Re: intellectual property
> on 9/5/03 3:27 PM, Robert A. Book at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > But > > wholesale copying to avoid purchase is definitely infringement, even > > if no money changes hands. > > What if it was not to avoid purchase, i.e. I would not have purchased it > anyway at the set price? What if you broke into a store at night and stole a piano -- but that as not to avoid purchase, i.e. you would not have purchased it anyway at the set price? Would that be OK? > Copying at one's own expense still seems to be > fundamentally different from stealing. For the record, I have used the work "infringing" not "stealing." I agree that they are different acts, but I'm not sure their different morally. > What if I disassembled my computer > and then bought all identical components to re-create it, and then gave it > to a stranger? What if I could do that at a tiny fraction of the cost of a > buying another identical computer? If a patent applied to the whole computer, you would be infringing the patent. And that's been the law since the 1790s (in the US anyway). For computers these days, the patents typically applies to the components, not the whole computer, so it would be perfectly legal to do that. It would not, however, be at "tiny" fraction of the cost. Maybe lower cost, but not "tiny." > *For the record I actually buy the music that I download because the > downloads are fast and easy compared to peer-to-peer networks, and because I > can buy tracks as I wish, i.e. no need to buy a whole album for a couple of > tracks I want. For the record, I didn't even copy music tapes in junior high (mid-1980s). (I've been having this arguement for a *LONG* time! ;-) --Robert
Re: intellectual property
In a message dated 9/5/03 4:10:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> In a message dated 9/5/03 3:28:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >> >If copying allows you to do something that would otherwise require >> >buying another copy, it's theft. If I loan you my copy of Fred's >> >book, it's OK since I can't use it while you have it. But if I take >> >it to a Xerox machine and make it so you can have all the benefits of >> >a copy without buying it -- and I can, too -- then it's infringement. >> >> When ken lent me his copy of the movie he watched it too; was that theft? >> > >I don't think so, since he couldn't watch it while you had it. It was >no different from lending you a lawnmover. > >Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I'm sure it's not legally theft, but it fits the definition of theft that someone on the list promulgated her this afternoon. :)
Re: intellectual property
In a message dated 9/5/03 4:06:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Well, as Robert Book pointed out, there is a conflict between laws. The >law >says fair use, whatever that means exactly, but now the DMCA says not even >that. Though the DMCA really only permits the prevention of fair use, >I >think. But anyway, it's a real stretch to call the current situation a >contract between buyer and seller. I guess they now have EULAs and such >with some media, but not others. I seem to recall from my various studies of law that there's a legal doctrine that where an older and a newer law conflict the newer law prevails.
Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP
I'm thinking mostly about the growth in the size and scope of the federal government under Republican administrations versus Democratic ones. In their rhetoric Republicans often support the free market, but in their actions they rarely seem to do so. You gave an example of Quayle being a voice of freedom, not an effective instrument of it. on 9/5/03 4:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Yes, an consciously so. While I think it's clear that Republicans generally > push for much less government than Democrats do, I also think you're > disinclined to accept what seems manifest to me, and since as you know I > haven't slept > much for the past 10 days, I don't have the energy to write a lengthy > discourse full of evidence that might actually persuade you. :) Maybe if I > ever > manage to fall asleep again. :) > > David > > > In a message dated 9/5/03 3:49:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> That still avoids my distinction between rhetoric and policy. >> >> on 9/5/03 3:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> In a message dated 9/4/03 11:03:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >>> >>> here I have to disagree with you Steve. :) The Republican party's > ideology >>> runs from classical liberal to national socialist, while the Democratic >>> party's ideology runs from national socialist to international socialist. >> The >>> Republican party may not be very good at implementing the classical liberal >>> ideology of some of it's members, but the Democratic party has no such >>> ideology to >>> implement. Most of the family values, incidently, don't involve government >>> action so much as simply trying to turn back the tide of anti-Christian >>> sentiment >>> which rolls off the television night after night, consistently portraying >>> serious Christians as evil oppressors. I was sitting next to Dan Quayle >> one >>> might >>> back in Iowa when a social conservative who fits your profile tried to >> get >>> Quayle to support government censorship of the entertainment media and >> Quayle >>> very firmly opposed government censorship or content regulation of any >> sort.
Re: intellectual property
> In a message dated 9/5/03 3:28:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >If copying allows you to do something that would otherwise require > >buying another copy, it's theft. If I loan you my copy of Fred's > >book, it's OK since I can't use it while you have it. But if I take > >it to a Xerox machine and make it so you can have all the benefits of > >a copy without buying it -- and I can, too -- then it's infringement. > > When ken lent me his copy of the movie he watched it too; was that theft? > I don't think so, since he couldn't watch it while you had it. It was no different from lending you a lawnmover. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Re: intellectual property
Well, as Robert Book pointed out, there is a conflict between laws. The law says fair use, whatever that means exactly, but now the DMCA says not even that. Though the DMCA really only permits the prevention of fair use, I think. But anyway, it's a real stretch to call the current situation a contract between buyer and seller. I guess they now have EULAs and such with some media, but not others. on 9/5/03 3:56 PM, Fred Foldvary at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > --- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Another example: copying under fair use can reduce royalties. Suppose I >> buy Microsoft Office and burn a backup disc. The original is damaged. >> Suppose that without the backup I made, I would have purchased another >> original. Again, royalties are reduced by fair use. > > The reduction of royalties is the damage caused by theft, but not all > reduction in royalties is theft. When permitte by contract or law, it is > not theft. > > Fred Foldvary > > > = > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP
Yes, an consciously so. While I think it's clear that Republicans generally push for much less government than Democrats do, I also think you're disinclined to accept what seems manifest to me, and since as you know I haven't slept much for the past 10 days, I don't have the energy to write a lengthy discourse full of evidence that might actually persuade you. :) Maybe if I ever manage to fall asleep again. :) David In a message dated 9/5/03 3:49:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >That still avoids my distinction between rhetoric and policy. > >on 9/5/03 3:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> In a message dated 9/4/03 11:03:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> >> here I have to disagree with you Steve. :) The Republican party's ideology >> runs from classical liberal to national socialist, while the Democratic >> party's ideology runs from national socialist to international socialist. > The >> Republican party may not be very good at implementing the classical liberal >> ideology of some of it's members, but the Democratic party has no such >> ideology to >> implement. Most of the family values, incidently, don't involve government >> action so much as simply trying to turn back the tide of anti-Christian >> sentiment >> which rolls off the television night after night, consistently portraying >> serious Christians as evil oppressors. I was sitting next to Dan Quayle >one >> might >> back in Iowa when a social conservative who fits your profile tried to >get >> Quayle to support government censorship of the entertainment media and >Quayle >> very firmly opposed government censorship or content regulation of any >sort.
