Remember when you wrote about your fear biggest fear of homogenous societies, and how you wanted to make sure the world is completely heterogeneous and fractured: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/10/they_scare_me.html. I wonder if that has anything to do with your open borders views?
>Caplan ... says [the UAE is successful] because the “UAE is closer to open borders than any country on earth.”
>But does the UAE meet his own definition of the same? Certainly not.
>The UAE is highly restrictive in its immigration policy. Nobody is allowed to enter the country for more than a limited time on a tourist visa without being explicitly invited by an employer. And, since the largest employers in the UAE are the royal families through their many companies, invitations to live and work in the UAE are at their pleasure. Once inside the UAE, employees who lose their jobs are ineligible to stay unless they find a new position with a sponsoring company in a short period of time. Either they work and produce, thus benefiting the UAE directly, or they are deported back home.
>After dismissing Caplan’s premise that the UAE has open borders...
So Caplan says that the UAE doesn't have open borders, but is *closer* to open borders than any country on earth, and the "rebuttal" is that the UAE doesn't have fully open borders.
>the UAE’s success is more credibly attributed to a combination of natural resource wealth...
The author doesn't explain why this is "more credible" he just asserts it.
Since 1971, the real GDP of the UAE has increased by a factor of more than 23. Other countries with more oil than the UAE grew significantly less.
Iraq increased by about 14.
Saudi Arabia increased by about 5.
Iran increased by less than 3.
Kuwait increased by less than 2.
>and a private property mindset on the part of its ruling families.
Right. The UAE succeeds since it allows free markets. Which includes the free exchange of goods *and labor.*
>Caplan’s next point is that the rulers of the UAE were not nativist and, therefore, chose to forego the interests of native-born Emiratis by allowing high levels of immigration into their country. This is a gross misreading of the ruling psychology in the UAE.
>It is naïve to suggest—as Caplan does—that the interests of UAE citizens, including the royal families themselves, were not foremost in the minds of Emirati rulers.
He doesn't quote Caplan here, since he's lying about what Caplan wrote. Caplan never suggested that the UAE allowed immigration due to prioritizing others over themselves. On the contrary! Most of Caplan's work on immigration in general, and his comments on the UAE in particular, studies the benefits to the host countries - not the immigrants.
>Immigrants facilitate various goals of the UAE rulers and citizens, but they do not participate in the political process—as it is an absolute monarchy—and their rights are considerably restricted compared to those of Emirati citizens. That is also by design.
Caplan never denied that! He explicitly discusses that throughout the article, including in point 13.
>Next, in an apparent attempt to undercut a natural argument against open borders—that they are incongruous with a welfare state—Caplan points out the UAE’s “overflowing welfare state.” But at the end of this paragraph, almost as an aside, Caplan admits the “overflowing welfare state” does not exist for immigrants, only for Emirati citizens, who comprise a small minority of the population. He then contradicts his prior description by suggesting that nobody would describe this state of affairs as a “generous welfare state.” Okay, then.
No! This isn't what Caplan is doing, at all. The author either completely lacks reading comprehension, honesty, or both.
Caplan is *critiquing others' description of the UAE.* It is *they* who describe it as a "welfare state," while Caplan corrects them by noting that:
"In a more important sense, however, the UAE’s welfare state is admirably austere, because these lavish benefits are limited to Emirati citizens — and these citizens are a tiny minority of the population."
This is consistent with Caplan's work in general (and common sense) that the net value of immigrants depends on the their contribution (output) and consumption of welfare (input). The UAE succeeds because the former is far more than the latter. What about the US? Caplan discusses that in his book and shows that the large majority of immigrants are net positives.
>Caplan’s next point is both confusing
I'm sure that for someone with reading comprehension as poor as his, most written works are quite confusing.
>and erroneous. He appears to preempt the “assimilation” argument against open borders...by suggesting that, rather than immigrants adopting Emirati values, the opposite has happened, namely, that native Emirati Muslims and Third World migrants have been “Westernized” by the small but influential Western expat community in the UAE.
As the author admitted, he's confused. Caplan isn't saying that host countries will automatically assume the culture of their immigrants (that would generally be an argument *against* immigration, while Caplan is arguing *for* immigration). Indeed, Caplan explicitly rebuts it, stating: "Absolutely not, because only a tiny share of the migrants are Western."
>Unfortunately, he provides no evidence for this assertion. It’s hard to imagine what he’s referring to.
It shouldn't be too hard to figure out what Caplan is talking about in point 9 there. The paragraph starts "Does all this show that assimilation doesn't work" and "all this" refers to the points he just discussed in point 8.
The idea that ideological zealotry is an evil and moderation combined with trusting the public is a virtue, is neither silly or uncommon.
Remember when you wrote about your fear biggest fear of homogenous societies, and how you wanted to make sure the world is completely heterogeneous and fractured: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/10/they_scare_me.html. I wonder if that has anything to do with your open borders views?
