November 8, 2011

Libertarians and the First Person Plural

An Australian friend fisks a typical exercise in shaming:
Liberal economists on free-market auto-pilot.
Memo to Unions: White Australia was a bad idea
Chris Berg,
The Age 
So given the union movement's historical culpability for the White Australia policy, you would think someone like Sheldon might be sensitive to the nuances of xenophobia. Labor-sympathetic historians in recent decades have tried to sheet the White Australia policy home to prejudice. Immigration restriction was, many post-1960s historians have claimed, simply the result of a racist zeitgeist. But the White Australia policy was led by a union movement trying to eliminate competition in the labour market. This is an awkward truth.

True enough. And the result was the highest wages in the world, very progressive welfare policies and unprecedented period of social peace, lasting from 1900 through to the seventies. So much so that pre-Vietnam War Australia was called "working man's paradise". But apparently that is all a shameful dark history because there was no free trade or open borders.
The only serious opposition to White Australia came from pro-market thinkers - particularly the great free-trade MP Bruce Smith, who described the policy as ''racial prejudice''.

Not even him. He just wanted the nativists to tone down the rhetoric to mollify the sensitivities of higher caste members of the Empire or Sterling block. Wikipedia reports:
A few politicians spoke of the need to avoid hysterical treatment of the question. Member of Parliament Bruce Smith said he had "no desire to see low-class Indians, Chinamen or Japanese...swarming into this country... But there is obligation...not (to) unnecessarily offend the educated classes of those nations"[11]

Back to Berg:
In Australian history, racism has usually had an economic context. After all, why should it be a matter of urgent public policy that some jobs be kept within Australian borders? On what moral basis is limiting immigration to protect workers from competition a good thing, as was proposed by unions at the start of the financial crisis.

Perhaps because these men have families here whereas foreigners don't. Someone has to look after them. The fact that baggage handlers can sometimes earn $80,000 pa (on overtime, night shift) is a cause of particular outrage. Imagine unskilled workers earning a good middle class income, The very idea!
Protectionism is bad for many reasons. It raises prices and lowers living standards - worrying enough. But its moral core is dark. Surely Australians are no more deserving of jobs than people from China, Japan or Singapore. Economic nationalism implies natives are worth more than foreigners. 

Yes, it does. Just as economic "corporation-ism" implies own company stock is worth more to their shareholders than it is to non-shareholders, with company policies crafted accordingly. And likewise economic familyism is justified, with family members getting a preferred share of the household assets, as opposed to some random guy in the street.
Steven Landsburg, an American professor of economics, asked recently: ''If it's OK to enrich ourselves by denying foreigners the right to earn a living, why shouldn't we enrich ourselves by invading peaceful countries and seizing their assets?'' Obviously the latter is wrong. The former is just as wrong.

Maybe because our borders are ours to control, and likewise for foreign countries who might object to invasion. That would seem to be the point of having countries. Landsburg seems to have difficulty with the first person plural.

Landsburg, of course, is a huge proponent of self-interest, including some forms of collective self-interest. He just doesn't like some other people's definitions of their own collective self-interest.

Coming up with answers to the question "Who Are We?" is fundamental to politics and to social life in general. My feeling is that a wide range of overlapping, often concentric, answers is, on the whole, a good thing. We should encourage reciprocation: I'll tolerate your answers if you tolerate my answers. Those who demonize certain answers, such as Landsburg and Berg, apparently don't believe in reciprocation, but feel they can advance the interests of those they consider "we" by shaming other people's conceptions of "we." But any rational conception of "we" needs to include "my fellow citizens who, in the ultimate extremity (e.g., Australia in 1942), will fight for me and mine."

116 comments:

Jon Leibowitz Stewart said...

such as Landsburg and Berg

Would that be the Glasgow Landsburgs?

And the Dundee Bergs?

Which tartans do they wear?

Anonymous said...

Immigration is a PRIVILEGE, not a "right". Withholding privileges and denying rights are completely different things. The people of Australia were (and are) entirerly within their rights in having a restrictionist immigration policy in place of an "universal" one. Those who feel uncomfortable with such policies - assuming they have no hidden agenda - are simply not able to make the distinction between preference and prejudice. Preferring people who look like you and have a similar cultural background does not make one guilty of "prejudice".

Q said...

Libertarians are lunatics, not too dissimilar to Marxists in some important respects. One important respect would be their insistence that reality must bend to fit their ideology and not the other way around.

Conatus said...

When it comes to the middle class employment the laws of supply and demand are repealed. Less workers= more pay is not an equation the writers of immigration articles understand. More workers via immigration equals simply 'jobs Americans won't do.' Well yeah at 7 dollars an hour but the minimum wage in Australia is 15 dollars an hour and they do the jobs. Unemployed American college students would pick fruit for 20 bucks an hour but that is something that would never happen because the economic laws of supply and demand are not allowed to apply to lower level employment. However the law of supply and demand do apply in higher level employment. These laws are only invoked by the company boards when they determine executive pay and are looking for 'talent' and therefore must pay the executive 400 times the pay of the average worker.

Steven Pearlstein wrote in the Washington Post:

"We already know from numerous studies that chief executives of large U.S. corporations make hundreds of times what an average worker makes, with the gap growing steadily wider. We also know it's possible to run successful advanced market economies with large corporations where the ratio is 25-1 (Britain), 13-1 (Sweden), 11-1 (Germany) and 10-1 (Japan). Whether the ratio at Exxon-Mobil last year was 320-to-1 or 276-to-1 seems rather beside the point."

Since other highly successful industrialized countries are able to acquire good talent in the CEO realm by paying far less this would seem to indicate that the argument for high, higher and highest CEO salaries is false. The simple question is why are U.S. CEOs worth 10 times more than CEOs of other industrialized economies in what I have been told is a globalized world?

But really the question more people would like answered is why do the laws of supply and demand only apply to executives and not to the working class?

DYork said...

Steve - "Those who demonize certain answers, such as Landsburg and Berg, apparently don't believe in reciprocation, but feel they can advance the interests of those they consider "we" by shaming other people's conceptions of "we.""

What's mine is mine, what's yours is ours.

What's for "my" people is good, what's for "your" people is ....? racist, xenophobic, shameful, bigoted, ugly, wrong.....anti semitic?

morleysafer said...

OK, I'll walk into this set-up. How do Vallejo-style union policies -- raise the barriers to entry to preserve our wage level, I mean, "Way of Life" -- square with this blog's abhorrence of real estate bubbles? Paying the baggage handlers the artificial wage requires a background economy requiring more workers than Aus labor chieftains condone. Is it too much to ask for this complaint, I mean, critique to be fleshed out a bit?

Anonymous said...

Landsburg and Berg? Hmmmmmm....... Those sound like Scotch-Irish names.

Steve Sailer said...

"How do Vallejo-style union policies -- raise the barriers to entry to preserve our wage level, I mean, "Way of Life" -- square with this blog's abhorrence of real estate bubbles?"

How does increasing demand for real estate through mass immigration keep down the price of real estate?

Anonymous said...

"Yes, it does. Just as economic "corporation-ism" implies own company stock is worth more to their shareholders than it is to non-shareholders, with company policies crafted accordingly. And likewise economic familyism is justified, with family members getting a preferred share of the household assets, as opposed to some random guy in the street."

This is all fine and dandy, Mr.Sailer, but someone has to pay the bill. If you want products made by American workers, who demand salaries up to 8 times higher than those of Chinese with comparable or inferior productivity, then you must pay the bill because the cost will be repassed to the consumer.

And you analogy with corporations is terrible. In a corporation, if you do not produce more than you cost, they fire you. And corporations cannot afford to pay their employees more for equal productivity than their rival corporations, which is exactly what you are suggesting the U.S to to it's workers. You are proposing something(benefitting those of your group irrespective of how productive they are) that those not apply at all to the world of business. What you are suggesting does applay as an analoge to a family, but not to businesses.

Pedro Coderch

bruce banner said...

The simple question is why are U.S. CEOs worth 10 times more than CEOs of other industrialized economies in what I have been told is a globalized world?

I´d love to see CEOs replaced by Pakistanis earning ten times less. Maybe they´d start to see the point of "nativism".

Anonymous said...

Landsburg and Berg? Hmmmmmm....... Those sound like Scotch-Irish names.