Re: intellectual property
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I'm not so sure in the patent area either. Five drug companies compete to > make a formula for a drug that does X, and the one who finishes a minute before > the others gets government protection to charge monopoly prices as the > government forbids anyone else to complete their research and sell the same drug. This not quite right. Normally, five drug companies compete to make a formula for a drug that does X, BUT THEY ALL COME UP WITH DIFFERENT FORMULAS. Each gets a patent (monopoly) on their specific drug, but NOT on "a drug that does X." Vioxx and Celebrex both do the same thing, but they have different chemical formulas and are subject to different patents. Which each firm as a "monopoly" on its specific drug, the market is really a duopoly in the market for "COX-2 inhibitors." (See section 5 of http://rbook.freeshell.org/PharmInnov.pdf ) Also, for drugs the monopoly is not the same as the patent term. It's usually shorter. (See section 4.4 of the same paper.) > If > there's any theft there it would seem to be by the government of the other > companies' right to what they researched (but didn't complete quite as quickly) > and from the consumers who must pay more because of the government-imposed > monopoly. This is what the "patent races" literature is about. I can post some references on this if you like. --Robert Book
Re: intellectual property
Unless he sells it or gives it away! The question is, is the CD/book/etc. itself my property or not? Or am I agreeing by buying it that I can only use the media in a very limited way? on 9/5/03 3:53 PM, Fred Foldvary at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > A uniform rule is needed that applies to everyone. Under that rule, some > would have bought the music and others not. The net result of enforcing > the rule is more royalties to the creator. > > The market rule is: to the creator belongs the creation. > > Fred Foldvary > > > = > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
--- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another example: copying under fair use can reduce royalties. Suppose I > buy Microsoft Office and burn a backup disc. The original is damaged. > Suppose that without the backup I made, I would have purchased another > original. Again, royalties are reduced by fair use. The reduction of royalties is the damage caused by theft, but not all reduction in royalties is theft. When permitte by contract or law, it is not theft. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
--- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Conversely, I could argue that all of the music I've ever downloaded from > a P2P network was fair use, since it did not reduce royalties. Why? A > All I have to do is claim that I would have never purchased the music at > the market price. A uniform rule is needed that applies to everyone. Under that rule, some would have bought the music and others not. The net result of enforcing the rule is more royalties to the creator. The market rule is: to the creator belongs the creation. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DMCA
> I fail to see how the delineation and protection of property rights in the > DMCA is in any way "anti-Libertarian" -- most laws seem to be a mixed bag, > DMCA included, but the DMCA seemed to me to be a general move in the right > direction -- could you (or someone) explain why the DMCA does more harm > than good? DMCA = Digital Millenium Copyright Act The problem with the DMCA is that it does not merely prohibit copying digital works just as non-digital works are protected. It also prohibits circumventing copy protection (technology used to make copying difficult) even if the purpose of circumventing is to make a perfectly legal copy. For example, it's perfectly legal (under normal copyright law) to make a backup copy of a software CD in case you lose or break the first one. And it's also legal for the software publisher to try to make copying difficult to reduce illegal copying. But under DMCA, it's illegal for me to circumvent copy protection even to make a perfectly legal backup copy. The real problem is that it also prohibtis "trafficking in any circumvention device" which has been interepreted by some law enforcement authorities (and by RIAA, MPAA, and Adobe) to include writing, using, or distributing software to decrypt or use copy-protected material in a non-standard manner. For example, a computer science professor at Princeton, Ed Felten, was prevented from giving a talk on encryption at an academic conference because the talk exposed weaknesses in the algorithm of the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI). The irony is, Felten did the research in response to a challenge from the SDMI folks to break their system! See http://www.cs.princeton.edu/sip/sdmi/sdmimessage.txt http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/Felten_v_RIAA/ Another example: Dmitry Sklyarov is a Russian citizen who wrote a program to allow blind people to read Adobe eBooks, which involved cracking Adobe's encryption. He wrote the program in Russia, where obviously US law doesn't apply. He gave a talk at a computer conference in Las Vegas discussing how his software works, after which he was immediately arrested by the FBI on federal criminal charges for giving the talk. The irony of this is palpable his wife refused to travel to the US to visit him in jail because she was afraid she would be arrested as well. (Can Russia be a freer country than the US?) See http://www.freesklyarov.org/ Another example: DVDs are all encrypted. DVD players and MS-Windows have officially sanctioned decryption software. Linux does not, since there's not Linux organization to pay for it. But someone cracked the code and wrote his own software to play DVDs on Linux -- remember, these are not copied DVDs, but originals! -- and various people who put that software on their websites have been prosecuted and/or harrassed for it. The author himself was prosecuted under the Swedish version of DMCA -- and remember, this software is for playing original DVDs you legally purchased, not copied ones. And the lawsuits are over software that is only a few lines long! See http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/ (One person generated a prime number which, when put into a computer and run through a compiler, produced executble DVD-playing code. Is possession of that number illegal under DMCA? Probably.) --Robert Book
Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP
That still avoids my distinction between rhetoric and policy. on 9/5/03 3:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 9/4/03 11:03:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > here I have to disagree with you Steve. :) The Republican party's ideology > runs from classical liberal to national socialist, while the Democratic > party's ideology runs from national socialist to international socialist. The > Republican party may not be very good at implementing the classical liberal > ideology of some of it's members, but the Democratic party has no such > ideology to > implement. Most of the family values, incidently, don't involve government > action so much as simply trying to turn back the tide of anti-Christian > sentiment > which rolls off the television night after night, consistently portraying > serious Christians as evil oppressors. I was sitting next to Dan Quayle one > might > back in Iowa when a social conservative who fits your profile tried to get > Quayle to support government censorship of the entertainment media and Quayle > very firmly opposed government censorship or content regulation of any sort.
