Foreigners Are Our Friends - Econ Chronicles - Learn Liberty 

This also shows why embargoes and sanctions against enemy countries only serve to hurt and impoverish the people of those countries, while the ruling class remains safe and healthy.

"They took our jobs." lol These videos are brilliant!

Free trade and immigration are great and all just as long as you don't subsidize those the enter the country illegally.

foreigners are our friends, in theory. In practice it looks like Southern California.

Wonderful video Caplan, just hope the video to be seen by many in USA.

keep these econ chronicles comin'

Simple question: How has NAFTA helped create jobs, lower the deficit, raise the standard of living? How will TPP do this? How will American Industry stay afloat, or is American industry a worthy enough sacrifice for the ravenous, sacrifice demanding god that is the concept of "Free Trade?" No, China, which heavily restricts free trade and imposes great tariffs and economic discouragements from foreigners operating or importing their goods into China is not jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge. They are exceeding us. Why? Because they recognize the value of maximizing the opportunities of their native manufacturers and ensuring an environment wherein it is profitable to operate in China rather than in the US, I.E, tariffs. China has such a humongous and demanding market/population that China is now the source for many world corporations profits, which means China has the ability to use its economic clout to persuade, intimidate, or deter countries from hiking tariffs on them or implementing any economic policy that would adversely affect Chinese governments. Why can't the US do the same with countries such as Mexico, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Turkey, and others with comparatively small economies which would completely collapse without America consumption? Especially for Mexico. A US halting or tax on remittances would completely decimate the Mexican economy and have them acquiesce to US demands. "Oh that's so mean! That's so rude! That's so bombastic!" Yeah, it's mean, but look what they're doing to us! America needs to learn the value of their market and use it their advantage, just like China.

You forgot to mention something important. You don't shoot your trading partner. If people are trading, they are interacting peacefully with each other. What many anti-capitalists don't understand is that free trade ensures peace. If we invade Japan to get their cars, we would not get a steady flow of cars. The same goes for Japan. If they steal our corn we would stop providing it to them.

One big difference, however, isthat a robotic lawn mower goes into the garage when not inuse. They don't go downtown, get drunk, get in trouble, and then bourdon us with the costs of imprisoning them. They also don't go on public assistance or give birth to little lawn mowers.

These videos are great

Immigration is Great! Provided you believe that culture is worthless and material wealth is all that matters.This isn't an argument for immigration, it's an argument for work visas.

nice informative video; keep up the good work :)

You are not even dealing with the reasons why people hate these things.

This is all well and good in theory, but in reality it causes unemployment. We have lost millions of manufacturing jobs to China and haven't replaced them and most of the ones we did replace, we replaced with very low wage service sector/retail jobs. Importing foreign workers from the 3rd world causes massive cultural changes. Go to LA, where Spanish is the most spoken language, where Mexicans boo the national anthem and boo the American team and root for the Mexican team. What's going to happen when they vote themselves as part as Mexico? Are we going to go to war to protect Ca?

But wouldn't the benefit only be for the well to do since the factory workers would all lose their jobs and jobs for people without skills would be replaced by machines or immigrants who would do the same work for much lower wages?

As far as I know, USA pays people to immigrate with tax money, and that is pretty crazy.

At least one caveat I would throw in the mix with regard to immigration is that we have a welfare state; a self-driving lawnmower would not be sapping public schooling, public healthcare etc. All other things being equal though, the point is spot-on.

2:30 Well, yes. Which of the following sounds more likely: That all of my friends have gone suicidal all at once, or that the bridge is on fire?

