- Robin Hanson: Morality Porn
- Tyler Cowen: Government + Growth
- Will Wilkinson: Negative Mexican immigration?
- Tim B. Lee: How Patents Work
- David Henderson sideswipes a huge, underused libertarian argument: Yes, there may be "market failure" here, but why do you expect government action in the real world to make it better rather than worse?
- Steve Horowitz: Q: Why Free Markets? A: To protect the poor from the rich and powerful.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Required Reading
While I'm driving, I'm not getting much reading in. things that caught my eye as being important:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Negative Mexican immigration?
Quality of life numbers from Mexico have always been pretty good: life expectancy, infant mortality, access to health care, etc. Movement to the US seems more along the lines of an opportunistic colonialization.
RSF,
That's paranoid.
Mexicans move to the USA because the
standard of living is FAR higher here than there...and wealth is worth a lot. Most of them move in order to make enough $ to send back to family in Mexico...with no intent whatsoever of staying...just of finding work, and making their families work. As someone who has worked as a traveling consultant...that sucks. If you don't get to see your family for 6 months, or 6 years at a time, but you are supporting them, that's huge dedication, a crappy life, and you bail as soon as you can make anything else work. That's what's going on with negative migration is that the US work is down because the economy kills jobs for the lowest-skilled, and because Mexico has caught up a lot.
Your economic take doesn't explain it all.
Ersatz colonization is one way to think about it. It need not be the formal type of colonization you think of, and it needn't be paranoid. Just a statement of fact.
You lived in Cali. Whole communities, towns, and cities White flighted into becoming bastions of flying the Mexican flag, cheering for the Mexican soccer team over the American team, Latino pride, home country mores, etc. I don't mean this to be negative, I admire this ethnic and cultural robustness. I grew up on an Indian Reservation where everything was organized around ethnic and clan lines. There is a kind of strength in this organizational capacity, though it allows marginal people to punch above their weight. "Rich old english-speaking white folks" you mentioned below have no demographic robustness, what with their women pumped full of feminism and birth control. Demography is destiny.
(con't)
You spoke earlier of the "glorious rainbow" ethnicity, but I suspect this will ultimately bow to the organized group. To paraphrase the 19th century English empire builder, "a single ethnically aware person will as often as not lose in battle to a non-ethnically aware person, but ten ethnically aware people will more often than not defeat ten non-ethically aware people, and one hundred ethnically aware people will always defeat one hundred non-ethnically aware people, and one thousand ethnically aware people will defeat any number of non-ethnically aware people."
(con't)
You spoke earlier of the "glorious rainbow" ethnicity, but I suspect this will ultimately bow to the organized group. To paraphrase the 19th century English empire builder, "a single ethnically aware person will as often as not lose in battle to a non-ethnically aware person, but ten ethnically aware people will more often than not defeat ten non-ethically aware people, and one hundred ethnically aware people will always defeat one hundred non-ethnically aware people, and one thousand ethnically aware people will defeat any number of non-ethnically aware people."
Post a Comment