What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

More Disruption Please

This week I came across this interesting item in the latest Weekly Standard email newsletter:

A quick anecdote about illegal immigration. I noted a line from Maggie Jones’s fantastic story on Postville, Iowa up above. If you haven’t read it (it’s long), here’s the thumbnail summary:

Postville is a small town in Iowa—3,000 residents and 2 square miles. The only large business in town was a meatpacking plant run by a company called Agriprocessors, which employed 900 people. On an afternoon in 2008, a massive Homeland Security raid descended on the plant. It turned out that nearly all of the plant’s employees were illegal immigrants from Guatemala.

In short order, about 1,000 of Postville’s residents vanished. Some were detained and deported. Others just fled. But within days Postville lost a third of its population, like a neutron bomb had gone off.

Hard times ensued for Postville. The plant closed and went into bankruptcy. Many of the businesses in town that relied on the Agri workers and their families as customers—laundromats, apartment buildings, ice cream shops—went belly up.

It’s a perfect distillation of why illegal immigration is such an intractable problem, both logistically and politically. From a logistical standpoint, having big illegal populations disappear suddenly can be hugely disruptive. And politically, there’s a pretty broad coalition of interests who want to keep them here. Democrats see them as a gateway to future votes, and business sees them both as cheap labor and increased consumer demand.

The management at Agri, for instance, complained that they had to hire illegal workers because they couldn’t get Americans to do the work, because meatpacking is an unpleasant job. But Agri was paying $6 an hour—so what they really meant was that they couldn’t get legal workers at the wage they wanted to pay. One suspects they could have gotten plenty of legal workers for $12 an hour. Agri, like many businesses, was in favor of the free market only when it suited them.

Illegal immigration causes all sorts of very real problems. (To take just one, it clearly depresses wages at the lower end of the labor market.) But there's a reason we haven't been able to hammer out a societal consensus on how to deal with it. For both good reasons, and bad, there is a constellation of interests arranged to support the status quo.

I refused to click through to the original story on a matter of principle – any author (or publication) that refuses to use the phrase “illegal immigrant” just isn’t worthy of my attention.*

However, what I like about this story, or at least the summary provided by the author of the newsletter, Jonathan Last, is how he acknowledges the obviously disruptive nature of enforcing our existing laws against illegal immigrants working and living in this country. Am I supposed to have sympathy for the town of Postville? I can’t muster any. The meat processing plant wasn’t willing to do business with American workers at market wages for legal American labor – so they went bankrupt. The town, which apparently was doing “well” on the backs of all these illegals working at the meat processing plant, made a deal with the devil – we’ll look the other way at the fact that you are violating our sovereign state’s laws governing who gets to come and live in our country and we’ll profit off of the cheap labor that comes and works at your plant.

As usual with a story like this, what gets left out is usually the best part – what kind of crime and social service burden did all those Guatemalan illegals bring with them? Given what we know about Hispanic immigration in the rest of the country, my guess is that the first generation wasn’t doing too badly, but as they fail to assimilate (as they inevitably do), the cost of those “hard working” immigrants to that little Iowa town would grow very quickly. So while I’m generally the first to defend businesses and markets from government interference, there are obviously a few basic regulations that I wholeheartedly support, one of which is the government’s ability to control its demographic destiny.

*The one exception to my rule is the website for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). I can’t disrespect the Bishops that way, as much as I might disagree with them about this issue. Speaking of which, I haven’t blogged anything about their shameful statements concerning illegal immigration, first on the Supreme Court’s ruling concerning Arizona’s illegal immigrant laws and then on Obama’s executive orders related to the enforcement of our immigration laws. What can I say charitably except that since our immigration laws are ultimately prudential matters of statecraft, I don’t feel badly disagreeing with their opinions on these matters? What was particularly annoying, however, was their support for Obama’s executive power grab, coming as it did just before the “Fortnight for Freedom”, which was a time for the Bishops to remind Americans about their fundamental right to religious liberty. But how can they applaud Obama’s reckless disregard for the law on the one hand, because they like the outcome, and turn around and condemn his reckless disregard for the law on the other hand? There is nothing in Catholic Christian moral theology** that suggests every single poor person has a fundamental right to move to the United States – so the Bishops need to stop thinking and arguing as if they do.

**As far as I know, the clearest statement the Church has issued on a Catholic’s obligations to immigrants is found in the Catechism at 2241:

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.


Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

I also found this older Apostolic Constitution, Exsul Familia Nazarethana, in which Pope Pius XII talks quite a bit about migration and says the following to American Bishops (my emphasis italicized):

You know indeed how preoccupied we have been and with what anxiety we have followed those who have been forced by revolutions in their own countries, or by unemployment or hunger to leave their homes and live in foreign lands.

The natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to these people. For the Creator of the universe made all good things primarily for the good of all. Since land everywhere offers the possibility of supporting a large number of people, the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate or unjustified reasons, denied to needy and decent people from other nations, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this.

Informed of our intentions, you recently strove for legislation to allow many refugees to enter your land. Through your persistence, a provident law was enacted, a law that we hope will be followed by others of broader scope. In addition, you have, with the aid of chosen men, cared for the emigrants as they left their homes and as they arrived in your land, thus admirably putting into practice the precept of priestly charity: "The priest is to injure no one; he will desire rather to aid all." (St. Ambrose, "De Officiis ministrorum," lib. 3, c. IX).

So it seems to me that the first question a good Catholic should be asking himself with respect to any immigrants wanting to come to their country is, to what degree were the immigrants forced by unemployment or hunger (or revolutions) to leave their homes? This opens up a can of worms for an American, as we suddenly realize that rather than admitting all those Mexicans and Central Americans over the years, if anything we should have been welcoming the poor from Africa and Asia who seem to have a much better claim against our Christian charity than the relatively richer Hispanic poor. I should note here that I agree with what Jeff Culbreath has said previously – if some sort of disaster befell our neighbors to the south, or those we could easily help, we have an obligation to help. But of course, then we are back to discussing prudentially how many “needy and decent” people the U.S. can really absorb who are also willing to “respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage” of our country and to “obey [our] laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.” Here is where the so-called wisdom of our Bishops I think fails miserably and it is time for the lay leadership who believe in immigration restriction to step up and explain, carefully and with lots of data, the arguments on our behalf. There is nothing incompatible with Catholicism and a strong nationalism that respects borders, language and culture.

Comments (92)

Fully agree, subject to the proviso that the nation is not racially defined (that does not materially apply to America).
The proper definition of nation is a political community bound by love for a common object which is the nation.

For a clearer perspective of what happened in Postville, read Postville by Steven J. Bloom and go to the failedmessiah.typepad.com site. Both of these sites show that the Hasidic Jews who moved into Postville were basically intent on breaking the laws when they got in the way of making a dollar. Indeed, crime, especially white collar and sexual crimes, are shockingly high among the Hasidic Jews worldwide.

Mr. Dalton,

Antisemitism is not welcome here, so I suggest you limit your lies about Hasidic Jews to websites that will tolerate such nonsense. However, I do appreciate the link to the book by Mr. Bloom.

You don't like the phrase illegal immigrant. I don't like people violating our laws and coming here illegally. Deport them all.

Jeffrey S., if you didn't even know about the book _Postville_ by Steven Bloom, then you haven't nearly enough information to comment on the Postville situation.

And, er, to anyone who knows the story of Postville and the ownership of Agriprocessors, this is a really unfortunate sentence:

"The town, which apparently was doing “well” on the backs of all these illegals working at the meat processing plant, made a deal with the devil – we’ll look the other way at the fact that you are violating our sovereign state’s laws governing who gets to come and live in our country and we’ll profit off of the cheap labor that comes and works at your plant."

The town, which apparently was doing “well” on the backs of all these illegals working at the meat processing plant, made a deal with the devil – we’ll look the other way at the fact that you are violating our sovereign state’s laws governing who gets to come and live in our country and we’ll profit off of the cheap labor that comes and works at your plant.

Jeff S., I do wonder how this can be put together with the difficulties the federal government has set up to enforcement. The recent Arizona decision notwithstanding, my understanding is still this (correct me if I'm wrong): Until the federal govt. decided to raid the plant, there was little or nothing that the law enforcement officers of Postville were allowed to do against illegal immigration per se. The local cops could arrest illegals if they broke other laws, but at that point not treat them differently from anyone else. Could they even "turn them over" to federal enforcement for deportation? Obviously they couldn't deport them themselves. So outside of the plant, which shouldn't have been hiring them, what else was the town able to do to avoid the deal with the devil? Wasn't that deal entirely a matter between/among the plant, the feds, and the immigrants?

The management at Agri, for instance, complained that they had to hire illegal workers because they couldn’t get Americans to do the work, because meatpacking is an unpleasant job. But Agri was paying $6 an hour—so what they really meant was that they couldn’t get legal workers at the wage they wanted to pay. One suspects they could have gotten plenty of legal workers for $12 an hour. Agri, like many businesses, was in favor of the free market only when it suited them.

That should be written backwards in sharpie on our foreheads, so we can read it in the morning mirror when we inevitably get those, "but immigrants are so wonderful because they do the jobs other Americans won't do!"

There are primarily two things going on with immigration, illegal but also legal. One is the desire for cheap labor, the flip side of which is the desire for cheap goods. One way to make goods cheaper is to lower labor costs. We can accuse big business of desiring cheap labor, but the desire for cheap goods is just as potent and it's not big business' fault. In lieu of legal restrictions, this desire will usually, in the minds of most people, override whatever nationalist sentiment they feel. A lot of people are against illegal immigration in the abstract, or more concretely when it affects them negatively, but once they see the consequences the abstract opposition might not survive.

