Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected

[seer]

I think Peggy Noonan hits it out of the park, and not only explains what is happening with the rise of Trump, but also with the growing national movements in Europe.


https://patriotpost.us/opinion/40958

[Joel]

I think Peggy Noonan hits it out of the park, and not only explains what is happening with the rise of Trump, but also with the growing national movements in Europe.

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/40958

Until the quote starts talking about immigration, you could replace "protected" with "privileged", and it would sound like a modern "liberal".


As for illegal immigration, legalize freedom of mobility, and there would be no more illegal immigrants. Easy.

[seer]

As for illegal immigration, legalize freedom of mobility, and there would be no more illegal immigrants. Easy.

That would be national suicide. I know your libertarian theories look good on paper Joel but they have real world consequences. Lower standard of living via the suppression of wages, importing more crime and criminals. Opening up the real possibility of more terrorism, greater pressure on social services, etc...

Until the quote starts talking about immigration, you could replace "protected" with "privileged", and it would sound like a modern "liberal".

I have no idea what that means.

[Joel]

I have no idea what that means.

You've never heard "liberals" talk about "privilege"?

That would be national suicide.

That's ridiculous.

Lower standard of living via the suppression of wages

Shall we assume that illegally immigrating is currently easy, as people who advocate building a wall think? So then we shouldn't expect legal freedom of mobility to greatly increase total immigration, just mainly a shift from illegal to legal. (And the illegal immigration rate is already less than the legal immigration rate. And I've read that in recent years more Mexican immigrants have been returning to Mexico than have immigrated.) But suppose that immigration did increase somewhat. And suppose that the increased labor supply lowers wages somewhat. That too has a limiting feedback effect: it reduces the incentive to immigrate. Even in the big picture and long term, free markets, free international trade, freedom of mobility of people and assets would just tend towards a new equilibrium, as well as promoting economic growth, benefiting everyone. But also, an increased labor supply in the U.S. would tend to increase the total production and abundance of goods, making things more affordable, which at least in part offsets any decrease in wages. And also restricting freedom of mobility may just cause production to be more overseas, which may cause the same decrease in wages here.

, importing more crime and criminals.

My understanding is that studies show that U.S. immigrants have a lower crime rate than native-born.

Opening up the real possibility of more terrorism,

The risk of terrorism is small, and the real solution to peace is more human interaction via freedom of movement and freedom of trade (and to stop doing things to cause people to want to seek revenge).

There is the issue that human rights trump risks. Freedom to bear arms might increase the risk of murder, but that doesn't mean we should infringe the freedom to bear arms.

Freedom of mobility would mean people would be willing to enter through the normal process, which would send up flags in the case of known or suspected violent criminals. (And if that causes criminals/terrorists to circumvent the normal process, then that's not any worse than the alternative.)

greater pressure on social services, etc...

So much the worse for social services.

[seer]

Shall we assume that illegally immigrating is currently easy, as people who advocate building a wall think? So then we shouldn't expect legal freedom of mobility to greatly increase total immigration, just mainly a shift from illegal to legal. (And the illegal immigration rate is already less than the legal immigration rate. And I've read that in recent years more Mexican immigrants have been returning to Mexico than have immigrated.) But suppose that immigration did increase somewhat. And suppose that the increased labor supply lowers wages somewhat. That too has a limiting feedback effect: it reduces the incentive to immigrate. Even in the big picture and long term, free markets, free international trade, freedom of mobility of people and assets would just tend towards a new equilibrium, as well as promoting economic growth, benefiting everyone. But also, an increased labor supply in the U.S. would tend to increase the total production and abundance of goods, making things more affordable, which at least in part offsets any decrease in wages. And also restricting freedom of mobility may just cause production to be more overseas, which may cause the same decrease in wages here.

This doesn't follow Joel. What you will end up with is millions of more low skilled workers who are out of work. Some would go home, but most won't. Why would they with the social services we have? And as these illegals become legal and gain voting rights, which party are they going to vote for? The Democrats of course, because they will keeping giving them free stuff. Which will effectively destroy any opposing party. So you will never get rid of the welfare state it will only expand, drawing even more immigrants. It is a no win situation. And the other fact is that we are getting killed by trade, it may be helping other countries but the middle class in this country is losing ground in a big way.

