Economically, nothing has changed between 2009 and now. Five years later, we still have the headlines of ‘slow growth’ and ‘fed uncertainties’, the same libs complaining about wealth inequality and the soft labor market, unending quarters of blowout profits & earnings, economic data that keeps being better than expected, huge consumer spending, falling treasury yields, stocks always going up, a Goldilocks economy, and interest rates never going up. Five years from now, things will still be the same, except much higher stock prices.
iSteve opposes open borders
The disagreement lies in the fact most economists, including Bryan, don’t believe in closed borders because it’s pareto inefficient to restrict labor options. It goes against the teachings of economics.
Second, ‘open borders’ and ‘jobs’ are not mutually inclusive. Many conflate open borders as a job issue, when it’s possible to have border control with job openings for immigrants. That’s what some republicans advocate – a meritocracy that allows talented foreigners entry while keeping others out. It’s not literal open borders. In a meritocracy, the best and the brightest should get the job, regardless of national origin. Restricting labor options makes American companies less competitive and is bad for the economy, too. If the foreign programmers are of poor quality (a common concern), then in a free market, tech companies will choose to stop hiring them or pay them less until an equilibrium between quality and price is achieved. To quote Jim Manzi from National Review:
There is always a shortage of smart, creative hardworking people, because on average they create vastly more value than they consume. They help themselves, but also make the society around them richer. The higher you climb this ladder of ability (broadly defined), the more value that will be created in and for America.
The funny thing is, with his views on parenting and education, Bryan, like Larry Summers and a few other liberals, does have some HBD cred.
This list about what every high schooler should now before going to college, which is laced with subtle themes of biological determinism , is a good example.
Suppose your 150-pound friend dreams of being a professional football player. Would a true friend urge him on? No, he’d warn his mid-weight friend that he is astronomically unlikely to succeed in football, and needs to consider more realistic careers. I’m trying to play the same role for mediocre and poor students who expect to succeed in college.
He’s implying that like the 150-pound aspiring football player, some people are not ‘physically’ cut out for higher education, which is analogous to them not being smart enough.
The left believes that the government should create a level playing field where anyone, regardless of intellect, can succeed. This is unrealistic, because even with the best intentions, people of low/average IQ usually don’t achieve much, so instead the government should focus on creating pro-growth economic environments that allow the best and the brightest to thrive, while reducing entitlement spending for everyone else. Some ideas for pro-growth polices include, but are not limited to: tax cuts, raising the h1b immigration cap (a plan endorsed by Romney), restricting voting and or giving wealthier people more representation, more QE, an iron-clad pledge by the fed to never raise interest rates, and less regulation. These are mostly republican ideas, and if Liz Warren* gains traction in the polls and dems lose the senate, stocks will surge. GOP control of all three branches with super-majorities would be euphoric for stocks. Expect the biggest rally in years on top of the already huge post-2008 gains. We could easily see S&P 500 going as high as 3,000 by 2017. Oh, and let’s not forget the GSE’s: Freddie (FMCC) and Fannie (FNMA). These are always a good buy on the dips. There is no plan to wind these down anytime soon and GOP control of all three branches significantly increases the odds shareholders will be saved. That’s why I’m buying & holding, because I have faith in America, free markets, the intellectual revolution, and the smart people who comprise it.
* Warren has no hope of winning a general election, which is why Hillary will most likely be the nominee. The best scenario for the stock market would be for Warren to somehow get the nomination, which would guarantee a victory for her republican challenger. Hillary winning wouldn’t be so bad, either, since a Hillary presidency would adopt many of the successful pro-growth policies of G. W. Bush.