Friday, November 30, 2018

Economist cites Schroedinger's immigrant

Here is a foolish non-physics reference to quantum mechanics.

Economist David Henderson writes in favor of open borders:
In a post this morning, Cafe Hayek’s Don Boudreaux points out the contradiction in opposing immigrants because they work and opposing them because they go on welfare, that is, don’t work.

Jon Murphy, a Ph.D. student at George Mason University, where Don teaches, and a frequent commenter on this site (as well as an Econlib Feature Article author) sums it up beautifully:

Schrodinger’s Immigrant: simultaneously stealing jobs and too lazy to work.

Of course, Jon’s reference is to Schrodinger’s cat.
If Schroedinger's immigrant is like the cat, then you have to look at the immigrant too see if he is stealing jobs or too lazy to work.

Or as a comment explains:
It is completely possible for immigrants to be a problem for both working and not working. An example — If 10 million immigrants suddenly find a home in the US, the economy cannot instantly absorb them. Therefore some will find work and others will not, thereby making the double whammy that some are competing for jobs with citizens, and others are sucking dollars out of the welfare system.
Henderson ignores this, and just lets others take the libertarian view that the immigrants should be able to do whatever they want.


  1. Dear Roger,

    No, you (i.e. an individual in general), or a multitude of Americans---say the whites (here, speaking of the middle states), or the Americans plus some other naturalized citizens (say those from some nations other than the immigrant's own, speaking of the West- or East-coast states)---or, most importantly, the respective state and the federal _governments_ _don't_ get to ``observe'' the immigrant, as far as this laziness vs. stealing jobs issues is concerned.

    In a properly Capitalist system, it's a potential immigrant's employer who does that. And it's the employer who gets the poor chap in his organization. Assuming the employer is sane, he gets the immigrant ``in'' only if he measures the immigrant as hard-working. But the important point is this. Even if the employer gets a lazy chap in, it's no one else's business so long as the employer pays the immigrant out of his own pocket.

    Equally important, the rest _all_ keep off, as far as this laziness vs. ``stealing'' jobs issue is concerned. It's in between the employer and the (potential and later actual) immigrant, _both_ exercising their inalienable (``natural'', or ``by-birth'') rights.


    [I will move this comment too, to my blog.)

  2. If doctors, lawyers, chattering academics, financiers, and other white collar workers were flooding across the border in untold numbers, said professions already established in the country would not be too happy about their prospects either, as their relative scarcity would plummet and their wages would drop. Funny thing that, those who feel they will benefit from or not be harmed by open borders are the ones claiming the moral high ground, while those who suffer, and are seeing their wages drop as competition for jobs, housing, and medicine increase aren't too pleased.

    Being that those who don't feel at all threatened by open borders are also of the mindset that income disparity and lack of education which results from such a policy is a terrible thing, I have to wonder how they don't drown in their own virtue signaling hypocrisy.

    1. CFT,

      Yes, you obviously are a White, Christian, American. No, I am never, ever, going to even attempt entering your country. Not again. (No point asking you to even wonder why. (And it's a fact, alright!))

      Yes, your physicists are, right now, going crazy about my claim---err... a claim I made---that I have resolved all the essential riddles about QM.

      Obviously a white-collar job.

      I wouldn't ask you what you would do if you were to be an American employer. The outcome is in the plain sight.

      ... Beggars, as far as QM foundations is concerned. And, from me.

      Best, anyway,


  3. Ajit,

    What a delightfully pompous and racially bigoted thing to say. Maybe you should refrain from such poorly informed assumptions, namely about my skin color, as it is meaningless. My family happens to be racially and religiously mixed, not that it matters one bit since I did not base my comments on
    1.Any particular Religion,
    2.Any particular nationality
    3.Any particular Race

    The concepts I discussed were universal applying to all actual nations (not imaginary self identified world citizens), and are a natural consequence of economic supply and demand as well as obvious human nature.

    Nations (and thus borders) exist for a reason, namely, to safeguard their people and interests from those who aren't of their nation, and to have a defined boundary in which to practice their laws and customs. Boundaries and borders are necessary as they define all things, allowing distinction and comprehension.

    Many nations (of all backgrounds, colors, and creeds) are now realizing (yet once again) that the idea of open borders and mass immigration is a bad idea dressed up in the naive sentiment of posturing college students, Just as leaving the front door of my house, my car, or bank account open and unsecured is a bad idea...and for the very same reasons. Pray tell, would you be equally willing to have the border and citizenship between India and Pakistan ignored? How about China and Russia?
    I think not.

