Glad you caught the show. Let me know what you think in the comments and I’ll reply as soon as I can. If you’re a regular listener and would like to show your support and gain access to exclusive talks with some incredible minds, check out the Coleman Unfiltered membership here: bit.ly/3B1GAlS
The Case for Overpopulation is always made in terms of Continuous Economic Growth for a Nation, as if Nations were Bee Hives or Ant Colonies. Never mind the quality of life of the People living in them! I don’t think anyone should be talking about the necessity for Overpopulation until Humanity has first solved the Problem of Drought and Water Shortage that is Ocurring all over the Planet.
Well said. It's bizarre how people can embark on these conversations without addressing the ecological trade-offs; they should literally be the first thing to consider.
I think there are two elements to this: 1. We have to build communities with resources and infrastructure that cater to families. Most of us young, single people living in apartments in the city couldn’t even imagine supporting a family in this environment and with our current expenses. 2. We need to foster a worldview that values marriage and procreation above things like the freedom to travel, eat at nice restaurants, afford the newest tech, and generally be spontaneous in our lifestyle. How do we achieve this as a society? I honestly have no idea, especially given the deterioration of male/female relationships in our generation. I see plenty of young families at church … maybe they’re onto something.
@Marianne Ward it’s because it’s largely been dismissed as a myth. Technological advancement outpaced the birth rate. By the end of the century our problem may very well be the opposite, extreme economic strain due to depopulation because of low birth rates and a much larger elderly population.
It might be kind of petty but I hate crowded spaces/densely populated areas. I find it psychotic and autistic to treat people as chicken in cages while looking at efficiency metrics.
That's selfish short term thinking. If you want your children to live in a world where freedom is protected we need to ensure America remains the most powerful country in the world economically. Hand over the future to China because large cities are unaesthetic to you. (I love living in a big city. You can stay in the suburbs if you want.)
@@AerysBat oh, I probably should’ve clarify it first… I’m not an American - my country is 4 times more densely populated than the US, yet people like Bryan Caplan still think “there’s so much space left!” So from my perspective, amping my country’s current density up by eg 100% would mean there won’t be a quiet suburb to afford. And it’s great that you think that it’s only an issue of aesthetics but really, I, unlike you, can’t stand living in huge cities and my (and many other people) quality of life would deteriorate significantly. The US has a lot of leeway before reaching this hypothetical level, but I’m just angry that people prone to sensory overload or who find themselves at home in smaller communities should adjust to a “superior” lifestyle even if it doesn’t suit them.
@@AerysBat okay, I’ve looked up your Twitter - your psychological disposition is certainly highly unusual. You can’t expect normies to just mold themselves into similar mindset, or to become happy big city neolibs out of principle. Human psychology is not malleable enough. Though of course you can disregard happiness of people dissimilar to you. Anyway, the US indeed has a lot of space left, but I’ve got agitated by how you implied that the aesthetics rather than life quality* is the main criteria I’m following. *of course life quality of people who, like me, tried to live in a big city, and never learned to like it
Since hormonal birth control, became available, fertility rates have fallen, marriage rates have fallen, and divorce rates have risen. It precipitated monumental social changes whose full consequences are yet to be realized.
The marriage penalty isn't a big consideration for people who are able to produce sufficient wealth. But if getting married causes you to lose income, to lose benefits, it is a big consideration.
Matthew Yglesias is two people. One is a wise, fairly balanced, fairly open intellect with many unique and valuable observations. The other is a man who could -for long periods - tolerate the smug, uber-woke bullying of Ezra Klein, and who (similarly to Klein) sees no value in breaking away from the rhetorical delivery style of a 14 yo Valley Girl. Strange that he cannot see this 🤔
The immigration debate is like the question of the ship with no original parts. If all the people who originally live there are displaced by people who don’t share their culture and hold them in contempt and the economic benefits all go to the newcomers, what difference does it make if the economy is larger on a spreadsheet somewhere? It obviously was the wrong choice. The original people whatever their problems at least had a home.
This is not abstract tallying up exercise. This is about the kind of world you want to live in. It's about whether in 30 years, you see America backing down from ascendent global authoritarianism, or whether the US remains the unquestioned #1 for the rest of yoru life. It's about whether your kids will have to cower to the power of Chinese social media censorship. And the 1 Billion Americans project is not just about immigration, it's also about bringing our OWN native birth rate up. You Mr. Clark should have more kids. Or at the very least, our government should offer you support to do it.
Unregulated industries have prices drop over time, and they include so many of the things we love about technology. The more protected an industry, the higher the price and in general the lower the quality for lack of competition.
Prices aren't the only concern. If it weren't for the massive regulation of pollution and dumping in the 1970s, we'd be living in a hellhole right now. LA County has three times the population now as it did in the 1960s, yet the air now is significantly cleaner than it was then, even with way more cars. The industries didn't regulate themselves. California forced them to, and that benefited the entire country.