Re: HEAVEN'S DOOR AFTER A YEAR - George J. Borjas
Ah, so I have the right to use the coercive power of the state to force you to buy your labor only from people like me? I LOVE it! I will get rich quick now that I know this. In a message dated 9/5/03 3:37:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> Perhaps even more fundamentally, if the Americans who pay the immigrants > >> didn't benefit by paying the immigrants the Americans wouldn't pay them. > >> Obviously both parties--American and immigrant--benefit from the exchange > >of money for > >> labor. > >> > > > >Sure *some* Americans benefit--just like some Americans would benefit from > >invading Communist China, as I pointed out before. But do Americans in >the > >aggregate or on average benefit? Where does this benefit show up in the > >economic stats? Cuban-American immigrant Borjas says we benefit to the >tune > >of 10 billion dollars in an economy of 10 thousand billion--that's a .001% > >benefit to the average US citizen, and it may well be canceled out or worse > >by net negative externalities, which are much easier to enumerate than > >positive externalities, perhaps because there are more of them. > > > >~Alypius Skinner
Re: HEAVEN'S DOOR AFTER A YEAR - George J. Borjas
Are you asking how to separate the effect of immigration from other factors that would increase productivity? on 9/5/03 2:27 PM, alypius skinner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> The point is that in the case of immigrants' wages it is not just a >> transfer, but a net gain. > > If it is a net gain, multiplied by the millions of immigrants from poor > countries, it will show up in the statistics as showing some kind of per > capita increase in welfare. Where does it show up? > > ~Alypius Skinner
Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP
In a message dated 9/4/03 11:03:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >No, this is a very serious point. Republican administrations are by >objective measure MORE socialist. Fundamentally, conservatives in this >country do not believe more in individual freedom than liberals. They >repeatedly seek market interventions where they disagree with market >outcomes. The only difference is a superficial anti-communism, which was >really an ignorant fear that a Soviet state could out-produce western market >economies. Conservatives love socialism, they just call it "family values" >or "national security." here I have to disagree with you Steve. :) The Republican party's ideology runs from classical liberal to national socialist, while the Democratic party's ideology runs from national socialist to international socialist. The Republican party may not be very good at implementing the classical liberal ideology of some of it's members, but the Democratic party has no such ideology to implement. Most of the family values, incidently, don't involve government action so much as simply trying to turn back the tide of anti-Christian sentiment which rolls off the television night after night, consistently portraying serious Christians as evil oppressors. I was sitting next to Dan Quayle one might back in Iowa when a social conservative who fits your profile tried to get Quayle to support government censorship of the entertainment media and Quayle very firmly opposed government censorship or content regulation of any sort.
Re: intellectual property
on 9/5/03 3:27 PM, Robert A. Book at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But > wholesale copying to avoid purchase is definitely infringement, even > if no money changes hands. What if it was not to avoid purchase, i.e. I would not have purchased it anyway at the set price? Copying at one's own expense still seems to be fundamentally different from stealing. What if I disassembled my computer and then bought all identical components to re-create it, and then gave it to a stranger? What if I could do that at a tiny fraction of the cost of a buying another identical computer? *For the record I actually buy the music that I download because the downloads are fast and easy compared to peer-to-peer networks, and because I can buy tracks as I wish, i.e. no need to buy a whole album for a couple of tracks I want.
Re: HEAVEN'S DOOR AFTER A YEAR - George J. Borjas
> Perhaps even more fundamentally, if the Americans who pay the immigrants > didn't benefit by paying the immigrants the Americans wouldn't pay them. > Obviously both parties--American and immigrant--benefit from the exchange of money for > labor. > Sure *some* Americans benefit--just like some Americans would benefit from invading Communist China, as I pointed out before. But do Americans in the aggregate or on average benefit? Where does this benefit show up in the economic stats? Cuban-American immigrant Borjas says we benefit to the tune of 10 billion dollars in an economy of 10 thousand billion--that's a .001% benefit to the average US citizen, and it may well be canceled out or worse by net negative externalities, which are much easier to enumerate than positive externalities, perhaps because there are more of them. ~Alypius Skinner
Re: intellectual property
In a message dated 9/5/03 3:28:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >If copying allows you to do something that would otherwise require >buying another copy, it's theft. If I loan you my copy of Fred's >book, it's OK since I can't use it while you have it. But if I take >it to a Xerox machine and make it so you can have all the benefits of >a copy without buying it -- and I can, too -- then it's infringement. When ken lent me his copy of the movie he watched it too; was that theft?
Re: HEAVEN'S DOOR AFTER A YEAR - George J. Borjas
> > With full employment, an immigrant is paid in addition to, rather than > instead of, a US citizen. Full employment is the exception, not the rule. >The immigrant adds to the GDP. He does not take > away a job but creates a new job. Or slows down the spread of automation and technological innovation related to the popularity of automated solutions, or he slows down increases in real wages, which is another way of rationing excessive demand for employees--perhaps a way that benefits citizens more than creating those additional jobs and filling them with imported labor, whose importation is also attended by negative externalities (higher crime, higher welfare state payouts, increased ethnic/racial/cultural friction, more votes for socialist politicians, declining national IQ, which correlates strongly with per capita GDP) which may exceed the positive externalities. > > If there is high unemployment, then the cause is not immigration but > internal barriers between labor and resources. I assume the barrier you refer to is that wages are not allowed to fall freely to their market clearing level. Whether or not they would have to fall as far to restore full employment in the absence of high immigration levels is a technical question which diverts us from the critical issue. You are arguing that unneeded immigration really isn't so bad. But this does not by any means constitute an argument *for* high immigration levels. Couldn't we save our selves a lot of trouble simply by reducing the level of immigration? How much better off--in quantifiable, dollar-and-cents terms--are US citizens made by high levels of immigration, especially unskilled, poorly educated immigrants? Borjas says they add 10 billion dollars to total GDP of about 10 trillion dollars--and I don't know whether even this figure takes into account the disutility of net negative externalities such as higher total rates of crime, incarceration, and welfare dependency, and the future negative externalities of adverse voting patterns, increased ethnic friction, and declining national IQ levels. Is California still a bellweather state? Does that state foreshadow America's demographic, political, and economic future? Or are Latin American states better indicators, with their uneasy tri-racial social hierarchies, corrupt, statist, crony politicians, and perpetually unstable economies? If increased risk is justified economically only by increased opportunity for reward, then US citizens should demand a very high level of benefits to themselves in order to risk transforming their country into a typical dysfunctional state. Good countries to live in are relatively rare, which indicates that the recipe for a good state is not easily implemented. Once implemented, what justifies (not "morally," but economically in terms of risk-reward ratios) the risk of ruining it, especially since it may not be possible to put "humpty dumpty" back together again? ~Alypius Skinner
Re: HEAVEN'S DOOR AFTER A YEAR - George J. Borjas
> > The point is that in the case of immigrants' wages it is not just a > transfer, but a net gain. If it is a net gain, multiplied by the millions of immigrants from poor countries, it will show up in the statistics as showing some kind of per capita increase in welfare. Where does it show up? ~Alypius Skinner
Re: intellectual property
In a message dated 9/5/03 3:07:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >But even under fair use, the standard of royalty reduction is not >consistently applied. Without even copying a recording, sharing potentially >reduces royalties from sales. Suppose I lend my own purchased copy of >a DVD >to Eric Crampton and he watches the movie and returns it to me. If I had >not lent it to him, suppose that he would have rented it or purchased it >himself. My act of lending it to him reduced royalties. The lending is >legal under fair use (isn't it?), even though royalties are reduced. Ken C (a fellow GMU PhD student) did bring over the director's cut of FotR and I watched it. Had he not done so I would most definitely not, in my current state of poverty, have gone out and purchased or even rented it. so his willingess to share increased my surplus without decreasing the surplus of the owner of the "intellectual property right" to it.
