« Subprime fact of the day | Main | The dangers of compulsory education »
Tabarrok on Dobbs
I just taped an interview on immigration with a reporter for Lou Dobb's show on CNN. It's supposed to be on tonight. I had a few good lines. (I'm sure I wasn't as composed as these answers suggest but this is the gist.)
Q: Are you in favor of open borders?
A: I was delighted when the Berlin wall fell and certainly hope that my grandchildren live in a world where it is easier to move between countries.
Q: (After discussing the 19th century immigration of the Irish). But weren't the Irish legal immigrants?
A: The Irish were legal immigrants not because they were especially law-abiding but because the immigration law was less restrictive at that time. If people are worried about illegal immigration the solution is simple, make the immigration laws less restrictive.
I think they were hoping for a "crazy" open border person to make Lou Dobbs look good in comparison. In which case (believe it or not!) I suspect I disappointed their hopes by being eminently reasonable - we will see how much of the interview gets on the air and what is left on the cutting room floor.
Addendum: My kids thought it was hilarious when Lou called me a complete idiot! I didn't get much airtime but my Open Letter on Immigration got lots of attention.
Thanks to everyone in the comments who watched!
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on August 13, 2007 at 05:02 PM in Economics, Television | Permalink
Comments
Alex, Good luck! Dobbs and other crazies have a way of "reshaping" things in their own perverse view...
Maybe you should interview Dobbs and then allow others to discuss his ideas?
Posted by: David Zetland at Aug 13, 2007 5:29:01 PM
Do you know what time the interview will show?
Posted by: EMW at Aug 13, 2007 5:56:07 PM
From CNN's show as shown:
Tabarrok: I was delighted when my grandchildren moved.
Tabarrok: The Irish were not especially law-abiding.
Posted by: M. Hodak at Aug 13, 2007 5:58:16 PM
If someone spots this video online, can they post a link here? Thanks!
Posted by: Christopher Monnier at Aug 13, 2007 6:12:51 PM
Wow. He gave you a few seconds.
Posted by: John at Aug 13, 2007 6:20:05 PM
He called you an idiot. That's the highest compliment you could have received.
Posted by: Dave K at Aug 13, 2007 6:21:57 PM
He called the Powell an idiot. You got off easy.
If Lou has so much to say, why not talk lives???
JACKASSES HE SAYS???? LOU IS IN TROUBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WAR ON LOU!!!!!!
Posted by: John at Aug 13, 2007 6:22:10 PM
I am embarrassed for Mr. Dobbs after watching that. Fortunately, it will be the last time.
Posted by: Josh Wexler at Aug 13, 2007 6:24:30 PM
I sent this to his Dobbs' Show:
Lou calls economists idiots and jackasses??
Maybe his lack of real economic training makes the world too simple for him.
Lou, if you feel so sure of yourself and their folly, why not invite the men you mock onto your show and talk live instead of taking gratuitous shots at them?
Go ahead, talk to them, you might learn something...maybe.
Posted by: John at Aug 13, 2007 6:26:24 PM
My brother and I were laughing out loud during that segment. Absolutely hilarious.
Posted by: Hollywood_Freaks at Aug 13, 2007 6:29:51 PM
I think all the economists here who like open borders should simply move themselves to Mexico. I'm sure they could use a lot of useless theorists there, as we have an oversupply here. I mean, you're all for the free movement of people, why not move yourselves? Prove what you say. A move to Mexico would do the economy a favor, as lowering your wages and standard of living would save the rest of us a lot of dough. Mexico could use some cheap useless theorists. Then we could use that money we wasted on you and your stupid ideas to build new prisons for all the extra murderers, rapists, and thieves who are coming across our borders, and (fail to) educate their largely uneducatable spawn. Sounds like fair trade to me.
BTW, the rest of us are more concerned with maintaining a way of life than a "standard of living", which you can only quantify with money. Spare the rest of us the fruits of your mental illness.
Posted by: Uber-economan at Aug 13, 2007 6:42:49 PM
"I think all the economists here who like open borders should simply move themselves to Mexico. "
And everybody who thinks people should be allowed to eat beef should move to a cattle ranch!
Posted by: Uber-dumbguy at Aug 13, 2007 6:54:25 PM
"all the extra murderers, rapists, and thieves who are coming across our borders"
Really? What percentage of immigrants are murderers, rapists, or thieves? Compared to the percentage of murderers, rapists, or thieves in the general population?