Which brings us to the other big thing--the disintegration of the "American" identity that is at the heart of so many of our modern confusions. Very few people have any real devotion to 'the nation' anymore, which is why they can so easily choose in favor of lower prices. The people of Postville, Iowa, probably had more affection and solidarity with their illegal neighbors than any of us on this thread. While America has never been truly as united as the propaganda goes, it is becoming difficult to tell what an American even is anymore or to care.

There is another question that can be raised, which may really brand me as a nut in all eyes, but it's something I'm willing to consider: Should the American minimum wage be lowered? Would it really be such a disaster? Might it actually be in the not-so-long run a good thing for everybody?

The minimum wage has become detrimental. Every time it goes up, we lost student workers. Our budget doesn't increase, but we have to pay each student more per hour worked, so we end up with less help than we had before. I've forgotten what it's like to have student help of any sort whatsoever. (We don't have departmental secretaries, either, so we would have students get our mail, run copies, do some typing, that sort of thing that saved us a bit of time to prep classes or hold conferences.)

It used to be that minimum wage meant a very low wage for young, inexperienced people to earn in jobs that taught them to be on time, to be responsible, to earn some pocket money, and to work on developing the character skills needed to keep a decent job, along with a good reference for something better when they had gained the technical skills. It was never meant to be a "living wage." Now that we seem to think everyone who wants a job must earn enough to live on, even a teen living with his parents, we have priced young workers entirely out of the job market and thus out of the experience that molded so many of my own contemporaries.

So if you're a nutcase, Lydia, at least you've got company!

Brock,

I'm commenting on Jonathan Last's excellent summary of an article about what happened in Postville when Agriprocessors shut down. The fact that Agriprocessors was run by Hasidic Jews doesn't concern me one bit -- you don't think there are literally thousands of businesses (some small some large) also taking advantage of cheap illegal labor run by Gentiles? Come on man! Lydia's concern is much more interesting and valid -- to what extent could concerned patriots of Postville have done anything about the illegals in their midst if Agriprocessors and/or the federal government wasn't going to 'crack the whip' so to speak on the problem? I think the example of Arizona is a good one -- at that point concerned citizens would have had to turn to their local legislators and come up with creative solutions that enabled local law enforcement to take the problem of illegals more seriously (and let Agri know that their were citizens who weren't going to look the other way). Information campaigns might also have been effective, but unless folks can figure out who is and is not illegally in the country (and since Agri was probably giving its employees false Social Security numbers, I'm sure this made the task difficult), I agree with Lydia that it is tougher for the locals than I originally suggested.

Sorry, Jeffrey. I was merely responding to Lydia's comment, not the main post. I'll bow out now.

Go ahead and lower minimum wages.
The grand majority of capitalists will tread forever on the skulls of bishops regardless of that law. I care for their souls. But by all means remove every impediment between them and hell, if you so desire.

Ron Unz recently proposed increasing the minimum wage as a way to deal with illegal immigration. It might work if you could do it, but if business interests are suppressing immigration enforcement, it seems plausible that they could suppress minimum wage hikes as well.

Lowering the minimum wage would only increase illegal immigration. If Americans are not willing to pick berries for 6 dollars an hour, they aren't willing to do so for 4 dollars an hour. For a Mexican peasant, this is still a decent wage. And now you have other jobs which are pushed downwards in wage, making them less attractive to Americans.

Ron Unz recently proposed increasing the minimum wage as a way to deal with illegal immigration.

I can't even figure out how that is supposed to work.

Er, thanks, Hezekiah. That was exactly the sort of over-the-top reaction I thought I might get from someone or other. It just shows how immoderate people can be on such a subject.

Beth,

Your comment was fine and I took no offense to you responding to Lydia -- you are always welcome on my posts!

As for the broader topic of the minimum wage, I'm inclined to cautiously agree with Lydia, for many of the reasons Beth outlines (youth unemployment is the highest it has been for a long time). On the other hand, I do have sympathy for my paleo-conservative friends who worry about businesses exploiting workers because, well because if we look at history businesses have never been shy about exploiting workers. The question is how to best protect those workers. I'm much more inclined to support broad-based bans on certain kinds of labor (e.g. child labor or the market for illegal immigrant labor) rather than getting the government in the business of trying to figure out the price of labor (Hayek is my guide here).

However, let's table this discussion for another post which I'll write soon about the minimum wage and exploiting labor relations.

Which brings us to the other big thing--the disintegration of the "American" identity that is at the heart of so many of our modern confusions. Very few people have any real devotion to 'the nation' anymore, which is why they can so easily choose in favor of lower prices.

Sigh. Statements like this tell us much about the author, and little about the nation. The Puritans "chose in favor of" lower prices. There were theological reasons for it. And what do you expect people to do, chose high prices and low value today? Who do you think should set prices?

But these are rhetorical questions because I'm not coming back on this thread because I'm a Reagan Conservative, includes a view on immigration. I'm also from the Rust Belt, and if you want company on this just go to any coffee shop from Dayton to Des Moines and set yourself down amongst the UAW retirees. Many in my own family retired at 50 to a pension and did positively nothing afterwards, and they're now swapping bitter conspiracy theories all day long with their buddies in coffee shops, rather than doing any of a zillion opportunities that their nation provides to be productive members of their community. My father worked for the UAW to support his farming, as many small farmers did, but regarded those types as dependent losers and was productive all his days. Non-competitive pricing and wages engender insecurity and bitterness.

Jeffery S., telling the truth about a religious group isn't an act of religious bigotry. The Hasidics have a well deserved, proven reputation for white collar crime, as well as sex crimes. failedmessiah.typepad.com does a very good job of documenting these things. What has happened in Postville is business as usual for these people. BTW, failedmessiah is a Jewish website, so you won't have to worry about that antisemitism thing.

Matt:

Lowering the minimum wage would only increase illegal immigration. If Americans are not willing to pick berries for 6 dollars an hour, they aren't willing to do so for 4 dollars an hour. For a Mexican peasant, this is still a decent wage. And now you have other jobs which are pushed downwards in wage, making them less attractive to Americans.

Back in the 60's, a lot of kids would pick berries as a way to make money in the summer. (I didn't - I bucked hay - but my wife and her siblings all did.) Usually they were paid 'by the rack', not by the hour - so even the younger ones could participate and make a little bit. Then they changed the laws so that no one under 13 years of age could legally work (at least in our state) and that job was no longer available to kids.

If the legislators had not been out there "protecting kids", there would not be as much demand for illegal workers - at least at berry farms. As usual, central planning "for the common good" has unintended consequences.

Mr. Dalton,

You've been warned, and now you've been banned; from this thread at least.

P.S. I checked out that website and it is written by an angry Jewish guy who thought the Chabad Rebbe should have done more to help Ethiopian Jews 20+ years ago and so now he spends all his time uncovering every Hasidic crime he can uncover. Is it unbiased and scientific? Uh no, it is not. Shame on you.

Matt: "Lowering the minimum wage would only increase illegal immigration. If Americans are not willing to pick berries for 6 dollars an hour, they aren't willing to do so for 4 dollars an hour."

(I will note that the current federal minimum wage is actually $7.25, though that doesn't change your broader point.)

The fact that an employer doesn't hire an American (or a legal immigrant without citizenship) to do X at minimum wage does not, in itself, tell us whether Americans are unwilling to do X at minimum wage. It could be that having X done is worth less than minimum wage to the employer, in which case employment would have to be off the books. In this circumstance, the employer might reasonably think that hiring an American, who at any time could report the illegal wage to the authorities, incurs a greater risk than hiring an illegal immigrant, who is less likely to report the illegal wage due to fear of imprisonment and deportation. Lowering or eliminating the minimum wage would reduce the risk of hiring Americans while the risk of hiring illegal immigrants remains the same.

Lowering or eliminating the minimum wage might decrease illegal immigration, assuming that 1) at least some Americans would find the work acceptable (and we won't know until their taking on such work at below the current minimum wage is decriminalized) and 2) at least some illegal immigrants would then be discouraged from fewer jobs being available than would otherwise be the case.

Steve Dalton's comments are dead on accurate.

Criticism of Jews is perfectly valid and in many cases such as this justified and accurate. There is an excellent article on Postville at the OCcidental Observer, just search it.


In white countries when you force/coerce/ socially engineer IMMIGRATION, integration, tolerance & blending of races, in the end you have a non-white population left.just a matter of time. Its white genocide.

“Genocide involves the attempt to achieve the disappearance of a group by whatever means. It does not have to be violent, it could be a combination of policies that would lead to a certain group dying out.”

M Fraser-PM of Australia 1975-83


Liberals and ethnic activists boast about how America would be better if it were more 'diverse' (ie non-European), but no one else is allowed to say, "We like the ethnic mix as it is."

That would be 'racist'.

DIVERSITY is just a codeword for anti-white. More diverse = less white. How much more offensive can you get???

Anti-racist is just a codeword for anti-white. Diversity means Genocide.

Um, something that "involves the attempt to achieve the disappearance" can only ensure that mass hilarity or a farce is underway. It is Monty Pythonesque, but so was Frasier's "Memphis trousers affair" so there you go.

It is an absurd definition of genocide, because it doesn't rule out encouraging free and voluntary mixing for any reason at all. Defining genocide down are we? To make that statement sensible on any reasonably traditional understanding of genocide, you'd need to add that voluntary ethnic mixing is bad of itself. You are free to do this of course, but don't think you can toss out comical quotes like that as a substitute.