Re: intellectual property
> So do public/university libraries fundamentally violate intellectual > property rights? Is widespread sharing theft, or is some form of durable > duplication necessary for a theft to have taken place? Is copying alone an > act of theft, or only when the copy is distributed? I wish I had answers. If copying allows you to do something that would otherwise require buying another copy, it's theft. If I loan you my copy of Fred's book, it's OK since I can't use it while you have it. But if I take it to a Xerox machine and make it so you can have all the benefits of a copy without buying it -- and I can, too -- then it's infringement. > The current standard for many media is that duplication is legal if the > copies aren't resold. No, it's not. Never has been. All unauthorized copying is prohibited unless it falls under the "fair use" exception. Generally speaking, copying a small portion of a work for scholarly purposes (e.g., a few pages of a book, maybe even a chapter) or personal purposes (e.g., one song on an album to send along with a greeting card) is considered "fair use." So are backup copies (in case the tape machine malfunctions) for yourself only, and copies to a different medium (e.g., you have a CD and you want to listen in your car, but yoru car has only a tape player). The "fair use" definition is subjective -- you could probably copy an entire out-of-print book for scholarly use if it were not possible to buy one from the author/publisher. But wholesale copying to avoid purchase is definitely infringement, even if no money changes hands. For example, if one student in the class buys a textbook -- or a music CD -- and everyone else in the class copies it in order to have it without buying it, that's infringement under the law, and always has been. > But for music the RIAA wants to prevent not only > unauthorized resale of copies, but the unauthorized sharing/giving of > copies. This has always been the law -- the RIAA is just trying to enforce it now. I'm don't necessarily agree with their methods, or the magnitude of their penalties, or their standard of proof. But the fact is that what they are trying to prevent has been illegal for a very long time. (The last time to copyright law was overhauled was in 1977.) > What makes that sharing theft? Many musicians have said "if you use > it didn't pay for it, it's theft." That doesn't make sense to me. If I > enjoy music from a neighbor's stereo system and don't pay for it, it's not > theft. No, but if he plays it for profit (e.g., in a restaurant or on a radio station) from more than two speakers he has to pay for a license from ASCAP/BMI. (If they area from which it can be heard is small enough to be covered from only two speakers, it's considered a fair use of the recording already purchased, or of the radio signal received.) --Robert
Re: HEAVEN'S DOOR AFTER A YEAR - George J. Borjas
I would only pay the kid so far as he forced me to pay, and even then I would find a way to pay as little as possible. But I wouldn't deny my neighbor's right to own and maintain a lawn at his own expense. on 9/5/03 2:14 PM, alypius skinner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Because *we,* the citizens of America, are hiring and paying the US > government to act in *our* best interest, not in the best interest of > foreigners. They are supposed to work for *us,* not for the citizens of > other countries. Citizens of foreign states have their own governements, > who, I assure you, are not laboring for us. If you hired a boy to mow your > lawn, and he mowed the neighbor's lawn instead, yet still expected you to > pay him--what would you say? "Sure, here's your money, young man; after all, > I'm no more innately deserving of a fresh-cut lawn than my neighbor is!" > > ~Alypius
Re: HEAVEN'S DOOR AFTER A YEAR - George J. Borjas
I seem to remember Bart and Lisa Simpson arguing over whether or not two
wrongs make a right. BTW, Homer agrees with you. ;-) Call me naive, but
I'm on Lisa's side.
I guess that's where I'd ultimately disagree with Magneto, too.
on 9/5/03 3:19 PM, Aschwin de Wolf at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Why is it better for U.S. citizens to benefit than for an immigrant to
>> benefit? Are U.S. citizens somehow more deserving? Does their increased
>> wealth "count" more?
>
> This is the wrong question.
> The question is if the majority of the (illegal) immigrants share this
> individualist view of society.
>
> The Moviemiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (Chicano Student Movement of
> Aztlan), hardly a fringe latino student organisation, whose motto is ""Por
> La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada (For the Race, everything. For those
> outside the Race, nothing) seems to have a different view.
>
> You may also want to check The National Council of La Raza ("The Race"):
> http://www.nclr.org/
Re: HEAVEN'S DOOR AFTER A YEAR - George J. Borjas
> Why is it better for U.S. citizens to benefit than for an immigrant to > benefit? Are U.S. citizens somehow more deserving? Does their increased > wealth "count" more? Because *we,* the citizens of America, are hiring and paying the US government to act in *our* best interest, not in the best interest of foreigners. They are supposed to work for *us,* not for the citizens of other countries. Citizens of foreign states have their own governements, who, I assure you, are not laboring for us. If you hired a boy to mow your lawn, and he mowed the neighbor's lawn instead, yet still expected you to pay him--what would you say? "Sure, here's your money, young man; after all, I'm no more innately deserving of a fresh-cut lawn than my neighbor is!" ~Alypius
Re: HEAVEN'S DOOR AFTER A YEAR - George J. Borjas
> Why is it better for U.S. citizens to benefit than for an immigrant to
> benefit? Are U.S. citizens somehow more deserving? Does their increased
> wealth "count" more?
This is the wrong question.
The question is if the majority of the (illegal) immigrants share this
individualist view of society.
The Moviemiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (Chicano Student Movement of
Aztlan), hardly a fringe latino student organisation, whose motto is ""Por
La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada (For the Race, everything. For those
outside the Race, nothing) seems to have a different view.
You may also want to check The National Council of La Raza ("The Race"):
http://www.nclr.org/
Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP
> > Nobody seems to care about the cultural effects of > the policing needed to keep them out. To quote myself: > That's because we did the necessary policing at other times in our history--for example, President Eisenhower's Operation Wetback--and we were freer then than we have been under a more relaxed immigration policy. Unlike liberal immigration policies, strictly policing the borders typically did not impinge on the everyday lives of US citizens in any important way. Who do you know from the pre-1965 era who complains about the overbearing effects they or others they know of experienced from the government's enforcement of the strict immigration law that was in effect in that period? That doesn't seem to have been an issue with anyone other than the would-be immigrants themselves. ~Alypius Skinner
Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP
> doesn't mean they want to bring the old system with them. It could be > the other way around -- maybe that's why they want to leave. I've known quite a few immigrants, and it's my impression thay they all or nearly all come here for the same reason people (other than slaves) have always come here--they want to make more money. If the economic prospects had been similar, most of them would have preferred to remain in their countries of origin. > > There is a very strong selection bias in immigration -- it is very > costly to leave one's country and go to another. Most of our immigrants come frome Latin America, and especially Mexico. Inconvenient? Sure, but not all that difficult, and there's a large Spanish-speaking social network waiting for them when they get here. Traveling from Mexico to Texas, legal considerations aside, is no more costly than traveling from Texas to California; from Monterrey to Texas or Tijuana to California is closer than from either of those cities to Mexico City. Columbia or Venezuela, for example, are farther, but the trip is still not that difficult, and making trips back and forth to visit relatives (with whom one may stay for free) might not be any more expensive a vacation than one taken within US borders.
