I agree with this post, but I have to report where my thoughts led me.
Trying conjure an reductio of absurdly bad immigrant selection, I thought "What if had a policy of admitting the criminals of some far away country. That country would obviously be happy to for us to relieve them of expensive jailbirds. But where would Australia be if we had done such a thing!".
This is really top-drawer commentary from Lorenzo.
I would go even further on some matters.
Say, if Japanese, in a democratic fashion, essentially say something like, "Yes, we could have a higher material living standard with more immigration---but we prefer to remain Japanese, we value and honor our traditions, language, culture, religion, neighborhoods, manners, customs and more. We willingly accept lower material living standards." ---I think that is fine.
Somehow, Western democracies got hoodwinked into thinking that opposing immigration was equal to the worst sort of prejudice and racism.
In economics there is a term for compensation that is not monetary, called psychic income.
There is no doubting psychic income is "real"; imagine telling a devoted fan at a soccer match you will give him $10 to switch sides. Here is an extra jersey I have.
Why should not a shared sense of national pride be treated as valid psychic income?
There is more, as who is behind the idea that national borders should be erased for the transfer of labor, capital and business enterprise. No doubt globalized trade has some benefits, and just as surely there is an international commercial class that benefits most from such arrangements.
We could add, at least the in US, who benefits from the import of illegal cheap labor?
BTW, 75% of econ grad students in the US are foreign-born. Thank about that, and the effect on policy preferences.
There has long been a near obligation in academic circles (in the US) to appear cosmopolitan and unbiased, as opposed to nationalistic.
On my day on campus (too long ago to admit) no prof would be caught dead driving a Cadillac, even if gifted, but had to have a Volvo or Saab, or some other European brand. Not a Volkswagen bug, as that might be confused as the vehicle of a mere grad student. That too is a form of psychic income.
I've discovered the closest thing to somebody who can explain precisely the causes of the building economic malaise: ex-Citibank trader Gary Stevenson. He has been fighting a reasonably successful campaign on YouTube trying to get his voice heard. He has framed his idea around "the great squeeze-out" neatly explained in this video:
There are many others but the above is pretty representative. Adding to his credibility is studious avoidance of the word "socialism" which is unfortunately the reflexive recourse to so many people. His major shortcoming is the reluctance to address the mass immigration issue - he correctly asserts working people need to stand together against the elites, but doesn't acknowledge that mass immigration is a major tool for enacting this squeeze-out.
He is coming to Australia this month and I'm keen to see him in Melbourne.
"But immigration, it can’t be done badly, it’s just inherently good. I am sorry, why the f#@k do we listen to economists when they talk such f#@k-witted nonsense as immigration is just naturally good?"
Immigration IS inherently good for the decedents of immigrant populations. - Just ask members of any indigenous group from anywhere in the world.
It's a pattern that has repeated at least since the neolithic.
Outstanding analysis and pulling together the strings of though into a coherent position as always.
We really need to start a nice big new university just so we can put Lorenzo in charge of it.
I also think the coining of the term Theory-Fool is a piece of genius.
Aiy, if only we could have 100 Lorenzos....
Everything.
Brilliant!
I agree with this post, but I have to report where my thoughts led me.
Trying conjure an reductio of absurdly bad immigrant selection, I thought "What if had a policy of admitting the criminals of some far away country. That country would obviously be happy to for us to relieve them of expensive jailbirds. But where would Australia be if we had done such a thing!".
And of course that actually did have consquences that are with us to this day. For instance, it explains this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNvkCVvhIvg&list=RDeNvkCVvhIvg
This is really top-drawer commentary from Lorenzo.
I would go even further on some matters.
Say, if Japanese, in a democratic fashion, essentially say something like, "Yes, we could have a higher material living standard with more immigration---but we prefer to remain Japanese, we value and honor our traditions, language, culture, religion, neighborhoods, manners, customs and more. We willingly accept lower material living standards." ---I think that is fine.
Somehow, Western democracies got hoodwinked into thinking that opposing immigration was equal to the worst sort of prejudice and racism.
In economics there is a term for compensation that is not monetary, called psychic income.
There is no doubting psychic income is "real"; imagine telling a devoted fan at a soccer match you will give him $10 to switch sides. Here is an extra jersey I have.
Why should not a shared sense of national pride be treated as valid psychic income?
There is more, as who is behind the idea that national borders should be erased for the transfer of labor, capital and business enterprise. No doubt globalized trade has some benefits, and just as surely there is an international commercial class that benefits most from such arrangements.
We could add, at least the in US, who benefits from the import of illegal cheap labor?
BTW, 75% of econ grad students in the US are foreign-born. Thank about that, and the effect on policy preferences.
There has long been a near obligation in academic circles (in the US) to appear cosmopolitan and unbiased, as opposed to nationalistic.
On my day on campus (too long ago to admit) no prof would be caught dead driving a Cadillac, even if gifted, but had to have a Volvo or Saab, or some other European brand. Not a Volkswagen bug, as that might be confused as the vehicle of a mere grad student. That too is a form of psychic income.
I've discovered the closest thing to somebody who can explain precisely the causes of the building economic malaise: ex-Citibank trader Gary Stevenson. He has been fighting a reasonably successful campaign on YouTube trying to get his voice heard. He has framed his idea around "the great squeeze-out" neatly explained in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUKaB4P5Qns
There are many others but the above is pretty representative. Adding to his credibility is studious avoidance of the word "socialism" which is unfortunately the reflexive recourse to so many people. His major shortcoming is the reluctance to address the mass immigration issue - he correctly asserts working people need to stand together against the elites, but doesn't acknowledge that mass immigration is a major tool for enacting this squeeze-out.
He is coming to Australia this month and I'm keen to see him in Melbourne.
But, but, but, but.....
"But immigration, it can’t be done badly, it’s just inherently good. I am sorry, why the f#@k do we listen to economists when they talk such f#@k-witted nonsense as immigration is just naturally good?"
Immigration IS inherently good for the decedents of immigrant populations. - Just ask members of any indigenous group from anywhere in the world.
It's a pattern that has repeated at least since the neolithic.