Americans could not hope to learn good engineering and quality automobile production in an entire half a century from now.
When Americans were rushing to meet the small car craze back in 1959, and releasing a new wave of small stylish cars, the Volkswagen Beetle ended up beating all of them by a huge margin. Except the Beetle was not made in 1959, it was made in 1938 in Germany. And yet the Beetle was a faster car, had a more luxurious interior, was consistently more reliable for a longer period, and was even cheaper than the other American small cars.
Germans have a culture of scientific and engineering bent that has been built and nurtured for a far longer period than Americans have ever had. The only thing that needs to be emphasised here is that even 300 million people means nothing when a nation of roughly 60 million people like Germany has a far higher IQ and far more challenging education system. All the American people are more than welcome to slit their own throats to see if they are better off afterwards. United States has a GDP larger than the next two largest national GDPs combined and a per capita income that is more than twice of Russia despite being the biggest importer nation in the world. That’s because America imports everything that others can produce better and allocates its labour and capital to the industries which are able to produce what the rest of the world can not. If you feel importer nations lack in cultural value and benefit, I invite you to look at Italy and Spain.
One nation can not suddenly and magically acquire hundreds of years of culture and skills that every other nation in the world acquires, and make the same masterpieces that the outsider’s culture has produced.
With respect to “productivity”, you - and most of the post-war economists including Hayek by his own admission that he adheres to “progress” as an ideology, fail to understand that the materialistic and utilitarian notions underlying your economic theories are neither the reason civilization was founded nor are they the primary motivator of human behavior.
Capitalism undoubtedly provides a higher standard of living than socialism, but is this better life standard unique to capitalism, or simply achieved by having technology and avoiding the ultra-egalitarianism of Communism which, by failing to reward some for being better than others, creates a zero standard for motivation to achievement? Indeed, history shows us that the societies which function best reward individual competence, but have some other primary motivation that purely personal wealth. Thus where Communism represents one extreme of error, Capitalism is its opposite, and something more moderate is needed. If this moderate standard retains some of the promotion of more competent individuals over others, including material reward, it will bring us the same better standard of life.
In understanding the effects of different economic systems, we must consider two types of “standard of living”: first, individual material prosperity, health and happiness; second, those things which impact all individuals, whether as public policy or as a byproduct of social action, what is called “socialized cost” because it is absorbed by the population as a whole. If the individual has a higher material standard of living, but exists in a somewhat miserable or conflicted circumstance owing to these secondary effects, it is not sensible to argue that the overall living standard is raised because a greater negative with vaster consequences has been engendered.
We know from the successes of Capitalism that the individual needs to be rewarded for better work, including materially. We know from its failures that this alone does not make a society, and in fact helps society decline from a state of cooperation to a mutually-protected marketplace. The great sadness of capitalism is that it reduces all decisions to the price tag, or “opportunity cost,” on any object or action. There is no consideration of the whole. A capitalist society has no valuation for a patch of forest but its real estate and resource value; it has no appreciation for non-paying tasks except as “hobbies”; it has no way to describe well-being outside of material (wealth).
In short, economics is not a religion nor is it a political philosophy. It is a social science that serves culture, nothing more.
Immigrants most certainly come here to be on public assistance. There are no reliable statistics regarding illegal immigration, thus your assertion that it has declined is equally unreliable. Regardless, democracy cannot survive with welfare. As another poster made clear, it is pointless to discuss immigration from a libertarian perspective until all welfare is ended. Since this will never happen, your particular theories on the matter are ultimately irrelevant to any meaningful political change.
You fail to understand that the laws of supply and demand apply to people. The very purpose of technology is to eliminate work. We do not need 6 billion people to produce necessary food, shelter, and clothing. Everything else that is required is essentially a luxury, and if there is one thing democracy has proven - most people would rather sit around and talk on cell phones, watch spirit crushing television, and eat twinkies than say, write a symphony. Social order is maintained only by the willingness of the participants to acknowledge the law. You cannot possibly hope to maintain civilized society when the vast majority of the people are engaged in trivial enterprises to satisfy base whims that are largely manufactured by a corrupt elite that controls the mass media apparatus.
