Immigration and markets

Imbecility is infectious. The Lib Dems have caught it off the Stupid Party. The BBC reports that “The Lib Dems would create an independent commission to set quotas for economic migrants based on the needs of different sectors of the economy.”

In an interview with the Washington Times, Menzies Campbell said:

We would establish an independent mechanism, consulting with trade unions and employers, as to what was thought to be a reasonable number [of economic migrants] in any given year…We would not set an arbitrary quota. We would say, what is necessary for that science laboratory, what is necessary for the food processing industry, what is necessary for the hospitality industry. We would arrive at a figure and then put that to Parliament, Parliament could discuss it and then decide if that was appropriate.

What utter drivel. What these clowns don’t realize is that there already is an independent mechanism which decides what a reasonable number of immigrant workers would be for different sectors of the economy. It’s one of the most brilliant inventions of mankind – one to which we owe the existence of the human race. And it employs thousands of experts at no cost to the tax-payers. 

It’s called the market. The very existence of a job vacancy which is not filled at a wage an employer is willing to pay a native worker is a signal of a requirement for a migrant worker. That’s all we need to know.

This, sadly, is not an isolated cretinism. It reveals that the managerialist mindset has not just infected New Labour, but the three main parties.

They seem oblivious to the basic fact about markets – that they are ways of aggregating information. Markets, far more than “experts”, can collect thousands of pieces of dispersed knowledge and summarize it all in a simple message – the price. This then tells people what to do.

To politicians, this notion that there can be decentralized control and knowledge is wholly alien. They think expertise and control can only exist in centralized hierarchies.

A footnote. Legend has it that, at a shadow cabinet meeting in the late 70s, Mrs Thatcher slammed a copy of Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty onto the table and said: “This, gentlemen, is what we believe.” It’s a damning indictment of today’s Stupid Party that it is less intellectual and humane than even Thatcher.

Comments

[dearieme]

Rather more striking that Toni's govt is orders of magnitude less.

[anon]

lemme guess - you're a member of the austrian cult. You worship markets, have blind faith in adam smith's invisible hand.

and look! a link to the homo-obsessed eric rasmusen (ever notice how economics is a hotbed for repressed homosexuals?)

[dearieme]

Ignore that rude boy, Mr S & M, I think that you and your chum Blimpish have been in spanking (oops) form lately.

[Scott Campbell at Blithering Bunny]

>less intellectual and humane than even Thatcher.

Why the cheap shot at Thatcher?

[Blimpish]

Ah, Scott - remember that despite his sound economics, our host here's an Eeeeeevil Leftist.

(I've had an absolutely brilliant day, so I won't bother to labour the observation that opposing free immigration is hardly cretinous, although I accept that simple quotas, rather than using (say) price-setting or auction mechanisms, are a relatively cretinous way of achieving them.)

[jacob]

he never said that opposing unlimited immigration was cretinous. most of the country accept that the level of immigration should be tailored to meet economic needs but the last thing we need is another government body full of "experts" deciding how many people we need to let in for each industry. Surely it's far better to let employers in that industry approach the home office. After all, nobody knows labour market needs better than the employers ...

[Blimpish]

Jacob: Your argument's the one for unlimited immigration in the only meaningful sense - i.e., that if a foreign worker can strike an employment deal here, then there should be no limit on them.

If 'economic needs' are the sole criterion in immigration policy, then this is correct. You won't get any argument from me about the epistemic joys of market processes. But to make 'economic needs' the sole criterion is the epitome of Managerialism. Some of us think there's more to life than economic needs...

[jacob]

I'm inclined to believe that employers will only import workers if the recruitment of local workers at a reasonable market level isn't possible. certainly that's the reflection i've drawn from my own experiences.

what are your other criteria, then?

[Blimpish]

The two criteria for me, closely connected:

1. Cultural. The importation of large number of often transient residents, who have only a monetary tie to our country, its customs, its language, and its institutions, runs the risk of depleting long-accumulated social capital for the sake of a quick buck today. Moving from 10% to 20% minority population in a generation makes this a high likelihood. I'm against it because (a) I know of no culture unambiguously better than ours, and so I want to keep it; and (b) it is the deep roots of that culture that allows a competitive market to flourish - we run it down at our peril. Integrating migrants could help, but no Government would have the guts to impose it.

2. Political. Throughout periods of high immigration, a clear majority of the British people have always been opposed. This is for a variety of reasons, some less noble than others (i.e., racial bigotry). But this is the only country we've got - it seems madness (not to mention wholly undemocratic) to go against the deep-seated feelings of the majority, simply for marginal economic gain. This doesn't require us to like the reasons for those feelings - if 70% of British people liked to beat up black people, it wouldn't seem a wise plan to invite more black people here.

There are others - you might, for example, say that the country is already densely populated, and so a rapid growth in population will come at a significant environmental cost in terms of lost green-belt.