the entry fee to get in.

Personally, if we were more libertarian, I couldn't care less who comes to this country, and either should anyone. If we weren't a welfare state, they'd add to the GNP, contrary to what those suffering from Dobbs syndrome believe. However, because we are a welfare state and immigrants tend to subsist on the lower rungs of the social order, they might have to be subsidized like the other losers in this country.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

MikeP — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:09:44 -0000

I agree with MikeP. Legal immigration should be expanded so that illegal immigration is less attractive.

I think legal immigration should be expanded so the only people denied entry are provable and specific threats to the public: e.g., foreign agents, terrorists, violent felons, and carriers of contagion.

Under those circumstances, illegal immigration is not merely less attractive: it is virtually unheard of.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

J. Bowen — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:47:38 -0000

How novel. I wonder where he and J. Bowen live. Would by any chance it be near substantial populations of illegals? Perhaps not.

I live in a rural area where there are a lot of illegals (not all of whom were Mexicans) every summer and fall (the part of Michigan that I live in is a major producer of fruits and other crops). I once dated one on and off over a span of several years (staying up here simply wasn't an option to her as her family needed her help, so she'd find me when ever she came back up for the growing and harvesting season). I've also lived near major cities that do have large illegal populations. In addition to that, I have family members who live and have lived in areas in Texas, Florida, and California with large populations of illegals. Neither I nor they think it's much of a problem beyond having a hard time understanding some of them when going to restaurants and other places where they tend to work. The problems associated with illegals are the result of things like education, their status as illegals, the war on drugs, and the war on fathers. They are not a part of the cultures of any Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and so on. These people are, for the most part, hard-working people who are all-but forced to live miserable lives because of governmental policies aimed at protecting the jobs of poor Americans (though this is a cliche, it's a true one: illegals aren't coming here and taking the jobs of doctors, architects, lawyers, upper-management, and other such people).

By the way, for those of you who believe that their culture is ruining America, go live in any major American city. In every major American city, there are ethnic enclaves whose cultures are radically different than the culture of the surrounding areas. Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Los Angeles have ethnic enclaves and are richer for it (heck, even in my small town the small population of Poles all seem to have congregated in one area).

Re: Unintendend Consequences

MWG — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:18:54 -0000

"I don't know what MWG means by "The Republican stance on immigration." It was a Republican President and two Republican Senators that tried to shove amnesty for illegals down our throats. One of those Republican Senators got trounced in the presidential election for his efforts."

-Flash Gordon

So are you saying the general republican view is toward amnesty??? I think you need to go back a reread your history and remember who was against the pres. and those TWO senators.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

K Ackermann — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:10:28 -0000

Hoards of law breakers sneaking into the country is not immigration.

Wow! They crossed a line. What a terrible crime.

My neighbors down the street let their kids drop out of school. One of them stole my lawnmower.

I'm guessing without a high school education that crime will be their career, because they sure have not shown a willingness to work hard.

My guess is if they were in Mexico, they would be the ones without enough ambition to cross the border. Either that, or too scared.

The way I figure it, there are 3 seats open at school here in town to anyone who wants to learn something.

Someone is going to have to take care of the 3 useless kids down the street during the times they are out of prison.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

John — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:54:49 -0000

Legal immigration should be expanded so that illegal immigration is less attractive.

How will that help?

People come here illegally because they know that there is work.

Once upon a time Americans used to clean toilets, pick lettuce, and work in egg farms and slaughter houses.

Now Americans can afford to turn their nose to such work, while getting a check from the government.

Illegal immigration is an unintended consequence of the welfare state.

Expanding legal immigration won't help, because the people who come here legally do not come here to clean toilets and pick lettuce.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

Flash Gordon — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:43:11 -0000

I don't know what MWG means by "The Republican stance on immigration." It was a Republican President and two Republican Senators that tried to shove amnesty for illegals down our throats. One of those Republican Senators got trounced in the presidential election for his efforts.

I agree with MikeP. Legal immigration should be expanded so that illegal immigration is less attractive. Pressure on Mexico for more cooperation in extraditing criminals back to the U.S. to stand trial for their crimes in the U.S. would also be a good idea.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

John — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:34:36 -0000

The statement "illegal immigrants do the work Americans are unwilling to do" is wrong.

A truer statement would be "illegal immigrants do the work that Americans ON WELFARE are TOO PROUD to do".

