I will have to disagree with you here on tariffs. They do not appear to have impacted growth early in American history because while trade of goods was restricted, the borders for immigrants were virtually open. The influx of labor made up for the high tariffs as the population exploded from 5 million in 1800, to 75 million in 1900.
Optimally, growth would be fastest with open borders and free trade, but we can often get by with one or the other. What we cannot do, however, is throttle both imports and immigration at the same time.
Do you believe that the United States would have been able to build up its manufacturing base as much in the 19th Century without tariffs protecting against British competition?
If yes, then why do you think Australia, Canada, and New Zealand were not able to do so? They also had immigration.
Yes I do. None of those countries have/had even close to the population that the US did. Canada population was the same in 1900 that the US was in 1800.
I would also point out that the United States between 1947 and 1965 had very restrictive immigration rules (and very low tariffs), and this did not seem to hurt economic growth.
Germany followed a similar path with tariffs and managed to "win" the second Industrial Revolution versus Britain despite huge out-migration.
"Doesn't obviously hurt" is probably a reasonable enough conclusion. It doesn't assume that tariffs caused the good outcome, only they didn't obviously stop it.
In general if a foreign process isn't at least 30% more efficient its not some huge loss to build a domestic industry instead.
Japan throttled imports and immigration and had an economic miracle.
The success of 19th and early 20th century immigration in America was unique in history. High human capital and relatively culturally similar sources immigrating to a massive empty continent full of natural resources.
Below replacement fertility doesn't work anywhere long term.
But you can't solve that by importing lots of low IQ third worlders that are permanent genetic burdens to society.
Immigration worked for America at that time because Europe was making more babies that it had land for them, and America had tons of empty land. High IQ countries no longer make excess population, and our economies are now productive enough that arable land is no longer a population bottleneck that would cause mass high IQ immigration.
Let's simplify to three groups (obviously we could do more).
High IQ (130+)
Moderate IQ (100-130)
Low IQ (Under 100)
For High IQ people I would not only support their immigration, I would actively recruit them. I would be willing to pay $1,000,000 or so to try and poach such talent. However, I suspect the if that worked at scale that other countries would start offering carrots/sticks to retain their High IQ members (its not like china would let us steal their top talent wholesale without reacting).
For Low IQ the answer is obviously no immigration.
A lot of people cite the Gulf Monarchies or Singapore as examples of making low IQ guest workers work. I think that's a little overdone when you know the details of Singapore, but either way we are talking about dictatorial and semi-dictatorial city states run by non-whites with unique economic and political circumstances. The idea that America would implement a system more restrictive than Jim Crow just to get some cheap labor is laughable as a prospect, we couldn't even get Prop 187 to stick.
For Moderate IQ from Low IQ societies I would be against as well, especially if it was happening at high scale. The case is less immediately problematic, but when you take a single immigrant you are ultimately taking in their community. Chain migration is a real thing that we can't solve in the democratic west. And children revert to the mean of their genetic cohort. So taking in Moderate IQ people from Low IQ societies ultimately means taking in Low IQ immigrants in the long run.
So we are left with Moderate IQ people from Moderate IQ societies (Asians). This is what most people refer to as the kind of legal immigration they want expanded. Before 2020 I would have said I was in favor of this kind of immigration. Currently I would describe my attitude as neutral.
Asian society hasn't had a good run since I last lived around a lot of Asians. When I went to a majority Korean high school the Korean TFR was twice today. Japan has had three lost decades since I was there. And the people I interacted with were fresh of the boat and hadn't assimilated yet. Having been friends with Asian immigrants and watching them over the last twenty years I've seen most assimilate into being woke progressives. In their native countries the norms are anti-woke and they conform. But in America they are woke and they conform to them. I used to think Asians would resist the Baizuo or "white left", but I don't anymore. They will do what it takes to get ahead, even at the expense of each other if need be.
