1/I see that there are still a few people shrieking their heads off about how voting Trump out of office will lead to America being overrun by hordes of migrants.
Luckily, I think the last 4 years have clarified our minds on this issue.
2/First of all, you know what HASN'T wrecked our country?
Asylum-seekers from Central America.
You know what HAS wrecked our country?
A plague, which was much worse than it had to be, because we elected a horrible President who focused mainly on cracking down on migrants.
3/Maybe in 2016, with economic recovery underway, it was possible for some people to convince themselves that the biggest threat to our nation was migrant caravans from Honduras.
In 2020, that whole notion just seems laughable.
4/Pro-immigration sentiment has steadily increased while Trump has been in office.
This is no coincidence. It's because people have seen the results of Trumpian xenophobia.
ZERO gains for our nation, just a lot of social division and high-profile cruelty.
5/Also, all the attention on migrants has caused the media (including Yours Truly) to relentlessly publicize the fact that illegal immigration has been going in reverse for over a decade!
6/We're not going to fall for this shtick again.
We've seen what actual threats to our country look like. We don't need to make up imaginary ones.
7/But will Biden actually allow tons of migrants to get asylum in the U.S. -- or to systematically claim asylum and then not show up for court dates, thus immigrating illegally?
I highly doubt it. It would cause a political headache he doesn't want or need.
8/My prediction is that Biden will stop separating families and will stop flamboyantly mistreating migrants, but will find quieter, equally effective ways of preventing asylum seekers from becoming a big political issue again.
9/This is part of my general pessimism about immigration. I think that Democrats don't want to risk reinvigorating the Trump movement by letting immigration become a hot-button issue again, and so will quietly let immigration lapse to a low level.
11/It's going to be a while -- at least a decade, I predict -- before Americans feel confident about our nation again. We may give pro-immigration answers to surveys right now, but that reflects hatred of Trump more than a real desire to throw our doors open to the world again.
12/I'd be happy to be proven wrong, of course. This country NEEDS more immigration, and if we don't get it we're going to have economic problems, in addition to losing much of the social vitality that my generation grew up with.
13/But my prediction is that while the xenophobes are losing the battle for public opinion, they'll win on policy -- for a while.
An energized, vigorous, hateful minority ultimately has veto power over policies like immigration that require broad national buy-in.
14/Pro-immigration folks need to continue the fight, but we should recognize that the struggle to restore the open, confident America we grew up with will be the struggle of decades, not months.
(end)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A good example of the difference between pro-business and pro-market is this paper by @arvindsubraman and @rodrikdani. They argue that pro-business policies of the 80s were more important than pro-market reforms of the 90s in driving India's growth surge.
And @jamesykwak's book "Economism" gives a good rundown of how pro-market economic theories were always a rather poor tool for advancing pro-business ideology.
I think people naturally trust big media outlets less when there are more small outlets (incl. Twitter accounts) to argue with them. Before, people naturally trusted the NYT because they didn't read 100 people shouting "The NYT sucks!" in response to every article.
I also think that in a highly fragmented, nationalized media marketplace, each outlet has an incentive to serve a narrow but loyal customer base, and that's probably going to make them less trustworthy to the people outside that narrow customer base.
Happily, this doesn't apply to Bloomberg nearly as much, because our terminal business insulates us to a large degree from the market incentive to cater to a narrow slice of society. (Yay my company! The most trusted name in news! Hehe)
2/China's rapid growth is not, by itself, a reason to think the Chinese model is superior to the American model.
After all, China is still much poorer than the U.S. It's a lot easier to grow fast from a low base -- just build a lot of stuff and copy foreign technology...
3/But in recent years, China has advanced to the technological frontier in many areas. That's something few middle-income countries are capable of doing.
For example, China is clearly in the top rank of nations when it comes to A.I. technology.
2/The world's industrialized nations are getting older. That includes China, whose median age was almost equal to that of the U.S. in 2019, and probably passed it up this year.
But Japan is the oldest of them all.
3/Some people say that population aging isn't a threat to living standards.
They point out -- correctly -- that Japan's GDP per working-age person has continued to grow at a robust pace.
The Yemeni Civil War is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, with a bunch of other random countries declaring their support for one side or another.