[Adam]

The net flow of immigration merely stopped TEMPORARILY due to the U. S. falling into the Bush Depression. A huge net inflow will occur if ever times get better (they have recently stopped getting better).

[Psychic Missile]

Until the quote starts talking about immigration, you could replace "protected" with "privileged", and it would sound like a modern "liberal".

Yeah, I was on board until then. Illegal immigration doesn't have a large enough impact to be the focal issue of such an article. I also found it funny they consider illegal immigration the result of the policies of the protected. Illegal immigration is primarily caused by US drug policy, as written up and happily voted for by Republicans and moderates.

[Joel]

This doesn't follow Joel. What you will end up with is millions of more low skilled workers who are out of work. Some would go home, but most won't. Why would they with the social services we have? And as these illegals become legal and gain voting rights, which party are they going to vote for? The Democrats of course, because they will keeping giving them free stuff. Which will effectively destroy any opposing party. So you will never get rid of the welfare state it will only expand, drawing even more immigrants. It is a no win situation.

So you are picturing a feedback loop with ever-worsening conditions, with ever-increasing immigration, ever-increasing largess from the welfare state. You really think such a feedback loop is sustainable (rather than self-limiting)? No, the welfare state can't expand indefinitely. European welfare states are already finding that their size isn't sustainable and are scaling them back. And the current reduction in immigration (and net out-flux) proves that the immigration rate is self-limiting too. Worse conditions reduce the incentive to immigrate here, and conditions don't need to get any worse than current conditions for immigration to stop and even go negative.

And the other fact is that we are getting killed by trade, it may be helping other countries but the middle class in this country is losing ground in a big way.

On the contrary, trade benefits us greatly. And the reason the middle class has been shrinking is mostly because people are moving upward, out of the middle class into the upper class. And at the same time the middle class itself has been getting wealthier. (Sure the great recession has really slowed things down, but that's a different problem.)

[Joel]

Illegal immigration is primarily caused by US drug policy, as written up and happily voted for by Republicans and moderates.

Can you expand on this?

[seer]

So you are picturing a feedback loop with ever-worsening conditions, with ever-increasing immigration, ever-increasing largess from the welfare state. You really think such a feedback loop is sustainable (rather than self-limiting)? No, the welfare state can't expand indefinitely. European welfare states are already finding that their size isn't sustainable and are scaling them back. And the current reduction in immigration (and net out-flux) proves that the immigration rate is self-limiting too. Worse conditions reduce the incentive to immigrate here, and conditions don't need to get any worse than current conditions for immigration to stop and even go negative.

First Joel, as far as I know there is no current reduction in immigration:

http://cis.org/Immigrant-Population-...d-Quarter-2015

So your answer is that we go bankrupt and have riots in the streets.

On the contrary, trade benefits us greatly. And the reason the middle class has been shrinking is mostly because people are moving upward, out of the middle class into the upper class. And at the same time the middle class itself has been getting wealthier. (Sure the great recession has really slowed things down, but that's a different problem.)

Joel, we are running into the billions and billions of dollars in trade defects (excluding oil imports). That is not good for our economy I don't care how you cut it. And it is not that the middle class is shrinking - it may be, but the middle class is getting poorer or barely treading water:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/...losing-ground/

[Littlejoe]

Yeah, I was on board until then. Illegal immigration doesn't have a large enough impact to be the focal issue of such an article. I also found it funny they consider illegal immigration the result of the policies of the protected.

You must not live near a border state. I know many construction companies and custom home builders as well as landscaping companies here in Texas that use day labors for all kinds of projects. $100 + lunch provided is the going rate. The illegals stand on a certain street corner or parking lot and the 'boss man' will come by and say..."I need two (or whatever) labors to do 'X'..." There is no shortage of workers.

Illegal immigration is primarily caused by US drug policy, as written up and happily voted for by Republicans and moderates.

I too would like to hear you expound on this...

[Joel]

So your answer is that we go bankrupt and have riots in the streets.

Joel, we are running into the billions and billions of dollars in trade defects (excluding oil imports). That is not good for our economy I don't care how you cut it.

