Bryan Caplan joined me on the livestream today to discuss my recent article, “Economists Should Do More to Fight Misinformation.” We begin by splitting some hairs about whether the misinformation label misleads us about the ultimate origins of false beliefs, and also the difference between something being emotionally unappealing and intuitively incorrect.
"Yeah, yeah. You know, I do think economics is in a sense a science. Like somebody was saying in my comments, like, oh, it's not a science because like, you know, you could have built more housing, for example, and prices might not go down because of it. Well, it's like gravity. It's like you could throw something in the air and it might not come down because the wind might blow on it or somebody might grab it or something like that. But gravity is still a thing. And I think the laws of supply and demand are similarly a thing. I think it's, you know, as good as we get."
You seem to be referring to me. I was replying to your remark:
"A recent poll showed that only 24% of Americans believed that building more housing in their communities would reduce prices, while 44% thought it would raise them. This is plain flat earthism."
But it isn't at all analogous to flat earthism, or disbelieving the laws of gravity. Sometimes people understand intuitively that housing markets are complicated, and the laws of supply and demand are not easy to apply.
Take Williamsburg, Brooklyn. They've added tens of thousands of new units in one small neighborhood, and prices have gone up astronomically anyway. If it was still filled with nothing but shabby, vinyl-sided three-story rowhouses, would housing prices be lower? I think the answer is clearly yes.
The commodity in this case that is subject to supply and demand in this case is a neighborhood more than it is individual units of housing. It was impossible to add supply without changing the commodity itself, which induced even more demand.
I'm not saying that new housing should not have been built. I think it is good that it was. But people are not wrong to sense that increased supply of housing units led to higher rents in Williamsburg.
"Bryan’s article on the UAE as utopia has stuck with me since I read it almost a year ago as demonstrating how well humans could be living if we simply were able to move beyond commonly held beliefs about markets and nationhood. Arabs built something this amazing! All it took was them believing in freedom. Or maybe just being rational."
The following is a response someone else posted under Caplan's article, concerning immigrants in the UAE, but I think it bears repeating here:
- in Dubai you are only ever a temorarily tolerated guest
- there is no path to citizenship, no matter how long you live there or how much you invest in the country
- If you lose your job, you have a few weeks to leave the country, unless you own a home there
- they allocate jobs there based on nationality and gender - for example Muslims cannot get visas to be domestic staff, because they don't want Muslims working as servants
- unless you work in one of the free trade zones you are at the mercy of your local sponsor. My Sri Lankan houseboy (cleaner) had been living and working in the UAE for decades and built up a life there with his family, but he had to uproot and return to Sri Lanka with a few days notice because his sponsor didn't file his paperwork and didn't answer his phone
- if you bounce a check you go to jail and/or get kicked out of the country
- if a local takes a dislike to you he can get you in trouble for any number of things, for example it's technically not allowed to cohabit with your partner if you're not married. You have no recourse if they don't want you anymore
- locals and foreigners have totally different rights
- the UAE only takes in people who are useful to them, ie the very rich, professionals (aka "white niggers") and labourers or menial workers, and you're only allowed in AFTER you have have the confirmed job or show the money
----
Obviously none of this is even remotely like how Western nations handle immigration/open borders. I wouldn't neccesarily call it "believing in freedom" although it does seem like a more rational way of handling immigration than any Western country seems capable of.
It seems to me that specifically the "no path to citizenship" part means the UAE specifically thought about protecting their nationhood and actual UAE citizens will never be dominated socio-culturally , politically or religiously (since Islam is the official religion) by immigrants. Which is of course what will happen to the native populations in Europe.
"Yeah, yeah. You know, I do think economics is in a sense a science. Like somebody was saying in my comments, like, oh, it's not a science because like, you know, you could have built more housing, for example, and prices might not go down because of it. Well, it's like gravity. It's like you could throw something in the air and it might not come down because the wind might blow on it or somebody might grab it or something like that. But gravity is still a thing. And I think the laws of supply and demand are similarly a thing. I think it's, you know, as good as we get."
You seem to be referring to me. I was replying to your remark:
"A recent poll showed that only 24% of Americans believed that building more housing in their communities would reduce prices, while 44% thought it would raise them. This is plain flat earthism."
But it isn't at all analogous to flat earthism, or disbelieving the laws of gravity. Sometimes people understand intuitively that housing markets are complicated, and the laws of supply and demand are not easy to apply.
Take Williamsburg, Brooklyn. They've added tens of thousands of new units in one small neighborhood, and prices have gone up astronomically anyway. If it was still filled with nothing but shabby, vinyl-sided three-story rowhouses, would housing prices be lower? I think the answer is clearly yes.
The commodity in this case that is subject to supply and demand in this case is a neighborhood more than it is individual units of housing. It was impossible to add supply without changing the commodity itself, which induced even more demand.
I'm not saying that new housing should not have been built. I think it is good that it was. But people are not wrong to sense that increased supply of housing units led to higher rents in Williamsburg.
"Bryan’s article on the UAE as utopia has stuck with me since I read it almost a year ago as demonstrating how well humans could be living if we simply were able to move beyond commonly held beliefs about markets and nationhood. Arabs built something this amazing! All it took was them believing in freedom. Or maybe just being rational."
The following is a response someone else posted under Caplan's article, concerning immigrants in the UAE, but I think it bears repeating here:
- in Dubai you are only ever a temorarily tolerated guest
- there is no path to citizenship, no matter how long you live there or how much you invest in the country
- If you lose your job, you have a few weeks to leave the country, unless you own a home there
- they allocate jobs there based on nationality and gender - for example Muslims cannot get visas to be domestic staff, because they don't want Muslims working as servants
- unless you work in one of the free trade zones you are at the mercy of your local sponsor. My Sri Lankan houseboy (cleaner) had been living and working in the UAE for decades and built up a life there with his family, but he had to uproot and return to Sri Lanka with a few days notice because his sponsor didn't file his paperwork and didn't answer his phone
- if you bounce a check you go to jail and/or get kicked out of the country
- if a local takes a dislike to you he can get you in trouble for any number of things, for example it's technically not allowed to cohabit with your partner if you're not married. You have no recourse if they don't want you anymore
- locals and foreigners have totally different rights
- the UAE only takes in people who are useful to them, ie the very rich, professionals (aka "white niggers") and labourers or menial workers, and you're only allowed in AFTER you have have the confirmed job or show the money
----
Obviously none of this is even remotely like how Western nations handle immigration/open borders. I wouldn't neccesarily call it "believing in freedom" although it does seem like a more rational way of handling immigration than any Western country seems capable of.
It seems to me that specifically the "no path to citizenship" part means the UAE specifically thought about protecting their nationhood and actual UAE citizens will never be dominated socio-culturally , politically or religiously (since Islam is the official religion) by immigrants. Which is of course what will happen to the native populations in Europe.
Yes, this a much better response than his glib, dumb remarks merited.