Holy shit, no. For goods and services with no appreciable startup barriers, that can hold true. Competition can bring efficiencies in economic terms (although as John points out, it does not bring improvements in other important metrics). For industries with significant startup barriers, lack of regulation creates monsters. Do you think that phone services are optimized for customer satisfaction? The cable industry? These industries have perennially low satisfaction rates among customers because the mechanics of the free market *stifles* competition in those industries. The startup costs vs. the acceptable market price for those services is such that it is impossible for botique services to arise except through the careful use of regulation. Or, if you want a more concrete example, look at what happened to California when they deregulated their energy in the early 00's. There was that whole Enron thing, Gray Davis got recalled, and everyone in California got to experience rolling brown-outs, blackouts, and runaway inflation of power costs to the tune of hundreds of percent in increase year over year. Pepperidge Farm remembers. I remember too, because I was stationed in San Diego at the time. So no, often times, highly regulated industries only benefit the general public BECAUSE they're so highly regulated.
Please, create a charity that accepts voluntary donations for your cause of increasing the birth rate. The use of government extortion/violence/theft to fund it is the epitome of greed and envy tied to a clear approval of using violence to take what you want, that might makes right.
How would you keep immigrants in Buffalo if Buffalo's government wanted more immigrants while other places did not? Would they be in Buffalo Prison, unable to leave Buffalo or just unable to work and rent/buy property outside of Buffalo, and how long is it before they've served their term and become free?
He is either real cynical or real naive on this point If I were to regard Yglesias as being cynical it probably is a dishonest position, he KNOWS very well that as long as there is anything resembling free movement between parts of the continental US means increase of immigration in any locality will lead to increased downstream immigration elsewhere, but he won't address it and it will always remain a gap in his proposed model because this is contrary to his desired endpoint which is to increase immigration And if I were to regard him as being naive, then I guess it might be something like, if he regards immigration as good-in-all-cases and will always increase local conditions, then under such a paradigm immigration to Buffalo will improve Buffalo, and lack of immigration outside of Buffalo will degrade the outside of Buffalo, so there would be no real incentive for the immigrants to Buffalo to leave Buffalo, seeing as how the conditions within Buffalo would be better than outside...?
What people do we know that don't like to have somewhere to call home? And the situation of a home, is it not a neighborhood characterised by reasonable security, redundancy, provision for common defence of, not life styles or socio economic status, but institutions which support peace, home, and family?
A person that argues against the merits of population growth on the basis of sewage capacity in a given neighborhood should abstain from commenting on such subject.
I don’t want 1 billion Americans. I don’t want half a billion Americans. Though we have the space to accommodate these numbers, the aesthetic, environmental, social, political and practical costs are not worth the potential economic gains.
You've never been to Nevada, Utah, Oregon, Idaho, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Iowa, Alaska, etc. have you?
@@schenksteven1 I live in Utah. The West is the West because it is open, filled with National Parks and wild terrain. We like it this way and don't want to end up like Korea, with 52,000,000 people in a land area the size of Ohio. The same however holds true for almost every place in the US, excepting LA and the East Coast from Boston to DC. If we trebled the size of our population, every locality would feel it and the pressure would be enormous. Everything becomes exponentially more difficult with added pop. especially in these numbers.
You don't have to live in a city if you don't want to. Utah will still have beautiful expansive parks and you can own a huge property. In fact if you buy property now, it will be worth much much more if increase birth rates and immigration. (Your property value will skyrocket.)
@@AerysBat No, the numbers we are talking about will likely destroy the environment, a way of life, the animals and irreversibly warp the politics as well. I have zero desire to permit such massive numbers as these and in fact favor limiting immigration to maintain an overall population slightly above what we have today. At least for the foreseeable future.
When the bodies politic are based on correct criteria, they will be smaller and more numerous, allowing for more sea lanes, lighthouses, metaphorically speaking. This will make sharing the ocean less like sharing an artificial strait.
Everything else being equal, yes, population does equate with prosperity. No, it doesn't have any downsides, other than in the heads of neo-Malthusians.
Nope. Demonstrably false, look through your history a bit. There are enormous challenges in managing large populations and usually these result in large conflicts, and massive destruction. Population has advantages certainly,\ but the disadvantages are massive and you must be wary.
@@thomassenbart Nope: the misguided actions of governments result in large conflicts and massive destruction. Population has ZERO to do with it. Population growth brings a better division of labor, with subsequent specialization and increase in productivity. Hence, more wealth per capita. THAT IS A DEMONSTRABLE HISTORIC FACT.