While we're on this topic, the other day, when OWS started to turn away from protesting Dow Jones, Fox, and the Koch brothers, and instead started mumbling about a protest against Goldman-Sachs, did anyone notice how quickly NY State Speaker Sheldon Silver leapt to attention and demanded that Bloomberg shut them down?

I honestly think that OWS was created as a psy-op, on the part of Soros et al, which was designed to try to fool the average American idiot [i.e. "swing voter"] into believing that Wall Street is actually some sort of a GOP bastion.

Anonymous said...

For Landsburg and Berg, "we" =/ we.

Sam said...

One more reason for the Whites Only policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Newman_(Australian_politician)

morleysafer said...

Sailer, how do you fund a political bloc of middle class but unskilled labor? What sort of post-manufacturing economy is provisioned for them to lead that idyllic life?

Q said...

Paying the baggage handlers the artificial wage requires a background economy requiring more workers than Aus labor chieftains condone.


All wages are "artificial" in some sense. You think there's a free market for labor among economists? Politicians? Journalists? The economy itself is an artificial construct.

Anonymous said...

How does increasing demand for real estate through mass immigration keep down the price of real estate?

Steve, if only you could quit those childhood memories of California cold-turkey - just foreswearing the nostalgia & sentimentality of it altogether - then you could move out here with the rest of us in flyover country, where the real estate is practically free.

morleysafer said...

I know 1 answer is to skim more from the rich, reduce income inequality. That is what Krugman said is necessary for 1960s Jersey suburbia. Wealthy are obligated to pay support for a middle class per that view.

rightsaidfred said...

In these discussions, one needs to consider 1) the human capacity for self hatred (e.g. sticking it to your kin by importing their replacements), and 2) the human capacity to buy friends by giving other people's stuff away ("Welcome to my country! Not that it is fair to call it my country, since other people are involved, but since it is up for grabs, be sure and vote for me.")

NOTA said...

The good argument for open borders and free trade is not that they make foreigners richer, but rather that they make citizens richer. That argument may be right or wrong (I suspect it's right in the short run, albeit with big effecfs on distirbution of wealth and some potentially very bad long-term effects), but it's the argument that's worth engaging on the facts.

The moral argument is unlikely to convince anyone whe didn't already start out convinced, since just about everyone understands that the main job of a government is ideally to look after its own citizens.

And with this and the next post, Steve hits on the thing I find more troubling than suboptimal immigration policies--the systematic process of making public diiscussions on all kind of issues stupider, by enforcing intellectual taboos. This is overwhelmingly true in the mass media, largely because most media personalities don't have much other than outrage to provide for any serious discussion. But it's all too common on the net too, even among people bright enough to know better. One reason is that people don't call their own side on this kind of bullshit--parodying all tea partiers as racist illiterate neanderthals is funny, parodying the OWS protesters as unemployable layabout slackers is unfair. And the people who will react that way about the two will never even notice that there's a double-standard.

Q said...

If you want products made by American workers, who demand salaries up to 8 times higher than those of Chinese with comparable or inferior productivity, then you must pay the bill because the cost will be repassed to the consumer.


You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the producers and the consumers are the same people. So the poor American consumer suddenly burdened with high prices is also the rich American producer with his higher wages.

What you want is to have your own high American standard of living and also to be able to buy your goods made from dollar-a-day Chinese workers. Which is only possible if your own income is completely disconnected from the messy business of producing goods. For example, if you work for government, academia, or in law. In other words, you want to outsource everybodys job but your own.

IHTG said...

We should encourage reciprocation

Svigor just jizzed in his pants.


BTW, that Chris Berg is an odd-looking fellow.

Dave said...

"If you want products made by American workers, who demand salaries up to 8 times higher than those of Chinese with comparable or inferior productivity, then you must pay the bill because the cost will be repassed to the consumer."

You have to keep a few other factors in mind:

- If you manufacture stuff in the US, you don't replace each Chinese worker with an American worker. You replace about 4 Chinese workers with 1 American worker, in a more automated, productive factory.

- Thanks to our natural gas boom, you can have cheaper energy and chemical inputs.

- You have less concern about IP theft.

- You save on transport costs.

- And so on.

Q said...

If it's OK to enrich ourselves by denying foreigners the right to earn a living, why shouldn't we enrich ourselves by invading peaceful countries and seizing their assets?


I notice that he thinks it is perfectly acceptable to "deny" lower-class Americans the "right to earn a living".


Steven Landsburg is a professor of economics at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York.

In other words, he personally is a member of a powerful guild system which protects his job and his income regardless of the quality of his work.

Libertarian economists think that the free market in labor is an absolutely fanatic idea - for other people. Never for themselves though.

Milton Friedman made some comments about businessmen which apply to all people.

The two chief enemies of the free society or free enterprise are intellectuals on the one hand and businessmen on the other, for opposite reasons. Every intellectual believes in freedom for himself, but he’s opposed to freedom for others.…He thinks…there ought to be a central planning board that will establish social priorities.…The businessmen are just the opposite—every businessman is in favor of freedom for everybody else, but when it comes to himself that’s a different question. He’s always the special case. He ought to get special privileges from the government, a tariff, this, that, and the other thing…

Nadaav said...

I'm a young libertarian (big David D. Friedman fan here) who recently came into a more conservative way, partly through the inspiration of reading your writing! One of the conservative issues I'm still not sold on, though, is immigration/protectionism. This entry raises all the right points and I like all of it.

I do think it's unfair to imply that natives are worth more than foreigners, but I don't demonize or shame justifications for this unfairness--provided the people calling for protectionism actually have one (and provided it isn't ACTUALLY racist or something, e.g. "The Chinese don't deserve our manufacturing jobs because they're a bunch of sub-humans with chimp brains").

However, it seems that protectionists usually don't make it past the implication before moving on. Maybe a lot of them are not even aware of it themselves? I think it's good to try and be aware of the basic statements that your own values imply and to have an explanation for them handy. Otherwise, you're likely to rouse demonizing and shaming from people who recognize your implications and find them objectionable.

Defining who is "we" is very important, and I appreciate your talent for making this simple defining question apparent. A good way of asking the question might be: Past what point do less and less general groups become indistinguishable in terms of defining who is "we"?

For example, you may say that the general group "homo sapiens" is not useful for defining "we", and neither is the group "North Americans", but the group "Americans" is useful. (The reason being, apparently, that other Americans would fight for you and yours in the ultimate extremity. Based on that reasoning, I'm guesing you'd probably stop at "Americans"; I doubt you'd go on to "Californians" or "Southern Californians" or people who live on your block.) Even though it's not the same group I'd stop at, you know who "we" is and you know why. I think that's perfectly acceptable. Why would I demonize or shame you for it?

Luke Lea said...

Landsberg? Isn't he the fellow who wrote in Slate a few years ago who advocated open borders, saying he didn't care more for the economic welfare of his fellow citizens in the U.S. than he did for anybody else in the world? No doubt he knew he'd be a winner in such a world. Reminds me of a poker player who calls the stakes after he's had a peek at his hand,

morleysafer said...

NOTA: I think I agree w/ you, except for downplaying the moral argument. It clearly has primacy over dollars-cents rationale in either philosophical or Internet debating. Why's it so important that unrestricted labor flow enrich some Stanford valedictorians to world-historic heights if it means slamming the native unskilled, politically marginal, permanent working class; i.e. it's their country too

With no manufacturing base, with no churn of non-union laborers, how to make payroll for the "gilded" service jobs? Germany is a terrible counter-example, not just with their protected mfgr sector but also nonsensical employment regs everywhere. Prohibiting secretaries from being fired requires sharp German execs who can be taught.

Anonymous said...

BTW, that Chris Berg is an odd-looking fellow.

He/She looks like a lesbian.

Difference Maker said...

Free trade is a scam. The only thing the 3rd world does better than us is slave labor

Kylie said...

"I do think it's unfair to imply that natives are worth more than foreigners..."

That's because you aren't thinking clearly.

You are confusing--quite literally--relative worth with absolute worth.

Those nearer to me in terms of kinship, ethnicity and nationality are definitely worth more to me than foreigners with whom I do not have such bonds. That is not to say that I believe the latter have no worth as human beings. Rather it's that they have less worth in the type of society in which I want to live. And that's simply because it's generally easier to reach a concensus and go about daily life with people like oneself.