Chucky has an excellent point - there really are jobs that are worth something, but their worth is very, very low. It's just the nature of economics that there be jobs whose intrinsic wealth-producing results are well below a given minimum wage.

And Jeff has a good point - since there ARE very low-producing jobs, artificially pricing labor above the level at which such jobs produce wealth means artificially shutting those jobs out of the legal market. Employers who don't care about being legal for its own sake will then ask themselves about the costs and benefits of pricing those jobs in the illegal market, and make an economic decision that way. Since those costs will be much, much lower by hiring illegals who can't squawk to the government, that's where they will search for their labor.

"cecil henry",

As my Jewish friends might say, oy vey, why do I have to attract all the nut cases? Mark already pointed out the absurdity of equating genocide with the gradual, voluntary ethnic mixing that might take place over a long period of time resulting in a new ethnicity. But you didn't stop here to debate the finer points of immigration policy or Catholic moral theology -- you just wanted to bash the Jews and denounce inter-racial mixing.

Look, I think it is right and proper for a nation to control its borders and to limit the amount if immigrants it takes in. I also think it should expect those immigrants to "respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them", which for me would include learning the language and assimilating into the culture. But with those caveats in place, I welcome immigrants from every race and ethnicity just as our Lord welcome all of God's children into the Kingdom of Heaven. We have a Christian obligation to treat everyone on the planet with respect and dignity, especially those who are willing to convert to Christianity (or who are already Christian) and want to become American citizens, assuming they go through our legal processes for becoming a citizen.

Chucky has an excellent point - there really are jobs that are worth something, but their worth is very, very low. It's just the nature of economics that there be jobs whose intrinsic wealth-producing results are well below a given minimum wage.

And Jeff has a good point - since there ARE very low-producing jobs, artificially pricing labor above the level at which such jobs produce wealth means artificially shutting those jobs out of the legal market. Employers who don't care about being legal for its own sake will then ask themselves about the costs and benefits of pricing those jobs in the illegal market, and make an economic decision that way. Since those costs will be much, much lower by hiring illegals who can't squawk to the government, that's where they will search for their labor.

Anytime the government gets involved in the free market, the results are "artificial". Inevitably, government interference will distort the markets and force prices to an artificial high (the bubble). Government interference in markets (and many other areas) always brings about unintended consequences as well (such is the nature of central planning!) Illegal immigration and outsourcing are two of the obvious consequences of the government's artificial wage and labor restrictions. Another unintended consequence of child labor laws was that children were denied the opportunity to learn the work-ethic in a meaningful way outside the home. The whole idea that 'you get paid for the amount of work you do' was readily apparent to even the youngest kids on the berry farm. We took that away, (to "protect" kids!) and now our kids grow up lazier and unprepared for the job market.

So the solution to the 'berry farm problem' is two-fold: do away with the minimum wage (at least for farms) and rescind the child labor restriction for the same. (IOW, take the government out of the equation and let market forces work.)

The bigger problem regarding illegal immigration is that the berry farm jobs are just 'gateway jobs'. Many illegals, once they get here, discover that there are better paying jobs - in construction for instance - and will move from the berry farms into those jobs; leaving the berry farm in need of more workers. The reason construction contractors prefer illegals (so I've heard) is because they will "do twice the work [of an American] for half the money". Which brings us back to the work-ethic problem!

Look, I think it is right and proper for a nation to control its borders and to limit the amount if immigrants it takes in. I also think it should expect those immigrants to "respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them", which for me would include learning the language and assimilating into the culture. But with those caveats in place, I welcome immigrants from every race and ethnicity just as our Lord welcome all of God's children into the Kingdom of Heaven. We have a Christian obligation to treat everyone on the planet with respect and dignity, especially those who are willing to convert to Christianity (or who are already Christian) and want to become American citizens, assuming they go through our legal processes for becoming a citizen.

But Jeff the problem with the "oh it's only illegal immigrant I don't want, but legal ones I'm fine with" is that the folks who say this the most loudly make certain assumptions that can only mean the maintenance of the status quo. They deny assimilation is occurring, deny the plain facts of language learning by adults (it's difficulty and normal historical trajectory) to support this view on assimilation, and refuse to admit that laws are respected to the extent that citizens feel they are reasonable (neither Americans nor anyone else tend to be legalists.) This camp tends to use the term "border security" as a shibboleth for a range of things that have nothing to do with security, and that security won't solve, and supports a massive expansion of the border patrol in militarizing the border in ways that would seem problematic to Conservative in the past who would have thought that a massive government force of low-paid security workers would quickly be corrupted and a menace. It isn't like the marines with their standards and practices. It's like the ATF; remember those guys? Then they demonize Republicans who don't take these views as "open borders guys" who are RINOs or shills to big business and cheap labor.

But look, I'm totally on-board with the idea of killing the minimum wage and seeing where the chips fall. That might well mean hiring Americans early in life that will learn the lessons of work and advance up the chain. I'd be all for that. But as someone who actually knows something about border security and the business and cultural climate of the Southwest, I'm always distressed to see the issue distorted beyond belief by people that know the least about it.

The reason construction contractors prefer illegals (so I've heard) is because they will "do twice the work [of an American] for half the money". Which brings us back to the work-ethic problem!

Not disputing that there are work-ethic problems, but I think people tend to exaggerate the money angle. Flexibility and speed are the greater factors in my opinion. Why do American companies build their products at "Foxconn City" in China? Because they can assemble an army of people at short notice to handle unexpected production problems that might ruin the company if they encountered such a problem or had to respond to their competition within the American labor and regulatory system.

Chucky Darwin,

What is 'free market' that a Govt must not interfere in?
Does there exist a procedure that tells me if a given problem falls in 'free market' or elsewhere?
Isn't the demarcation necessarily political?.
And that's is where the fights are and it is question-begging to say that the problem falls within the
'free market'. You need to argue precisely why.

"Government interference in markets (and many other areas) always brings about unintended consequences "
All actions have unintended consequences, even private actions.

What is 'free market' that a Govt must not interfere in?

Well, by way of example, stuff like federal laws that prevent me from buying a health insurance policy in another state like every other insurance policy I have.

Mark,

Your earlier comment got held up due to the link, sorry about that. I'm sorry but I think you are just wrong on the facts of this one:

"They deny assimilation is occurring, deny the plain facts of language learning by adults (it's difficulty and normal historical trajectory) to support this view on assimilation..."

On the contrary, if you checked out the link I provided in the O.P., you'd see that even lefty scholars who have looked at Hispanic assimilation have to hang their heads in shame and report that third and fourth generations are doing worse than the earlier original immigrants. There are many reasons for this, but I'm afraid that the simple explanation is that not all immigrant groups are endowed with their creator with the same skills and abilities.

Jeff, I did check out the link in it's entirety and read it completely. I dashed out that comment too quick and included the phrase "deny assimilation is occurring" which I should not have since it isn't critical to my argument that Conservatives tend to subvert their principles on this issue. It might be that that group isn't assimilating, but you ignored everything else but those four words.

Does there exist a procedure that tells me if a given problem falls in 'free market' or elsewhere?

No, you have to have good sense and good judgement. As in, "Hmmm, let's look at how well things have gone when this area (oh, say, education) has been turned over to the government to carry out. Let's look at whether bureaucrats or pundits in D.C. are more likely to know how to run a business than the guy who actually runs it. Let's look at what is likely to happen when goods are rationed (to distribute them "fairly") or destroyed (to prop up prices), made faux-free or...etc." In other words, you have to be able to think moderately clearly about economics, about where wealth comes from, and so forth.

Stewart Shepard has a nice little tutorial on economics and the free market, here. It makes a good starting place.

http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/07/11/stoplight-lemonade-stands/

But I'm afraid I'm allowing Gian to lead me into a thread-jack, so I'll stop.

Not disputing that there are work-ethic problems, but I think people tend to exaggerate the money angle. Flexibility and speed are the greater factors in my opinion. Why do American companies build their products at "Foxconn City" in China? Because they can assemble an army of people at short notice to handle unexpected production problems that might ruin the company if they encountered such a problem or had to respond to their competition within the American labor and regulatory system.

There is something to be said about a system where your factory workers live in a barracks and are roused at 2AM, given tea and a biscuit and told to spend the next 10 hours retooling the assemblies because Apple just made a design change at the last minute.**

I can only account for what I've seen and heard about illegal immigrants in construction in Northern Virginia, but it's primarily negative. Small contractors who cannot leave their tools out because they're robbed blind on big construction sites by the illegals and my neighborhood's experience getting FiOS service. Verizon paid a contractor that hired mostly illegals. The illegals were content to do half of the work and then simply lie outright about it. When many of us went to get service hooked up, they hadn't even brought the fiber optics over from the main junction box across the street. Verizon had to hire another company and lost a few months of service sales.

** Lest anyone think I'm using hyperbole, this is actually a proud admission that Foxconn made to the press about its work on the iPhone within the last year.

Jeff,

The ultimate marker of assimilation is assimilation to the ideas and habits that gave rise to the original political order. Every wave of immigration has failed on that going all the way back to the Italians and Germans. Assimilation is first and foremost about seeing the culture as its natives see it. A typical German immigrant will see American culture through the eyes of German thinking; same with Mexicans. This is why wholesale migrations never work (I would challenge you to find a single example of large scale migration ever being healthy for the host society) even with the best of intentions on the migrants part.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that if the Constitutional Convention were held today that the only part of the country that could/would produce something similar to the US Constitution is the South. The original culture of the North East is almost completely annihilated by the waves of immigrants who "assimilated" there.