In a way, immigration maintains your "standard of living". Just because "average wages" went down, does not mean your wage, or any other person's wage, went down. It might just be that an Immigrant got a lower wage, thus lowering the average wage. As I understand the numbers, the "standard of living" (purchasing power of your dollar), is actually going up in real terms (constantly).
BTW open borders does not mean we "have to move" rather that we are "free to move". I see no need to further explain.
Sincerely,
A cheap and useless theorist in Mexico.
Posted by: Luigi at Aug 13, 2007 6:56:15 PM
"...(fail) to educate their largely uneducatable [sic] spawn."
You must make a charming dinner companion.
Posted by: dan at Aug 13, 2007 7:04:37 PM
Y'all oughts ta move yourself ta Mexico ya complete idiot!
Posted by: josh at Aug 13, 2007 7:57:55 PM
Every asked yourself why C/S Americans are moving here in droves? Maybe it's because 1) they've made a mash of their own societies, and 2) they can. And why are their societies a mess? Maybe their culture has something to do with it?
Yet we want to take them in faster than they can assimilate? (which assumes they want to in the first place)
Posted by: Think it through at Aug 13, 2007 8:10:47 PM
Think it through,
They come here for opportunity. They have little opportunity because because their culture is more under the grip of self-sabotaging populism than we'll ever be (I hope). They come here because their societies are more economically illiterate than ours is. They come here because, whether they realize it or not, they vote with their feet and those votes favor freer more open markets and laws with more integrity and "rulers" who could never all the empty and destructive promises their authoritarian and corrupt "rulers" back home actually try to accomplish and fail at (of course).
Their economic history is a cycle of failed promises, resentment, populist backlash and more failed promises and around it goes. Sadly, they'll never realize that.
They are not the same people when they come here. Here, they have a chance to work and they do.
Posted by: John at Aug 13, 2007 8:42:41 PM
Think it through,
They come here for opportunity. They have little opportunity because because their culture is more under the grip of self-sabotaging populism than we'll ever be (I hope). They come here because their societies are more economically illiterate than ours is. They come here because, whether they realize it or not, they vote with their feet and those votes favor freer more open markets and laws with more integrity and "rulers" who could never all the empty and destructive promises their authoritarian and corrupt "rulers" back home actually try to accomplish and fail at (of course).
Their economic history is a cycle of failed promises, resentment, populist backlash and more failed promises and around it goes. Sadly, they'll never realize that.
They are not the same people when they come here. Here, they have a chance to work and they do.
Posted by: John at Aug 13, 2007 8:43:46 PM
What I'd like to see on TV is Alex play Jeopardy against George Borjas, with all the subjects being "Immigration." I'd guess that the final score would be something like
Borjas $28,000
Tabarrok -$600
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Aug 13, 2007 9:29:46 PM
What I'd like to see on TV is Alex play Jeopardy against George Borjas, with all the subjects being "Immigration." I'd guess that the final score would be something like
Borjas $28,000
Tabarrok -$600
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Aug 13, 2007 9:30:01 PM
Alex -
Is there a You-tube link you could post to this??
Posted by: Butter at Aug 13, 2007 9:57:26 PM
Actually, I did debate George Borjas several years ago. I won't say what the score was but I guarantee you it was a lot closer than Steve Sailor imagines.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Aug 13, 2007 10:03:42 PM
1. Luigi:
The incarceration rate of Hispanics is roughly 350-380% of Whites, if you want an estimate of propensity for the by far largest group of unskilled immigrants.
Immigration lowers the REAL wage of people they compete with, not only the nominal wage. This is simple Heckscher-Ohlin. The total wage of natives is not likely to go down.
But that’s largely irrelevant. The cost of unskilled immigration largely goes through government spending, crime, lower
civic participation and a more populist/statist electorate.
To keep it simple, let’s stick with taxes and crime. Each unskilled immigrant costs American taxpayers about 140.000$ over their lifetime, even assuming convergence in income far above empirical ones.
2. “the "standard of living" (purchasing power of your dollar), is actually going up”
Well, yeah, thanks to technological growth. But the standard of living would go up EVEN MORE if the US reduced low-skill immigration.
