Econ question:
How does immigration affect a society that has a fixed money supply?
I'd guess that the citizens that were already there would benefit, because they already have money, and the new immigrants are in need of money.
In other words, the citizens as a whole have a monopoly on the money, and the immigrants are at their mercy.
But my intuition also tells me that if the market were competitive, then maybe the citizens wouldn't benefit at all.
What do you think? Am I missing something?
>economics is a science
>(((Jew))) York Times
Sasuga
If there is a fixed money supply then immigration is bad because there are two cases
Case 1: Immigrants come in, but they get none of the money (for example, if no one hires them)
Now you have a huge population of homeless people, some of whom will turn to crime because they have no other option to survive and now your native population suffers from the increased crime rate.
Case 2: The immigrants get money (they get jobs)
Then, as the money is fixed, this implies that some of your native population lost money. Now a subset of your native population is angry because their social status was lowered.
This is why immigration only makes sense when immigrants can serve to increase the amount of money a society produces. That is why we generally want to immigrants with PhDs, and immigrants with experience. Immigrants that do jobs that no one else can do are drivers of new income in a country. But getting uneducated manual-labor worker immigrants will just upset our own manual labor worker native population.
There is no country on earth with a fixed money supply, so this is not worth thinking about.
>not worth thinking about.
>look at me I'm a retard and you're never allowed to think about hypotheticals
Yes it is. That's a really stupid thing to say.
(JOO)
>This is why immigration only makes sense when immigrants can serve to increase the amount of money a society produces.
Can you explain? I understand that the market for PhDds probably isn't very competitive. Wouldn't increasing immigration just make it more competitive? The PhDs who were already there would still be losing money.
Yeah, it wouldn't be as much of a disaster as if you imported a bunch of low skill farm workers, but I still don't see how the effect is any different.
>The PhDs who were already there would still be losing money.
Well, obviously importing PhDs in race studies would do no good. But there are actual important fields that do not have enough outstanding people. Silicon Valley employs a bunch of PhDs and MSc s from India and other countries.
Anyways, think of it like this. Imagine you are a poor country, like an African country. You have no native engineers, no native scientists, no native mathematicians, etc. Now imagine you imported a couple of american/european scientists to kickstart a national university and use that foreign talent to increase the productivity of your native population.
That is how you do immigration right. Poor countries have a lot to benefit from immigration. And rich countries do to, it is just that rich countries tend to be the ones who have the talent, so there are few places where immigration can be useful.
Isn't this equivalent to lowering the price of labor in the jobs that the immigrants can do? This is good for people who have jobs that the immigrants cannot replace, bad for the people who have jobs that must now compete.
>Now imagine you imported a couple of american/european scientists to kickstart a national university and use that foreign talent to increase the productivity of your native population.
Does this actually happen? Because africa is still pretty shitty.
I was looking at it from the perspective that the citizens have something in high demand that the immigrants don't. The citizens have money that the immigrants need to pay their taxes with(lets assume there is a tax that ISN'T proportional(it's a fixed fee per year for everyone regardless of income)).
It would be like if part of the population had a monopoly on water. Let's say group A has access to water treatment facilities, and group B has nothing. Group B either has to figure out a way to get water from group A or die. I'm thinking of money(the currency itself) as a necessary resource for all people in the society.
>Does this actually happen? Because africa is still pretty shitty.
Probably not because of corruption but it could and should
>because of corruption
Some say it's the africans themselves.
Also, I don't know of too many scientists(or anyone) that are eager to live in africa.
>Does this actually happen? Because africa is still pretty shitty.
Don't know about Africa, but we have enough examples from Asia to vouch for its empirical effectiveness.
("Enough" in the macroeconomic sense at least; it's not like we have Avogadro many countries to test it on.)
bump
"fixed money supply" is a very dumb concept. It boggles my mind that people think it is a good idea. Just look at Bitcoin. The dumb retards created an experiment to disprove themselves.
Look at all the commerce that is flourishing in the Bitcoin economy. Yeah, that's right, none, because everyone, including me, is hoarding it.
Also I want to point out that the moral argument that lolbertarians use makes no sense.
You worked 40 hours, on the 5th week of 1965. You earned $400. The value of that work that you did on that day shouldn't magically increase with time. In fact if anything the value of the work becomes irrelevant as time goes on. It makes no sense that the money in your wallet ends up being worth 10x as much without you doing anything with it besides hoarding it.
I think there are other problems with bitcoin besides the fact that it's finite. I'd argue it being finite isn't even a problem. No I wouldn't. How about you argue that it IS a problem? Your only proof of it being a problem is that bitcoin isn't flourishing? Could that have anything to do with the fact that it's literally a meme currency, and there are hundreds of clone currencies just like it? Or maybe that bitcoin itself is worthless and not backed by anything? Or that because it's digital, it's hard to implement IRL?
And no, a fixed money supply isn't a dumb concept. There are plenty of resources in life that are fixed, but still are useful. What's the alternative to a fixed money supply? Printing more money? When has that ever solved anything?
You're talking out of your ass, and you're barely staying on topic with the thread.
I have no clue what you are referring to.
Sorry, not in the mood to argue 30 year old settled science on the Internet.
do you have any idea how stupid you sound? Are you on your period?
You'll have lots of unemployment. In your supposition, the people with money will have "at their mercy" the immigrants, but only if they deliver them money sooner or later, so, sooner or later the money will get transferred to the immigrant group.
It's an interesting thought experiment but irrelevant, as there is no such thing as fixed money supply in most modern economies.
Why unemployment? Why not just lower wages?
>Does this actually happen?
Yeah but don't over think why it doesn't happen in Africa
bump
> the new immigrants are in need of money.
The fuck is this. Immigrants necessarily have $0? Says who?
>In other words, the citizens as a whole have a monopoly on the money,
Thats not what a monopoly is.
> Am I missing something?
You missed everything.
Immigrants would have to work and be smart, basically. Of course, this would select immigrants who would come in the first place. Isn't this obvious?
Immigrants coming to a place where there is a mafia that prints new fake money and lends it (I) versus a place where there is a fair government running on low taxes and banks lending money they actually earned(II):
I, if you don't create money here, as in make out of thin air, you are screwed, your wealth has to be put in real property which is not nearly as easily exchangeable like money. There are huge market fluctuations and property taxes, so you always need to operate with an amount of fiat money for maintenance. Property value is inflated anyway due to people making loans, so it is expected of you to put yourself in debt eventually, right? It is a bad country for investors, general profit can't be made, thus it is a good country for consumers, people who want to spend money without any return. Immigrants come without money, like you said, and since they cannot invest the state expects them to spend, and often will supply them with free fake cash. The effect of immigrants then depends if they are big consumers or not. Consumers increase state(and banks', which I'm modeling inside the state) power, so if immigrants are natural consumers they create a good superficial charm on a rotting society.
II. if you Do create money here, You are screwed. Money acquires its natural deflationary character and big consumers are punished for the benefit of the country. Immigrants then have a positive net effect on society but they are unwilling to come because of their consumer nature. Superficially however, being an unwealthy minority, they will show their true unsatisfied selves and create the clear opposite of a superficial charm, a stinking pile of short lived immorality. Then again, this implies only minimally competent immigrants will come and stay on the long term, increasing the nation's real wealth.
pic related is not without merit