I think gut-based democracy is fine in the absence of clear rationale of anything.
Do you plan to respond to Artis Shepherd's criticism of you, Dr. Caplan? I think there is a lot of straw man fallacy in this article.
Can you give a link to his criticism?
The link seems to be this: https://mises.org/mises-wire/caplans-errors-uae-and-open-borders. The critiques are retarded:
>Caplan ... says [the UAE is successful] because the “UAE is closer to open borders than any country on earth.”
>But does the UAE meet his own definition of the same? Certainly not.
>The UAE is highly restrictive in its immigration policy. Nobody is allowed to enter the country for more than a limited time on a tourist visa without being explicitly invited by an employer. And, since the largest employers in the UAE are the royal families through their many companies, invitations to live and work in the UAE are at their pleasure. Once inside the UAE, employees who lose their jobs are ineligible to stay unless they find a new position with a sponsoring company in a short period of time. Either they work and produce, thus benefiting the UAE directly, or they are deported back home.
>After dismissing Caplan’s premise that the UAE has open borders...
So Caplan says that the UAE doesn't have open borders, but is *closer* to open borders than any country on earth, and the "rebuttal" is that the UAE doesn't have fully open borders.
>the UAE’s success is more credibly attributed to a combination of natural resource wealth...
The author doesn't explain why this is "more credible" he just asserts it.
Since 1971, the real GDP of the UAE has increased by a factor of more than 23. Other countries with more oil than the UAE grew significantly less.
Iraq increased by about 14.
Saudi Arabia increased by about 5.
Iran increased by less than 3.
Kuwait increased by less than 2.
>and a private property mindset on the part of its ruling families.
Right. The UAE succeeds since it allows free markets. Which includes the free exchange of goods *and labor.*
>Caplan’s next point is that the rulers of the UAE were not nativist and, therefore, chose to forego the interests of native-born Emiratis by allowing high levels of immigration into their country. This is a gross misreading of the ruling psychology in the UAE.
>It is naïve to suggest—as Caplan does—that the interests of UAE citizens, including the royal families themselves, were not foremost in the minds of Emirati rulers.
He doesn't quote Caplan here, since he's lying about what Caplan wrote. Caplan never suggested that the UAE allowed immigration due to prioritizing others over themselves. On the contrary! Most of Caplan's work on immigration in general, and his comments on the UAE in particular, studies the benefits to the host countries - not the immigrants.
>Immigrants facilitate various goals of the UAE rulers and citizens, but they do not participate in the political process—as it is an absolute monarchy—and their rights are considerably restricted compared to those of Emirati citizens. That is also by design.
Caplan never denied that! He explicitly discusses that throughout the article, including in point 13.
>Next, in an apparent attempt to undercut a natural argument against open borders—that they are incongruous with a welfare state—Caplan points out the UAE’s “overflowing welfare state.” But at the end of this paragraph, almost as an aside, Caplan admits the “overflowing welfare state” does not exist for immigrants, only for Emirati citizens, who comprise a small minority of the population. He then contradicts his prior description by suggesting that nobody would describe this state of affairs as a “generous welfare state.” Okay, then.
No! This isn't what Caplan is doing, at all. The author either completely lacks reading comprehension, honesty, or both.
Caplan is *critiquing others' description of the UAE.* It is *they* who describe it as a "welfare state," while Caplan corrects them by noting that:
"In a more important sense, however, the UAE’s welfare state is admirably austere, because these lavish benefits are limited to Emirati citizens — and these citizens are a tiny minority of the population."
This is consistent with Caplan's work in general (and common sense) that the net value of immigrants depends on the their contribution (output) and consumption of welfare (input). The UAE succeeds because the former is far more than the latter. What about the US? Caplan discusses that in his book and shows that the large majority of immigrants are net positives.
>Caplan’s next point is both confusing
I'm sure that for someone with reading comprehension as poor as his, most written works are quite confusing.
>and erroneous. He appears to preempt the “assimilation” argument against open borders...by suggesting that, rather than immigrants adopting Emirati values, the opposite has happened, namely, that native Emirati Muslims and Third World migrants have been “Westernized” by the small but influential Western expat community in the UAE.
As the author admitted, he's confused. Caplan isn't saying that host countries will automatically assume the culture of their immigrants (that would generally be an argument *against* immigration, while Caplan is arguing *for* immigration). Indeed, Caplan explicitly rebuts it, stating: "Absolutely not, because only a tiny share of the migrants are Western."
>Unfortunately, he provides no evidence for this assertion. It’s hard to imagine what he’s referring to.
It shouldn't be too hard to figure out what Caplan is talking about in point 9 there. The paragraph starts "Does all this show that assimilation doesn't work" and "all this" refers to the points he just discussed in point 8.
And that's it. That's the entire "criticism."
Thanks.