"...but I don't demonize or shame justifications for this unfairness--provided the people calling for protectionism actually have one (and provided it isn't ACTUALLY racist or something..."

That's...big of you.

"I think it's good to try and be aware of the basic statements that your own values imply and to have an explanation for them handy."

The best defense is a good defense? Gosh, I'm glad we're not on the same side.

"Otherwise, you're likely to rouse demonizing and shaming from people who recognize your implications and find them objectionable."

That's a two-way street. My views as they are now have been formed largely due to the enormous contempt I feel for the views of those I now consider "the opposition".

Anonymous said...

"You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the producers and the consumers are the same people. So the poor American consumer suddenly burdened with high prices is also the rich American producer with his higher wages."

I am not oblivious to anything. It is you who seems to be oblivious to the fact that the middle classes BENEFIT from mass immigration and outsourcing. In the former case, they get cheap servants to do chores they would otherwise have to pay for themselves. In the latter case, they get consumer goods for less than a quarter the price those same products would cost if they were made in the U.S by American workers. Most of the middle classes are professionals, and doctors, lawyers and banking executives are not affected negatively by immigration and outsourcing at all. The last time an immigration wave of mostly professionals came to the U.S was in 1960 when the Cuban Spaniards were ousted by Castro and went to Florida.

And Sailer's analogy about how corporations benefit their own is ridiculous, because corporations pay their employees what they are worth and not a dime more. A corporation that praticed Sailer's version of "citizenism" would go bankrupt in competition with corporations that don't.

As for the government protecting the citizens, that is a loaded expression, isn't it? You protect American workers and you hurt American consumers? What about their rights not to pay for expensive and low quality products that are made by indolent and spoiled workers because, since they are protected by the government from foreign competition, they can demand whatever salary they want and make products as badly as they want since the consumer can either take it or leave it? They tried this here in my country and it was a complete disaster that led to technological stagnation and cnonyism as the unions corrupted politicans and turned the government into a partial player on people's lives depending on which faction you belong to. Also, globalism has hardly hurt the U.S. The U.S wouldn't, for instance, be a World leader in scientific patents if it weren't for the open policy of American Ivy League universities. A LOT of the scientific achievements of the U.S are now made by foreigners working at American universities. And these scientific discoveries lead to high-tech industries that create jobs for hundreds of thousands of native-born American citizens. Also, American businesses that hire native-born citizens benefit from the open-markets abroad: the U.S today exports a lot more to many countries that had closed markets in the 1970s and earlier. It is not enough to compensate for the huge trade deficit, but that is Americans' fault and not the World's. It's not the rest of the World's fault that American store managers and blue-collar workers feel entitled to have a standard of living, that in Europe only Old Money burgeoise and aristocrats can have, without them being able to afford it. In fact, it is the protectionist mentality that has hurt American workers. American industry could have remained a lot more competitive if U.S businesses could import cheaper machinery from other countries, but the importr taxes force American businesses to use the inferior American stuff which hampers productivity. The fundamental problem is that keeping an industrial base costs more to America than getting rid of it. If the U.S wants to remain manufacturing, it needs to either accept Chinese wages, dramatically increase productivity and quality, a combination of both, or subsidies. All I have to say is this: perhaps the greatest thing you can do in the name of "citizenism" is increase the quality of the citizens themselves. Maybe American workers not being able to reproduce and afford families is bad for them now, but it will be good for American in the long run and for all citizens as well.

Jehu said...

People making moral arguments and attempting to use shame on their opponents in political venues should be viewed with extreme scrutiny. 9 times in 10 they are simply hypocrites attempting to aggrandize their status. The other 1 time in 10 what they are doing is likely to result in a great effusion of blood. If you want war, call what you're demanding 'justice'.

Rohan Swee said...

Nadaav: However, it seems that protectionists usually don't make it past the implication [that their motives are viciously "racist"] before moving on.

Perhaps you could point us to the works of all these "protectionists" in whose works you are so cleverly descrying the tainted motivation of cartoon-KKK variety racism.

Maybe a lot of them are not even aware of it themselves?

Struggle session!

I think it's good to try and be aware of the basic statements that your own values imply...

It is possible to make stupid and entirely unsubstantiated claims about other people's motivations that are both clear and meaningful (in the semantic sense). I think you meant "be aware of the basic values that your own statements imply..."

...and not waste your time providing "explanations" to the demonizing and shaming people who draw their idiotic inferences out of their own butts no matter what you write.

FTFY.

MQ said...

Some of the comments here really bring to mind the old adage that anti-semitism is the socialism of fools. Good to see even the isteve crowd waking up to what a rip-off and con job the open borders/free trade/market solves everything libertarian right is, bizarre to watch the immediate leap to The Jooz.

At present, Jews are culturally distinctive in their verbal facility and are overrepresented among writers. So if you have a line of argument you don't like you can always find some Jew writing it somewhere. And another Jew arguing with him. Here is another Jewish writer for y'all to read.

Rohan Swee said...

"If it's OK to enrich ourselves by denying foreigners the right to earn a living, why shouldn't we enrich ourselves by invading peaceful countries and seizing their assets?''

If it's OK to enrich my children by passing on my assets or helping to bankroll their education/business, or lending a hand in their own family formation, while not giving a penny to the neighbors' kids for any of those things, why shouldn't I enrich them by breaking into my neighbors' house when he's on vacation, stealing his stuff and giving it to my children?

Obviously the latter is wrong. The former is just as wrong. In exactly the same way that my ass and my elbow are anatomically indistinguishable.

Q said...

Most of the middle classes are professionals, and doctors, lawyers and banking executives are not affected negatively by immigration and outsourcing at all.


To the extent that's true, it's because the old middle-class, which was based on manufacturing jobs, has been hammered by open borders immigration and by outsourcing.

Doctors, lawyers, bank executives - these are the upper class. The upper class has not been affected negatively by immigration and outsourcing, for obvious reasons. Which is why they tend to be big fans of immigration and outsourcing - it lowers the cost of the things which they buy, while having zero impact on their income. What's not to like, if you're a doctor, lawyer, or bank executive?


It is you who seems to be oblivious to the fact that the middle classes BENEFIT from mass immigration and outsourcing.


Yeah, if you define "middle-class" to mean "doctors, lawyers, and bank executives". And a dog is an elephant if we define a tail as a trunk.

Q said...

As for the government protecting the citizens, that is a loaded expression, isn't it? You protect American workers and you hurt American consumers?


The workers and the consumers are the same people, you nitwit. Where do you get this notion that there is the group of "workers" over here, while over there is this totally separate and distinct group of people called "consumers" whose interests are at odds with those of the nefarious workers?

Of course your so-called "middle class", made up of doctors, lawyers, and bank executives, does fit that description. They don't actually produce much of anything, though they do consume a lot. But your "middle class" is in fact a tiny elite, and you cannot run a successful economy on the assumption that they are actually the common man.

Q said...

If the U.S wants to remain manufacturing, it needs to either accept Chinese wages, dramatically increase productivity and quality, a combination of both, or subsidies.


Or it could simply impose a tariff on foreign goods, which was the policy of the government for the first two hundred plus years of the countries existence.

Anonymous said...

"The workers and the consumers are the same people, you nitwit."

You see, this is one of the problems with debating at this board. You get insulted and called a "nitwit" even though it is the other guy(the true nitwit) who can't grasp your points and that you have already considered everything he said and then some.

No, for the last effing time, THE CONSUMERS AND THE PRODUCERS ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE. The middle classes are the ones who buy most of the products produced in China, and THEY DO NOT HAVE MANUFACTURING JOBS. Why can't you understand this? Is this so complicated? People won't stop going to the doctor or having legal problems if American has a trade deficit. It is funny to be called a nitwit by someone of lower intelligence than myself.

Rohan Swee said...

Anon@11/8/11 3:37 PM: Maybe American workers not being able to reproduce and afford families is bad for them now, but it will be good for American in the long run and for all citizens as well.