There is something to be said about a system where your factory workers live in a barracks and are roused at 2AM, given tea and a biscuit and told to spend the next 10 hours retooling the assemblies because Apple just made a design change at the last minute.**

Gee Mike, you make me so depressed. You see I have a job where I have to get up at 2 AM randomly and drag my carcass into work with no help from anyone for how long I can't ever be sure. But seriously, I knew the hazards of the job and love it. I have to do that because people need the service I support so badly. I've never been unemployed or laid off. But it makes me envious that in China they get biscuits and tea!

This is why wholesale migrations never work (I would challenge you to find a single example of large scale migration ever being healthy for the host society) even with the best of intentions on the migrants part.

Can you give us some examples of what you think are healthy societies?

Mark:

It is an absurd definition of genocide, because it doesn't rule out encouraging free and voluntary mixing for any reason at all. Defining genocide down are we? To make that statement sensible on any reasonably traditional understanding of genocide, you'd need to add that voluntary ethnic mixing is bad of itself.

Which raises the question of whether mass immigration into, and subsequent ethnic mixing within, white Western nations has truly been "free and voluntary". Has it not rather been a revolution from above imposed without consultation or consent?

Mark,

To go back to your 2:30 PM post from yesterday, I think you are exaggering the types of controls us anti-immigration types would like to see. Yes, I'd like I fence at the border and tighter security, but we don't need to "militarize" the border. I'd much rather have enforcement at businesses and at government agencies -- also more State-level laws like Arizona so local police could cooperate with the Feds to find and deport illegals. I think more Americans support immigration restrictions and the legal means to check citizenship status than you think. This is a political winner and yes, certain businesses will resist enforcement because they want cheap labor. We need to fight those businesses and let common-sense prevail -- the people of this country have a right to determine who their neighbors will be.

Mike T.,

Ben Franklin is absolutely great on the dangers of German immigration in the late 18th century. So I know what you are talking about -- we are on the same page. However, I do think that in small numbers, and if we are screening folks before they come in, we can do a good job of assimilating certain groups of immigrants. As an example, do you really think that Greek Americans have failed to assimilate into American culture? In many ways they are strange outsiders from the perspective of a Anglo-Saxon Puritan culture (or even a Cavalier culture, using Fischer's classification of the Brits who settled the South). But they are now small business owners, who seem to instill the importance of education in their children who go on to become relatively successful lawyers and accountants and cops, etc.

By and large, the Vietnamese immigrants of the late 60's to 80's are pretty good examples of assimilation: they respected do-it-yourself energy when you need to get something done. They respected education immensely. They were immensely patriotic about their adopted country and its freedoms, freedoms they thought of as associated with responsibility. But of course, the sheer numbers were much lower.

I tend to think that for a prospective immigrant, the first-level criterion ought to be: is there a legal job they are going to to that doesn't have an American already lined waiting to do it? If they are here just on the off-chance they can get something because their cousin did, that's not acceptable, at all. If it takes fences, brick walls, and an army to enforce that level of control, then that's what it takes: you cannot assimilate into a country that reveres the rule of law when you have to break employment laws to find work.

I'm for comprehensive immigration reform: border control AND employer sanctions!
(That's my new bumper sticker slogan.)

Oh and Gian,

What Mark and Lydia said...
plus this: The free market is just 'the market' - free from government interference.
and this: The unintended consequences of private actions are part of the free market.

Can you give us some examples of what you think are healthy societies?

Are you serious?

However, I do think that in small numbers, and if we are screening folks before they come in, we can do a good job of assimilating certain groups of immigrants.

I agree. However, none of the major periods of immigration really occurred like this. One can quite reasonably look at the aftermath of the periods of immigration, note the radical chances to the domestic culture and come away with the conclusion that what emerged was a fusion of the former societies and the original America in those states. For example, Massachusetts is so far gone culturally and politically from where we started that I cannot imagine Sam Adams wasting his time defending them or regarding them as his countrymen anymore than a 200BC era Roman would regard a 400AD Roman as a countryman.

To go back to your 2:30 PM post from yesterday, I think you are exaggering the types of controls us anti-immigration types would like to see. Yes, I'd like I fence at the border and tighter security, but we don't need to "militarize" the border.

Jeff, I'm not exaggerating. Now disrespect to Tony, but he is happy with an army by his comment just afterwards if that is what it takes to stop illegal immigration. This is a common sentiment.

My problem with all this isn't theoretical. It is actual. A fence won't work without people to guard it, and parts of it are water and other natural obstacles. I support the right of each state to do as it sees fit, but Texans regard it as a joke. Rick Perry called it "idiocy," and most Texans regard it as a government boondoggle. It won't solve illegal immigration, and it won't solve the criminal gang problem, but it will create difficulties for law abiding citizens who cross legally and do business over it. That border is the most highly trafficked border in the world, and a staggering amount of people and things cross it every day. People on the border know that wait times have known economic impacts.

It's not security, it is security theater just like we have in airports with the TSA. 90% of it doesn't do anything but make people feel good that something is being done, whether effective or not. A staffed-up border patrol guarding a 2k mile wall is corruption waiting to deepen. And just like the TSA, they check everyone including little old ladies and they aren't interested in good service because that would mean their requests to hire more people won't be as likely to succeed. Just go to a border crossing and watch how slow they walk. There are those who risk their lives to defend us as do policemen, but there is a vast army being advocated for that are merely government bureaucrats in boring jobs stamping paperwork and looking in people's trunks who don't have anything to declare and are no threat.

Oh and to top it off, most of our illegal immigration comes from expired or over-extended tourist visas, student visas, and work permits. Immigration simply does not happen at the border. So it is beyond me that people think a fence will have much to do with illegal immigration. Well anyway, I guess I'm involved in enough security issues that I just marvel at the naive way people equate attempts at security with safety. Security is a blunt instrument, and you always have to balance the costs with the benefits, and with starry-eyed ideas about what a fence would do from people who rarely cross borders isn't encouraging.

Are you serious?

I didn't think you were. ;) Isn't it reasonable to ask what you'd regard as an example of a nation that was not "so far gone culturally and politically from where it started"? Is there any country that has low or no immigration that is a great place you'd want to live?

Mark,

I like your push-back -- healthy debate makes for a good blog. Now, with respect to the border, the Israelis seem to think their fence is effective -- I suspect we can build a fence that uses technology so it doesn't have to be manned by a bunch of overpaid border guards. And I agree that we should make the crossings easy and hassle-free for those coming to visit and/or trade from Mexico. But I don't believe you for a second when you say that most illegals are "from expired or over-extended tourist visas, student visas, and work permits." There is a reason thousands of Mexicans (and Central Americans) sneak across the border. In the words of Steve Sailer:

An anonymous commenter offers some insight into the level of empirical research and logical insight that the famous institutions that campaign for Open Borders have brought to analyzing the long-run effects of their policy proposal.

"In 1996 I had a brief conversation with David Asman, currently with Fox News, but then with the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and someone (as he noted in our conversation) involved with the "There shall be open borders" editorials.

I was one of the guests on a short lived and deeply stupid cable TV show Asman was hosting (Issues USA), and after the filming was done I took the opportunity to ask him about precisely your point: how many would come? He wasn't willing to spend much time talking about it (he was a busy man!), but what he did have to say was kind of..., um..., startling. He condescendingly informed me that people like me had nothing to worry about, because the number of people who would come to the U.S. under open immigration in fact wouldn't be many more than were already coming.

How did he know this? Well you see, the Journal had organized a trip down to a section of southwest border for some of its people. And when he was down there he saw with his own eyes that this stretch of border, despite being totally unprotected, was not being flooded by huge numbers of illegal Mexican immigrants rushing north, as the alarmists would have us believe. In fact he didn't see anybody! So why, he asked me -- given that nothing was stopping all of Mexico from coming here illegally right now if they wanted to -- did I think they'd suddenly all start coming if we made it legal?

Why indeed!"


I drove the road along the Arizona-Mexico border in 2003. Similarly, I didn't see a single illegal alien crossing it. Yet, for some reason, I didn't conclude that nobody was crossing. I surmised instead, from all the piles of junk left by crossers, by the holes bashed in the 4 foot tall fence every 100 yards or so, by all the testimony of locals I talked to, by all the news accounts I read in the local papers, that the illegal crossers were using the brilliant ploy of sneaking in at night because that's when it's dark! But then I'm not WSJ Editorial Board timber, so what do I know?

P.S. Mostly homogenous countries that I think would be nice places to live include Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Malta, and Norway.

the Israelis seem to think their fence is effective

Jeff, the US/Mexican border is nothing like the Israeli one with its neighbors, and it is tiny to boot. The analogy fails. Even that short fence would not work if the Palestinians were the Israelis 3rd largest trading partner, as Mexico is to us. If you built a wall like the Israelis to stop everything (as they had to) did you'd damage the US economy. But no fence along the border with Mexico (or Canada) will be anything like the Israelis fence because it can't be. The extreme security coupled with extreme porousness to trade you're describing has no historical precedent. That isn't how security works.

But I don't believe you for a second when you say that most illegals are "from expired or over-extended tourist visas, student visas, and work permits." There is a reason thousands of Mexicans (and Central Americans) sneak across the border.

It's not in dispute. Most credible sources are confident enough to say those who arrive legally are "about half." The Department of Homeland Security estimates the number is between 27 to 57 percent. Look, I didn't say none cross or that many don't cross. Remember that we're talking about the effect a fence that you have in mind will have on illegal immigration. That is the issue. If the amount arriving legally is only 30%, what do you think it will be after a fence is built?