As a continuation of the previous point, the evidence that economic theory is not political philosophy comes with the ultimate evolution of technology. If you are true progressive who believes technology will always continue to advance, then it is necessarily true that at a future time - human labor will be unnecessary. Democracy, i.e. unrestricted demand, will be incapable of functioning in such a society where human labor is entirely irrelevant but natural resources are scarce.
The revolution had nothing to do with breaking England’s protectionism, it pertained to sovereignty and who should make decisions regarding trade: the people of what would become the United States. In reality, the British Empire was largely a “free trade” zone of sorts. One could easily describe World War II as being a fight against the transition of the British Empire into a system of international trade managed by London and New York where usury was the method of rent extraction. Regardless, you are unfortunately comically wrong about the United States prior to 1913.
Your peculiar political theory has never functioned in the history of mankind and you will be unable to rally any popular support for your utopian vision. Feel free to continue to attack windmills, but the rest of us will be in the real world.
Comparative advantage, in terms of international trade, in the modern age is irrelevant. The only advantage held by the people of the third world is their willingness to work as slaves.
While I am actually a fascist, that has nothing to do with my post. All societies are hierarchical, and the majority always follow the dictates of an elite. Propaganda merely means the propagation of an idea. Having a particular lobby buy advertisements affecting consumer behavior is nothing special.
With respect to isolationism, I have never said I was an isolationist. The only reason we have international trade is that natural resources are not equally distributed throughout the world. This is why commodities form the basis of currency value, and not say - automobiles. Germany, as the first nation in existence dependent upon exports is a great example. They did not have, and still do not have, sufficient farmland to feed their people. They are trading manufactured goods for food.
The division of labor has nothing to do with your internationalist agenda.
No, economics serves culture. As I said previously, “wealth” is a highly subjective term and cannot be quantified in “rational” terms. Your denial of cultures simply indicates that you do not understand what the word means. Different people have different values, and what mostly differentiates cultures are not materialistic, and therefore your concept of “wealth” cannot be applied to them.
You may think it “follows no reason” but weight? Culture is the very reason we had the largest war in human history. Do you honestly believe you are going to rally the American people to fight for you so they can compete with coolie labor in China? “Follow me to victory! Prices will remain forever low at Wal-Mart!” Ridiculous.
If all people are equal and borders should not exist, then how are we going to decide who gets what?
There is no time to have these theoretical arguments. There are hundreds of nations of this planet, none of whom have a system of society that remotely comes close to your ideal. Western Civilization is on the precipice of collapse. A huge percentage of our population is unemployed. The majority of our people are suffering under a mountain of debt they can never hope to pay off. Critical natural resources are becoming increasingly scarce. Nihilism rules the day and most people are consumed with sadness and emptiness.
You are sitting on a powder keg ready to explode. Rather than use your “reason” to identify the real problems in this world, you instead cling to what amounts to a fantasy that may appear logical in your head but has no basis in the reality of human behavior.
Hayek has some interesting ideas, and Austrian Economics is a useful tool in planning for the future, but the predictions of the Road to Serfdom are no longer relevant. The middle class today spends months of every year paying taxes and interest. They already are serfs. Instead of truly understanding this issue, I come to find Mises fans are instead talking about how to increase immigration in our lands. If you really think Joe Everyman is going to continue with this yoke on his neck so that he can buy crap he doesn’t need from China, you are sorely mistaken.
More importantly, you do not recognize that the world you describe is simply so boring. I think you’ll find war is an exciting alternative to the monotony of your trade theories. Because you do not feel blood lust does not mean that is normal.
Wow, an actual fascist. Have I got a lot of questions for you!
But first what puzzles me most: isn’t fascism’s mix of modern utopianism and ultraviolence peculiar to the early 20th century? Don’t you feel it is anachronistic in our time?