I was greatly enjoying your indignant (if otherwise unoriginal) true-believin' libertarian, Chamber-of-Commerce disinformation boilerplate stylings, but credit where credit is due - this final flourish went into new territory. At first I read it as a fine piece of classic Irish bull - our posterity will be better off if we have no posterity! Then I realized it was just a refreshingly overt bit of the usually more obfuscated eliminationist rhetoric we all know and love. Ah, yes - it's bad for existing Americans to die out (from, you know, the point of view of existing Americans), but it will be good for America in the long run and for all the (replacement) "citizens" (aka "me and mine").

(Slow of me, I know - Irish bull is outside the range of the libertarian temperament.)

Whiskey said...

Haha Stewart. You can find the same thing from Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison or Carly Fiorina ("Americans don't have a right to jobs") or pretty much anyone in Silicon Valley.

The question is, why is shaming language effective? Because it works on women. Men generally don't have much shame (if any), while that sort of stuff works well on women.

The whole open borders thing works gangbusters because Professional White women go for it like catnip -- it makes those "icky" beta males rapidly extinct, to be replaced by cheap nannies and whatever males remain (are by definition Alpha). Its the flipside of Eat Pray Love.

My issue with Steve is that you don't get nationalism in a neat little package. If you want it (I do) you must accept a strong military and military actions, invasions, throwing weight around. If you crush that, then you get ... France. Rolling over the Muslims in the banlieus.

Anonymous said...

From the article - Protectionism is bad for many reasons. It raises prices and lowers living standards

So the average Australian is better off now in every way?

I wonder if Chris Berg has had a chance to pen a similar article about another country, perhaps one in the northern hemisphere, perhaps Israel?

What would he make of their immigration policies I wonder?

Anonymous said...

"Or it could simply impose a tariff on foreign goods, which was the policy of the government for the first two hundred plus years of the countries existence."

That would be included under the category 'subsidies", genius. And the result of this would be more expensive goods for everyone except for the 20% of the population that lives of manufacturing, stagnant technological progress, higher cost of living for everyone, greater difficulty for American industry to keep up as importing key machinery/components will be too expensive - and no, it will not necessarily result in these being manufactured in the U.S - etc. You don't seem to understand that economic protectionism was tried in Europe, Africa and Latin America with disastrous results. It results in a spoiled and indolent class that lives off Society and results in a higher cost of living for everyone. Maybe with your plan blue-collar workers will be able to afford houses easier and stard families. But everyone else but blue-collar workers will have to live in smaller houses as they would spend a lot more money on their food, T.V sets, sneakers, cell phones etc. This is not a logically complex concept to grasp, but you geniuses don't get it not matter how many times I explain it to you.

Whiskey said...

How the hell did Australia move to open borders? Since it was electorally popular, with unions, the people, and everyone with a family?

The alternative is suddenly all those Jews in Australia (because Australia is so so so VERY Jewish) finally got their mind control rays working.

OR ... culturally and socially, there was a big change. I.E. later marrying ages, delayed marriage, increased divorce, led women within Australia to be no longer invested in their men, and vote for open borders. Since it gave them cheap nannies, pushed out Beta Males, and enhanced Alpha male power (think Kennedys and such like).

Anonymous said...

IHTG - BTW, that Chris Berg is an odd-looking fellow.

He could get star billing on that men who look like old lesbians blog.

Has anyone checked, he might already be featured?

Rohan Swee said...

No, for the last effing time, THE CONSUMERS AND THE PRODUCERS ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE. The middle classes are the ones who buy most of the products produced in China, and THEY DO NOT HAVE MANUFACTURING JOBS. Why can't you understand this? Is this so complicated? People won't stop going to the doctor or having legal problems if American has a trade deficit. It is funny to be called a nitwit by someone of lower intelligence than myself.

Doctors, lawyers, and banking executives of America.

Anonymous said...

And the result of this would be more expensive goods for everyone except for the 20% of the population that lives of manufacturing, stagnant technological progress, higher cost of living for everyone, greater difficulty for American industry to keep up as importing key machinery/components will be too expensive

We often hear this, it all sounds so plausible. But why doesnt this baleful policy retard Chinese growth then, why didnt it retard Japan?

Rohan Swee said...

You don't seem to understand that economic protectionism was tried in Europe, Africa and Latin America with disastrous results.

Protectionism has been used all over the place; sometimes it had disastrous results, and sometimes it worked (is working) a charm. Only people who are ignorant of the actual history make blanket statements like this.

You know what inevitably leads to disaster? Economic dogma unhinged from material and political reality.

Anonymous said...

This Chris Berg fellow is obviously not lacking brilliant solutions for "we".

Anonymous said...

I was just looking at the men who look like old lesbians blog - Gladwell is in there!

Anonymous said...

"We often hear this, it all sounds so plausible. But why doesnt this baleful policy retard Chinese growth then, why didnt it retard Japan?"

It works for China because China is a Third World country with wages barely 10% of America's. If you offer such wages, all businesses will catter to your country and your economy will grow by leaps and bounds no matter how closed the economy is. China tried protectionism before during the Song Dynasty, and it failed miserably. China was the World's most advanced and prosperous country in the 13th century when Marco Polo visited it and 600 years latter it was primitive compared to the Europeans they regarded as barbarians only a fe centuries before.

As for Japan, it's economy is stagnant since 1991. How is protectionism working for them? It worked for a long time for the same reason as China: low wages, extremely aggressive government policy of exports and sacrificing the population's standard of living by keeping it's currency at default to make exports cheaper etc. Once wages rose, Japan became less competitive and lack of competition made several sectors of their economy that didn't depend on exports(the export industries such as the car industry remained competitive because they were competing on a global scale) become obsolete and ineffective.

Protectionism ALWAYS fails, as people who have their living assured by the government have no incentive to work as the motivation for 99.9% of all people is money. The exceptions are some scientists, philosophers and artists who have higher motivations and don't need the promise of material wealth to work to the best of their abilities. But the incentive of either losing your job or getting a promotion is invaluable to the overwhelming majority of people, and if you take away this incentive by garangteeing them a living, they become indolent and technological progress and economic growth comes to a standstill. Protectinism is socialism light, and we all know how socialism ends.

You people don't know the basics of economics. Instead of writing stupid things and listening to a guy who also doesen't know the basics of economics(Sailer)you people should go educate yourselves. In fact, Sailer does know the basics of economics but he doesen't care about economic efficieny as he has other priorities in mind - making sure that all blue-collar workers in America can afford homes and start families.

ben tillman said...

Steven Landsburg, an American professor of economics, asked recently: ''If it's OK to enrich ourselves by denying foreigners the right to earn a living, why shouldn't we enrich ourselves by invading peaceful countries and seizing their assets?'' Obviously the latter is wrong. The former is just as wrong.

Um, the latter is the exact opposite of the former. The first is an exercise of property rights; the latter is a violation of property rights.

Or, from the other perspective, if it's okay for foreigners to invade Australia and seize its assets, why in the hell is it not okay for Australians to do the same to foreign countries?

Anonymous said...

"Defining who is "we" is very important, and I appreciate your talent for making this simple defining question apparent. A good way of asking the question might be: Past what point do less and less general groups become indistinguishable in terms of defining who is "we"?

For example, you may say that the general group "homo sapiens" is not useful for defining "we", and neither is the group "North Americans", but the group "Americans" is useful. (The reason being, apparently, that other Americans would fight for you and yours in the ultimate extremity. Based on that reasoning, I'm guesing you'd probably stop at "Americans"; I doubt you'd go on to "Californians" or "Southern Californians" or people who live on your block.) Even though it's not the same group I'd stop at, you know who "we" is and you know why. I think that's perfectly acceptable. Why would I demonize or shame you for it?"

Who is "we"? What kind of question is that? You know damn good and well who "we" is, the citizenry of this country. Oh, that's right, I forgot, you libertarians are like the the other "evolved ones". There are no nations, no borders. Your souls just grew so big that the lower 48 was just too small, and you are now....(cue in the backlighting)....the world...

Anonymous said...

Protectionism tends to work better when the local population has the human capital (IQ, skills, education, organizational ability) neccessary to produce the goods independently.

ben tillman said...

Sailer, how do you fund a political bloc of middle class but unskilled labor? What sort of post-manufacturing economy is provisioned for them to lead that idyllic life?

