Immigration and vetting

What do we know? (1) Immigration expands the talent pool, with potential economic as well as cultural benefits, (2) the accident of birth is the concrete example of "unfairness" ("fair" and "unfair" are otherwise vague and widely exploited rhetoric by politicians everywhere), (3) beyond some unknown tipping point, immigration gives rise to populist backlash. What to do?  The Economist ("Governments need better ways to manage migration") offers various suggestions.

"No country has a perfect system. But four policies can help maximise the benefits of immigration, minimise its costs and boost public support for it. First, the influx should be orderly and legal as well as humanely handled. ... This is not just because the rule of law matters. It is also because the perception of disorder fuels anti-immigrant sentiment. ...  Migrants should be encouraged to work. They should be helped to fit in. And they should be seen to pay their way." 

Good ideas all. But how do we get from here to there?  Better and more sophisticated vetting? How would we do that? The Economist's four-part plan is unlikely via the leaders we have. It also smacks of "getting to Denmark" fantasies. Do we have the right civil service ethos and staffs to make it work?

The good-ideas people seldom ask the question. Surely, politicizing the civil service was the wrong direction. Unionizing the civil service politicized it. Complaints about service at the DMV and the post office are common. Why would any politician ever even try civil service reform as long as a public sector union is involved?

I would like more migration. But I would also like better vetting.  I have no idea how we would get there from here.

Planned obsolescence

When in casual conversation someone mentions "planned obsolescence" it's time to end the discussion.  This was once a favorite of know-things and is evermore silly. There is still enough competition in the world that sellers are compelled to offer better and more durable product.

I well remember the "family car(s)" of the 1950s (and beyond) ones that were not expected to last 100k miles -- and if they did, that was not easily achieved. Many visits to the mechanic. The WSJ includes "Capitalism Fixed My Car ... All kinds of goods are improved by 'trade-tested betterment.'" Exceeding 100k miles is now routine.

I noticed the PBS Evening News reports on the troubles in Venezuela. They cite the drop in the world price of oil!  Occasionally, news people note "economic mismanagement."  They cannot bring themselves to cite the disasters that socialism inevitably bestows -- including what it does to the poor, which seems to be the concern of today's many appeals to "democratic socialism".  What does the qualifier add? More cronyism to what is already endemic?

Don Boudreaux notes that the European Union is hot on the case re "planned obsolescence."

Could it be any other way?

Economics is about human action. It points us away from discussions of inanimate objects and, instead, towards the actors, the real people, doing the choosing.  So better to talk about politicians than government.

Politicians are real people making complex choices and not able to ignore their personal preferences and constraints. How could they? Hubris inevitably creeps in and we hear about "public interest" and "public service" and such.

So drop "publicly provided" in favor of "politically provided."  My good friend Jim D points us to "Subway Ridership Dropped Again in New York as Passengers Flee to Uber" in a recent NY Times report. Could it be any other way?  Look for stories about "budget shortfalls" and "underfunded" which is the only way out if the human action part (famously brought to politics by James Buchanan) is ignored.

Federal government deficits and national debt, and the prospect of their durability, are no mystery. Republicans used to voice concerns. But even that has gone away.

ADDED

Why would this idiotic project NOT move forward?