In response to the OP, Ludwig Von Mises was pro free immigration. He wanted free-immigraiton by all countries. He didn’t want it just to happen in America. He however realized that the immigration restrictions here in America should be lessened by a great deal… but he realized that allowing everyone in at the same time, and, not having some quotas, or some type of watchful system would just allow a floodgates of people from all around the world and so to my understanding… he somewhat modified his position for America.
SilentXtarian, thank you for addressing the actual issue of this thread, rather than hijacking it to run off in another direction deserving of a separate thread. I think that was my problem. I saw Mises say that he opposed “unrestrictedly opening the doors” to immigrants, and I conveniently ignored the “unrestrictedly” part of it. That certainly does still allow room for favoring free-immigration with some limitations, just as Mises favored freedom while still expressing a belief in the necessity and benefit of the existence of the state (although his description of anarchists as foolish and absurd make me curious about his relationship with Rothbard on the topic). I have read a few of Mises’ works, but have not yet Human Action, and do not recall him discussing immigration in the other books I’ve read.
Nearly all of my post above referring Ricardo’s Law are the fundamental argument against restrictive immigration and are heavily explained by Mises in HA. I even quoted large sections of Mises’s above. All of this has specifically to do with the OP. Mises is pretty clear in HA regarding the law of comparative advantage and the division of labor. Heavily restricted immigration would be a negation of those two laws. I am wondering if you had a chance to review that.
Something is either free or it isn’t. The genuine libertarian take on immigration is to call for a whole new world without national borders. I guess you could call the “some limitations” then the existence of private property rights. A restriction on invasion is not an immigration restriction. Groups of people can share an identity without attempting to embody it in a territorial monopoly on force.
Mises was a bit trapped in the classical liberal paradigm. He was either wrong about anarchy, or meant the anarchy espoused at that time by leftists of a society lacking legal order. I am inclined to believe it is the latter. Modern libertarian thought (“anarcho-capitalism” if you must) is just a few decades old and still evolving.
So, since my original question has been resolved, I’ll continue on in the context of Mises’ views differing from Rothbard’s views.
In Omnipotent Government, Mises states:
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists. We must emphasize this point because etatists sometimes try to discover a similarity. Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state. Liberals fully recognize that no social coöperation and no civilization could exist without some amount of compulsion and coercion. It is the task of government to protect the social system against the attacks of those who plan actions detrimental to its maintenance and operation.
In For a New Liberty, Rothbard states:
In contrast, it is the seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in “limited government” who is the truly impractical Utopian. This conservative keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be severely limited by a constitution. Yet, at the same time that he rails against the corruption of the original Constitution and the widening of federal power since 1789, the conservative fails to draw the proper lesson from that degeneration. The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, “Limit yourself”; it is he who is truly the impractical Utopian.
So, is Mises calling Rothbard foolishly absurd? Is Rothbard calling Mises an impractical conservative Utopian?
Yes, I know they disagreed, but I’m curious as to whether they ever directly clashed or criticized each other. Not likely, given what I know of their fondness for each other and of their personalities in general.
Sorry, I see that I came across as a bit more combative than I intended. But I have not yet read Human Action, and was not aware that you were discussing his statements (I just saw people arguing about the merits or costs of immigration, which was not my original question).
Interestingly, both the libertarian Cato Institute and the progressive Center for American Progress have come out with studies arguing that immigration reform is good for the economy. I haven’t read them personally, but it looks interesting and flies in the face of what I’m always hearing from the right.
I highly recommend Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation. He goes through various aspects and consequences of the issue. I found his analysis radical, reasonable, and alarming.
Byzantine, I thought it was clear that we were talking about “free” as in ‘unrestricted’ or libertas, rather than “free” as in “without cost” or gratis.
Is it really? The law of association implies a higher productivity under free trade as opposed to restricted trade. Migration is not trade, and trade can be conducted at a distance. The incentive to migrate is largely motivated by the higher wage rates in the host country. But there are two ways to relieve the difference in wage rates. One is migration. The other is free trade and a movement of capital. Free trade and open immigration are elastic substitutes.