We don't do centrally planned economies, pal. Go peddle your five-year plans somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

"A few politicians spoke of the need to avoid hysterical treatment of the question. Member of Parliament Bruce Smith said he had "no desire to see low-class Indians, Chinamen or Japanese...swarming into this country... But there is obligation...not (to) unnecessarily offend the educated classes of those nations"[11]"

If he felt it necessary to say this, I have to wonder if he did actually have a desire to see that. "Look I don't want to see it either, just tone down your anti-that rhetoric"

ben tillman said...

...parodying all tea partiers as racist illiterate neanderthals is funny.

You're forgetting that Neanderthals were/are more intelligent than "modern" humans.

ben tillman said...

Steven Landsburg is a professor of economics at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York.

Now I remember this guy. He's the guy trying to sell the idea that citizenism is as morally wrong as racism. And, here, at least, he's right. There's nothing wrong with either.

Anonymous said...

@Nadaav
"I do think it's unfair to imply that natives are worth more than foreigners"

It is unfair. but the world isn't fair, and if you think said foreigners give one shit about you then you are mistaken.

"Defining who is "we" is very important"

For the vast majority of human history "we" has been our ethny. In America before 1965 "we" referred to the ethnic status quo: 85% white, 10% black, 5% otherish, In other words the majority population plus culturally assimilated groups which is still close to the original definition. Today the concept of "we" has been stretched enough that it will probably go all the way back to ethny.

Multiculturalism has failed everywhere it has been tried. Likewise free trade has been tried before(see what happened to both Imperial Spain and Imperial GB), with similarly disasterous effects.

Anonymous said...

"From the article - Protectionism is bad for many reasons. It raises prices and lowers living standards

So the average Australian is better off now in every way?"

The Average chocolate ration isn't going to be 15 grams! thanks to the glorious leader it has instead been increased to 30 grams!

TML said...

Where do Landsburg and Berg stand on open borders for Israel?

ben tillman said...

I do think it's unfair to imply that natives are worth more than foreigners

It's not an implication; it's an explicit statement of fact.

You are worth more than I, and that is why you do not deposit your paycheck in my bank account.

Natives are worth more than foreigners, and that is why we do not give them our country's resources.

That is not "unfair"; that is life.

Every living thing must discriminate in favor of itself if it is to continue living. And if you object to such discrimination, you object to life.

But no one actually objects to such discrimination in principle. Instead, the objection arises only when white people attempt to do the discriminating that is necessary for us to keep living.

Charlie said...

"China tried protectionism before during the Song Dynasty, and it failed miserably. China was the World's most advanced and prosperous country in the 13th century when Marco Polo visited it and 600 years latter it was primitive compared to the Europeans they regarded as barbarians only a fe centuries before."

I have to thank you for that insight. The "Needham Question" answered with...trade policy. Never mind that the evil protectionist Song dynasty was about as gone as gone gets, what with the Golden Horde smashing them to bits, by the time Marco Polo arrived...I guess the ill effects of that old Song protectionism had a mighty time delay build in.

That was even better than claiming, albeit only by syllogism, that doctors lawyers and bankers buy most of our Chinese imports. Do you think you could install yourself permanently here, like Whiskey? I'd appreciate that.

Anonymous said...

If for some reason Australia needs a larger population, why not try raising the birthrate? Offer vey generous baby bonuses, subsidies for families, free daycare etc. Why not give such a program a real try? This would be a better solution then to let in culturally alien outsiders who have a loyalty and identity that is ethnic and not national.

Fred said...

Are we sure Berg is Scotch-Irish? Chris?

Anonymous said...

My issue with Steve is that you don't get nationalism in a neat little package. If you want it (I do) you must accept a strong military and military actions, invasions, throwing weight around. If you crush that, then you get ... France. Rolling over the Muslims in the banlieus.

So in other words, according to you there can be no nationalism. It's either completely open borders or imperialism.

beowulf said...

"How does increasing demand for real estate through mass immigration keep down the price of real estate?"

Exactly!
The big fault line in politics has always been between those who want cheap land and expensive labor versus those who want expensive land and cheap labor.

Anyone-- liberal or conservative-- who tries to muddy this point is simply a useful idiot for the second group.

Reg C├Žsar said...

and provided [justification for protectionism] isn't ACTUALLY racist or something,e.g. "The Chinese don't deserve our manufacturing jobs because they're a bunch of sub-humans with chimp brains" --Nadaav

This is not our view of the Chinese. This is the view the Chinese have of us.

"Us" being the other 5.8 billion people with whom they're forced to share the planet.

Anonymous said...

Pedro Coderch,

You're the one with the terrible analogy.
Chinese goods have to be paid for.
This means that eventually the USA is drained of cash which results in lower living standards for everyone.
Economic policy is supposed to boost living standards.
The theories of Ricardo and Smith were predicated on 'comparative advantage' ie countries produced what they were suited to due to natural endowments.
They were not based on 'labor arbitrage' - which is just a race to the bottom.

Anonymous said...

Australians were very keen to preserve their Anglo-Celt identity and never wanted to end up as a deracinated melting pot like the USA.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,(Pedro Coderch)
You've got it wrong.The USA has a massive, persistent and intractable trade deficit.
A manifestation of this was seen in the recent housing bubble fed on imported money, and the inability of wage stagnated American workers to pay theur mortgage.This provoked the curren financial catastrophe that threatens worldwide revolution - the negative effects of which cannot be exaggerrated.Greece is gone, Italy is going.
Globalist policies precipitated US wage and economic stagnation (wages haven't grown in 40 years).If more inteligent policies were pursued it is likely American wages would have grown year on year, the economy would have grown likewise and the economic crisis would never have happened.
Instead we have the ultimate humilation of China bossing the USA about - and laughing at us.
Thanks globalists.

Nadaav said...

I responded to everyone who responded to me earlier, but it was too long and I couldn't post it here. So I just C&Ped it as a blog entry (same host site, Blogspot). The link is below, if anyone cares to read what I said. You're welcome to respond again, of course. It's a great discussion and I'm enjoying it.
http://nadaavscomments.blogspot.com/2011/11/response-to-responses-on-isteve-nov-8.html

Anonymous said...

The nitwits here cannot grasp basic, basic economics.
If money spent on Chinese goods leaves the USA it enriches the Chinese and pauperizes Americans - in exactly the same way as if you spend $5 at McDonald's, say, you are $5 the poorer, $5 you'll never see again.
The idea behind 'free trade' is that the Chinese are supposed to buy goods back from the USA, of an equal cash price, but it is more advantageous for the USA to produce.
If goods of a equal price are not sold back the USA is made poorer.No ifs no buts no sophistry by 'clever' people.This is mathematically indisputable.
Presumably, the USA should be selling higher value added goods back to the Chinese, goods that require skilled producers.
Doctors and lawyers and bankers aren't these people - they produce nothing of tradeable value.Enrich these people with 'free trade' in fact makes the USA poorer as the buy more and sell back nothing.
A simple point, but one which self-styled intelligent pople here cannot see.

Anonymous said...

How can you take some seriously who spells 'cater' as 'catter' and 'guaranteeing' as 'garangteeing'?
Either he didn't pass high school English (or shouldn't have passed it), or never passed English language competency for foreigners.
He should ask for his money back.

Anonymous said...

The point about globalism 'benefitting doctors and lawyers' is pure bullpoopy.

The real point is this.Doctors and lawyers make their living by selling their services to the broad community (ie the vast majority of the population who are not doctors and lawyers and are more likely than not blue collar wage aerners).
Now, if American blue collar wage are reduced down to the level of Chinese wages (which the poster thinks is a good thing), then purely and simply the customer base for professional services will likewise dwindle in cash terms - and American doctors and lawyers will see *their* incomes decline to the level of Chinese doctors and lawyers!
A simple and obvious point.All wages in all countries in all historic periods are dependent on the amount of actual cash in that economy - there is no exception to this rule.An English garbage collector is richer than a Bangladeshi MD.
By pauperizing the broad mass of the working population in the end you pauperize everyone - professionals included.Yes, they might have cheap servants like professional Indians have - but professional Indians are still poor in worldwide terms, due to the general poverty of their population.

Anonymous said...

I do think it's unfair to imply that natives are worth more than foreigners

Lol, so just what have you become "more conservative" about then?