Look Jeff, my complaint about some Conservatives on this issue is that they desert their principles over it. Where do you think most illegals go? California. It is all about curtailing the welfare state. If that never happens we're screwed anyway, but the attitude of the usual suspects seems to be "well we'll be screwed and the country won't be the same, but at least we won't have illegals!" But the problem is that there are limits to the security you'll have in a free country. Conservatives used to understand that, but now they want to create another national police force to chase after illegals. Expired visas are a problem, but there is only so much one can do. I'm not even opposed to a national ID per se, but how many places are going to require it before we're no longer a free nation? Meanwhile, a naturalized citizen in Britain that was born in Pakistan and still has a Pakistani passport can come with no visa at all! And a border fence is going to make us safer?

I'm with you 100% on killing minimum wage, and I also think the demise of quasi-socialized medical care we have would go a long ways towards solving the problem. Get employers out of the business of non-monetary benefits, where federal, state and local governments --despite employers clear and repeated objections-- have created so many mandated benefits (pensions, healthcare, workers' compensation) and unemployment benefits that for every dollar a legal worker receives, fifty cents goes to benefits. This creates a huge financial incentive to hire people who don't qualify for these non-financial benefits. Most countries tie immigration to workforce; our Treasury Department, not the Labor Department, determines our immigration.

In short, our government is the problem, but Conservatives are attempting to solve the problem with . . . you guessed it, more government! Build a fence, and man it with an army of rent-a-cops that will all be in line for an early pension. I'm sure that will work out swell.

P.S. Mostly homogenous countries that I think would be nice places to live include Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Malta, and Norway.

Nice? Well, everywhere is nice if you like to travel. I visited a homogenous country last year for several weeks: Finland. Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. High taxation, they regulate you to death with green rules (down to mandating how long you can let your car idle and such nonsense), and poor access to goods and services. You want a stinking trampoline for a kid and you're on a waiting list for weeks if not months. I spoke to an expat from the US and he said the wages were very low, but if you say you can't afford to live on such low wages they'll say "But we have great schools and great health care, what do you need money for?" That's the attitude. Even Massachusetts started to look good after a few weeks of that. Anybody who thinks the problems in the US are that bad just needs to travel to these nice homogenous places and compare. There's no place like home. There are thousands of places where you can live for a fraction that you can anywhere else in the world and freely do what you want.

Mark,
"federal laws that prevent me from buying a health insurance policy in another state"

Why is 'free market' stopping at American borders?

One thing I don't get is why don't the people that complain about Federal Govt advocate that it be dissolved and total sovereignty be resumed by the states.

Isn't it reasonable to ask what you'd regard as an example of a nation that was not "so far gone culturally and politically from where it started"?

The UK prior to WWII would be an example. One need only look at how radically changed London is, with areas that the government admits are de facto Sharia zones to see the poisonous influence of mass immigration.

Is there any country that has low or no immigration that is a great place you'd want to live?

Immigration has little to no bearing on whether or not it is a place worth living. In fact, your question is nearly a form of the argument that liberals like to use that Somalia is "a great example of libertarianism" because it has little to no government.

What makes most of the countries that are attractive to immigrants attractive in the first place is the accumulated cultural and political capital. Italy, for example, would not stop being what it is if the Italian government suddenly deported all but a minority of immigrants. Likewise, Tanzania would not become a place worth living no matter how laissez faire for generations.

You see I have a job where I have to get up at 2 AM randomly and drag my carcass into work with no help from anyone for how long I can't ever be sure. But seriously, I knew the hazards of the job and love it. I have to do that because people need the service I support so badly. I've never been unemployed or laid off. But it makes me envious that in China they get biscuits and tea!

Are you forbidden from "fraternizing" (read: talk, not have sex with) coworkers? Because at many Foxconn plants they are forbidden from that and can be fired for simply striking up friendships. One of the many things that differentiates your workplace from theirs.

"I knew the hazards of the job and love it."

Our Chinese friends are often not in quite the same position. The "choice" that they are offered is either to stay in the country and starve, or move to the city and work in a sweatshop for 60-70 hrs. a week for a subsistence wage. Anyone who thinks this is "economic freedom" needs a serious ideological/moral adjustment.

"it makes me envious that in China they get biscuits and tea!"

That's callous and not very funny.

Mark, your wall arguments are the same ones the open border types throw around all of the time. First, no wall without people manning it is effective. A wall is a force multiplier. Where it would take 10 guys to effectively patrol a section, not it will only take some cameras and 2 guys. Second, commerce across the border is supposed to happen at specific points. I didn't know that a wall stopping people from coming across whenever they wanted was going to wreck the economy.

I could solve the visa overstay problem with fairly simply. Initially we have to get in place the entry/exit system that Congress authorized over a decade ago. It's not that hard. Next, all visa authorizations require the posting of a bond whose price is set by private bond companies. If you fit a high risk profile, you have to post a larger bond. If you fail to leave, half of the bond goes as a bounty for your capture. One quarter goes to help fund the entry/exit system. The final quarter goes to raise the reward on long term violators.

Lastly, your view of free enterprise seems to be a version that simply treats people as economic units whose worth is solely measured in what they do. Meanwhile, people like GWB Sr., Jr., and the rest of the Texan elite, get to benefit from the constant influx of cheap labor. An influx that constantly prevents all but a lucky few from getting out of poverty and passes off the cost onto the middle class.

Mark,

I think we are talking past one another a bit, but Mike T., bless him, put us both on track. Mike T.'s comment at 8:27 AM is really spot on and explains my concerns about large-scale immigration from Latin America. I disagree with you fundamentally that the problem is just California's welfare state (or other generous State welfare plans). I think the problem is the immigrants themselves, who in large numbers have proven they cannot assimilate to our culture (and worse, seem to be assimilating to the underclass culture: witness the rising Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate which now has hit 50%). You and I just disagree on this fundamental point.

I do have sympathy for the view that we could make it easier for immigrants to assimilate if it weren't for our insane welfare programs and crazed left-wing infatuation with multiculturalism. I also understand your concerns about too much security, although I think we can handle security in a smart way if we are willing to ignore left-wing concerns and profile.

But at the end of the day, I think national identity (and quality of life) trumps any and all economic concerns about cheap labor from the third world.

P.S. I was in Helsinki for a day and hated it, although it was raining and gloomy all day which probably contributed to my bad experience. I do remember liking the big Lutheran church in the central city area.

To add to Jeff's point, the Italian diaspora, compared to the Hispanic migrations, is a model of integration. Italians settled all across the Americas (lots of their descendants in Latin America, for example). Italians not only integrated as well as can be humanly expected, but have made their new homelands materially and culturally better in most cases. You could move 5 million Italians to sub-Saharan Africa or South East Asia tomorrow and within a generation or two they'd probably have it transformed to look more like Italy than how they found it.

That's callous and not very funny.

Not to mention the fact that Mark has the luxury of coming to work from a home that is actually his, choosing his meals and probably taking five to go to the vending machine if what he picked up on the way wasn't enough for him. Foxconn workers don't have those luxuries.

. . . commerce across the border is supposed to happen at specific points. I didn't know that a wall stopping people from coming across whenever they wanted was going to wreck the economy.

If you don't tighten security at the entry points the wall is ineffective. That's just security 101. Truck inspections become much more complex, and if it slows enough other routes are found from other countries.

Lastly, your view of free enterprise seems to be a version that simply treats people as economic units whose worth is solely measured in what they do. Meanwhile, people like GWB Sr., Jr., and the rest of the Texan elite, get to benefit from the constant influx of cheap labor. An influx that constantly prevents all but a lucky few from getting out of poverty and passes off the cost onto the middle class.

And here we have your elitism, where non-Texans from debt-addled states tell Texans (whose state has little debt and produces 1 out of every 6 new jobs in the country) they don't really understand economics, the border, or security. That's rich isn't it?

I think we are talking past one another a bit, but Mike T., bless him, put us both on track. Mike T.'s comment at 8:27 AM is really spot on and explains my concerns about large-scale immigration from Latin America.

Apparently we are talking past each other because I'm not disputing you concerns about large-scale immigration from Latin America. :) I'm talking that your means of trying to stop are ones a liberal would love, though not the ends. That has been my point all along, and you may well be right they aren't assimilating as I've acknowledged. Your prescriptions would not be considered Conservative if this were any other issue. The ends justify the means I guess.

Excuse me, I meant to say the means and the causes. I consider the root of the majority of illegal immigration to be economic, and you disagree I guess. I didn't say it was only the welfare state, but it is the major contributor along with the regulatory multipliers for hiring them I already mentioned. The economic incentives to hire them, as I've said above, is huge.

Our Chinese friends are often not in quite the same position. The "choice" that they are offered is either to stay in the country and starve, or move to the city and work in a sweatshop for 60-70 hrs. a week for a subsistence wage. Anyone who thinks this is "economic freedom" needs a serious ideological/moral adjustment.

Nice, you've blundered into something about the tradeoffs they likely face. See below.

Not to mention the fact that Mark has the luxury of coming to work from a home that is actually his, choosing his meals and probably taking five to go to the vending machine if what he picked up on the way wasn't enough for him. Foxconn workers don't have those luxuries.

Mike, I don't own my own home. Homes are overpriced where I live, and I live where the work pays well. I don't wish to have too much money in real estate, because I prefer to invest it for the long term. People thought I was nuts in the runup to the housing bubble, but now they see why I didn't want to jump in and now they finally get why rental-parity figures matter. As a Midwestern farm boy I know a thing or two about real estate prices rising and falling since land prices were the subject of dinner table conversations throughout childhood.

