pull down to refresh
62 sats \ 6 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 8h \ parent \ on: What Would Hayek Think? econ
That wordplay is pretty deep and not easy to catch, I had to search it up. ‘Serf & Turf’ refers to Hayek’s book The Road to Serfdom? Like a Hayek style dish ‘à la economic freedom’?
Yes. I think the message literally meant that we are the slaves working the land of these people. Whatever the owner meant, it's clever. "Surf and Turf" (different spelling) is a common restaurant seafood/meat dish.
reply
Maybe the whole point wasn’t to be that deep, it was just to make it rhyme! Ahahaha
reply
Well, you don't see the word "serf" used too often anymore. I'm sure most of his workers are foreigners from central america, with little opportunity to earn money in other ways. Native born US people don't want these jobs. If you really want to take the analogy further, the US centrally planned economy has thrown things off balance. The free market has been stifled, and this lowest rung on the ladder group of immigrants needed to be imported.
reply
A true and full application of Hayeks ideology would surely mean zero immigration restrictions and complete freedom of movement for people and labour globally - I wonder how the average American would feel about applying such an open door immigration policy?
Europe has been allowing almost unrestricted immigration and it seems to lead to quite a few problems. Free market ideology is all well and good- until you try and apply it in the real world where there are in reality many other considerations.
Many nations 'allow' informal immigration where people come in but with very limited if any rights under the law but provide cheap labour for businesses- like the landscaping and domestic servants in USA- voters tolerate it up to a point until they feel their own jobs, rights and culture may be threatened.
reply
Hayek's stance assumes a free market, or as close as you can get in reality. It's tough to imagine the hypothetical. I agree Hayek would support free immigration, but no government financial support for the immigrants.
reply
I used to think free and totally open borders would be ok - but life experience has changed that viewpoint- imo there is a limit to how many immigrants can be absorbed without creating social and perhaps economic problems.
The fundamental problem is that over time and history people form into groups and adopt cultural practices and norms that work for them, but immigrants bring different beliefs and practices and that can lead to conflict.
In the English speaking Anglo colony - pioneer cultures of Canada, US, New Zealand, Australia we originally mostly restricted entry to European races, with the exception of the US importing black slaves to work for the plantations. In more recent times immigration in NZ and other Anglo former colonies more people from Asia and in New Zealands case The Pacific Islands have been immigrating because they are wanting a better economic life and the freedoms we have.
Politicians have allowed and even encouraged these immigrants from other cultures because they will work for lower wages and conditions than existing citizens will accept.
Its good for the GDP in the short term.
In school in the 1970s we were taught the 'melting pot' theory of racial and cultural integration- where over time divergent cultures are supposed to gradually merge into some harmonious ideal. This might work up to a point but surely has its limits and takes a long time and risks considerable internal tensions and conflict if pushed beyond those limits.
Free markets are a great ideal, but human nature sometimes makes their universal application counter productive.
reply