Personally, I don't think it's "unfair" at all if the Chinese value other Chinese more highly than they value me. Indeed, I think it'd be spectacularly unfair of me to demand that they don't.

There's seems to be a fear, though, that if we were to all openly admit that we feel this way, that we like and value people like ourselves (those we feel a greater connection with be it racial, cultural or religious) more than we value or like people rather unlike ourselves, then we'd immediately get to work butchering each other.

The only thing keeps us from butchering each other, in this view, is this concept of "diversity," specifically, the idea that it improves our lives ("diversity is strength").

It's understandable, given the carnage of the ethnic conflict of WWII (above all), that a great many people would come to think this way. But since the thinking is based on a denial of reality it is fundamentally flawed. (And it's much worse than merely "flawed" when you consider that in practice it often means permitting (and even encouraging) non-whites to voice anti-white sentiment while not permitting whites to even defend themselves. What a hellacious double standard.)

Silver

Anonymous said...

But no one actually objects to such discrimination in principle. Instead, the objection arises only when white people attempt to do the discriminating that is necessary for us to keep living.

Fair enough. But people also object to those "white supremacist" doctrines (I never use that term, but it's appropriate here) that insist whites are the best, therefore whites must hate everyone else, and even (in most extreme versions) seek to hurt/conquer/destroy everyone else.

Knowing ben tillman he won't acknowledge that this is the case. Instead he'll see this as just another attack on his holy white race, just another way of denying it the discriminating that needs to be done (by guilt-tripping into caring about the concerns of others). I'm not kidding either. This fellow actually believes the only reason that whites ever do anything that benefits non-whites is because non-whites have fooled them into it. Thinking otherwise, in his own words, is "absurd."

Fortunately, what the ben tillmans of the world think is immaterial. Everyone can see the potential for disaster in the sort of militant nationalism that WNs propound.

Silver

neil craig said...

I don't think there will be many from Singapore or Japan trying to migrate to Australia for the higher standard of living. The only measure by which it is higher is that Australians have far more land per capita. While I would like that the extent to which Assies care is shown by the fact that 68% of the population live in the 5 major cities. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/%20Lookup/4102.0Chapter3002008

eh said...

My feeling is that a wide range of overlapping, often concentric, answers is, on the whole, a good thing.

Blah blah.

Big Bill said...

Anon: "Maybe with your plan blue-collar workers will be able to afford houses easier and stard families. But everyone else but blue-collar workers will have to live in smaller houses as they would spend a lot more money on their food, T.V sets, sneakers, cell phones etc."

You are correct, Anon, that is exactly what I am in favor of: higher wages for the working class, lower wages for the banker class.

I would rather pay some black or white American moron $15/hour to make shirts in America and pay $45 per shirt, than pay $15 for a chinese or indian shirt and pay $30in taxes for welfare, drug rehab, wife beating shelters, abortion clinics and all the other cr@p that comes with being out of work and living off welfare.

I would rather YOU learned to mow your own lawn, check you own oil, pull your own weeds, wash your own car, and YOUR WIFE learned to cook her own food and wipe her own babies' bottoms than give your underpaid Mexican mojado gardener's kids a free college education and give your Mexican cook Section 8 housing subsidies.

You seem to want an America that looks like China, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, where people die and rot in the streets and other people (the better people) run over toddlers with impunity and indifference. I don't.

But, then again, you were probably born and raised in one of those hellholes and don't know better.

Mr. Anon said...

"Q said...

Libertarians are lunatics, not too dissimilar to Marxists in some important respects. One important respect would be their insistence that reality must bend to fit their ideology and not the other way around."

Well said.

Mr. Anon said...

"MQ said...

Some of the comments here really bring to mind the old adage that anti-semitism is the socialism of fools. Good to see even the isteve crowd waking up to what a rip-off and con job the open borders/free trade/market solves everything libertarian right is, bizarre to watch the immediate leap to The Jooz."

Yeah, it's funny that people will eventually notice that a lot of those people screwing them over have a certain trait in common. Spare us your tired "jooz" comment. That Jedi mind trick is losing it's power. Only an idiot refuses to notice the obvious.

"So if you have a line of argument you don't like you can always find some Jew writing it somewhere. And another Jew arguing with him. Here is another Jewish writer for y'all to read."

On what basis do you claim Michael Lind to be a jew? Lind sounds like a scandinavian name to me - he looks rather scandinavian. Was it because he writes for Slate? Gee, what would that tell you? Maybe we are not so far off the mark, MQ.

Mr. Anon said...

"TML said...

Where do Landsburg and Berg stand on open borders for Israel?"

My guess would be that they stand in support of those borders, and that they so stand a safe long distance away from those borders.

Anonymous said...

Money is power in our world.

Whenever Steve writes something economic, the trolls come out in full force, frothing at the mouth.

AtoZ said...

If you want products made by American workers, who demand salaries up to 8 times higher than those of Chinese with comparable or inferior productivity, then you must pay the bill because the cost will be repassed to the consumer.

Bullcrap. A made in China Nike shirt that sells for $30 at your local mall would not sell for $240 if it was made in the US. It would sell for the same amount the only difference being that Nike execs would not be able to afford their 4th house or a superyacht due to lower profit margins.

Polichinello said...

Libertarianism is truly a form of political autism.

AtoZ said...

I do think it's unfair to imply that natives are worth more than foreigners..

Then you should let strangers live in your house. If you don't it implies that you think you are worth more than them which, after all, is unfair.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

If you want it (I do) you must accept a strong military and military actions, invasions, throwing weight around.

No you don't. You want elite class "whites" in the military-industrial complex enlisting Anglo and Scots-Irish crackers from flyover country to fight and die for the Jewish homeland. And since there aren't really enough of them to patrol the entire Middle East and the Caucasus on their own, you want to convince Hispanics to sign on that dotted line as well. (There are some problems with that last one, but you're confident things will ultimately work out.)

What you absolutely despise, what you "hate, hate, hate" is Anglo/Celt America as Switzerland: insular, decentralized governance, and ruthlessly self-interested with a martial spirit. Because in that America, places like Manhattan and Tel Aviv just don't figure very prominently.

The Anti-Gnostic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charlotte said...

"I do think it's unfair to imply that natives are worth more than foreigners"

"It's not an implication; it's an explicit statement of fact.

You are worth more than I, and that is why you do not deposit your paycheck in my bank account."



wow. That certainly says it all.
And anyway, the natives have priority. Possession in 9/10s of the law.

Q said...

the incentive of either losing your job or getting a promotion is invaluable to the overwhelming majority of people, and if you take away this incentive by garangteeing them a living ..



But apparently it's not invaluable to the advocates of "free trade", all of whom want to see everybody else compete in world-wide labor market. Everybody else, but not themselves. No, it's a matter of grave economic importance that our doctors, lawyers, and business executives be shielded from these wonderful incentives!

Oh, and nice strawman. Nobody is arguing for "garangteeing" a living to anybody.

nasa said...

The exceptions are some scientists, philosophers and artists who have higher motivations and don't need the promise of material wealth to work to the best of their abilities.

Don't you believe it. I don't know about philosophers and artists, but almost all scientists are dependent on government money and they will do their "science" accordingly. The discoveries that are shut down, and "anomalies" that get put in museum basements are testimony to that. Nobody wants to rewrite the textbooks totally. And governments are united on the bottom line, not whats best for their people.

Q said...

That would be included under the category 'subsidies", genius.


A tariff is not a subsidy, genius. For a person who spends so much time prancing about pretending to be an economics guru, you seem remarkably ignorant of basic terms.


the result of this would be more expensive goods for everyone except for the 20% of the population that lives of manufacturing, stagnant technological progress, higher cost of living for everyone, greater difficulty for American industry to keep up as importing key machinery/components will be too expensive


What, no plagues of locusts and rivers running red?

It was American policy for most of this countries existence to have tariffs on imports, and the result was the richest and most technologically advanced country in Earth.


You don't seem to understand that economic protectionism was tried in Europe, Africa and Latin America with disastrous results.


You don't seem to understand that economic protectionism was tried in Europe, Africa and Latin America with successful results. Examples of economic protectionism making a country rich include Britain (back when it was a empire), America (up until very recently), Japan, Korea, and China (all today).

But you're an ideologue, so what happens in the real world is less important to you than your mental model of how you think the world should work.