I could go to any one of hundreds of nice places (including IN where I am from and have family) where housing is cheap, but the work availability isn't as good. So I rent and have a job where I want. Where I live it is more like a dormitory than you'd imagine if you aren't familiar with LA, but it works for me and I'm happy. I and my family will retire one day to the hinterlands and have a swell home, but for now I rent so I can work where the money is good and I can invest it rather than in overpriced and declining real estate, and I don't spend all my day commuting in a car. It's called delayed gratification. My brother in law owns a nice new place on an acre in central IN (for ~100k), but his commute to Indianapolis takes almost 2 hours a day roundtrip! No thanks, I can even walk the 2 miles to work if I wish. I have a decent life and I'm quite happy with the tradeoffs I've made.

What was it Nice said about a "choice" of moving to the city and working or making a lesser wage in the country? It's the same choice I had, and as long as you're happy with the tradeoffs you've made life is good. So don't give me this simplistic crap about the normal tradeoff workers have made for generations. Oh and my type of work is salaried so I don't get overtime, and I often work 60-70 hours a week. So what? I learn things during that time that if my employer ever decides to let me go I'll use to get another job.

So in context of the simplistic and self-serving concern for Foxconn workers you suppose you're showing in trying to support your economic philosophy, I think my comment about the tea and biscuits was quite funny.

Mike, I don't own my own home.

I didn't mean to imply you literally own your home. I was saying that you have a private residence which you are free to call home. Once you leave work, you leave the employer's property to go home to a place you have a legal right (by ownership or contract) to call your private residence.

What was it Nice said about a "choice" of moving to the city and working or making a lesser wage in the country? It's the same choice I had, and as long as you're happy with the tradeoffs you've made life is good. So don't give me this simplistic crap about the normal tradeoff workers have made for generations. Oh and my type of work is salaried so I don't get overtime, and I often work 60-70 hours a week. So what? I learn things during that time that if my employer ever decides to let me go I'll use to get another job.

If you think China and the US are even remotely similar in terms of how their workers are treated and how their government defines itself relative to business, just research the case of a few Rio Tinto executives who were arrested for the crime of playing hardball with their counterparts at a state-owned business.

So in context of the simplistic and self-serving concern for Foxconn workers you suppose you're showing in trying to support your economic philosophy, I think my comment about the tea and biscuits was quite funny.

My concern is about the fact that they're organized in a way that is reminiscent of one of Marx's proposed industrial armies.

I didn't mean to imply you literally own your home. I was saying that you have a private residence which you are free to call home. Once you leave work, you leave the employer's property to go home to a place you have a legal right (by ownership or contract) to call your private residence.

But company owned employee housing isn't unusual.

If you think China and the US are even remotely similar in terms of how their workers are treated and how their government defines itself relative to business, just research the case of a few Rio Tinto executives who were arrested for the crime of playing hardball with their counterparts at a state-owned business.

Mike, I doubt you know more about China than I do, but the context was economics. I'm as fierce a critic of China's social policy as anyone, and I know all about Asian business/government dealings. I wouldn't be surprised if we go to war with China one day, or if China makes a grab for Taiwan. It was and is something of a gamble to ever trade with China. If you said the US never should have started trading with China until the liberalize socially I wouldn't have argued the point. I'm not a Libertarian, though of course Conservatives have an overlap of libertarian economics understandings. But the context of this discussion as I understood it was "barracks" as an economic and work issue. If these weren't voluntary workers and by "roused" you meant in a non-voluntary way I would take an entirely different tack but they are voluntary. But my perception of your view (right or wrong, but clearly Nice's view) is that you were doing the "worker economic exploitation" and "sweatshop" dance and not the China social oppressive dance. China is a mixed bag, but if you're going to try to conflate the two by trying to say "they don't have any alternative" if they want good wages then I'm going to disagree. People everywhere go for the higher pay and they don't see it as having no choice but choosing the best one.

So how one views the issue that was raised has everything to do with how it is answered. I'm not going to be led into a discussion that conflates sociopolitical issues and economic. Like I said, you could make some pretty extreme statements about China and have no argument from me.

Gian:

One thing I don't get is why don't the people that complain about Federal Govt advocate that it be dissolved and total sovereignty be resumed by the states.

Because there are certain things only the Federal Government can do: national defense, regulation of interstate commerce, foreign affairs, immigration, and... nope - that's it!

But my perception of your view (right or wrong, but clearly Nice's view) is that you were doing the "worker economic exploitation" and "sweatshop" dance and not the China social oppressive dance. China is a mixed bag, but if you're going to try to conflate the two by trying to say "they don't have any alternative" if they want good wages then I'm going to disagree. People everywhere go for the higher pay and they don't see it as having no choice but choosing the best one.

I see the social oppression as casting a shadow over whatever economic freedom might be argued there. Whenever I see arguments for a stock on Motley Fool that is based in China, I invariably see arguments along the lines of "is favored by the Chinese government." The implicit statement being that if they ever get on the government's bad side, then the odds of them succeeding are incredibly poor at best. An argument in defense of Foxconn and others like it because they're better than the alternatives in a downright totalitarian society is simply damning with faint praise in my opinion.

I see the social oppression as casting a shadow over whatever economic freedom might be argued there. Whenever I see arguments for a stock on Motley Fool that is based in China, I invariably see arguments along the lines of "is favored by the Chinese government." The implicit statement being that if they ever get on the government's bad side, then the odds of them succeeding are incredibly poor at best. An argument in defense of Foxconn and others like it because they're better than the alternatives in a downright totalitarian society is simply damning with faint praise in my opinion.

But Foxconn isn't a Chinese company, and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear earlier. Foxconn is a Taiwanese multinational with factories in Asia, Europe, and South America. Taiwan does not have the Chinese system of government, or you'd never be hearing about any of what you think you know about Foxconn. China and Taiwan do not share a government or social system, so we're back to the economics and ethics of multinational production. The world is a complex place.

In my opinion, China has an arguably fascist government, but I don't know of anyone who wouldn't count Taiwan as democratic.

It's not in dispute. Most credible sources are confident enough to say those who arrive legally are "about half." The Department of Homeland Security estimates the number is between 27 to 57 percent.

Mark, yeah, it is in dispute. According the DHS, they apprehended 810,000 foreigners in 2008. (That's not all, Customs nabbed another 379,000.) Of those, 88% were Mexican. Assume for the moment that the visas granted for _all_ countries are equally likely to go illegal - 50% or whatever. If that were the case, then DHS would have nabbed Mexicans in the same ratio as Mexican visas granted. Since Mexicans don't comprise anything remotely like 88% of the visas granted (it is way less than half), does not appear that the illegal Mexicans nabbed were proportionately represented according to the number of visas Mexicans held: way more Mexicans are here without any visa than are here with an overextended visa. DHS can try to spin it, but we simply don't hand out that many visas to Mexicans to make that 88% reasonable. Chinese and Indians arrive here on visas, go through airport customs, and many overextend. Mexicans don't come here on airplanes, and pass through airport security. If one part of DHS thinks that 30 to 50% of illegals came here with a visa, they aren't talking to the other part that apprehended 810,000 foreigners, 88% Mexican.

BUT, even if that is true, the solution is simple: (a) require exit reporting for people leaving when their visas expire (make it a condition of their visa: report to customs when you leave, just like when you come in), and (b) reduce NEXT year's quota by the difference, the number who don't report as leaving. If the number of violated visas is such a major part of the problem (50%), reducing the visas by half will cut the total problem by 1/4. That's simple, fair, logical, and cost-effective, without denying anyone their rights.

I'm talking that your means of trying to stop are ones a liberal would love, though not the ends. That has been my point all along, and you may well be right they aren't assimilating as I've acknowledged. Your prescriptions would not be considered Conservative if this were any other issue. The ends justify the means I guess.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Traditional conservative principles indicate that (a) government should not impose extraneous rules ON CITIZENS, and (b) generally, that government is best that governs least. But "governs least" was always defined in terms of "accomplishing the basic, fundamental purposes of national government", of which security and defense have have priority number 1. If defense from terrorists, and security from illegal immigrants, requires a heavy presence at the borders, that's got NOTHING contrary to conservative principles.

Expired visas are a problem, but there is only so much one can do.

In addition to Chris's suggestion: We have tracking devices now. After we give a person a short or medium length visa, and make him post a bond, put a tracker on his ankle. If he doesn't leave on time, we can see where he is and go get him. If he breaks the anklet, we take the bond money automatically, and send several cops within minutes to the last location.

If you built a wall like the Israelis to stop everything (as they had to) did you'd damage the US economy. But no fence along the border with Mexico (or Canada) will be anything like the Israelis fence because it can't be. The extreme security coupled with extreme porousness to trade you're describing has no historical precedent. That isn't how security works.

Mark, I agree that imposing constriction on trade so that it has to pass through security checkpoints makes trade more difficult and therefore more costly. What I cannot figure out is, why that matters to the question of whether a wall is a good idea or not.

First of all, 99.9% of all the desirable goods exchanged (that we want exchanged, as opposed to pot and cocaine and heroin) ALREADY pass through on roads that have customs, border security, checkpoints. Or pass through in ports that have customs, harbor security, inspectors. That's already in place and the inspections are already happening. Making a wall (or any other border security method) won't change that. Are you saying that there is an economically substantive (and valuable) traffic through non-inspected border areas? I don't think so.