Same old song and dance. Government creates a problem, and the solution involves more government.

What do they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Re: Unintendend Consequences

Gil — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:29:47 -0000

Actually people who find themselves being 'head-hunted' because of their quality skills get big fat offers they can't refuse and a welcome mat. Illegal immigrants don't tend to fill that shoe and appeal to those who think US$6.55 per hour is a fortune to be paying anyone.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

vidyohs — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:02:06 -0000

Unintended or intended consequences?

Is anyone minding the store over at the Fed?

http://www.silverbearcafe.c...

Re: Unintendend Consequences

LowcountryJoe — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:17:31 -0000

>>Is it even a remote possibility that the Government could use the closed borders to keep people in, rather than to keep Mexican's out?<<

And wall advocates love to quote Reagan when it suits them [when not in xenophobic mode]. Though they seem to forget everything when going into mode: such as the last few paragraphs of his farewell address and the June '87 to the people of West Berlin.

Shouldn't we be fighting Federal Government involvement in "public services" rather than assigning more responsibility to the government vis-a-vis closing the borders?

Great response. Why this is not the default reply to such concerns is beyond me. All-caps Merlin should really do some soul searching. Gil already has, I suspect.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

vidyohs — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:12:38 -0000

Your answer is in your question, Gilhuahua.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

John — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:58:35 -0000

Illegal immigration is a symptom of the welfare state.

The government handing out checks to people lowers the supply of labor.

Illegal immigrants fill the vacuum.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

Gil — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:37:09 -0000

What's your point vidyohs?

Re: Unintendend Consequences

vidyohs — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:17:54 -0000

Gilhuahua,

"Or for that matter how does bringing in cheap labour amount to general productive growth for a nation?

Posted by: Gil | Jun 23, 2009 3:46:16 AM"

Please tell me that you don't hold a driver's license, or ever pick up sharp objects.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

Gil — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:46:16 -0000

Maybe it has something to do with countries that want to get ahead have to cause a 'brain drain' from other countries. Does any country want to be dumping ground for the down&out from all around the world? Or for that matter how does bringing in cheap labour amount to general productive growth for a nation?

Re: Unintendend Consequences

MWG — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:50:36 -0000

"But their open borders policy prevents them from having more influence with the majority of voters."

-Flash Gordon

This is obvious given the Republican's stance on immigration and their overwhelming victory in the last elections... oh wait...

Re: Unintendend Consequences

MWG — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:47:22 -0000

"What a joke, MWG. My wife came here about 10 years ago and we had NO problem whatsoever getting her a green card."

-Chris

So your wife came before 9/11? Let me suggest to you that things have changed in terms of immigration policy in the US in the last 10 yrs. Especially post 9/11.

"Tell me why it is that LEGAL immigrants are overwhelmingly from poor countries if only "wealthy and/or connected" people are being allowed in."

-Chris

Just because they're from a poor country doesn't mean they're poor.

"Mexico, China, Philippines, India, Cuba, Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Vietnam, Jamaica"

-Chris

There are no wealthy in these countries? Cuba? This shows just how ignorant you are toward US immigration policy. Our immigration policy towards Cuba is totally different than the rest of the world.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

Chris — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:22:47 -0000

The illegal immigration problem working itself out (non-cartoon version):

http://www.lapdonline.org/all_most_wanted

Re: Unintendend Consequences

Chris — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:18:43 -0000

Oh, a Cato flack arguing for open borders. How novel. I wonder where he and J. Bowen live. Would by any chance it be near substantial populations of illegals? Perhaps not. Illegal immigration is more likely an abstraction that will "work itself out." Yes, America, just trust Cato and smoke some pot. Things always turn out well, just like they have in the past.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

MikeP — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:13:00 -0000

We just have places where one can legally enter the country and we expect law abiding people to use it.

Unfortunately, we only let in two-thirds of the law abiding people who want to legally enter.

It's an easy problem to solve: Give the other third visas. Then people who still sneak across the border in the night can be presumed to actually be criminals.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

Flash Gordon — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:05:13 -0000

I can cross into Canada or Mexico at any time by going through Canadian or Mexican customs. But if I enter Canada or Mexico cross country and get caught I'm a criminal in those countries. Does that mean Canada and Mexico have a war on immigration? No, of course not.

And we don't have a "war on immigration" either. We just have places where one can legally enter the country and we expect law abiding people to use it. All others are criminals and not welcome.