Do you think that immigration and free trade would work better if there were no government intervention? I can see why it works on paper but it seems that in reality there are very poor countries who are exploited and export more value than what they recieve, e.g. fruit from abroad is cheap but their is hardly any profit for the farmers who produce it, yet our supermarkets make millions. The video suggests every trade would be 100% equal for both parties but I think one is bound to be slightly worse off and will be forced to 'settle' and over time the wealth ends up accumulating on one traders end. Please comment back Learn Liberty

There is a HUGE difference in having free trade with a country like china or even mexico than having a free trade with a country like England. When a country with a high standard of living and work force regulations (basic safety and human rights protections) has free trade with a country that doesnt, the country with the regulations and high standard of living will, yes see cheaper goods, but not be able to afford them bc all of the jobs have been shipped over seas. Also immigration and offshoreing jobs are not really comparable issues. With immigration the employees ship themselves here to work. Yes they are cheaper but they get to still have a decent standard of living and so can their families simply bc they are in America. When you offshore a job tho you are moving that job to the cheaper employees. When the country you are moving that job to is a country like chinia then the employees there see no rise in standards of living. The job is being moved there because they dont have to give the a living wage and follow basic safety regulations. Its kind of sickening that someone would try and defend this practice and make it out to look like its better for america.

The common argument here is that it "causes" unemployment. We live in a global economy and there is no escaping that. Our economy's well being is directly related to the economy of the other countries around the world (except maybe North Korea). Global unemployment is now the statistic to take a look at. Once we can lift most of the world into the modern economy, employment worldwide will thrive and we will continue to progress and find more productive jobs.

Automation and the world labor market are to be left unhindered and unchecked in a pure market economy. The problem is that increased automation has led to a massive increase in per capita productivity driving down the need for labor. A world labor market is great as long as your goal includes a flooded labor market with persistent wage stagnation. A cheap gardener is not much good to a person who can not find a good paying job. It is grossly disingenuous to ignore what these concepts are doing to the American worker.

Even Caplan's close circle of libertarian economist bloggers aren't convinced that unselective open borders immigration will benefit the host country as Caplan claims. Scott Sumner, Arnold Kling, and Tyler Cowen have all said that they are not convinced to varying degrees. Caplan still puts that issue in this series like it's completely obvious to all economists. Also, does Caplan really mean to claim that foreigners are "our friends" and not just strangers that we don't have the right to deny the right to accept employment or purchase living accommodations?

So, just to be clean: The corn is going in the corn hole, and the automobiles are coming out of the A hole?

It always buffles me. I know that this is common argument: "they took our jerbs!", but thats not the point. We block imigration in order to protect differerent things, like cultural idenitity.

Take that Trump !

Just asking, I agree with you, however what do people mean (especially trump) when they say we have bad "trade deals" with china and etc.

+Learn Liberty I posit that the opposite of war is not peace, but trade. Case in point: the entire history of foreign relations between England and France. Or Germany and the rest of Europe. Or Canada and the United States. Or China and Japan. And on, and on... I would be greatly appreciative, if you'd care to tackle this idea in proper depth; even if I'm completely wrong, it would be illuminating to learn how and why.

I took an international trade class for my economics class would have to agree. Many Americans don't see the benefits of trade. A good example of trade should be the India's economic boon in the 1990's when our tech boom was occurring. The US sent customer support jobs to India, and various tech to support, while the US designed and developed the hardware and software. That exchanged benefited both countries. Other example exists throughout the world, the American people and the world should encourage trade. Preventing trade damages our economy and the world economy as a whole.

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

We don't need Free Trade, we need Fair Trade.

While, I think globally this would be great, how does it help on the micro-economic level? Lets assume a homeowner pays me $30 a week to take care of his lawn. Then a Salvodorean(?) offers to do it for $25. This is great for the homeowner, because he now has 5 more dollars to spend on goods and other services. It's great for the Salvadorean because it's increased his standard of living. But we've increase our economy by 1 person, and now one more person (me) is unemployed. Let's extend this a bit. I go to all his neighbors looking for another job working on lawns, but all the jobs have been taken by migrant workers because it's cheaper labour. This means I would have to reduce my own standard of living if I want to stay in the occupation, or I have to acquire another skill, something I may not have the resources for. Can anyone answer this? I would really appreciate it. I may be working in another country soon enough myself actually.