Secondly, we already need something like walls, or mined fields, or something, to protect us from terrorists, gangs, and druggers pulling people and materials through unprotected border areas. That's true whether we care about the million-per-year illegals coming through those areas just to find jobs and money. We need something better than we have now. I don't care whether it's a wall, or a bunch of robots, or mine fields, or the army, or satellites with kinetic crow bars, or what: the point is, the need exists independently of the enormous mass of illegals crossing looking for work. But it will work well against that problem too.

But to back you up: the biggest draw for illegals is that they usually _can_ get illegal jobs, and make plenty of money (comparatively). If these foreigners taking these jobs really is causing an economic and social disturbance, then we need to get serious about punishing the companies and people doing the hiring. Most of these companies are effectively saying "the benefit of hiring these guys is worth the risk of being caught." We have failed to change the economic equation.

But here's the other side of the equation: we should make it MUCH easier for an employer to register for hiring a foreign national, so that they can get a legal immigrant. If a company cannot readily find laborers that will work for a legal 7.25 / hour plus social security etc, then they should be able to post a request for foreign workers easily, readily, without hassle. If a homeonwer cannot get an American to mow his lawn for $20, he should be able to list for foreigners to do it. Of course, merely putting out such a request should get the company looked at to make sure they are paying their workers legal wages. Tie that in with the above (more severe punishments for knowingly illegal hires) and the economic incentives will help reverse the problem as much as real border security, and with fewer deaths.

way more Mexicans are here without any visa than are here with an overextended visa.

Tony, I didn't mean to imply that half of Mexican illegals came here with visas. All I meant to say was that I thought it was accepted that about half of all illegals came here that way. Maybe the stat is wrong, but I wasn't limiting it to Mexicans.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Traditional conservative principles indicate that (a) government should not impose extraneous rules ON CITIZENS, and (b) generally, that government is best that governs least. But "governs least" was always defined in terms of "accomplishing the basic, fundamental purposes of national government", of which security and defense have have priority number 1. If defense from terrorists, and security from illegal immigrants, requires a heavy presence at the borders, that's got NOTHING contrary to conservative principles.

The Conservative principle at the bottom of them is that when the alternatives are worse they should be avoided. In my opinion, terrorists and criminal gangs are stopped by intelligence, interdiction, and disruption. I support police and military cooperation between government to do this, unlike many Conservatives who oppose it as "foreign aid," even though the exact same things won the war in Colombia only with strong conservative support in the US.

My view is the same as Rick Perry's. He wants the traditional vigorous means to defeat criminal gangs that have been used successfully elsewhere, but doesn't support a fence for the same reasons I don't. Look everyone, including me and Rick Perry, supports fences where it makes sense. Places in San Diego and such where there was high traffic are force multipliers, but you don't have force multipliers that scale to anything approaching the entire 2000 miles. That is insane logistically. It is a money pit that will be ineffective, and builds another armed bureaucracy with far more corruption that any other.

Mark, I agree that imposing constriction on trade so that it has to pass through security checkpoints makes trade more difficult and therefore more costly. What I cannot figure out is, why that matters to the question of whether a wall is a good idea or not.

What I can't figure out is why the only examples anyone ever offers for a fences that work are ones like the Berlin Wall and the Israeli one where there is no trade to cross them. ;) In the West Bank most of the barrier has vehicle-barrier trenches. It this is an example of an effective wall for the US that allows trade? Those are successful for complete isolation, but not for what you are proposing even if much of it wasn't over water. The only historical precedent for anything like the wall being proposed is the Great Wall of China. Which failed because of bribery, if no other reasons. Isn't that somewhat instructive?

Chucky Darwin,
You didn't get the hint. Let the states be sovereign, as sovereign as Canada or Mexico, not the wishy-washy phony sovereignty that they have now. Let them handle all the Federal functions. And let there be no Fed.
Why don't the complainers advocate this ideal?

First of all, 99.9% of all the desirable goods exchanged (that we want exchanged, as opposed to pot and cocaine and heroin) ALREADY pass through on roads that have customs, border security, checkpoints. Or pass through in ports that have customs, harbor security, inspectors. That's already in place and the inspections are already happening. Making a wall (or any other border security method) won't change that. Are you saying that there is an economically substantive (and valuable) traffic through non-inspected border areas? I don't think so.

No, Tony I am not suggesting that there is economically substantive traffic through non-inspected border areas. I am suggesting a well-known fact. Namely, that security is always a tradeoff between trade and security, and the tighter the security the negative effects rise exponentially. This is why when it comes to security care must be taken to insure the methods used do not cause greater problems than those they are made to fix. Absolutes don't help when dealing with security.

Those who think that there is no tradeoff between trade and security assume an unlimited number of some combination of inspectors and time (for inspections and ability to wait for delivery), but this is not the case. The U.S. Customs Service has never been able to inspect more than a small fraction of total incoming trade, so doubling or even tripling the amount of cargo inspected would not significantly enhance security. You're talking about 40,000 commercial shipments and 300,000 people crossing the border every day and its increasing as US consumers demand more goods. The inspectors inspect some of it randomly, x-ray some of it, and look at the transportation company records for others looking for background problems and what have you. There aren't and will never be enough inspectors, nor likely technology that cannot be fooled by those who wish to cross illegal material or people. What deters them is the penalty if they are caught, because the profit is only so great since some are always willing to risk a run outside of the entry points.

But say you perfectly seal off all the border except the points of entry. Just say it's perfect. You know what happens next. The reward for slipping goods or people through the legitimate points of entry rise dramatically. The odds of actually getting caught weren't really that high to begin with, but the real problem was that the payoff wasn't worth the risk. Now the risk/reward ratio is different and it is, unless U.S. Customs starts a deeper and more rigorous inspection regime, which is costly, time-consuming, and requires more people. Trade slows, security costs go up, but so does the price for those who can elude the authorities, or just as likely, bribe them. On and on this spiral goes, and that is if there is perfect non-point-of-entry security. But there won't be because there will be border patrol personnel who can also read the increased rewards away from the points of entry since the reward goes up everywhere. Even if the non-entry-point security were good, the thornier problems have just begun, rather than ended. It all comes back to the economics. So it won't stop illegal trade, but it will slow the traffic for all law-abiding citizens dramatically as the entry points become far more critical to both authorities and criminals. Even if it worked perfectly the overall security plan still fails because you've just rejiggered the risk/reward ratio within an environment of low-paid government security personnel that is already the nations largest federal police force where corruption is already a large worry.

Well, that's why I agreed with your point to change the economic equation at the other end of the chain at the same time.

"you were doing the 'worker economic exploitation' and 'sweatshop' dance and not the China social oppressive dance."

And the two are not related?

"People everywhere go for the higher pay and they don't see it as having no choice but choosing the best one."

Rubbish. There is such a thing as economic compulsion, wherein people are forced to make decisions they wouldn't make under better circumstances.

But Foxconn isn't a Chinese company, and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear earlier. Foxconn is a Taiwanese multinational with factories in Asia, Europe, and South America.

Their bread and butter business is the Apple work and that's all done in their factories in Shenzen. About 50% of their entire workforce or more are located in that region, mainly to work on Apple products. Therefore appealing to their status as a Taiwanese company adds nothing to the discussion about those workers.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that the PRC is resuming the policy of foreign zones of influence in their sovereign territory...

Why don't the complainers advocate this ideal?

Because they see through your ridiculous false dichotomy and know the problem isn't inherent to the federal government, but dishonest people who fail to see that the US Constitution only permits a night watchman state.

Tony, I disagree that an employer in the US should just be able to hire a foreign worker if it can't find one at wage X in the US. The result would similar to what we have with H1-B's now. Lower wage foreign workers driving down wages of American workers and pushing them out of certain professions. The free movement of labor between countries is not something that supports a coherent nation. Instead, we should recognize that cutting off the cheap foreign labor spigot will raise wages and drive automation. And maybe get some Americans to mow their own dang lawns. I would consider that far better than causing cultural fragmentation and a helot class.

Their bread and butter business is the Apple work and that's all done in their factories in Shenzen. About 50% of their entire workforce or more are located in that region, mainly to work on Apple products.

They assemble nearly half of all consumer electronics products in the world. Apple is now the most profitable of them and completely dominates in volume.

Therefore appealing to their status as a Taiwanese company adds nothing to the discussion about those workers.

If you think it adds nothing you are very short-sighted. It's a Taiwanese company, and they have a complicated relationship with the Chinese because of political differences as everyone knows. Foxconn is aware of their vulnerability in China and is building a huge high-tech “robot kingdom” in Taiwan now. So soon you can lament the loss of most of these jobs in China as Foxconn shifts production out of China. :)

Pardon the markup errors.

If you think it adds nothing you are very short-sighted. It's a Taiwanese company, and they have a complicated relationship with the Chinese because of political differences as everyone knows. Foxconn is aware of their vulnerability in China and is building a huge high-tech “robot kingdom” in Taiwan now. So soon you can lament the loss of most of these jobs in China as Foxconn shifts production out of China. :)

As they are a Taiwanese operation, I actually have no problem with that. They ought to prioritize the well-being of Taiwan over the Chinese workers.

Tony, I disagree that an employer in the US should just be able to hire a foreign worker if it can't find one at wage X in the US.

Chris, I agree, you can't do that ALONE, can't just let companies hire foreign workers at ever lower wages. But if we take it together with sane practices of hiring internally, and sane wage levels internally, then making it easy to hire foreigners when you can't get American labor would be more reasonable. And I will admit up front I don't know how to get to the first, the sane hiring and wage practices for Americans.