I watched my friends in the US and Asia as a whole go completely insane over COVID, which remains the most personally impactful political/cultural event of my entire life. Having another Asian accountant slightly reduce the cost of accounting services was not worth being locked down and covering my face all day. I live in one of the highest Asian demographic areas in the country and it resulted in very poor COVID policy. The same safetyism and conformity I was somewhat apprehensive about twenty years ago was suddenly much more in your face.
So while I don't feel like Moderate IQ immigrants from Moderate IQ countries are the kind of existential threat that mass low IQ immigration is, it's not obvious to me that its a hugely positive development either. I wouldn't spend a lot of political capital either way on trying to change H1B immigration policy, while I consider mass third world migration one of my top issues.
We should all be very concerned when we start down the path of saying it's different this time because the immigrants aren't from Europe, so they are a "genetic burden on society."
Yet you are perfectly comfortable destroying the lives of mine. My wife is an immigrant. We pay taxes, work 60-hours a week jobs, commit no crimes. We contribute positively.
So yes, I find your suggestion that my child and my wife are a "permanent genetic burden" because they are not "European" to be profoundly racist, incredibly closed minded, and downright reprehensible. This line of thinking belongs in the trash bin of history and only leads to a very dark future for everyone.
Thanks for the question. While it is possible that the South could have tried, I believe that widespread forced labor of any type makes success extremely unlikely.
The industrialization process requires highly skilled workers who can experiment with prototypes and engineer production processes. Slaves have no incentive to do any more than the minimum amount of thinking. You can force manual labor, but you cannot force creativity and experimentation.
A society with small amounts of forced labor might be able to industrialize, but slavery was very widespread in the Deep South.
The south had low human capital and was ecologically inhospitable to white labor until modern technology changed things (antibiotics, sanitation, air conditioning).
It's only comparative advantage was that the hot/wet climate was good for certain cash crops and they needed people with natural immunity (africans) to make it work.
That said, attempting to essentially force slavery on the north was hubristic failure.
Although I don't know what happened to the Whig Party after Hamilton died, didn't Hamilton want a more centralised government. In his own words "an enthusiastic executive" or something along those lines. Or am I misremebering or the Whig party drop the centralisation of the executive thing.
Also the promotion smallholder family farming was more a Jeffersonisan thing. Although they also wanted America to remain an agrarian nation composed small farmers and shop keepers. To be fair, in their day it wasn't obvious that the industrial revolution was good for the masses. According to Brad De Long the first industrial revolution did not lead a rise in median wages and living standards.
As someone who grew up in the first wave of industrialisation, it seems true to me.
On a side note, have you read How Asia Works by Joe Studwell. He's pretty Hamiltonian as well.
Yes, the Whigs were much less enthusiastic about executive power than Hamilton was. I think much of this was an intense hostility to Andrew Jackson, who was sort of the Donald Trump of his day. They were less worried when there was a Whig president!
Yes, Jefferson was known for his desire to promote small-holder family farming, but the Whigs and later Republicans wanted it as well. You might say Jefferson convinced both sides.
Yes, I have read How Asia Works and enjoyed it. I think that it aligns with my theories fairly well.
Great piece. I might recommend Walter Russell Mead's "God and Gold" (link below). Does a great job of tracing the American System's roots, especially the foreign policy aspects, back to Britain and to the Dutch Golden Age before them. It's interesting to see the Jacksonian reaction to this line of thinking still present in many anti-commercial and illiberal arguments today.
I will have to disagree with you here on tariffs. They do not appear to have impacted growth early in American history because while trade of goods was restricted, the borders for immigrants were virtually open. The influx of labor made up for the high tariffs as the population exploded from 5 million in 1800, to 75 million in 1900.
Optimally, growth would be fastest with open borders and free trade, but we can often get by with one or the other. What we cannot do, however, is throttle both imports and immigration at the same time.
Do you believe that the United States would have been able to build up its manufacturing base as much in the 19th Century without tariffs protecting against British competition?
