So you know better, but maintain your glaring misinterpretation out of dishonesty rather than ignorance? Here I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt like a sucker.
As I said, I'm not invested in either man's theories, but I have yet to see where you've done anything but attack straw men in a weak attempt to smear an opposing ideology. On reflection, perhaps that much straw could choke a horse. Perhaps if you made your sparring partners from hay or oats?
Again, Cowen's book is making predictions (right or wrong, for better or worse), not suggestions, and he is politically closer to Republicans than Libertarians anyway. You keep trying to conflate Cowen and Caplan's views despite the fact that they bear little resemblance to each other. But then, you are so familiar with them that I'm sure you already knew that.
In conclusion, I wouldn't have Cowen or Caplan over for a cookout, with or without a catalytic converter.
For your ideological butthurt:
I have my religion mocked regularly; toughen up and get used to yours being slapped around for its silly faith-based bits. You'll be a better man for it.
Yes, Cowen does not fit into the "privatize the sidewalks" "no true
scotsman libertarian" Randian wing of the libertarian movement. The thing about libertarians is that there is always some fevered soul more libertarian then thou and denouncing the rest as not true libertarians. Cowen does, however, assume all Caplan's policy prescriptions as given and has expressed support for them.
Let me repeat: Cowen advocates for the policies that will result in what he described (10% on top, 90% sucking legumes) in Let Them Eat Beans The End of Average.A Strategy for Rich Countries: Absorb More Immigrants
Unfortunately, regions with rapidly growing populations, like Africa and South Asia, often have lower living standards. In our likely global future, these regions will have more people than they can comfortably support, while many countries in the West and in East Asia will have too few young people for prosperous economies.
As an economist, I see an obvious solution: Relatively underpopulated and highly developed countries could profitably take in young Africans and South Asians — and both sides would gain. Yet it’s far from clear that all nations that could benefit from this policy would entertain it, partly because of persistent racial and cultural bias.
Screw Cowen where he breathes for smearing others who want to keep America American and prioritize their neighbors over aliens from thousands of miles away.
Wait, there's more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/business/economy/31view.html (more American worker displacing nonsense)
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/cowen_on_immigr.html (unpatriotic / anti-nationalist)
So why report cost-benefit results only for United States citizens or residents, as is sometimes done in analyses of both international trade and migration? The nation-state is a good practical institution, but it does not provide the final moral delineation of which people count and which do not. So commentators on trade and immigration should stress the cosmopolitan perspective...
Economist Tyler Cowen never discusses in his article in today's New York Times promoting still more immigration to the West, the effects, of mass immigration from outside the EU on the societies, the well-being, the cohesion, of the countries of Western Europe, where those effects are now too obvious to be denied. He never discusses the non-economic effects of immigration, when that immigration is no longer from countries and peoples that share the same general beliefs and cultural norms, and levels of civilization. He never discusses, not a peep, about the special case of Islam, and of Muslim immigrants. He's a promoter of population growth primarily through immigration. Toward the end of his article he does mention signs of such growth through natural means, he doesn't tell us, doesnt disaggregate the figures, to explain if such growth in, for example, France, comes from the French or from the non-integrable Muslim population.
Cordex, your wallowing in ignorance while accusing others of dishonesty is not pretty. I have the data and argue it. All you are doing is hurling accusations because you are irritated someone pointed out how many libertarians are unpatriotic and care not a whit for their fellow Americans.