Re: intellectual property
Conversely, I could argue that all of the music I've ever downloaded from a P2P network was fair use, since it did not reduce royalties. Why? All I have to do is claim that I would have never purchased the music at the market price. on 9/5/03 3:08 PM, Steve Miller at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But even under fair use, the standard of royalty reduction is not > consistently applied. Without even copying a recording, sharing potentially > reduces royalties from sales. Suppose I lend my own purchased copy of a DVD > to Eric Crampton and he watches the movie and returns it to me. If I had > not lent it to him, suppose that he would have rented it or purchased it > himself. My act of lending it to him reduced royalties. The lending is > legal under fair use (isn't it?), even though royalties are reduced. > > Another example: copying under fair use can reduce royalties. Suppose I buy > Microsoft Office and burn a backup disc. The original is damaged. Suppose > that without the backup I made, I would have purchased another original. > Again, royalties are reduced by fair use. > > Steve > > on 9/5/03 2:47 PM, Fred Foldvary at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> --- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> So do public/university libraries fundamentally violate intellectual >>> property rights? >> >> As you know, copyrights confer only limited rights to the author. >> Owners of books may rent out the books. >> Copyright only outlaws copying, not use or lending. >> >>> Is copying alone an >>> act of theft, or only when the copy is distributed? >> >> "Fair use" permits copying without permission for personal use. >> What is prohibited is distribution that reduces the potential gains of the >> author. Free distribution is included here, when that detracts from sales. >> >>> What makes that sharing theft? >> >> The reduction of royalties from sales. >> >> Fred Foldvary >> >> = >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
But even under fair use, the standard of royalty reduction is not consistently applied. Without even copying a recording, sharing potentially reduces royalties from sales. Suppose I lend my own purchased copy of a DVD to Eric Crampton and he watches the movie and returns it to me. If I had not lent it to him, suppose that he would have rented it or purchased it himself. My act of lending it to him reduced royalties. The lending is legal under fair use (isn't it?), even though royalties are reduced. Another example: copying under fair use can reduce royalties. Suppose I buy Microsoft Office and burn a backup disc. The original is damaged. Suppose that without the backup I made, I would have purchased another original. Again, royalties are reduced by fair use. Steve on 9/5/03 2:47 PM, Fred Foldvary at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > --- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So do public/university libraries fundamentally violate intellectual >> property rights? > > As you know, copyrights confer only limited rights to the author. > Owners of books may rent out the books. > Copyright only outlaws copying, not use or lending. > >> Is copying alone an >> act of theft, or only when the copy is distributed? > > "Fair use" permits copying without permission for personal use. > What is prohibited is distribution that reduces the potential gains of the > author. Free distribution is included here, when that detracts from sales. > >> What makes that sharing theft? > > The reduction of royalties from sales. > > Fred Foldvary > > = > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
Fred Foldvary wrote: --- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What makes that sharing theft? The reduction of royalties from sales. this strongly implies that sharing with persons whom would never have purchased can't be theft. probably not a point you'd be willing to defend. d
Re: intellectual property
--- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So do public/university libraries fundamentally violate intellectual > property rights? As you know, copyrights confer only limited rights to the author. Owners of books may rent out the books. Copyright only outlaws copying, not use or lending. > Is copying alone an > act of theft, or only when the copy is distributed? "Fair use" permits copying without permission for personal use. What is prohibited is distribution that reduces the potential gains of the author. Free distribution is included here, when that detracts from sales. > What makes that sharing theft? The reduction of royalties from sales. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HEAVEN'S DOOR AFTER A YEAR - George J. Borjas
--- alypius skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I don't understand is how paying an immigrant rather than a US > citizen to do that work makes US citizens better off. With full employment, an immigrant is paid in addition to, rather than instead of, a US citizen. The immigrant adds to the GDP. He does not take away a job but creates a new job. If there is high unemployment, then the cause is not immigration but internal barriers between labor and resources. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
I'm not so sure in the patent area either. Five drug companies compete to make a formula for a drug that does X, and the one who finishes a minute before the others gets government protection to charge monopoly prices as the government forbids anyone else to complete their research and sell the same drug. If there's any theft there it would seem to be by the government of the other companies' right to what they researched (but didn't complete quite as quickly) and from the consumers who must pay more because of the government-imposed monopoly.
Re: HEAVEN'S DOOR AFTER A YEAR - George J. Borjas
on 9/5/03 12:40 PM, alypius skinner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Now, I realize > *someone* will benefit, just as some people would benefit if our government > decided to launch a full scale invasion of Communist China, but what numbers > would we look at--average incomes, unemployment rates, crime rates, tax > rates, whatever--would we look at to detect that the average citizen was > better off from higher immigration rates than from lower immigration rates? The point is that in the case of immigrants' wages it is not just a transfer, but a net gain. The invasion example is presumably a transfer with net losses.
Re: HEAVEN'S DOOR AFTER A YEAR - George J. Borjas
Perhaps even more fundamentally, if the Americans who pay the immigrants didn't benefit by paying the immigrants the Americans wouldn't pay them. Obviously both parties--American and immigrant--benefit from the exchange of money for labor. In a message dated 9/5/03 2:27:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Why is it better for U.S. citizens to benefit than for an immigrant to >benefit? Are U.S. citizens somehow more deserving? Does their increased >wealth "count" more? > >on 9/5/03 12:40 PM, alypius skinner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >> Alright, I understand how the immigrant benefits by making more money >than >> he would have made in his native land. What I don't understand is how >> paying an immigrant rather than a US citizen to do that work makes US >> citizens better off. Your argument readily makes sense under a one >world >> government (maybe Robert Mugabe or Hugo Chavez would wind up as World >> President), but we live in a system of sovreign states. How do the citizens >> of state A benefit by importing competitors from state B? Now, I realize >> *someone* will benefit, just as some people would benefit if our government >> decided to launch a full scale invasion of Communist China, but what >numbers >> would we look at--average incomes, unemployment rates, crime rates, tax >> rates, whatever--would we look at to detect that the average citizen >was >> better off from higher immigration rates than from lower immigration >rates? >>
Re: intellectual property, was immigration's effect
>
> What is your definition of "property"?