If yes, then why do you think Australia, Canada, and New Zealand were not able to do so? They also had immigration.
Yes I do. None of those countries have/had even close to the population that the US did. Canada population was the same in 1900 that the US was in 1800.
There are many variables at play of course.
Would it be fair to say that you believe that:
Little/no tariffs + a large and growing population deliver material progress?
Nearly free movement of people and goods is optimal. It wont deliver progress on its own though. We still need the five keys, of course :)
I would also point out that the United States between 1947 and 1965 had very restrictive immigration rules (and very low tariffs), and this did not seem to hurt economic growth.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/upward-mobility-in-the-usa-1947-1965
The trade off between immigration and tariffs was noted in a book that I read....I wish I could remember the name.
If you remember it, I would be interested in the title.
I've searched I cannot find it. I know I will run across it again and will send to you when I do.
Germany followed a similar path with tariffs and managed to "win" the second Industrial Revolution versus Britain despite huge out-migration.
"Doesn't obviously hurt" is probably a reasonable enough conclusion. It doesn't assume that tariffs caused the good outcome, only they didn't obviously stop it.
In general if a foreign process isn't at least 30% more efficient its not some huge loss to build a domestic industry instead.
Japan throttled imports and immigration and had an economic miracle.
The success of 19th and early 20th century immigration in America was unique in history. High human capital and relatively culturally similar sources immigrating to a massive empty continent full of natural resources.
See post 1990 Japan for why this doesn't work long term :)
Below replacement fertility doesn't work anywhere long term.
But you can't solve that by importing lots of low IQ third worlders that are permanent genetic burdens to society.
Immigration worked for America at that time because Europe was making more babies that it had land for them, and America had tons of empty land. High IQ countries no longer make excess population, and our economies are now productive enough that arable land is no longer a population bottleneck that would cause mass high IQ immigration.
If all immigrants were required to take an IQ test and score higher than the American average would you support immigration?
Let's simplify to three groups (obviously we could do more).
High IQ (130+)
Moderate IQ (100-130)
Low IQ (Under 100)
For High IQ people I would not only support their immigration, I would actively recruit them. I would be willing to pay $1,000,000 or so to try and poach such talent. However, I suspect the if that worked at scale that other countries would start offering carrots/sticks to retain their High IQ members (its not like china would let us steal their top talent wholesale without reacting).
For Low IQ the answer is obviously no immigration.
A lot of people cite the Gulf Monarchies or Singapore as examples of making low IQ guest workers work. I think that's a little overdone when you know the details of Singapore, but either way we are talking about dictatorial and semi-dictatorial city states run by non-whites with unique economic and political circumstances. The idea that America would implement a system more restrictive than Jim Crow just to get some cheap labor is laughable as a prospect, we couldn't even get Prop 187 to stick.
For Moderate IQ from Low IQ societies I would be against as well, especially if it was happening at high scale. The case is less immediately problematic, but when you take a single immigrant you are ultimately taking in their community. Chain migration is a real thing that we can't solve in the democratic west. And children revert to the mean of their genetic cohort. So taking in Moderate IQ people from Low IQ societies ultimately means taking in Low IQ immigrants in the long run.
So we are left with Moderate IQ people from Moderate IQ societies (Asians). This is what most people refer to as the kind of legal immigration they want expanded. Before 2020 I would have said I was in favor of this kind of immigration. Currently I would describe my attitude as neutral.
Asian society hasn't had a good run since I last lived around a lot of Asians. When I went to a majority Korean high school the Korean TFR was twice today. Japan has had three lost decades since I was there. And the people I interacted with were fresh of the boat and hadn't assimilated yet. Having been friends with Asian immigrants and watching them over the last twenty years I've seen most assimilate into being woke progressives. In their native countries the norms are anti-woke and they conform. But in America they are woke and they conform to them. I used to think Asians would resist the Baizuo or "white left", but I don't anymore. They will do what it takes to get ahead, even at the expense of each other if need be.