Q said...

As for the government protecting the citizens, that is a loaded expression, isn't it? You protect American workers and you hurt American consumers? What about their rights not to pay for expensive and low quality products that are made by indolent and spoiled workers because, since they are protected by the government from foreign competition, they can demand whatever salary they want and make products as badly as they want since the consumer can either take it or leave it? They tried this here in my country and it was a complete disaster that led to technological stagnation and cnonyism as the unions corrupted politicans and turned the government into a partial player on people's lives depending on which faction you belong



I'm a bit perplexed as to why you are so concerned about the internal politics of another country - in your case, the other country would be my country, America.

As for the details of your complaint, the reality is that even (or perhaps especially?) under the current "free trade" regime the government and unions (and employers and rich people) are already a "partial player in peoples lives", and probably a lot more so than they were fifty or sixty years ago.

You're going to find that trying to create a world in which other people are not a partial player in your life is a fools errand. What matters is whether they are a beneficial player.

Steve Sailer said...

"Are we sure Berg is Scotch-Irish? Chris?"

It's funny how gentile Germans are the most overlooked group among Americans.

Fred said...

"It's funny how gentile Germans are the most overlooked group among Americans."

At one point, they were America's largest ethnic group. They may still be its largest white ethnic group.

Q said...

The point about globalism 'benefitting doctors and lawyers' is pure bullpoopy.


Globalism benefits anybody who can globalize other peoples work while localizing his own. It's sort of like the way our capitalists try to privatize their profits and socialize their costs.

There are some steep barriers to entry into the medical and legal professions - medical school, law school, bar exams, residency, the necessity to speak English, etc. One you're in, you're safe as can be from any competition from the Pedros and Fengs of the world.


A simple and obvious point.All wages in all countries in all historic periods are dependent on the amount of actual cash in that economy.


The sum of all the wages, yeah. But the distribution of those wages can and does change, sometimes dramatically. Doctors, lawyers, and other people in protected classes now make much more money, relative to the average American, than they did fifty years ago. That's a result of political decisions as much as it is of economics.

ben tillman said...

Fair enough. But people also object to those "white supremacist" doctrines (I never use that term, but it's appropriate here) that insist whites are the best, therefore whites must hate everyone else, and even (in most extreme versions) seek to hurt/conquer/destroy everyone else.

Knowing ben tillman he won't acknowledge that this is the case.


Hilarious. You're the one who insists that whites are the best, that whites are so vastly superior to others that, in the absence of a reverse dominance hierarchy (see Chris Boehm's work), everyone else will get outcompeted and disappear.

Those are your doctrines.

Instead he'll see this as just another attack on his holy white race, just another way of denying it the discriminating that needs to be done....

I'm pretty sure you just admitted that's what you're doing.

This fellow actually believes the only reason that whites ever do anything that benefits non-whites is because non-whites have fooled them into it. Thinking otherwise, in his own words, is "absurd."

No, you have misunderstood. It is absurd to think that racially "suicidal" policies could be enacted without manipulation by outsiders.

Acts of kindness and benevolence toward other races (or species, for that matter) need not involve manipulation.

ben tillman said...

On what basis do you claim Michael Lind to be a jew? Lind sounds like a scandinavian name to me - he looks rather scandinavian. Was it because he writes for Slate?

He claims to have has one Jewish grandparent. Apparently, that's good enough for MQ.

Q said...

people also object to those "white supremacist" doctrines (I never use that term, but it's appropriate here) that insist whites are the best, therefore whites must hate everyone else, and even (in most extreme versions) seek to hurt/conquer/destroy everyone else.


How is that nonsense "appropriate here"? Where are these wicked white supremacists desiring to hurt/conquer everyone else who you are so bravely opposing?

As attempts to change the subject go, that's just a little too transparent.

jody said...

there's nothing new here. the argument remains the same. they tell us that this is the way europeans are supposed to think and behave, while all other groups are free to be as self interested as they choose. oh, they don't say that second part. but that's the thing. they never demand that kind of thinking or behavior from anybody but europeans.

europeans are supposed to voluntarily give up and hand over all the totally awesome things they create from scratch because doing anything else is "not fair". the other groups rarely create anything that all the world's people want a piece of, so there's never pressure on them to give it up, hand it over, surrender your stuff.

after studying this for over a decade i feel highly confident this inequity in creative capability is the source of the political position we're talking about here, and why the attack is so frequently made and so specifically targeted at europeans.

coincidentally, this is probably THE reason that "seperate but equal" could never have worked in the US, even under ideal conditions where everybody made a genuine, good faith effort. left to their own devices, almost all groups fall far behind the europeans on creating, organizing, building, and developing stuff. in fact, the gap between them grows over time instead of narrowing.

Anonymous said...

Q,

Have we crossed swords before? The staggering inability to follow a discussion tips me off.

Anyway, Tillman was talking about non-whites opposing his attempts to do the necessary discrimination. Mentioning "white supremacists" is appropriate and necessary because much of Tillman thinks are attempts to stymie the spot of harmless discrimination he deems so necessary are in fact attempts to stymie the efforts of what are perceived as neo-nazi fanatics to make good on their threats.

If you don't believe such fanatics exist then frankly you're not qualified to talk race and people can confidently ignore anything you have to say on the matter. "Who are these white supremacists?" "Where are they?" "Huh, huh, huh? Sheesh. Listen, feller, to most people that idea that someone can "get you" because of your race is a pretty big deal. If you want to pretend that it's not or that it shouldn't be then you're an idiot.

Anyway, to answer your imbecilic question ("where are they?"), there's one Alex Linder, whose forum receives about three times the monthly traffic of this blog. You can close your eyes to it if you want; I can't afford to.

Silver

jody said...

to see how intellectually dishonest the entire argument is, consider mexico for instance. a huge nation which the US shares a 1000 mile border with. the intellectuals often claim their policy recommendations of open borders, free trade, and essentially "give up your stuff", are general principles and guidelines of objective mathematics and economics. best practices which every nation should operate under. proven rules and maxims which will maximize the success of any country.

oh yeah? then why do you NEVER, NEVER hear intellectuals say "If only Mexico would only drop their official policy of closed borders so they could let in more smart and hard working central americans to reduce labor prices in Mexico, make it legal for foreigners to buy property in Mexico to spur more foreign investment in Mexico, de-nationalize the oil industry and dissolve the inefficient PEMEX monopoly and let foreign competitors into Mexico, allow foreign telco companies into Mexico to establish market competition and wipe out inefficient business monopolies like TELMEX which make Carlos Slim the richest man in the world while providing garbage service to the average citizen in Mexico, then Mexico could do so much better for itself. Let us petition Felipe Calderon to enact these measures."

mexico's laws are set up to keep central americans out so they don't swamp the place, and to keep europeans from the US out so they don't easily take over the place. in any decision making process, mexican interests come first. almost all nations on earth operate in exactly the same fashion, in fact i doubt there is a nation that is not majority european which does not operate under these extremely natural set of assumptions.

Anonymous said...

after studying this for over a decade i feel highly confident this inequity in creative capability is the source of the political position we're talking about here, and why the attack is so frequently made and so specifically targeted at europeans.

Well lots of people here claim that this political position is due to Jews pushing it. But Jews are the most creative and accomplished group per capita by a huge margin. Measures of creativity and accomplishment like Nobel prizes are extremely disproportionately won by Jews. So either this claim that Jews are pushing this political position is false, or inequity is not the source of this political position.

Anonymous said...

here's another argument these slapnuts never make, showing how NOT objectively mathematic the argument is, and how very political it actually is:

why do mexicans deserve to swamp the US any more than the chinese? isn't it just luck that mexico is on the border with the US but china is across an ocean? if we were being "fair", then boats filled with chinese illegal aliens would be just as welcome to wash up on california shores all day every day, as mexicans are to jump the california border all day every day. and make no mistake, the US government officially condones the mexican invasion of the united states.

let's go even further into the economics: there are more chinese available, outnumbering the mexicans 10 to 1. the chinese are smarter than the mexicans by 15 IQ points, making all that blustering about "Well the illegals are already here, we might as well give them college" actually make the slightest bit of sense. and most importantly, the chinese will work harder than the mexicans, for less money than the mexicans.

let's repeat that for the economists: the chinese will work harder, for less money. if the united states is going to allow a mexican invasion, then by legal right, and by economic determinism, i should be well within the scope of the "new america" to simply bring in thousands of chinese guys to undercut my competitors who are using mexicans. my chinese laborers will work 12 hour days for 5 dollars an hour, easily outperforming the mexicans.

this would only be "fair". using the argument of libertarians and liberals here, there is nothing fair about one group of people having access to these jobs just because they can walk across a border while other groups have to cross an ocean.