> Mine is: "Anything subject to human control."
What is your definition of "stealing?"
Mine is: depriving another person of possession of his property.
Copyright violation does not deprive another person either of possession or
use ("control") of his property. It might reduce his opportunities for
profit (opportunity cost), but this is profit from a temporary legal
monopoly--perhaps an entirely legitimate monopoly from a utilitarian point
of view, but monopoly privileges nonetheless. If GM is not permitted to
have a monopoly on auto manufacturing, thus depriving them of some
opportunities to profit, is this stealing their property? Of course not,
because no one has an inherent right to a monopoly. I'm not stealing from
the barber if I cut my own hair, or persuade a mother, girlfriend, or
whoever to do it for me for free, even if the cut is indistinguishable from
the local barber's own work, and even if it deprives the barber of profit
opportunities. Monopolies, such as copyrights and patents, are granted
solely for reasons of superior social utility--namely, to encourage creative
work which might not otherwise be performed. (I expect this was a valuable
law in a pre-industrial society in which 90% of the population were
employeed as farm workers. I'm not sure it has much value in a highly
industrialized economy wherein most people are city dwellers, half the
citizenry enrolls in college, farmers are less than 3% of the population,
and technology is fast making many of these monopolies unenforceable.)
But what is the optimum tradeoff between incentives created by granting
these temporary monopolies and removing or reducing the incentives so as to
promote more quickly the spread of innovation and knowledge throughout
society? As soon as we ask this question, it becomes possible to challenge
existing copyright or similar laws, which were created purely for
utilitarian reasons, on utilitarian grounds as well as libertarian.
~Alypius Skinner
.
Re: HEAVEN'S DOOR AFTER A YEAR - George J. Borjas
Why is it better for U.S. citizens to benefit than for an immigrant to benefit? Are U.S. citizens somehow more deserving? Does their increased wealth "count" more? on 9/5/03 12:40 PM, alypius skinner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Alright, I understand how the immigrant benefits by making more money than > he would have made in his native land. What I don't understand is how > paying an immigrant rather than a US citizen to do that work makes US > citizens better off. Your argument readily makes sense under a one world > government (maybe Robert Mugabe or Hugo Chavez would wind up as World > President), but we live in a system of sovreign states. How do the citizens > of state A benefit by importing competitors from state B? Now, I realize > *someone* will benefit, just as some people would benefit if our government > decided to launch a full scale invasion of Communist China, but what numbers > would we look at--average incomes, unemployment rates, crime rates, tax > rates, whatever--would we look at to detect that the average citizen was > better off from higher immigration rates than from lower immigration rates? > > ~Alypius Skinner
Re: intellectual property
So do public/university libraries fundamentally violate intellectual property rights? Is widespread sharing theft, or is some form of durable duplication necessary for a theft to have taken place? Is copying alone an act of theft, or only when the copy is distributed? I wish I had answers. The current standard for many media is that duplication is legal if the copies aren't resold. But for music the RIAA wants to prevent not only unauthorized resale of copies, but the unauthorized sharing/giving of copies. What makes that sharing theft? Many musicians have said "if you use it didn't pay for it, it's theft." That doesn't make sense to me. If I enjoy music from a neighbor's stereo system and don't pay for it, it's not theft. Now what if he plays his stereo loudly enough, and I record it from my own living room? Why isn't the benefit to non-paying listeners of music just a positive externality? And how can it be known if the externality is inframarginal or not? If it is a positive externality (and it's not inframarginal), then the apparent solution would not be to enforce intellectual property rights, but to subsidize artists. on 9/5/03 1:49 PM, Fred Foldvary at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > One can own a physical manifestation of an invention or creation. > > When I copyright a book, I don't own the text you have in your memory after > you read it, but I may claim property rights to any physical copies you may > make of the book or parts of it. > > Fred Foldvary > > > > = > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
intellectual property, was immigration's effect
--- Barney Hamish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Intellectual Property isn't really property. ... So called "intellectual > property" doesn't share many of real property. What is your definition of "property"? Mine is: "Anything subject to human control." > How can someone own an idea? One can own a physical manifestation of an invention or creation. When I copyright a book, I don't own the text you have in your memory after you read it, but I may claim property rights to any physical copies you may make of the book or parts of it. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HEAVEN'S DOOR AFTER A YEAR - George J. Borjas
> > Talking this over with Alex Tabarrok, Borjas' $10 B number probably > fails to count immigrants' pay increases as a net social gain. But for > the most part they should be. Moving from Mexico to the U.S. actually > raises worker productivity, so the pay gain is not a transfer to the > worker from someone else, but a straight increase in surplus. Alright, I understand how the immigrant benefits by making more money than he would have made in his native land. What I don't understand is how paying an immigrant rather than a US citizen to do that work makes US citizens better off. Your argument readily makes sense under a one world government (maybe Robert Mugabe or Hugo Chavez would wind up as World President), but we live in a system of sovreign states. How do the citizens of state A benefit by importing competitors from state B? Now, I realize *someone* will benefit, just as some people would benefit if our government decided to launch a full scale invasion of Communist China, but what numbers would we look at--average incomes, unemployment rates, crime rates, tax rates, whatever--would we look at to detect that the average citizen was better off from higher immigration rates than from lower immigration rates? ~Alypius Skinner
Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP
Intellectual Property isn't really property. Intellectual property is a loaded term used to bias the debate on the topic of three disparate areas of legislation: Copyright, Patents and Trademarks. So called "intellectual property" doesn't share many of real property. How can someone own an idea? How libertarian is that? Anyway, I've got to go... I might write more later on how un-libertarian the whole intellectual property scheme is. Hamish > -Original Message- > From: John Morrow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 5 September 2003 17:53 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP > > > I fail to see how the delineation and protection of property > rights in the > DMCA is in any way "anti-Libertarian" -- most laws seem to be > a mixed bag, > DMCA included, but the DMCA seemed to me to be a general move > in the right > direction -- could you (or someone) explain why the DMCA > does more harm > than good? > > At 03:46 PM 9/5/2003 +0200, you wrote: > >Given the anti-libertarian legislation passed by the > American Government in > >recent times (e.g. DMCA, Patriot Act) and how happily the > populace has gone > >along with this legislation I think an influx of immigrants > from almost any > >country would help advance the libertarian cause. > > > >Hamish > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: alypius skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, 4 September 2003 21:02 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP > > > > > > > > > libertarians (although not von Mises or the "objectivist" Ayn > > > Rand) are > > > >the > > > > > > > >strongest supporters of open borders, even though most of > > > the people who > > > > > > > >would enter under