    Open borders are like open veins, fatal if not treated, and to be avoided.

    Most nations who are not presently trying to kill themselves have all kinds of hurdles and requirements (age, health, a high demand profession, skill level, criminal background checks, existing wealth) that must be passed before you can become a citizen. These kinds of requirements are quite common and rarely commented upon unless the nation in question is the United States.

    If you wish to visit or immigrate anywhere, might I strongly suggest you do so by entering your country of choice LEGALLY and politely, and not try to crash someone else's country like an uninvited boor at an open bar wedding reception.

  4. CFT,

    The point isn't---and it wasn't, ever---whether a particular immigrating individual's immigration should be legal or not. Of course, it should be! Which sane person could argue otherwise---thereby allowing to weaken the very nation in which he lives (or begins to live)?

    But then, the illegal immigration argument is a strawman. It has been used in order to en-restrict i.e. coerce i.e. FORCE-DOWN the _legal_ immigration of the more competent. I should know---whether you do or not.

    So, the point was: What kind of a system of laws should there be in the nation of immigration, in the first place? Should the system recognize, with full consistency, the principles of individual rights or not---both of the citizens of that country _and_ of the immigrating individual?

    On this last count, USA has been doing dismally of late (i.e., at least over the course of my generation, esp. since 1990 when I first entered it).

    And, as an individual who respects his own individual rights, I have the right to point out not only that you have been doing dismally, but also that you have been only going only downhill on that count (with nonzero acceleration, I might add!) I do have that right, whether I always exercise it or not. It's a part of the individual rights---which in turn are inalienable, whether I am an American or not.

    Today's Americans routinely violate my rights, even after my having come back to India, when they even just attempt to break in, into my machine---the one which I use to run simulations and write my forthcoming paper on foundations of QM. It's been a habit with your countrymen. The first time the break-in occurred (or at least the first time I noticed it happening) was in the late 1990s, when I was in your S.F. Bay Area. (I guess it still is in the USA.) The latest attempts to break-in were as late as when I wrote my last comment.

    One part you Americans have to get right is this: I don't get to have (or ``enjoy'') my individual rights only after I become a naturalized American citizen. The world began when I was born, and the world is mine to win. I had my inalienable rights the moment I took birth. The only question is whether you acknowledge this fact or not. Your nation did not, and still does not. And is going downhills. That's why I am not going to provide your nation with yet another opportunity to let you all pretend that you are doing great---or will ever do great, even if you keep erecting one strawman after another.

    If you guys are so good, the least you can do is to stop trying to break-in into my computer, for a peek into the nature of my new theory about the foundations of QM. Got it?

    And we all are smart enough to know what's actually going to happen here, aren't we?

    Bye for now.


    [PS: How today's dismally pathetic and power-lusting people that the Americans _have_ _already_ become, are going respond. In essence, it would be to erect yet another strawman and beat it to the death: Here, start by covering media reports of how people get paranoid. ... Guess you (and other readers) are smart enough to figure out the rest. Goodbye.]

  5. Ajit,

    Your rights, as far as they go legally, are connected to and enforced by the country you are a citizen of. You are not entitled to be treated as a legal citizen and enjoy use of the resources of a country you are not a citizen of, natural rights or no. End of story.

    India is a very very old country, and so it has far more transgressions and barbaric atrocities committed in its long, poverty stricken, overpopulated, and blood soaked history than the United States could even begin to approach by many magnitudes...for at least another 10,000 years, so please, Spare me your pompous whining about how 'dismally pathetic and power-lusting' we are and read some of your own god-damned history, it's dreadful, and it's been dreadful long before the Roman Empire took it's first steps. I'm also (unfortunately) more informed by first hand experience of how Indian castes treat each other and those they consider their 'inferiors', and how they look at Americans in general, racial snobbery is far too kind a word for it. Please stop being a hypocrite and refrain from discussing the splinter in our eye before you remove the oversized Redwood Tree from your own.

    As to who is hacking your computer, how the hell should I know? How the hell should you know? It's premature to be pointing the finger at me, when it could be virtually anyone including your OWN government, or just plain old hackers looking for secrets to sell. Maybe you should consider keeping your work offline like most nominally intelligent people do when they don't want various world governments sniffing though their private things.

    1. CFT,

      The existence of my _individual rights_ precedes (i.e., they are not contingent upon) the existence of any nation. They are a part of my being a human being. (I think you are never going to get this part right.)

