Tweet
Great article on immigration:
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-07-14.asp
One interesting part:
It has always fascinated me that the most hard-core pro-market conservatives that fight to the grave for free-trade, become government-loving protectionists when it comes to the trade of labor (immigration).
Why can't they see that the exact same economic benefits coming from someone from the Silicon Valley moving to Utah for a programming job (meeting an important market need) is exhibited in a migrant apple picker from Mexico moving to Yakima?
Why can't they see the same flaw in central planning of labor inherent in their desired immigration controls that they lampoon in socialist/communist countries planning their economies?
I really want to believe it is not xenophobia or racism (although perhaps subconscious) which causes their blindness, but the logical inconsistencies make me wonder...
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-07-14.asp
One interesting part:
there is no immigration reform, including the one advocated by Stossel, that is capable of working. Nothing — repeat nothing — can or will ever make immigration control work.
Why is this so?
Because immigration control is based on an inherently defective paradigm, one of socialist central planning. As Mises, Hayek, and the Austrians showed long ago, central planning can never succeed because the planner can never possess the requisite knowledge to centrally plan a complex market, especially one as complex as an international labor market. All the planner inevitably does is produce chaos, distortions, and perversions into the market process.
For example, Stossel’s plan for solving the immigration crisis is for the government to let in more immigrants. Oh? How many immigrants? What should be their qualifications? What countries should they come from? Should the needs of employers be taken into account, and if so, how should that be done? What type of bureaucratic process should be enacted to coordinate all this? How long will it take to process the applications?
No matter what answers Stossel comes up with, there is one big problem with his plan: It can’t work. Even if you put 100 Harvard graduates on the central planning board and provide them with the speediest computers in the world, they simply are incapable of planning a complex labor market, especially given that market conditions are constantly changing.
As Mises, Hayek, and the Austrians have shown, that’s the beauty of the free market. It doesn’t rely on central planners. Instead, it simply uses the price system to enable people to coordinate their activities with others. Farm workers needed in Wyoming? The price of labor goes up. Mexican workers learn of the wage increase and immediately travel to Wyoming to earn the money. No central planner, but instead people planning and coordinating their own lives.
Why is this so?
Because immigration control is based on an inherently defective paradigm, one of socialist central planning. As Mises, Hayek, and the Austrians showed long ago, central planning can never succeed because the planner can never possess the requisite knowledge to centrally plan a complex market, especially one as complex as an international labor market. All the planner inevitably does is produce chaos, distortions, and perversions into the market process.
For example, Stossel’s plan for solving the immigration crisis is for the government to let in more immigrants. Oh? How many immigrants? What should be their qualifications? What countries should they come from? Should the needs of employers be taken into account, and if so, how should that be done? What type of bureaucratic process should be enacted to coordinate all this? How long will it take to process the applications?
No matter what answers Stossel comes up with, there is one big problem with his plan: It can’t work. Even if you put 100 Harvard graduates on the central planning board and provide them with the speediest computers in the world, they simply are incapable of planning a complex labor market, especially given that market conditions are constantly changing.
As Mises, Hayek, and the Austrians have shown, that’s the beauty of the free market. It doesn’t rely on central planners. Instead, it simply uses the price system to enable people to coordinate their activities with others. Farm workers needed in Wyoming? The price of labor goes up. Mexican workers learn of the wage increase and immediately travel to Wyoming to earn the money. No central planner, but instead people planning and coordinating their own lives.
It has always fascinated me that the most hard-core pro-market conservatives that fight to the grave for free-trade, become government-loving protectionists when it comes to the trade of labor (immigration).
Why can't they see that the exact same economic benefits coming from someone from the Silicon Valley moving to Utah for a programming job (meeting an important market need) is exhibited in a migrant apple picker from Mexico moving to Yakima?
Why can't they see the same flaw in central planning of labor inherent in their desired immigration controls that they lampoon in socialist/communist countries planning their economies?
I really want to believe it is not xenophobia or racism (although perhaps subconscious) which causes their blindness, but the logical inconsistencies make me wonder...
The Drug War is the perfect example of the lack of systems thinking by our leaders - they apply Junior High School level logic to fix every problem, and then are surprised (or unconcerned) with the far worse consequences of their actions than the problems they want to solve.
Comment