Anonymous said...

Doctors make a lot of money because of high reimbursements form Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers and a high barrier to becoming a doctor.

When Congress finally votes to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in physician Medicare reimbursements, private insurers (who tie their rates to Medicare) will follow. Then their salaries will take a big plunge.

Under Obamacare, physicians are going to have to see lots of lower income uninsured patients. Mostly NAMs and immigrants. That's probably going to drive their wages down too.

Svigor said...

How the hell did Australia move to open borders? Since it was electorally popular, with unions, the people, and everyone with a family?

The alternative is suddenly all those Jews in Australia (because Australia is so so so VERY Jewish) finally got their mind control rays working.


Do you notice how, every time you use this argument, you have to compare a country with a far smaller immigration problem and few Ashkenazis with America, a country with a far bigger immigration problem and a lot more Ashkenazis? Just sayin'.

David said...

Your child will be living in a crackhouse and working three jobs for starvation wages.

But his Xbox and sneakers will be cheap, cheap, cheap!

Yay free trade!

But you say your child will go into the professions? After all, America always needs more lawyers. Or maybe doctors. (Who pays their salaries? Obvious! Other lawyers and doctors - duh!) But isn't that - protectionist of you? Maybe slightly unfair? Nah. Because "corporations pay their employees what they are worth and not a dime more." Like Skilling and Fastow, for instance.

Libertarianism, where its leaders are concerned, is an ethnic war by ideological means - and a blend of quasi-autism or extreme naivete where its followers are concerned. It's just another lethal corn salve sold by carpetbaggers to buh-lievers, like communism was.

Anonymous said...

Your child will be living in a crackhouse and working three jobs for starvation wages.

But his Xbox and sneakers will be cheap, cheap, cheap!


"College Grads Say Salary Is Less Important than Facebook Freedom at Work"

http://hothardware.com/News/College-Grads-Say-Salary-Is-Less-Important-than-FacebookFriendly-Work-Policies/

"One in three college grads said that access to social media sites like Facebook and the ability to choose their own devices was more important to them than salary when considering a job offer. This according to a study of 2,800 college students and young professionals worldwide conducted by Cisco. More than 40% went so far as to say that they would accept less money for a job that was down with social media at work on a device of their choosing if it also included telework."

The new Iron Law of Wages in the future may be the cost of providing the internet and virtual experiences. Especially if immersive, virtual reality experiences become possible. Note that this is a lot cheaper to provide than the 20th century, American middle class lifestyle.

Anonymous said...

The alternative is suddenly all those Jews in Australia (because Australia is so so so VERY Jewish) finally got their mind control rays working.

Alan Shatter, Ireland's only Jewish member of parliament, recently became the Minister of Justice, Equality and Defence of Ireland.

"Shatter: Citizenship takes too long"

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/shatter-citizenship-takes-too-long-16015800.html

"Justice Minister Alan Shatter has told Ireland's first citizenship ceremony that many immigrants were forced to wait too long to become full Irish citizens."

""You have waited a long time for this moment - too long in many cases," said Mr Shatter.

"You came to our country and chose to live among us; we welcome you and we hope that you will continue to contribute to our communities, to our neighbourhood and to our society.

"As a people we have been enriched by your presence and in making you citizens of our ancient and proud land we are acknowledging that contribution.""

"The justice minister said he had slashed the huge backlog of citizenship applications since coming to office and expected to have it completely cleared by spring next year. There are still 13,500 applications awaiting decisions for more than six months.

There are also plans to recruit more people under the new government internship programme to help speed up the naturalisation process, he revealed.

Mr Shatter said the historic pilot ceremony in Dublin Castle would be the first of many such events welcoming immigrants into the "national family"."

"Shatter introduces visa waiver scheme"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0512/1224296752885.html

"MINISTER FOR Justice Alan Shatter has introduced a visa waiver scheme where visitors with a valid permit for the UK will not need a separate visa for Ireland.

"This is a major change in public policy,” Mr Shatter said. “It is the first time that Ireland has contemplated such a programme and as such it is proposed that it be pilot tested from July of this year to October 12th.”"

Anonymous said...

Australia takes in more immigrants per capita than the United States. It's also an expensive real estate market, as the population in bunched up in Sydney and Melbourne. On the positive side, their immigrantion is overwhelmingly skill-based. So the economy will continue to be strong and the population will be high in human capital, but the country will be overcrowded and expensive.

Australia's future looks like a cross between Singapore, Hong Kong, and San Francisco. Not bad, but not a place for people like us.

Anonymous said...

"Doctors make a lot of money because of high reimbursements form Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers and a high barrier to becoming a doctor."

Aye.

Off topic:

For years now, the AMA has been whining how Medicare and Medicaid don't fully reimburse a doctor / hospital for the cost of care, so said doctor / hospital "must" cost-shift onto other patients, in order to stay afloat.


Wellll, interesting story.....here in my town, a physician got into a snit with the admin of the county hospital and in a fit of pique put together a deal and got another hospital built, which, being new, was much prettier.

Needless to say, the new hospital was quite popular.

Sooooooo, the county hospital recently patiently explained to the local paper, the reason it was going broke was due to the loss of all those Medicare / Medicaid patients to the new hospital.

Um...wait. Wait just one darn second. If taking Medicare / Medicaid patients is a money-losing proposition and doctors and hospitals only provide the care for them out of the goodness of their hearts due to their generous, selfless natures, like they've been telling us, HOW could the loss of that business bankrupt the county hospital, hmmmmmmmmm?????

Whadda scam.

Fred said...

"Um...wait. Wait just one darn second. If taking Medicare / Medicaid patients is a money-losing proposition and doctors and hospitals only provide the care for them out of the goodness of their hearts due to their generous, selfless natures, like they've been telling us, HOW could the loss of that business bankrupt the county hospital, hmmmmmmmmm?????"

Medicare/Medicaid pays well for certain procedures. When docs open private hospitals, they cherry pick patients with the right conditions and focus on the profitable procedures.

Mark Wahlberg said...

Hate to say this but Whiskey actually sort of made a point. How did the Aussies get snookered into international Zionist open-borders globalization without Jewish influence? (Or India too)

Aside from Paul Hoganwitz and Rupert Murdochberg I don't see a lotta the usual suspects.

dilemma said...

"Anyway, to answer your imbecilic question ("where are they?"), there's one Alex Linder, whose forum receives about three times the monthly traffic of this blog. "

I'd never heard of Alex Linder so took a peek. Oh--Vanguard. I get that mixed up with Stormfront.
Yes, it's popular (not with me personally) and you run into it whenever you're trying to find news about anti-white hate crimes that MSM ignores, but what others? This blog is good because it discusses the facts of the matter with malice towards none, IMO. That you should have to go to places like Stormfront to get info on anti-white hate crimes -- far more plentiful than anti-any-other-race -- is a crying shame.

Claverhouse said...

MQ said:


At present, Jews are culturally distinctive in their verbal facility and are overrepresented among writers. So if you have a line of argument you don't like you can always find some Jew writing it somewhere. And another Jew arguing with him.



Oddly enough, present-day American political discourse consists almost entirely of jews arguing with other jews.


One must assume that the democracy elected for this at some time, otherwise one would be drawn to the irresistible conclusion that jewish interests took over the medium by self-selecting their ethny. Which can't be the case as they are reliably vocal against all racial self-interest.

Dai Alanye said...

Re Steven Landsburg and some others: They seem not to understand a principle tacitly acknowledged by most of the world, down to infants. Indeed, my dog recognizes it.

That principle is ownership, which will be demonstrated the next time you take a favored toy from a toddler, or another animal attempts to share your dog's food.

I'm sure Landsburg's IQ is several points higher than my dog's, especially as my dog is too stupid to train. So what has gone wrong with Landsburg's training?