such an arrangement would be hostile > to libertarian > > > > > > > >political thought. > > > >> > > > > > > >American libertarians putting the principle of liberty for > > > all ahead of > > > personal gain?! Whodda thunk it?! > > > > > > > > > > I thought the implication here was so obvious it did not need > > > to be spelled > > > out, but I guess I was mistaken (jab, jab). Importing new > > > voters from very > > > unlibertarian political cultures will further diminish, if > > > not eventually > > > kill off altogether, struggling libertarianism's already > > > modest influence. > > > Open borders libertarians have in effect become enemies of > > > liberty when they > > > pursue a strategy that is likely to diminish freedom in > what may be > > > (depending on the measures used) the free-est country in the > > > world. It is > > > politically self-defeating, not just for libertarians, but > > > for us all. If > > > immigrants arrived in numbers that made assimilation more > > > practical, and if > > > assimilation to either libertarian or classical liberal > > > political ideas were > > > a high (although admittedly very statist) priority, then the > > > threat posed > > > to liberty might be modest, but that is not the case. But while > > > libertarians may be fools to import large numbers of people > > > who will vote > > > against both their own and America's core political values, > > > socialistic > > > politicians, such as those who control the Democratic Party, > > > are wise: they > > > are importing future socialist voters, as they are well aware. > > > > > > On crime rates: > > > > > > > > > >Perhaps labor economists are at heart radical subjectivists > > > who know better > > > than to rely on misleading aggregate statistics. > > > > > > > > > > When trying to determine effects on the mean crime level, > > > only aggregate > > > stats matter. That is, focusing on a tiny, elite segment of > > > immigrants, > > > such as those from India, tells us nothing about the effects > > > of immigrants > > > as a whole on the overall crime rate, and the cost of > > > increased mean levels > > > of criminality on victims and taxpayers. > > > > > > >For example, without even > > > looking it up, I would be willing to bet you $200 that the > > > crime rate among > > > Indian immigrants in Baltimore City or Washington, D.C. is > > > lower than the > > > crime rate among native-born citizens in those cities. > > > > > > > > > > No doubt, given immigrants from India are reported to have a > > > mean IQ of 118 > > > (versus only 81 for India as a whole), but since the > average Indian > > > immigrant is not typical of the average immigrant, and, in > > > fact, represents > > > only a sliver of our total annual immigration, this > argument against > > > aggregation amounts to a mere diversionary tactic. > > > > > > >A tangentially related question: does a proliferation of > > > laws that people > > > generally don't obey cause people to generally break other > > > laws more easily? > > > > > > > > > > From my observation of people (such as my priest!) who > > > routinely and often > > > egregiously ignore speeding laws, I would have to say: no. I > > > thin
Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP
Thanks. I don't know anything about it. What does it do? David In a message dated 9/5/03 12:50:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Um, what is the DMCA? > >Digital Millennium Copyright Act > >-- >Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um, what is the DMCA? Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP
Um, what is the DMCA? In a message dated 9/5/03 11:54:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >I fail to see how the delineation and protection of property rights in >the >DMCA is in any way "anti-Libertarian" -- most laws seem to be a mixed bag, >DMCA included, but the DMCA seemed to me to be a general move in the right >direction -- could you (or someone) explain why the DMCA does more harm >than good?
Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP
I fail to see how the delineation and protection of property rights in the DMCA is in any way "anti-Libertarian" -- most laws seem to be a mixed bag, DMCA included, but the DMCA seemed to me to be a general move in the right direction -- could you (or someone) explain why the DMCA does more harm than good? At 03:46 PM 9/5/2003 +0200, you wrote: Given the anti-libertarian legislation passed by the American Government in recent times (e.g. DMCA, Patriot Act) and how happily the populace has gone along with this legislation I think an influx of immigrants from almost any country would help advance the libertarian cause. Hamish > -Original Message- > From: alypius skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, 4 September 2003 21:02 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP > > > libertarians (although not von Mises or the "objectivist" Ayn > Rand) are > >the > > > >strongest supporters of open borders, even though most of > the people who > > > >would enter under such an arrangement would be hostile to libertarian > > > >political thought. > >> > > >American libertarians putting the principle of liberty for > all ahead of > personal gain?! Whodda thunk it?! > > > > I thought the implication here was so obvious it did not need > to be spelled > out, but I guess I was mistaken (jab, jab). Importing new > voters from very > unlibertarian political cultures will further diminish, if > not eventually > kill off altogether, struggling libertarianism's already > modest influence. > Open borders libertarians have in effect become enemies of > liberty when they > pursue a strategy that is likely to diminish freedom in what may be > (depending on the measures used) the free-est country in the > world. It is > politically self-defeating, not just for libertarians, but > for us all. If > immigrants arrived in numbers that made assimilation more > practical, and if > assimilation to either libertarian or classical liberal > political ideas were > a high (although admittedly very statist) priority, then the > threat posed > to liberty might be modest, but that is not the case. But while > libertarians may be fools to import large numbers of people > who will vote > against both their own and America's core political values, > socialistic > politicians, such as those who control the Democratic Party, > are wise: they > are importing future socialist voters, as they are well aware. > > On crime rates: > > > >Perhaps labor economists are at heart radical subjectivists > who know better > than to rely on misleading aggregate statistics. > > > > When trying to determine effects on the mean crime level, > only aggregate > stats matter. That is, focusing on a tiny, elite segment of > immigrants, > such as those from India, tells us nothing about the effects > of immigrants > as a whole on the overall crime rate, and the cost of > increased mean levels > of criminality on victims and taxpayers. > > >For example, without even > looking it up, I would be willing to bet you $200 that the > crime rate among > Indian immigrants in Baltimore City or Washington, D.C. is > lower than the > crime rate among native-born citizens in those cities. > > > > No doubt, given immigrants from India are reported to have a > mean IQ of 118 > (versus only 81 for India as a whole), but since the average Indian > immigrant is not typical of the average immigrant, and, in > fact, represents > only a sliver of our total annual immigration, this argument against > aggregation amounts to a mere diversionary tactic. > > >A tangentially related question: does a proliferation of > laws that people > generally don't obey cause people to generally break other > laws more easily? > > > > From my observation of people (such as my priest!) who > routinely and often > egregiously ignore speeding laws, I would have to say: no. I > think people > distinguish between law and morality. I don't fault any of > the people who > sneak into the US illegally, but those who break the law > should still be > punished as a hopeful deterrent (perhaps by flogging before > deportation) if > unlimited immigration is not in our national--yes, our > collective--interest. > I think obedience to laws founded on intrinsic morality, such as those > forbidding theft and violence, things that are inherently > immoral because > they are obvious forms of free-riding, fall into a different > category of > misconduct in most people's minds. Obedience to morality-based laws > probably has much more to do with culture and childhood > socialization rather > than "respect for the law." > > >Instead of > examining the incentives that immigrants and native > populations face, many > invoke the different culture, beliefs, and values of > immigrants as the core > problem. > > > > And for good reason. Culture, beliefs, and values influence > behavior in > important ways. This is true even when incentives are the > same. Other > things bein