Great video

You've inspired me to invent the self driving lawnmower

"When you trade something with someone, both of you get something you want" Really? Wow Einstein your fucking brilliant, let's give this guy a nobel prize he's so dam smahrt holy moley gosh. . . . . makes me sick.

this only works, by this I mean aggressive immigration policies and wide open trade policies, when all of the people within the affected country eg Canada, are treated equally. Some parts of Canada take benefits heartily but will accept none of the down side.

Bill O'reilly corn goes in, cars come out You can't explain that.

If capital is to freely travel internationally, then so must people. Policies are made by developed countries upon on undeveloped countries, such as NAFTA, which capitalize on the cheap labor of poorer countries. Then by closing up borders it keeps the cheap labor in the poor country, while using temporary visas to get cheap domestic labor when it is needed as well. International trade and immigration must both be free, or else people WILL be exploited.

The issue with your views is once again due to the power of the State. When trade from a country with state providing subsidies comes into contact with a truly free market then jobs are transferred in exchange as well as goods. When state enforced labor markets in one country starts trading with a country with free market labor, then once again, jobs are transferred along with the goods. Governments can be relied upon to screw up an economy. And one way they compensate, is with banning free trade.

I'm interested in how this theory applies to tariffs (if at all)? Specifically in the ways of NAFTA and the questionable dealings with China. I understand that China's government is prone to undersell their products to beat the competition, so tariffs (anything with government) are a double edged-blade...

I WOULD LIKE TO LISTEN TO YOU EXPLAINING WITH WHAT MONEY THOSE UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS BUY THESE CARS WITH?

Pushing for more immigration at a time when unemployment rates are so high and more importantly labor participation rates hitting the the lowest mark in decades at only 63% is irresponsible economics in my opinion. A smart economist would say that the USA has enough people to fill labor needs for the next decade without any further immigration. Adding more people to the problem doesn't solve anything anymore than throwing money at a problem would. Adding people to a labor market doesn't increase demand for their labor.

I generally agree that free trade and labor trade are Good Things™. However, I don't know that it's fair to say that technology is effectively the same as free trade because of the secondary effects. How do we answer questions like "What does the term 'American Economy' mean when goods and services are traded freely among all other nations?" or "What does the term 'border' mean if anyone can cross it for any reason?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't indiscriminate immigration ultimately lead to the de-evolution of a nation into a series of non-nation tribes formed out of racial or ideological similarities who happen to live within a certain geographical area? Or as is more often the case, account for the slow, non-violent conquest of that nation's political, power, and economic structure by suitably aggressive immigrant cultures? Likewise, doesn't fully free trade ultimately lead to a singular world economy in which wages that can be lowered to third-world amounts WILL be lowered to third-world amounts. Not that I blame businesses for trying to take advantage of any legal method to reduce prices and increase availability. Just, I feel like you need to address the 'at what cost' questions for those of us who already understand that trade is a Good Thing™.

Is it immigration to a welfare state or to a productive life? You can't have both. The many builders of America who processed through Ellis Island did not anticipate benefits at tax payer expense. Nor, did they enter illegally. Now, it's policy to reward illegal immigration with welfare and unmerited citizenship--at the expense of those who play by the rules. Take a guess at the kind of people this attracts. How does this benefit America more than take away from it?

Our cost of living goes down, but their standard of living stuck, actually.

Despite Learn Liberty 's amazing videos on sweatshops and income inequality, many comments here, such as Drugs Bunny 's suggest that workers do not benefit because the owners earn more. Of course the owners earn more! The employees are not forced to work for that wage, they choose to because they find it to be fair! Furthermore, the benefit of competition on consumer pricing cannot be undervalued.

0:45 "Make jobs not cars." I'm assuming robots made the cars. And if so, those robots don't need humans to run them and are employing humans in some way.

Brilliant

This is good and all except when its american jobs being shipped overseas, right now with most of the manufactoring jobs that were once here in the US and now in foreign countries, we're starting on a downwards spiral where we simply wont have enough good paying jobs to maintain a proper economy.

"Foreigners Are Our Friends" sounds like something a foreigner would say!

2:12 That type of boat , called a junk, is Chinese not Japanese lol.

