The link is gated, but here’s the screen cap! My book with Zach Weinersmith is sandwiched on the list between three Nobelists:
The link is gated, but here’s the screen cap! My book with Zach Weinersmith is sandwiched on the list between three Nobelists:
Dec 7 2019
The share of Republicans who say presidents could operate more effectively if they did not have to worry so much about Congress and the courts increased 16 percentage points over the past year, from 27% in March 2018 to 43% this past July. So says the Pew Research Center in a recent tweet about a poll it had taken. ...
Dec 7 2019
I was almost going to write "dead", but then thought that this would give readers the erroneous impression that I don't expect any more recessions. Rather I believe the term 'cycle' is no longer descriptive. In November 1982, the unemployment rate hit 10.8%, the highest rate since WWII. The US had experienced 8 ...
Dec 6 2019
The link is gated, but here's the screen cap! My book with Zach Weinersmith is sandwiched on the list between three Nobelists:
READER COMMENTS
Joe Clave
Dec 6 2019 at 7:03pm
Haven’t read it yet, but my 10 y/o son started reading it and says it’s really good.
Thaomas
Dec 7 2019 at 8:39am
The Economist gets it exactly right: the book refutes arguments against immigration. But that refutation does not establish a case for open borders, just for more immigration than the present misguided opposition-constrained state rate and structure,
Christophe Biocca
Dec 7 2019 at 10:22am
There’s plenty of arguments in the book making a case for open borders. Chapter 2 is literally called “Trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”. Chapter 7 argues most moral frameworks say you should have open borders.
Maybe you found those less convincing, but the idea that the book doesn’t even try to make an affirmative case for open borders is misleading.
Tiago
Dec 7 2019 at 6:00pm
True. I would add that the book begins by showing why by any reasonable moral standard, there is a prima facie case for open borders. If he refutes the arguments against, then the case for open borders prevails
Thaomas
Dec 9 2019 at 6:16am
What I mean is that all the data that show how definitely immigration is a net positive positive comes from the present constrained situation. The is no way to know if the balance of costs and benefits would look the same if the rate of immigration were 5, 10, 25 millions per year.
Joseph
Dec 12 2019 at 3:09pm
If you’re arguing from the basis that the free market (to the degree we have one in the U.S.) is free to coordinate human resources through supply, demand and price signals which reflect consumer, worker and producer preferences, then I fundamentally don’t understand the fear over immigration rates going up.
Caplan also directly addresses a wide range of fears that increased immigration might result in x, y, z. What, specifically, do you fear about (even vastly) increased immigration? And, can you address what Caplan might say about it, from what he wrote in the book? He covers a lot of ground.
Comments are closed.