I watched my friends in the US and Asia as a whole go completely insane over COVID, which remains the most personally impactful political/cultural event of my entire life. Having another Asian accountant slightly reduce the cost of accounting services was not worth being locked down and covering my face all day. I live in one of the highest Asian demographic areas in the country and it resulted in very poor COVID policy. The same safetyism and conformity I was somewhat apprehensive about twenty years ago was suddenly much more in your face.
So while I don't feel like Moderate IQ immigrants from Moderate IQ countries are the kind of existential threat that mass low IQ immigration is, it's not obvious to me that its a hugely positive development either. I wouldn't spend a lot of political capital either way on trying to change H1B immigration policy, while I consider mass third world migration one of my top issues.
We should all be very concerned when we start down the path of saying it's different this time because the immigrants aren't from Europe, so they are a "genetic burden on society."
Pearl clutching isn't a good reason to permanently trash your society. I'd rather be called a racist then destroy my children's future.
Yet you are perfectly comfortable destroying the lives of mine. My wife is an immigrant. We pay taxes, work 60-hours a week jobs, commit no crimes. We contribute positively.
So yes, I find your suggestion that my child and my wife are a "permanent genetic burden" because they are not "European" to be profoundly racist, incredibly closed minded, and downright reprehensible. This line of thinking belongs in the trash bin of history and only leads to a very dark future for everyone.
Could the South have tried to industrialize with slavery?
Thanks for the question. While it is possible that the South could have tried, I believe that widespread forced labor of any type makes success extremely unlikely.
The industrialization process requires highly skilled workers who can experiment with prototypes and engineer production processes. Slaves have no incentive to do any more than the minimum amount of thinking. You can force manual labor, but you cannot force creativity and experimentation.
A society with small amounts of forced labor might be able to industrialize, but slavery was very widespread in the Deep South.
So that is long-winded way of saying "No."
The south had low human capital and was ecologically inhospitable to white labor until modern technology changed things (antibiotics, sanitation, air conditioning).
It's only comparative advantage was that the hot/wet climate was good for certain cash crops and they needed people with natural immunity (africans) to make it work.
That said, attempting to essentially force slavery on the north was hubristic failure.
Although I don't know what happened to the Whig Party after Hamilton died, didn't Hamilton want a more centralised government. In his own words "an enthusiastic executive" or something along those lines. Or am I misremebering or the Whig party drop the centralisation of the executive thing.
Also the promotion smallholder family farming was more a Jeffersonisan thing. Although they also wanted America to remain an agrarian nation composed small farmers and shop keepers. To be fair, in their day it wasn't obvious that the industrial revolution was good for the masses. According to Brad De Long the first industrial revolution did not lead a rise in median wages and living standards.
As someone who grew up in the first wave of industrialisation, it seems true to me.
On a side note, have you read How Asia Works by Joe Studwell. He's pretty Hamiltonian as well.
Thanks for the comment.
Yes, the Whigs were much less enthusiastic about executive power than Hamilton was. I think much of this was an intense hostility to Andrew Jackson, who was sort of the Donald Trump of his day. They were less worried when there was a Whig president!
Yes, Jefferson was known for his desire to promote small-holder family farming, but the Whigs and later Republicans wanted it as well. You might say Jefferson convinced both sides.
Yes, I have read How Asia Works and enjoyed it. I think that it aligns with my theories fairly well.
Great piece. I might recommend Walter Russell Mead's "God and Gold" (link below). Does a great job of tracing the American System's roots, especially the foreign policy aspects, back to Britain and to the Dutch Golden Age before them. It's interesting to see the Jacksonian reaction to this line of thinking still present in many anti-commercial and illiberal arguments today.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/537534.God_and_Gold
Thanks for the comment. I started reading but never finished that book a few years back. Bad habit, I know. I will take a second look!