This is kinda right but every thing run around money and corruption

2:54 Does that lawn mowing robot have offspring in public schools consuming $10,000/student/year?

this video didn't seem to touch on a mindset I have, probably got from public schools. The problem is the perception that when I pay that guy to do my lawn, he takes the money away from the country and into his. When/how does that money cycle back to me? I get that he gets money from me, but when do I get to do work to get it back from him? Is America doing jobs or providing products for other counties to balance it out? The worry is that if we started buying all japan cars and japan doesn't buy from us, we'll have money flowing out but not back in. Americans will not have a way to earn the money they've spent. But then again, money is just printed up any ways, maybe we can just let it flow out and live on welfare, then laugh maniacally when other counties realize we've tricked them into working for pieces of paper.

This movie trying to convince that trading is as good as technology is crap. Try to dislike it - it is impossible. But if you want to like it - it will go :-|

This sounds great until you realize that trade is a cash-flow commodity, and a neutral positive trade balance is essentially a closed-loop economy that won't leak out liquid assets and seize up. By the same logic, engine leaks must be good for engines. It doesn't matter whether your engine has oil in it or air-- clearly the high concentration of oil inside the engine would rather freely disperse and exchange for equal parts of air. So aren't valve seals a bad thing?

I guess it depends if you take it to the extreme of population replacement, as being practiced by Europe and North America. You could say that if they stopped the welfare it would help, but people would still be naturally drawn to a country which they have an increased opportunity to do better.

Your analogy is pretty corny! I like your style!😜

Protectionism isn't necessarily a good or bad thing altogether and trying to say it's an all or nothing proposition is a deliberate lie. The US was heavily protectionist from the birth of the nation until after the great depression and most agreements haven't been made until very recent years which perfectly coincides with our declining economy. If you're all about the founding fathers and liberty, then you should not so easily give away the sovereignty of your republic to corporations that convene their own tribunals(A One-World Government Disputes Panel) behind closed doors, superseding the rule of law and judiciary as it effects you and the general public, whether directly or indirectly. You might just want to believe they(oligarchs and their corrupted bureaucrats) deserve to wield all that influence and immunity more than than you because you may also want to believe they are so much smarter and/or anointed than you are. Even if there was higher intelligence and it impresses so, it does not equate to good intensions. These agreements written by cronies in secret aren't meant to benefit everybody like they want you to believe and they know that which is specifically why they want to keep them very secret. It's the same thing almost every time we go though this and the results are terrible for everyone but those that are directly involved in writing them. The real intent with free trade is to avoid costs, regulations and liabilities that protect you and other citizens from the harms and inadequacies of various products and by-products, to avoid taxes and shift the cost directly onto you to pay for the infrastructure that enables these transactions to generate so much profit and so little basic economic activity. That's just the tip of the iceberg you won't hear a paid "professor" from an industrial think-tank telling you. There's only selective truth in his job description to follow so he can earn that paycheck. Whether he believes any of it is not relevant. That's only a question of his ability to admit whether what he claims to profess is anything but narrow-minded propaganda. The IHS is trying to show rainbows and butterflies which do exist but not in the way they are saying, and certainly not as often as they'd like you to believe. They're selling you a load of goods, and by "goods" I mean lemons. Don't sell your soul and mind to them for a little slice of their five-day old cornbread by-product laced with PCP. I would tell that to anyone across the entire political spectrum not to be so cheap.

I believe that many people in the US are not as concerned/upset with "legal" immigrants -- please note that I did not say "legal human beings" -- which is people who legally immigrated to the US; instead, they are concerned with people who illegally fled from their country to the US. As someone who appreciates "rules for a reason", an Argentinian gardener who did the right thing in coming to my country is welcomed with open arms; whereas an Argentinian gardener who has cheated out another "legal" Argentinian gardener should be less appreciated. I love trade. I appreciate trade. I embrace trade. The difference is that I appreciate when trade is done correctly. What is "correctly" to you?

These robots would be better because they poop. They can buy my toilet roles.

