1) Foreign aid and open borders are intensely unpopular in first world democracies.
2) Running on these platforms will cause leftist parties to lose elections while not passing the preferred policies.
3) When leftist parties lose elections the first world welfare state will be smaller then otherwise.
This seems like the most obvious line of argument. The goal of leftists is to transfer resources from rich first worlders to poor first worlders because poor first worlders can vote and thus have he actual political power necessary to take from rich first worlders, while poor third worlders don't have political power.
Now, if you think poor first worlders stealing from rich first worlders is bad, this won't be appealing, but I think you are starting from the viewpoint that they are leftists, so they view it as a good thing.
If you put a gun to his head and forced Matt Yglesias to choose between the welfare state and One Billion Americans, he would choose the welfare state, at least in his role as a pundit.
This is, broadly, my view. If you could guarantee a policy would happen, and made me pick welfare state or fairly open borders, I would pick the open borders every time, for essentially the reasons Caplan lays out.
I don't believe it to be politically possible almost anywhere, however , and certainly not in a democracy.
In particular, residents of a democracy wouldn't vote to give up their own welfare rights, or that or their children, which leaves the position of migrants' children very unclear. Assuming we retain a welfare state for natives, do we have a two tier semi-feudal system in perpetuity? Yes, this is effectively what we have already, just across borders, but I can't see people accepting it, least of all the grand children of the migrants who will (fairly justifiably) feel cut off from their own country.
1) Political stability tends to require some degree of equality. Even if not currentely a democracy, there is still going to be political pressure.
Especially if you have a productive economy at scale based on human capital (you can always find some weird city state, but a real sizable country at the frontier of human accomplishment).
2) Equality is very hard to maintain if the populace has wildly different levels of human capital.
3) The world as a whole has far greater variance of human capital then the modern first world.
So let's say we implemented Bryan's solution and imported a bunch of Africans. I think what would happen is what happened to Detroit when it imported a bunch of Africans. Except it would be writ large and there would be no fed bucks or suburban taxes from outside to keep it afloat.
More like South Africa, another country where the two tier feudal system didn't hold up. You'll note that the worlds richest man and most successful immigrant has basically figured out he doesn't want America to become like his native South Africa.
4) Social Insurance amongst a populace with universally high human capital is fine. It's very nice to live in, creates economic growth that trickles down to the rest of the world, and is politically stable. The OECD model could basically go on forever if we just get people to have kids.
I'm substantially more optimistic than you that environmental factors (pollution, nutrition, education, etc) could very materially reduce the observed global gap in human capital... But I can't see how that would happen in Caplan's deregulated, non-welfare society! At least on a reasonable timeline.
"If you put a gun to his head and forced Matt Yglesias to choose between the welfare state and One Billion Americans, he would choose the welfare state, at least in his role as a pundit."
Hmm... I don't know about Yglesias. My prediction is that he would definitely choose 1 billion Americans but I suppose I can't know for sure.
2) Has admitted he lies in public strategically to achieve political objectives
I would view "One Billion Americans" as marketing and vibes, not necessarily what he believes in. We don't really know what he believes, because the truth is just an instrument to him.
"It's ok that we have no children because we are going to replace ourselves with Africans" isn't really a great idea anyway. It's underwhelming on multiple fronts even if you don't think there is a human capital differential.
I think you're right. In my review of Yglesias's book, in which I was generally favorable, I pointed out that he put way more effort (though not thought) into the idea of subsidizing Americans to have children than he put into the details of how to get more immigration, even though the latter is far more likely to get us anywhere close to 1 billion Americans.
2) Has admitted he lies in public strategically to achieve political objectives
I would view "One Billion Americans" as marketing and vibes, not necessarily what he believes in. We don't really know what he believes, because the truth is just an instrument to him.
"It's ok that we have no children because we are going to replace ourselves with Africans" isn't really a great idea anyway. It's underwhelming on multiple fronts even if you don't think there is a human capital differential.
1) Foreign aid and open borders are intensely unpopular in first world democracies.
2) Running on these platforms will cause leftist parties to lose elections while not passing the preferred policies.
