DISQUS

"It may be well worth $x to me to increase government revenue by $10,000,000x" is an extremely tendentious description of what's going on. Henry Farrell's $x is *not* increasing government revenue by $10,000,000x. It is only increasing government revenue by...well...$x.

It is the other 9,999,999 people involved, many of them against their will, who bring the total up to $10,000,000x.

It is also misleading to suggest that everybody is paying the same $x.

A more plausible description of what's *really* going on might be this: a larger number of people, who pay, on average, less than x (and who might even end up with a net profit on the deal) coerce a smaller number of people, who pay, on average, more than x, into "doing the right thing."

The former group than congratulates itself on its moral superiority to the latter group.

Rinse, spin, repeat.

Now there's another phrase I like: "the mindless wankery of Postmodern performance art.

Could any mots be more juste?

Heh. I like that: "unclench."

But seriously: if you're going to play the snob when it comes to Bouguereau vs. Rothko, you might want to exercise a little more discretion when it comes to your *own* guilty pleasures.

Best again - SB

WW, with all due respect:

If you find yourself "transfixed" by that video, and admit it, then you're going to have a hard time convincing anybody over the age of 16 that any of your opinions on the arts are worth the time it takes to read them.

Best - SB

I blush for you.

WW: why not provide the link? Simon Schama's Rothko bit may be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXZFLf9zHjs&...

Personally, I can hardly imagine a more damning attempt at a defense. Schama shows not the least sign of visual sensitivity. Which is something the French Academic painters of the 19th century all learned, as a matter of course, if they didn't possess it naturally.

To prefer Rothko to Bouguereau, these days, is not to display even the slightest flicker of mature judgment. It is merely to display a superficial familiarity with the conventional wisdom of recent times.

The smug self-satisfaction of WW's second paragraph above just makes me cringe.

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2007/10/r...

Thanks for a very smart and interesting piece. Two comments:

(1) This is particularly good:

"Evidently, Chait does not believe that effects on economic liberty are 'practical' ones. But he both begins and ends his book lamenting America's relatively high level o[f] income inequality. Yet if the rather large, evidently 'practical' difference to citizens between a government that takes one-third of their income instead of two-thirds does not count as a 'practical effect,' then why exactly does the mathematical ratio between the average income in the top and bottom income brackets count?"

Chait's whole "conservative = dogmatist, liberal = pragmatist" schtick is nonsense on stilts, and this is an excellent case in point. It might be worth expanding upon.

(2) Have you read through the comments thread over there?

If so, can you still not "imagine the miracle that would keep [you] from preferring a Democrat in the next presidential election?

Mr. Wilkinson:

(1) The *average* gain to taxpayers, if any, is not dispositive, even if we are considering this in narrowly economic terms. It all depends on the distribution of gains and losses. If the majority of taxpayers lose, then why should they support more immigrant labor, just because relatively large gains to a minority of taxpayers (i.e., the immigrants themselves and their employers) make the average come out positive?

Consider a mini-welfare-state of a hundred citizens. One of them is a vegetable farmer. Two of them are farm-workers in his employ. The other ninety-seven buy vegetables at the store, but are otherwise unconcerned with agriculture. All of them pay taxes to support public highways, public schools, public health clinics, etc.

At this point, an immigrant family of four shows up on the doorstep. The parents are farmworkers, willing to work for half the wages of the current citizen farm-workers. They bring with them two school-aged children.

The farmer is delighted, and proposes that they be admitted.

Should the current citizens vote to admit, or to exclude?

If the immigrants are admitted, here are the obvious gainers: (a) the farmer, who can cut his labor costs in half and make a higher profit while at the same time reducing prices, and (b) the immigrants, who can make a far better wage than they could where they came from while at the same time enjoying the superior public highways, public schools, public health clinics, etc. of their adopted country.

And here are the obvious losers: the current citizen farm-workers, who must either accept a lower wage or move on to other employment (or unemployment).

As for the other ninety-seven, they gain from lower vegetable prices, but lose from higher public welfare costs.

Let's suppose, for purposes of argument, that the gains to the farmer, and to the immigrants, are so great that voting to admit results in an average gain to taxpayers (including the newly admitted immigrants). But let's also suppose, again for purposes of argument, that for the other ninety-seven, their gains from lower vegetable prices are smaller than their losses from higher public welfare costs.

In that case, I count ninety-nine rational votes against admission, and only one rational vote in favor, even though admission would result in an *average* gain to taxpayers.

So no.

(2) Possibly yes - but it's not possible, so...what?

Mr. McIntosh: no, I consider it an argument against the *combination* of unlimited immigration with the welfare state.

Personally, I would just *love* to get rid of all those publicly funded services consumed by poor immigrants, legal and illegal alike.

But what are the chances of that? And do the chances get better, or worse, as we import more and more poor immigrants?

Suggested answers: zero, and getting worse.

I mean, for heavens sake: we live in a time when prominent so-called libertarians like Tyler Cowen adopt a "don't worry, be happy" attitude toward the growth of government, yet go right on supporting open borders.

It's incredibly irresponsible.

So long as the people you let in to your club or your factory or whatever are not imposing costs on others, those others may have no right to complain.

But illegal aliens collect more than $2000 per household per year in public services.

It isn't the 19th century anymore. Immigrants to the U.S. today are not showing up in a relatively *laissez-faire*, sink-or-swim society where they have to pay their own way. They are showing up in an advanced welfare state where the taxpayers get stuck with many of their bills.

So telling taxpayers that this is a purely private transaction between employers and employees, and that they have no business interfering, just isn't serious.

Mr. Wilkinson: this post of yours is deplorably unresponsive to Robert Samuelson's supposedly deplorable column.

By the going standards, that piece is relatively high on informational content, relatively low on policy advice.

You ignore the informational content entirely.

You "respond" to the policy advice by hinting that Samuelson is a bigot.

People with serious academic training in philosophy really should not engage in such stuff. Shame on you.