      USA has been doing dismally and pathetically bad on the count of individual rights as in the context of immigration (by which, of course, I mean the legal immigration). It continues to do worse and still worse. It is expected to be doing that in the foreseeable future. That precisely is one of the strong reasons I am not even entertaining the thoughts of even setting a foot in your country. Not again.

      Regardless of how you otherwise write, a few items of what you write about India's past, may be admissible qua criticisms. However, it's not my field of professional purpose, activity, or much personal interest. So, I will leave these for those who are interested in them, as is. However, I must mention two minor asides: (i) I can also level similar criticisms against the Western culture---in history, today, and tomorrow. Specifically, that in the USA. Occasionally, I indeed do. (ii) There is a lot of ancient Indian wisdom that has survived to this day and continues to benefit me. I gratefully acknowledge this part.

      However, there is a non-minor aspect which I must highlight. There is one salient difference in our respective positions here, and it is this: Unless you believe in reincarnation, you (taken more loosely, in the sense of your ``aatmaa'') couldn't possibly have been hurt by any possible atrocity existing in India (or anywhere else) some 50,000 or 10,000 years ago. On the other hand, I was narrating the violations of my own individual rights, both as an aspiring immigrant to the USA and later on (at the hands of Americans), *****right in our life-time*****. You happily ignore the emphasized part, just like most present-day Americans are wont to.

      But otherwise, when I said ``you guys,'' there was no typo in it.

      I have developed the means to know when my machine was hacked, to what extent, and probably (and sometimes certainly) by which kind of people from which country. In this case, the countries involved were not in doubt. Enough said. ... No, I do not write down the specifics of this technique and keep the document anywhere---online or even offline. I don't want Americans and others to get to know it. Smart, am I not?

      As to the plain old hackers: I can't tell whether you flatter me, or erect a strawman---once again. Plain old hackers wouldn't get anything of any serious value out of any of my writings. My estimated net worth is, relatively, next to nothing. People other than the plain old hackers do stand to have a definite motivation or two, however. It mostly is related to to practice of tokenism, and Americans in particular have perfected the latter art, and definitely, they have broken in into my machine. Enough said.

      This is almost getting funny. However, simultaneously, it also is leading the discussion subtly astray from the contents of my topmost comment on this blog---thereby subtly helping dilute its import. For instance, you didn't address the _individual_ part of the individual rights. For such reasons, perhaps, I should disengage myself from a continuation of this err... discussion.

      [Sure it was me who wrote this comment.]

  6. Ajit,

    Spare me the sanctimonious bullshit.
    Your self proclaimed 'individual rights' precede nothing since they have no way of being enforced much less mustering anything close to legal standing without the power of a government (or nation if you will) behind them. Without defined legal standing and enforcement, a 'right' has no actual presence or use, it's just your wish list for legal protections you don't actually have and that no one has any actual obligation to honor.

    Individual rights work in the real (actual) world only through the extension of the laws and defined jurisdictions of legal authorities, not by magic, or in some nebulous otherworldly (imaginary) philosophical/theoretical diatribe inside your head.

    Please, enough of your vacuous western culture bashing, If you actually believed half of what you claim, you would never have come to the United States in the first place, so I find your harping tiresome. For some perspective, My family has quite a few first generation immigrants (My father was from Hungary, my stepmother from Korea), and all of them would have found your attitudes contemptible. All cultures must be judged comparatively, else, how are you judging, by what distinction or standard? You can't compare an actual culture to an imaginary utopian fantasy (that's what social justice warriors and marxists do), but you can compare it to other cultures/civilizations. As for your hand waving argument against even considering your own country's past history of sectarian violence, or present history of virtual modern slavery and caste bigotry in relation to my own, Let's just observe the obvious present day reality:

    People aren't exactly beating on the door to immigrate to India...gee, why is that? Because India is so wonderful? Meanwhile, Millions of people are actually trying to immigrate to the United States...gee, why is that? Because the US is so terrible?

    The good news is, you aren't an American citizen, And I am glad for that, as:

    1.) you clearly have contempt for both my country, it's history and people, and western civilization in general, which sorta makes you the very kind of person who shouldn't have come here to begin with, or be allowed to immigrate here...and

    2.) you clearly have some other much better fantastic wonderful country in mind to immigrate to where everything is as you would wish it to be. Good luck with that. Just try to be a little more respectful to your new homeland... if they even let you in, because you come across like an entitled Brahmin snob.