Also, restricted immigration (or trade) is not a negation of the law of association. It holds true regardless of whether one practices free migration.
By negation I mean it would not foster additional economic growth. Labor is a market good just like anything else. I think the law speaks for itself to be honest.
A human being may be a producer, but they may also be a parasite. Migration is more than just the movement of labour. While it may lead to an intensification and extensification of the division of labour, it may also lead to its disintegration.
Why exactly was civilization founded? I’d like to know. And to the contrary, my utilitarian ways explain exactly why people behave. Do you understand what praxeology is? The Human Action axiom alone tells us alot.
You state that capitalism creates a higher standard of living but then go on to admit that you do not know why. Ultimately that is the point of this forum, this site, and discussions like this. For if you knew why capitalism worked, you would know that socialism and fascism both fail for exactly the same reasons.
I explained part of that here.
Whats interesting is you agree that people are created wit different abilities, yet in an earlier post do not agree that the most gifted, most talented, and most efficient producers should succeed. I wonder if you recognize your inconsistency.
You would have to change human nature to do this. All men act in their own best interest, whether they are socialist, facist, or capitalist. Whether they force other people to do things against their will or not.
Your moderate method is what we have today, and as always will be doomed to fail. It simply cannot calculate the needs of every individual on the face of the planet. All moderate plans are arbitrary plans. You do not know how best to help society, as you do not know what the needs of every man women and child are. You are not omniscient, though you may wish yourself to be.
There is only one type of economic system. A market. The only difference is how we interfere with it’s activity. Government interference only causes the change in market behavior, and in some cases pushes it underground. However your interference model cannot end the market.
There is no such thing as a collective need. Such statements are entirely fallacious. There are only individual needs. Id like to point out that yours is a socialist argument now.
This makes no sense what so ever. First off free capitalism’s only failure is permitting a coercive control of some state to interfere with it’s operations. Other then that there is no such thing as capitalism failing. Individual business’s fail but the market takes care of those.
It’s oxymoronic to state that capitalism declines cooperation. The market is nothing but a large unison of individual cooperations. It’s very meaning implies social cooperation. Your statement is nonsensical which is why I am not sure you fully grasp what you are talking about.
The whole of what exactly?
Capitalism address’s and encourages all 3. If people want forests then there is a value for forest. Private property gives people the insentive to take care of the land and ensure it is not spoiled. The fact that previous generations did not respect private property is no fault of capitalism.
And leisure time is of value as well. You seem to think that capitalistic objects must be valued in units of exchange. This is wrong, all tangible and many intangible objects are subjectively valued by the individual. Whether it’s leisure time, hobby time, or anything else. All items are valued by individuals and human action works around that.
The market even goes so far as to make those hobbies available to the individual. Or did your canvass and paint brush just appear out of the sky?
Which helps us explain why your moderate economic system fails. If you want a philosophical stance there are plenty of ethicists who would be happy to engage you here, many of which I would agree with. But I encourage you to discuss philosophy here. I can almost guarantee yours is a morally bankrupt one.
I’ll concede your point in agreeing that statistics are near useless in todays day in age. Though they could be more useful had they been taken a bit more seriously rather then used so loosely. Though the particular reports I am talking about are fairly acurate. immigration has dropped significantly since the end of the housing bubble. I havn’t the time nor the energy to pull up the article for you as I doubt it will change your mind.
Still the point you raise is against welfarism, not against immigration. Get rid of the welfare.
Actually I seem the be the only one taking that into consideration. The housing bubble brought a demand for labor, immigrants filled that. So thanks for agreeing with me.
Your right we would have a far more abundance of food and shelter and far fewer 3rd world countries if there was less market interference preventing these people from providing for themselves.
This is fairly non sequitur. The democracy does not create couch potato’s. And you are no god to judge what people would prefer to do in their free time. I am sorry it hurts your feelings that some people like to watch America’s Funniest home videos. I personally like to read and listen to classical music. I myself cannot stand TV but I am not so arrogant that I will start denouncing people for it.
