National Success

== Democracy == Pro makes the argument that immigration influences government policy, and then interprets my response as an affirmation for Democracy. It would be as if I derailed the topic by bringing up Anarchism, when that isn't what Pro is even arguing here. I made the argument that immigration is an ineffectual factor in national success, while voter bases and legal structures are instead the integral causes. If Pro is worried about the economic calculation problem and individual rationale at the voting booths, I'll address those issues. a) It's true that the masses cannot know market prices, but they don't have to. If the majority of citizens agree that healthcare costs are too high, then they will vote for a system that might bring prices down, such as Single-Payer healthcare, or a public option. It's not as if the masses are voting on ballots that dictate how much carrots should sell for at Publix. b) No, the average vote isn't worth much intellectual investment, but that's why representative democracy prevails over direct democracy. The average person knows what he/she wants, and will subsequently vote in officials that specialize in such matters. Division of labor solves this issue, for actual economists and diplomats are appointed as the heads of governmental agencies that aim to produce national success. == Pro Arguments == 1. Sampling Bias: Pro says that Sweden and Denmark's economies' have unique industry composition, so consequently, they are unable to be used as comparisons: Sweden and Norway are not much different than the US and much of Europe, and ALL of these nations have a degree of unique industry composition[1]. If such subtle distinctions disqualify nations from being incorporated into these datasets, then Pro's entire econometric model needs to be completely discounted. 2. Jurisdictional Competition: i) Theory Pro is still mistaking purposes of immigration as the cause for successful governmental policy: Governments do not shape their policies around attracting immigrants from other nations, but instead around what domestic voters want. Increasing the tax base is a secondary priority to gathering votes, which is why the most successful nations are welfare states with higher taxes and more extensive services. The two outcomes may be largely the same, but one factor is the cause, and the other is an effect. ii) Examples -- Individuals: Pro states that the point is to compare successful and unsuccessful nations in terms of immigration, and poverty is not a sufficient barrier: Developed countries cannot be adequately compared to undeveloped countries due to the incredible differences in migration barriers -- the main one being economic. It's a comparison of apples and oranges, thus the low migration rates are simply correlative and not causative. Also, African limitation of migration doesn't need a source; it's axiomatic, for Africa's infrastructure is terrible [2], so there is little opportunity for movement, which is why migration mostly takes place under extreme circumstances, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc. Even Germans had better chances at emigration during the 19th century than Africans currently have. Pro criticizes the immigration statistics I calculated: Contrary to Pro's claim, developed countries are NOT homogeneous, and they have been ranked by heterogeneous levels of success [3]. One would expect that immigration would linearly trend with these success patterns, but the numbers don't follow (as I calculated). Instead, the stats appear to be all over the place, especially on an individual basis. This might be attributed to legal and linguistic barriers, but Pro's model didn't take these factors into account, nor did it account for the vastly different circumstances that drive migration between Africa and the EU, so his contention hasn't been affirmed. And even if an organized, precise correlation could be drawn out among similar circumstances, it would only prove that success is a necessary condition for immigration -- not the other way around as Pro put it. ii) Examples -- Corporations: Pro does not argue for lower taxes, but instead for jurisdictional competition: Well, not many people argue against the benefits of foreign investment, and I agree that it's something countries compete for, although it's mainly an effect, rather than a cause, of certain public policy. Because such investment creates job opportunities, wealth, and ultimately higher living standards, voters largely support governmental attempts to compete for international business, which is the underlying influence and cause. But, the competition itself isn't behind this success, for high educational standards, infrastructure development, and a vibrant middle-class all increase a nation's success, with or without foreign investment taking place, which is why it's an after-effect. Also, if a government attempted to cut important services to become more globally competitive, it wouldn't happen. For example, if the UK decided to dismantle the British NHS in order to lower corporate taxes, it would likely prove impossible because the popular vote overrides jurisdictional competition in terms of public policy [4]. 3. Market Growth: i) Theory Pro asserts that government can't know what services to provide, nor can it create economic growth: As I stated before, governments can observe market prices and make decisions contingent upon such information. If the government sees that many consumers cannot afford vital services, such as healthcare, then it becomes fairly obvious that medical service is what needs to be provided. Also, government can create economic growth in coordination with markets. In the case of subsidized research and development, beneficial technology can be invented, which fuels economic growth [5]. So actually, both markets AND governments create economic growth and national success. ii) Example Pro explains that his model empirically proves that government can't create economic growth: The problem is that Pro's model presumably uses data points that were retrieved while government had already been involved in markets, so how could this econometric model accurately demonstrate that no growth was derived from the government? Pro says I'm trying to be a statistician like him: No, I only provided some crude averages -- not a model -- that indicated immigration was not linearly correlated with national success, as Pro had claimed. Pro goes through exponential growth and his model: My question is how exactly "C" can be attributed to market mechanisms alone when the data is collected from where the government had already been involved. Also, because a linear correlation is impossible, which you admit, how can a causation be derived from the dataset? From viewing your charts, I don't see any growth trends following tax changes in the US. Pro tries to attribute Norway's success to oil production: For one, Norway does have higher taxes and GDP per capita than the US [6][7]. Also, oil resources are not a fundamental cause of national success, for Denmark and the Netherlands have barely any oil, while Kuwait has more than everyone else by far [8]. == Conclusion == Pro attempts to attribute national success to immigration and foreign investment, yet he ignores the fundamental reasons as to why rich people can travel easier than poor Africans, along with failing to address the correlative inconsistencies among wealthy nations. He also creates a vague econometric model that supposedly proves government has never contributed anything to economic growth, yet even at face value, I can point out problems of sampling bias and significantly incomplete datasets. As presented in Pro's case, the resolution hasn't been affirmed in theory, nor in practice. Sources: http://www.debate.org...