Milton Friedman On Charlie Rose (Part Three)

[Mkundera]

Yeah, where is part IV and VI??

[joaquinveyron]

Where is part IV???

[travisblindsay]

"[Capitalism] is accepted in words but not in practice" is the key point from this segment. That is why people can get away with blaming economic problems on capitalism. While politicians of every stripe, from Paul Ryan to Barack Obama, praise the free market the system we have is a mixed system with an obvious tilt to an ever more intrusive government.

[longfootbuddy]

charlie, your so silly...

[benb6725]

Present day immigrates, from Mexico specifically, do not contribute to the creation of competition and of added strength to our economy. They are working and sending a majority of their money out of the country. So they really have a very little affect I would think. The present day immigration reforms shouldn't have a negative affect on our economy. But preventing potential immigrates that wish to live and work here long-term would slow economic growth.

[stealthswimmer]

They still dont' hurt us. We benefit cus it helps keep costs of production lower. Many of them send money to their families but then get their families to come across later. The main problem is all the "free" stuff they get, but I dont' think people here should get them either. They usually cause more harm than good. So getting rid of the welfare measures and allowing more immigrants in afterward would be a "double-whammy" of good for us.

=)

[scottvska]

@stealthswimmer Mass immigration lowers of the standard of living by making the economy more labor-intensive, rather than capital-intensive. Most of Latin American immigrants don't save their earnings; instead, their wages are blown on consumption spending. They're not upwardly mobile entrepreneurs. So employers may save on the cost of production, but the country's entire standard of living declines.

[stealthswimmer]

@scottvska

not so. They contribute about 22 billion dollars to GDP on net balance - a very small percentage, but still a net gain.

As for things we can know logically - they increase the division of labor and trade specialization, and the native population can then move on to other jobs (jobs that may be capital intensive). Their spending means increased demand for other goods, some of which may need capital to be produced. And it turns out that they are upwardly mobile

[scottvska]

@stealthswimmer If that GDP figure is accurate, it only proves my point. The average Latin American immigrant (let's be honest - most of them are from Mexico) produces very little, because he possesses little human capital. The last thing our economy needs is more consumer spending; it need more domestic investment and production to satisfy demand. Of course, it doesn't occur to Mexicans to save their earnings to finance productive capital assets. Mexicans are not a thrifty people.

[stealthswimmer]

@scottvska

Actually, not it doesn't prove your point. First of all, you don't "need" milk or shoes, but you are better off with those choices being there if you want them, the same way that immigrants make us better off. Like I said, a net gain is a net gain. And no it's not that it doesn't occur to Mexicans to save, it's that they're low income and don't have much to save. It also turns out that by 2nd or 3rd generation, they are upwardly mobile, so your arguments have no leg to stand on

[scottvska]

The first two sentences make no sense. If there are 12-20 million illegal immigrants from Mexico living here, and their net contribution to GDP is $22 billion, then the average Mexican worker produces very little. That reduces per capita GDP, a barometer of a country's wealth. Having low income (define low income) doesn't preclude saving. Poor immigrants from Vietnam and Cambodia emigrated here in the 70s, and they had high personal savings rates. Mexicans are just not an entrepreneurial people.

[stealthswimmer]

@scottvska

So what if they produce very little? A NET gain is a net gain.

And who cares about per capita GDP? It's not like per capita GDP is what everyone actually makes. It's a nice measure but you have to keep it in context. If people coming in produce little and bring down the average, that does not necessarily mean that anyone else's income is lowered - and it turns out the people who have incomes lowered are people with college graduate degrees and high school dropouts.

[scottvska]

The median household income of Mexican-Americans is lower than the median income of black households. There are more "Hispanics" (a nebulous term which includes white Cubans and mestizos) living in poverty than any other group, except American indians. Mexicans have low savings rates, poor or little access to credit (because they don't save), and their academic performance is dismal. They are not an upwardly mobile ethnic group like Cuban and Vietnamese-Americans, both of whom came here poor.

[stealthswimmer]

@scottvska

They are upwardly mobile and the data shows this. Jason Riley gave a talk about this on reason . tv

I suggest checking it out. After the first generation, the kids start moving up, including in education, so you're just factually incorrect.