The problem with your statement is that the corruption comes from government. Not business. It would not be very profitable for food industries to allow their customers to starve now would it?
I’m not sure what democracy has to do with robots running our lives and I’d like to point out that we have not yet obtained our Utopian star trek universe yet. When that day comes great, but until then economic goods must be treated as such, by economization.
yes a central body making decisions over who trades what is essentially protectionism. Don’t argue terms when you don’t know them. FYI Tarriff’s are just more forms of protectionism… lol…
I encourage you to try, though making arguments about living in a Jetson’s like world won’t give you much credibility.
Do not appeal to ignorance. We haven’t been able to the world of thieves either, that doesn’t justify them nor does it justify theft. Think about that.
A bold statement, one that reveals you have no idea what life is like in the third world. If anything recent history has proven how international trade has raised several third world countries out of extreme poverty into descent livable conditions. I should know, I lived in one for quiet some time.
Ironically if we were to isolate those third world countries to themselves they would likely starve. Just goes to show how far your train of thought took you on this one. Comparative advantage is the fundamental reason why the third world country, especially in Latin America and in South Asia regions are pulling themselves out of poverty. It used to be that children worked on the farm with their parents. Capitalism is pulling them out of this state.
At least your honest, though I doubt you fully grasp what that means.
negative. Society has consumers and producers. All men are both. The quantity at what point that they are a consumer or a producer is up to them.
Indeed advertisement is generally a good thing. Not in the case however when it promotes economic illiteracy.
Division of labor between countries is essentially the Law of Comparative advantage. In other words it has everything to do with it. Are you just skimming the wiki pages as I post a new term you haven’t heard of yet?
In so far as it serves the individual and his understanding of how he influences himself and those around him.
Yup. We believe in the subjective theory of value here. But there are ways of quantifying it. Half your post is about poor people in third world countries. We can measure how many units of food there are, how much clean water t here is, how much shelter there is. We can measure how many people die every year to starvation.
Do those people consider themselves wealthy? I don’t know, would they prefer to die to starvation? I couldn’t judge, it’s up to them. I am inclined to think otherwise however.
Thats true but just as equally you cannot judge them for wanting to trade with people of other cultures. Ultimately economics works aside cultural differences. If one country can produce clean water, and their neighbor healthy food. If they were to isolate themselves due to cultural differences they would both be less better off then if they were to trade with each other. Healthy food for fresh water. It’s a terribly simple concept. I am sorry you have such a hard time with it.
Actually thats a good point. If walmart were running things we probably wouldn’t have your petty culture wars. Though the causes of the worlds wars are another debate, one which sounds like you are confused on.
Silly question to ask a capitalist. The market ofcoarse. The concept of private property, homesteading, ect…
And they may never. Just as we may never rid the world of thievery and rapists. Should we just stop defending ourselves against them then?
And yet all of the causes to these terrible things can be related back to a system you defend and support.
Reason? Logic? Mine are right here. You left yours at the door when you came in.
You have no idea why we are in the condition we are in. The Austrian school explains logically, and empirically the reasons and instead of educating yourself you lash out and attack. Reason? Perhaps you should consider using your own. Remove your emotion and get started reading that Hazlitt book.
hehe, my friend. Praxeology is Human Action. Look it up.
Hmm I did not read any predictions of our future in this book, and I don’t think RTS is the bible or authoritive book when it comes to AE.
You want free trade, accept when it comes to people. Do you not see how your conclusions are contradictory? So many logical fallacies in each line it’s tiring to go through it all…
If he doesn’t need it from China why is he buying it? And if he can’t produce a car as cheap as them why is he wasting our time, our resources, and causing the overall expense of the economy to rise. He needs to quit and do something actually productive.
hehe, this is funny. You really are a fascist I guess.
Why do you post here any ways? Is it because of your blind hatred towards immigrants? Perhaps you should stop listening to Michael Savage and read a book. Specifically the one I recommended.