Re: HEAVEN'S DOOR AFTER A YEAR - George J. Borjas
alypius skinner wrote: Some reviewers also claimed that it was "absurd" to conclude, as I do, that the net economic benefits from immigration are small, probably less than $10 billion a year. This estimate comes from a simple application of the widely used textbook model of a competitive labor market. This is the same model that is typically used to analyze the economic consequences of such government policies as minimum wages and payroll taxes. The market for ideas provides what is perhaps the most convincing argument in favor of my estimate. The immigration area, after all, is highly contentious. If it were that simple to show that the gains from immigration are huge, there is an audience ready and willing to buy such numbers. My estimates are so "absurd" that not a single academic study has concluded that they are higher-and some studies have concluded that they are lower. Talking this over with Alex Tabarrok, Borjas' $10 B number probably fails to count immigrants' pay increases as a net social gain. But for the most part they should be. Moving from Mexico to the U.S. actually raises worker productivity, so the pay gain is not a transfer to the worker from someone else, but a straight increase in surplus. If we figure that immigrants would have made between 10 and 50% of their U.S. income at home, then 50-90% of their U.S. wages should be counted as a welfare gain. So suppose we have 10 M more immigrants than we would have under Borjas' regime. Their wage doubles from half the U.S. minimum wage in Mexico to the U.S. minimum wage. That's a net gain of $5000 per immigrant per year, or $50 B per year. This is analogous in IO to an increase in productive efficiency, which are typically of a much larger magnitude than increases in allocative efficiency. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Infancy conforms to nobody: all conform to it, so that one babe commonly makes four or five out of the adults who prattle and play to it." --Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP
Given the anti-libertarian legislation passed by the American Government in recent times (e.g. DMCA, Patriot Act) and how happily the populace has gone along with this legislation I think an influx of immigrants from almost any country would help advance the libertarian cause. Hamish > -Original Message- > From: alypius skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, 4 September 2003 21:02 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP > > > libertarians (although not von Mises or the "objectivist" Ayn > Rand) are > >the > > > >strongest supporters of open borders, even though most of > the people who > > > >would enter under such an arrangement would be hostile to libertarian > > > >political thought. > >> > > >American libertarians putting the principle of liberty for > all ahead of > personal gain?! Whodda thunk it?! > > > > I thought the implication here was so obvious it did not need > to be spelled > out, but I guess I was mistaken (jab, jab). Importing new > voters from very > unlibertarian political cultures will further diminish, if > not eventually > kill off altogether, struggling libertarianism's already > modest influence. > Open borders libertarians have in effect become enemies of > liberty when they > pursue a strategy that is likely to diminish freedom in what may be > (depending on the measures used) the free-est country in the > world. It is > politically self-defeating, not just for libertarians, but > for us all. If > immigrants arrived in numbers that made assimilation more > practical, and if > assimilation to either libertarian or classical liberal > political ideas were > a high (although admittedly very statist) priority, then the > threat posed > to liberty might be modest, but that is not the case. But while > libertarians may be fools to import large numbers of people > who will vote > against both their own and America's core political values, > socialistic > politicians, such as those who control the Democratic Party, > are wise: they > are importing future socialist voters, as they are well aware. > > On crime rates: > > > >Perhaps labor economists are at heart radical subjectivists > who know better > than to rely on misleading aggregate statistics. > > > > When trying to determine effects on the mean crime level, > only aggregate > stats matter. That is, focusing on a tiny, elite segment of > immigrants, > such as those from India, tells us nothing about the effects > of immigrants > as a whole on the overall crime rate, and the cost of > increased mean levels > of criminality on victims and taxpayers. > > >For example, without even > looking it up, I would be willing to bet you $200 that the > crime rate among > Indian immigrants in Baltimore City or Washington, D.C. is > lower than the > crime rate among native-born citizens in those cities. > > > > No doubt, given immigrants from India are reported to have a > mean IQ of 118 > (versus only 81 for India as a whole), but since the average Indian > immigrant is not typical of the average immigrant, and, in > fact, represents > only a sliver of our total annual immigration, this argument against > aggregation amounts to a mere diversionary tactic. > > >A tangentially related question: does a proliferation of > laws that people > generally don't obey cause people to generally break other > laws more easily? > > > > From my observation of people (such as my priest!) who > routinely and often > egregiously ignore speeding laws, I would have to say: no. I > think people > distinguish between law and morality. I don't fault any of > the people who > sneak into the US illegally, but those who break the law > should still be > punished as a hopeful deterrent (perhaps by flogging before > deportation) if > unlimited immigration is not in our national--yes, our > collective--interest. > I think obedience to laws founded on intrinsic morality, such as those > forbidding theft and violence, things that are inherently > immoral because > they are obvious forms of free-riding, fall into a different > category of > misconduct in most people's minds. Obedience to morality-based laws > probably has much more to do with culture and childhood > socialization rather > than "respect for the law." > > >Instead of > examining the incentives that immigrants and native > populations face, many > invoke the different culture, beliefs, and values of > immigrants as the core > problem. > > > > And for good reason. Culture, beliefs, and values influence > behavior in > important ways. This is true even when incentives are the > same. Other > things being equal, a community of gypsy immigrants will still behave > differently from a community of Jewish or Chinese > immigrants. Political > cultures, like religions, are especially conservative (in the sense of > change resistant). For example, David Hackett Fischer in > _Albion's Seed_ > describes how the different subcultures of British immigr
Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP
I jaywalked a half dozen times on my way in to work this morning, and I'll do it again tonight [meaning I'm an incorrigible recidivist]. Moreover, hardly anybody here in Bonn jaywalks, but sometimes they do after they see me doing it [leading others into breaking the law]. Does my propensity to jaywalk mean that I should be banned from being on the other side of the street -- surely if I'm willing to break the law to cross the street, I must be willing to rape and pillage as soon as I get to the other side, no? Eric Crampton On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Aschwin de Wolf wrote: > This brings us back to the question if illegals break the law because they > think it's "not sensible" (for example: do illegal immigrants from mexico > also think that mexico should have open borders?) or because they're more > inclined to break the law anyway. > > Considering the higher crime rates among illegals the latter may be true. > >