3. John:
You are completely right in the first part of your analysis. But you just can’t make the connection can you? Hispanics that come to the US are voting for free markets with their feet, and voting AGIANST free markets and for economic illiteracy and populism with their hands.
According to Pew 60% of Hispanics want to expand government, compared to 35% of non-Hispanic whites.
In 1940 the US was 1,4% Hispanic. By 2040 it will be almost 25% Hispanic. This is a demographic transformation seldom seen in history. The electorate is changing. Meanwhile incomes of second and third generation Mexicans are no higher than African-Americans. Half of all Hispanic children drop out of high-school.
What will happen to the free-market innovation machine when the poor minorities are the majority?
4. I normally like Tabarrok. But his job as an economist is to think the specific issue through, not offer simplistic clichés.
Normal viewers are less smart than him, but probably have more common sense in this issue. The example with the Berlin-Wall falling is completely meaningless, since it had to do with removing political borders within THE SAME NATION.
Germans share language, culture, history and identity. Americans do not identify themselves as “North-Mexicans”, and have a right to live in the association of their choice.
Using dumb-downed libertarian soundbytes you are advocating giving away the property of Americans, their citizenship “shares” in the US. This is missing the point of libertarian ideals on a deeper level: People have the right of forming communities and associations with those they want, and politely keeping everyone else out.
19th century immigration from Europe was legal because transportation costs kept all less desired immigration groups out. For all their problems the Irish assimilated to American standards within about 3 generations. They faces massive pressure to assimilate to Americans norms, unlike today. Anyway in 1832 there was no welfare state, so the cost even of failed immigration was limited.
In order to use this example Alex has to ignore the central core of the argument. He was answering as an economist, but choice to ignore all economic aspects in the debate, such as costs, taxes, transfers and labour markets. Instead we get a good dose of sentimentality that any soccer-mom can give you.
It would be interesting to see if Tabbarok can use actual economic arguments that open borders with third-world countries benefits a majority of American citizens.
Note that you don’t get to do the standard tricks:
• Using stats where unskilled third-world immigrants are mixed with Japanese Phd.s and German investment bankers to raise their average.
• Referring to 19th century Irish/Italian/Jewish experience as some sort of deterministic rule. We know empirically the Hispanics today are not following the same path. The education and share of professional levels of Irish immigrants surpassed natives within 3 generations. There is no such convergence for Mexicans today.
• Ignore the public sector 800-pound Gorilla, because you are against it. We are not choosing some magical basket of policies, open borders and libertarian paradise. Take the political reality into account, where the small gains from trade are dwarfed by the massive transfers to the (mainly) poor unskilled immigrants.
Posted by: Tino at Aug 13, 2007 10:20:05 PM
"It would be interesting to see if Tabbarok can use actual economic arguments that open borders with third-world countries benefits a majority of American citizens."
He won't because he can't.
Posted by: rj at Aug 13, 2007 10:56:00 PM
Tino,
I do not have the technical knowledge of simple Heckscher-Ohlin economics or stats to debate your points. However, it seems everybody here talks about regulatory (send them back, block our borders) solutions; Immigrants are coming because they have incentives to come, and those are not limited to shitty conditions at home. US businesses (walmart, et al) are hiring illegal immigrants at a lower wage, even lower than minimum wage, than they would "regular" americans. What if the US govt actually enforced the minimum wage law? What if the same wage for the same work was enforced? Would immigrants be more productive and thus be a better hire than the US workers? (btw are you against all immigration, or only hispanic immigration?) If so, wouldn't it be better for the average american to have a more productive worker for the same cost?
Sure, "hispanics" (which is not the same as immigrants, many hispanics have been here for generations; also, why hispanics v. whites? it seems the law of averages would send "whites" back to the mean... do you have stats on balkanic immigrants? eastern europeans? maybe a more apple to apple comparison) commit crimes; but they can also be heroes (see hispanic who saved schoolchildren on the bridge collapse). Are you going to keep them all out or are you going to select between the heroes and the criminals?
Also, as I said not all "hispanics" are immigrants; some go generations back. You still don't want them? where do you draw the line? Go generations back and even you, and every reader in the US, was an immigrant. YEah, this is sentimental shit. But America was founded and maintained by immigrants. Deal with it.
Best,
Posted by: Luigi at Aug 13, 2007 11:04:58 PM