Problem is the immigration you guys are showing is not really immigration. Since when you move from mexico to america your cost of living will go up... equal to the American's cost of living, what you guys seem to be expressing here is if we had a bullet train that went from China to the USA and chinese got on that train in the morning and went to work in america and then went back home that night at the end of work. That is beneficial to both sides, Chinese workers will work hard for less USD while the americans that where working can now start businesses with huge profits and pay the chinese low wages for their work, since when the workers go back to China they gain a higher standard of living with the now accumulative USD. That the type of immigration you speak of.. but that not how modern day immigration works, because humans are narrow minded.

Hold on! This sounds fine and dandy but what happens when all the jobs are exported. Then we don't have any money to buy the things that are made in another country! There are no jobs for us to earn money! Then we go into debt trying to obtain these things. I believe that foreign trade can be beneficial, but only to an extent.

"They took er jerbs!"

The points on trade are spot on. The Immigrant/self driving lawn mower example would make sense if your neighbors didn't have to pay for education, health care, food stamps, and other public services for the lawn mower and its entire extended family.

Interesting theory, however it starts to fall apart in one important way. If one country or the other overspecializes in such a way that it can no longer efficiently employ large portions of the population because middle class jobs available to lower skill or lower education workers are no longer available as a natural part of the macro economy. Don't give me the "make work" crap, either. Humans have both a right and the ability to work hard to make a living doing something productive. Now, a lot of the loss of jobs is due to the arbitrary loss of value of the American currency and even more arbitrary increase of wage minimum rates, chasing jobs that were the core of these sorts of middle class jobs (manufacturing and textile), and that's a different issue altogether. The point, however, remains, that a country that cannot provide meaningful middle class employment to a large swath of its population risks becoming unable to sustain itself against foreign economic pressures, because its economy does not produce anything of actual economic value except to specific consumers. That's where the United States is, thanks to the policies of the left.

It may be true that it is worth specializing in a particular trade even though you know that you are absolutely better in each and every aspect. The problem is how you can make sure that your enemy will continue to give you what you need in times of war? You may not produce everything , but it seems it is important to have a stock of ready technologies and materials. “Protection [is] to preserve ourselves from and protect ourselves against something which offends no moral law; something to which we are instinctively impelled; something without which we could never have emerged from barbarism, and something which physical nature and social laws alike prove to be in conformity with the creative intent.”

***** Yes, welfare leads to higher unemployment. The way you phrased it, it seemed as if you supported welfare! So is it not better to work and not starve than it is to live off government benefits and not try to better your own career? "who is taking about forcing higher wages? or by forcing higher wages do you mean the market? if a company is having trouble getting enough workers, then one way to attract employees is to increase wages, the owner then has a choice to make, either make less money to stay competitive or increase prices" I am all for there being too much work that owners have to raise prices to fill demand, what I'm not okay with is government setting a price that makes workers too expensive and eliminating the ability of the employer to higher the worker. "Also, if you argue that the 10% should raise their wage, well then it would be EVEN harder than it already is for them to succeed." they may or may not decide to raise wages to attract employees, it depends on what the competition does, if the competition raises prices and he decides to keep his prices the same and risk making less money (since smaller profit margin) then in turn he may actually make more money since his product/service will be cheaper than the competitions Yes, as I've said. Market set wages are what's best for the owner and the worker. The worker isn't forced to work there. They generally have a choice to work in a factory or farm. Almost, all of them want to work in factories because the work pays more and is actually safer! you talk about purchasing power, what are the poverty levels in these countries? how much better off are these citizens? I could never explain it as well as this video: How to Fight Global Poverty | LearnLiberty Source for Chinese worker shortage: www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-30/chinas-worker-shortage-is-a-global-problem

In a welfare state such as ours, doesn't open borders cause more harm?

hes economics profession and your not.....lets all learn

What about people that r here illegally.

immigration and trade are two very different subjects with very different ramifications. Immigration carries with it for example, a huge political impact, which is why it can never be put in terms as sophomorically simplistic as this video does.

What we need is for immigrants to dress like robots.

You cannot have both rampant welfare AND open borders.

economically it's a great idea, philanthropically a true heart break.

please tell Donald Trump

Ok Jew