Mike T,
"As they are a Taiwanese operation, I actually have no problem with that. They ought to prioritize the well-being of Taiwan over the Chinese workers"

This 'ought' is interesting. So you think that a corporation is morally responsible for something other than returns to the shareholders and thus the free market capitalism should respect national boundaries. And thus it should not be absolutely free.

Chucky Darwin,
Do you have a problem here?

This 'ought' is interesting. So you think that a corporation is morally responsible for something other than returns to the shareholders and thus the free market capitalism should respect national boundaries. And thus it should not be absolutely free.

A few things...

1. All corporations are legal fictions created by a sovereign state. They are implicitly bound to the well-being of the society governed by the state whose laws gives them legal form.
2. The interests of the shareholders rarely coincide with the extreme capitalist philosophers who believe that corporations have a moral duty to maximize shareholder value through any means not explicitly outlawed. In fact, this downright sociopathic philosophy can not only be extremely dangerous for the company's reputation, but its very existence since such people rarely are long-term planners. Instead, they tend to "maximize shareholder value" in ways that are destructive to long-term survival ranging from destroying partnership opportunities, to weakening the company's ability to attract talented workers, to loading up the company with debt it cannot manage.
3. Absolute freedom has never been on the table. Finding the point where freedom can be safely maximized, however, ought to be the goal of every right-thinking individual. All restrictions on freedom, like security, ought to proceed from the assumption of lowest need/least privilege. National border maintenance, when doing properly, actually provides a great deal of internal room for economic freedom that is simply not possible in a laissez faire border environment. Open national borders necessitate the existence of a very powerful domestic intelligence apparatus to handle risks that normally would be handled at the border.
4. I don't think I've said anything here which is supportive of the philosophy of thinkers like Ayn Rand, but rather have been critical of you, NM and Jeff primarily because I think the three of you are rather sloppy in your criticisms of economic freedom and are often quite ignorant of actual efforts by free market thinkers to help the poor. Jeff in particular is astoundingly ignorant and would probably have a heart attack if he saw how much the Institute for Justice, the libertarian ACLU, has gone after local and state governments over the property and work rights of the working class and middle class.

Mike T.,

Just for the record, I assume when you mention "Jeff" in your last 8:44 AM comment you are talking about my great former colleague Jeff Culbreath and not me? I wouldn't characterize his thinking as "sloppy", I just think he, Gian and Nice put different values on freedom and prosperity than we do (and are much more risk adverse). I think we need to be careful to respect their arguments and appreciate their unique perspective, even if we ultimately think it is wrong.

I think we need to be careful to respect their arguments and appreciate their unique perspective, even if we ultimately think it is wrong.

In general I respect his opinion, but he seems to go off the deep end in his views on a handful of economic issues. I called him sloppy primarily because there are some things which free market advocates have been trying for years that are pretty well known that he just glosses right over and says "they have nothing to say to the poor." That would be like ignoring the critical role liberals played in tearing doing Jim Crow by focusing exclusively on their welfare and affirmative action follies.

The interests of the shareholders rarely coincide with the extreme capitalist philosophers who believe that corporations have a moral duty to maximize shareholder value through any means not explicitly outlawed. In fact, this downright sociopathic philosophy can not only be extremely dangerous for the company's reputation, but its very existence since such people rarely are long-term planners. Instead, they tend to "maximize shareholder value" in ways that are destructive to long-term survival ranging from destroying partnership opportunities, to weakening the company's ability to attract talented workers, to loading up the company with debt it cannot manage.

Mike: Here we're on common ground. You're absolutely right that trying to maximize shareholder value is a mistake. Here's an interesting article by a management guru saying exactly that.

Trying to attain profits directly is like trying to be popular; it is self-defeating. Trying to do the right thing in the right way will bring rewards, but you can't predict when. Apple did not get the world's largest market cap by trying to maximize shareholder value. I'm always amused when in shareholder meetings people demand to know how the CEO is going to raise the share price, rather than make better products or services. The "genius" of Steve Jobs on the business side was simply that much of American business simply isn't focused on making loyal customers, and business leaders for years have preached that there is some special knowledge unique to businesses that must be followed. There is no special knowledge. You design the best products that you think people ought to want, and if you're right about that and successful you'll do well in the long run. The surprising thing is how many people and business are still in denial over the fact that the principles they teach their children and the principles good people use to live their lives are the business principles business leaders should use. Our moms were right. I'm not discounting Job's considerable genius and vision for engineering excellence at all, but in what kind of parallel universe is someone a "genius" for recognizing this simple fact? What kind of kool-aid did they drink in business school such that students were persuaded otherwise to begin with? Now that doesn't mean that the traditional executive decision-making and efficient administrative abilities that not everyone possesses is irrelevant, it just means that persons with those skills alone who are put in leadership are a danger to a company and should not be running the business.

In government, the same is true and the debate is raging in other threads. Is there a special knowledge such that we should allow technocrats to govern us, or do good citizens have the ability to do it? Mamet wrote a book on just this topic. It is the central political question. Plato believed that philosopher-kings --the best and brightest-- Aristotle had a different view. It is the age-old question.

And I'd add Mike, that capitalism is a pretty high-level term, and in no sense should it be equated with poor business practices that don't benefit the society it springs from. What we have now in this nation, as the Forbes' article may point out (I don't have time to reread it) is that capitalism does not specify much about the methods a particular society uses, and where those methods are wrong they should be corrected. But the problem isn't capitalism itself. As always, academia (business schools) and business writers are the ones who have shaped the way we approach capitalism in the US now, and much of it was terribly misguided. Think Frederick Taylor and his "scientific management." Much of what he taught was terribly harmful and we need to forget much of what he taught. But he was a progressive that shaped much of what people think of business and what it is supposed to be, unfortunately.

the way we approach capitalism in the US now

I meant to say the way we approach business now

What kind of kool-aid did they drink in business school such that students were persuaded otherwise to begin with?

Well, consider the fact that the business world tends to treat management as more valuable than the workers who actually make the products. Sure, they love the rock start software developer or the elite engineer, but (to borrow a phrase Zippy used here), they treat ordinary technical employees often like they're just fungible units of productivity. Manufacturing and making things is treated like a cost center, while the white collar paper pusher positions and marketing like they're the core of what the business does.

I think that's a legacy of Taylorism.

This looks like it would be a great article to read: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/589888

Fortunately, Taylorism is on the wane. One thing that is killing it is that in the past the consumer was incidental, and even the product was incidental. You got whatever car the UAW and the car company wanted to build, you got whatever PC a given manufacturer and your boss conspired to give you, and for cell phones you had to choose between the ones the carriers and phone manufacturers decided was best for them to produce.

That's all changed now and when consumers are the decision makers different decisions get made. For example, that's why we're seeing the woes of Dell, HP, and Microsoft in decline, and Nokia and RIM (Blackberry) rapidly heading towards extinction. The customer has changed, and his criteria for what is good along with it.

So referring to what I said above, one way to look at it is that business schools weren't totally wrong to teach people that the products and services weren't the real issue --they actually weren't at the time. But it was foolish to think that was the way things should be or would last.

Self-interested, sufficiently enlightened, is just common good. I am glad that commentators here recognize that the idea of 'shareholder maximization' does not help the cause of ordered liberty. But this concession, if pursued, shakes the edifice of liberal political economy and leads one to the pre-liberal conceptions.

The essential and fundamental idea of liberal political economy is that the society is or can be built on general pursuit of self-interest. But the question of what my self-interest is and where it lies has only pre-liberal answers. Thus the economists later shifted their emphasis on self-interest to satisfaction of desires or unease.

Note that unlike self-interest, that can be rationally known and discovered, unease and desires are not necessarily rational.

MikeT,

I do think that the idea of 'shareholder maximization' is not as marginal as you make out and is in fact dominant in American discourse and certainly among the conservatives, even among the religious ones.

And, I do not think I have ever written a word here against economic freedom. In fact, I probably agree with many or even most of the Misean prescriptions.

I do think that the idea of 'shareholder maximization' is not as marginal as you make out and is in fact dominant in American discourse and certainly among the conservatives, even among the religious ones.

It probably is dominant, even among religious Conservatives, but that isn't because of any theological support or deep reflection. It's because of cultural transmission of ideas through slogans that people can repeat. Even someone who had never thought about it at all but was sympathetic to free-market principles or libertarian economic ideas would likely answer with the slogan if asked the question.

I do think that the idea of 'shareholder maximization' is not as marginal as you make out and is in fact dominant in American discourse and certainly among the conservatives, even among the religious ones.

1. I don't believe I actually said it was marginal.
2. What most people believe by shareholder maximization is not what Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and those like them believe(d).
3. Mainstream conservatives and libertarians (less so than the former) tend to vehemently disagree with the extent to which Capitalist theorists have taken it in the past.

Note that unlike self-interest, that can be rationally known and discovered, unease and desires are not necessarily rational.

Yes. The classic explanation for restraining greed is that excess material goods are not, actually, in the person's self-interest. However, when you take away the underpinning for self-interest in something determinate like human nature, and leave in its place merely desire and unease, you lose all limits. Then there is no such thing as greed anymore, there is only satisfying desires (even when irrational), and desire alone has no bounds.

While there is considerable literature supporting the early liberal political economy being set upon self-interest, my (not very clear) memory suggests that some early moderns, including some of our Founding Fathers, did not consider self-interest a sufficient principle, without added considerations. In particular, I don't think they sank into the morass of thinking of the common good as merely the sum total individual private goods of the people in the polity, a problem of arithmetic and nothing more.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.