Trade "deficit" doesn't matter. The fear of "trade deficit" was debunked by economists over 200 years ago. Money is just a medium of exchange. Ultimately goods are exchanged for goods. If Americans are exchanging their goods for even more valuable goods (thus a trade "deficit"), then, if anything, Americans could be said to be profiting. The fear is based on the idea that it indicates a net outflow of dollars. Which is not necessarily the case, because it can result from foreigners selling goods to Americans, and then using those dollars to buy American financial assets instead of goods. But even if it is an outflow of dollars, so what? It's self-limiting: caused only by movement towards a new equilibrium point. If it went too far that way, such that the stock of U.S. dollars outside the U.S. exceeded the demand for them outside the U.S., then the value of the dollar outside the U.S. would fall causing dollars to flow back into the U.S. Dollars (like exchange of anything on the free market) get traded towards equilibrating supply and demand.

As a practical example, nobody cares about the 'balance of trade' between pairs of U.S. states, and calls for trade barriers between the states.

For fun, you might also check out how Frederic Bastiat famously satirized the worry about trade deficit in his Candlestick Maker's Petition in 1845: http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html Where he points out that wanting to block an inflow of cheap goods is like wanting to block out the sun in order to stimulate the candlestick making industry.

And it is not that the middle class is shrinking - it may be, but the middle class is getting poorer or barely treading water:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/...losing-ground/

The supposedly negative things in the article are that the middle class' size is smaller as a percentage of the population, and that its income has not grown as much as the upper class income, though the article does admit that the middle class income has grown significantly. And shows that more people are moving up to upper class than moving down to lower class. Those positives are awesome, and those supposed negatives don't matter.

Also see the animated graph here showing people generally becoming better off since 1970. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/98ce14ee-9...#axzz3twSWtN40
(Again, the recent recessions may have been a setback, but that's a different problem.)

I'd also like to point out that you are essentially regurgitating Bernie Sanders' talking points.

[seer]

Trade "deficit" doesn't matter. The fear of "trade deficit" was debunked by economists over 200 years ago. Money is just a medium of exchange. Ultimately goods are exchanged for goods. If Americans are exchanging their goods for even more valuable goods (thus a trade "deficit"), then, if anything, Americans could be said to be profiting. The fear is based on the idea that it indicates a net outflow of dollars. Which is not necessarily the case, because it can result from foreigners selling goods to Americans, and then using those dollars to buy American financial assets instead of goods. But even if it is an outflow of dollars, so what? It's self-limiting: caused only by movement towards a new equilibrium point. If it went too far that way, such that the stock of U.S. dollars outside the U.S. exceeded the demand for them outside the U.S., then the value of the dollar outside the U.S. would fall causing dollars to flow back into the U.S. Dollars (like exchange of anything on the free market) get traded towards equilibrating supply and demand.

As a practical example, nobody cares about the 'balance of trade' between pairs of U.S. states, and calls for trade barriers between the states.

The state thing is nonsense Joel. In the US we are live under the same federal regulatory rules for the most part. How do I compete with with a Chinese or Vietnamese worker where they have few regulations and make $10 a day? I can't - our manufacturing base is being decimated. I guess we could all work at MacDonalds. It's simple, I would rather pay a few more dollas for my shirt if it keeps my neighbor working.

I'd also like to point out that you are essentially regurgitating Bernie Sanders' talking points.

No, Trump. And I'm not against trade per se, but it needs to be much more fair.Tell me Joel why don't we have a net trade gain instead of deficit? Why is it that China doesn't have a trade deficit? I have been watching this for decades Joel, and why is it always us that is losing? Can you show me any years since the 70s where we had a positive trade balance.

[Psychic Missile]

Can you expand on this?

US Drug policy gave power to cartels who effectively took over Mexico. Mexicans flee to the US because of the poor quality of life there. If those cartels didn't exist, then the quality of life in Mexico would rise and there would be no incentive to illegally immigrate.

[Psychic Missile]

You must not live near a border state. I know many construction companies and custom home builders as well as landscaping companies here in Texas that use day labors for all kinds of projects. $100 + lunch provided is the going rate. The illegals stand on a certain street corner or parking lot and the 'boss man' will come by and say..."I need two (or whatever) labors to do 'X'..." There is no shortage of workers.

I agree it is an issue, just nowhere near what should be the focal point of an article with that sort of introduction.

I too would like to hear you expound on this...

I'll refer you to post #14.