3) When leftist parties lose elections the first world welfare state will be smaller then otherwise.
This seems like the most obvious line of argument. The goal of leftists is to transfer resources from rich first worlders to poor first worlders because poor first worlders can vote and thus have he actual political power necessary to take from rich first worlders, while poor third worlders don't have political power.
Now, if you think poor first worlders stealing from rich first worlders is bad, this won't be appealing, but I think you are starting from the viewpoint that they are leftists, so they view it as a good thing.
If you put a gun to his head and forced Matt Yglesias to choose between the welfare state and One Billion Americans, he would choose the welfare state, at least in his role as a pundit.
This is, broadly, my view. If you could guarantee a policy would happen, and made me pick welfare state or fairly open borders, I would pick the open borders every time, for essentially the reasons Caplan lays out.
I don't believe it to be politically possible almost anywhere, however , and certainly not in a democracy.
In particular, residents of a democracy wouldn't vote to give up their own welfare rights, or that or their children, which leaves the position of migrants' children very unclear. Assuming we retain a welfare state for natives, do we have a two tier semi-feudal system in perpetuity? Yes, this is effectively what we have already, just across borders, but I can't see people accepting it, least of all the grand children of the migrants who will (fairly justifiably) feel cut off from their own country.
Yes, it's a nonsense solution.
1) Political stability tends to require some degree of equality. Even if not currentely a democracy, there is still going to be political pressure.
Especially if you have a productive economy at scale based on human capital (you can always find some weird city state, but a real sizable country at the frontier of human accomplishment).
2) Equality is very hard to maintain if the populace has wildly different levels of human capital.
3) The world as a whole has far greater variance of human capital then the modern first world.
So let's say we implemented Bryan's solution and imported a bunch of Africans. I think what would happen is what happened to Detroit when it imported a bunch of Africans. Except it would be writ large and there would be no fed bucks or suburban taxes from outside to keep it afloat.
More like South Africa, another country where the two tier feudal system didn't hold up. You'll note that the worlds richest man and most successful immigrant has basically figured out he doesn't want America to become like his native South Africa.
4) Social Insurance amongst a populace with universally high human capital is fine. It's very nice to live in, creates economic growth that trickles down to the rest of the world, and is politically stable. The OECD model could basically go on forever if we just get people to have kids.
I'm substantially more optimistic than you that environmental factors (pollution, nutrition, education, etc) could very materially reduce the observed global gap in human capital... But I can't see how that would happen in Caplan's deregulated, non-welfare society! At least on a reasonable timeline.
White people in South Africa and Bermuda seem to do reasonably well.
"If you put a gun to his head and forced Matt Yglesias to choose between the welfare state and One Billion Americans, he would choose the welfare state, at least in his role as a pundit."
Hmm... I don't know about Yglesias. My prediction is that he would definitely choose 1 billion Americans but I suppose I can't know for sure.
Keep in mind too that Yglesias:
1) Lies in public
2) Has admitted he lies in public strategically to achieve political objectives
I would view "One Billion Americans" as marketing and vibes, not necessarily what he believes in. We don't really know what he believes, because the truth is just an instrument to him.
https://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/the-toady-class-on-average-is-over/
"It's ok that we have no children because we are going to replace ourselves with Africans" isn't really a great idea anyway. It's underwhelming on multiple fronts even if you don't think there is a human capital differential.
I think you're right. In my review of Yglesias's book, in which I was generally favorable, I pointed out that he put way more effort (though not thought) into the idea of subsidizing Americans to have children than he put into the details of how to get more immigration, even though the latter is far more likely to get us anywhere close to 1 billion Americans.
Keep in mind too that Yglesias:
1) Lies in public
2) Has admitted he lies in public strategically to achieve political objectives
I would view "One Billion Americans" as marketing and vibes, not necessarily what he believes in. We don't really know what he believes, because the truth is just an instrument to him.
https://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/the-toady-class-on-average-is-over/
"It's ok that we have no children because we are going to replace ourselves with Africans" isn't really a great idea anyway. It's underwhelming on multiple fronts even if you don't think there is a human capital differential.