@@daveBit15 You are simply ignoring reality. Pop. growth does not bring forth a better division of labor. That can happen but is hardly a necessary result of a large pop. In history, large populations were almost always, on the brink of starvation, with 90+% engaged in subsistence farming. No great division of labor happened simply because there were a lot of people. It also does not bring forward higher productivity, probably the opposite actually and your assertion is not historic at all. Productivity/growth generally comes from better ways to spend working hours, per person and is usually driven by technological innovation, not population size. In history, nations with large populations have low wages and employ many hands to do what can be accomplished by a few, motivated individuals. It is simple supply and demand. I would guess you have never lived in a high population nation. I have and the redundancy of labor and manpower is amazing, simply because it is so cheap. Productivity is not increased through numbers. Here are a few historical and current examples. Look at India and China. I would venture you do not know the histories of either but both are full of division and incessant civil war, ethnic contentions and governmental limitations controlling such large populations. India was only united because of the British, a small population nation with superior tech, military and productivity etc...than the myriad Indian Kingdoms in the Sub Continent. Chinese history is also one of almost continual civil war, warlords, rebellion and starvation due to a massive population which was almost impossible to govern efficiently or for very long. Large populations invariably have massive diversity due to, language, ethnicities, cultures, values, religions etc...that always lead to internal strife and usually war and mass poverty, slavery and genocide. This is the history of empire.
Huge downsides just look at China and India, both countries have huge ghettos where people live in squalor yet their one- two percent are filthy rich and control everything.
I totally agree with Matt's main idea, especially regarding localized control of immigration. However I think we should view filling up our continent in a long-term, responsible way. If a growing America is good, then. we should plan to grow over the next several centuries, not just this one. We should aim for 500 million this century, and then we can take it slow depending on what happens with China and the various world shifts that will happen this century. No need to rush our immigration process to the limit if its our greatest strength.
Some people love empty beaches, empty parks, empty hiking trails, empty fishing spots, empty vistas of nature, empty stores....more people doesn't make it better, and climate change has made clear that more consumption tends to add pollution and resource utilization.
Those who argue for increased immigration fail to realize that quality of life is not based upon economics. Sure it's an element, but culture, family, history, community, are as important if not more so. The more homogeneous a population, the more one is willing to extend charity/welfare. It's just an obvious, basic fact, and true around the world. If you don't feel your fellow citizens share your culture and values, then you are less likely to have empathy for them. Again, don't shoot the messenger. It's an obvious fact, whether Black, White, Inuit, or Chinese; it's universal.
also, I think urbanization goes against this... ask anyone anywhere living in huge city and they say same. Quality of life goes down in bigger and bigger city. When people are miserable or stressed, they can hardly help anyone, not even their own family(I remember they said in NYC billionaires are most neurotic and paranoid people and never have time to other things than worry of their wealth).
@spencerantoniomarlen-starr3069 The majority of people in the US don't live in Manhattan or downtown San Fran. They live in rural areas, small towns, suburbs, and city streets with individual homes; not urban apartment or condo complexes.
>Yglesias articulates the problem of the modern era in which the sides of the political divide have become more polarized >has no idea on how to even begin to approach resolving this >does not update his existing raft of ideas in line with this developing situation >continues to push some kind of decades-old pet project which would not resolve any of the current problems but would only exacerbate them What more is there to say, other than this man is a king among fools?
this may not reflect the reality on the ground, but maybe instead of relying solely on increasing population for this premise, you could look to automation. there is so much donkey work that can be automated away with relative ease, given the right social infrastructure.
Dig your show, but disagree with your stance that America should seek to increase population to "stay on top". The entire planet is overpopulated. Freedom fosters Innovation and creativity, and that is fertile ground and path for humanity's best future. Overpopulation is unhealth and detrimental to optimal evolution. IMO, let's gooo.
"The entire planet is overpopulated" You don't know wtf are you talking about: the levels of prosperity we enjoy are a direct consequence of the growth in population. "disagree with your stance that America should seek to increase population to "stay on top"" Here I'm with you: America shouldn't "seek" anything other than freedom.
@@daveBit15 I do know what I, or we are talking about... overpopulation. Could not be any more literal here. And disagree with you, prosperity is correlated to population. IF @Coleman Hughes agrees with this, let's hear it. Bring me on the show, and lets discuss rationally.
I think one big reason why republicans and democrats both embrace victimhood now has to do with how concentrated wealth has gotten at the way top social level
I think it's a bit revisionist to say that Republicans didn't embrace it 20 years ago. The "my job was shipped to China" or "that damn Mexican down the street is stealing my job!" was absolutely a thing 20 years ago. When Reagan was pushing the idea that black crack babies were sucking up all the federal funds in the form of welfare, I was still shitting my diapers and learning how to say "da da". So no, it's not a new thing by any means. But I completely agree that for those people who have the power, money and status, it's beneficial for them to pit the poor against each other. So we end up with the left claiming that white people and cops are the cause of all of society's ills and the right claiming it's immigrants and godlessness. And those ideas disseminate from the people with the power and means to continually hammer those points home and are carried by people too disinterested in reality to parse the nuance.
One billion Americans in the future is nothing since India and China already exceed that (by the size of the US today). Growth isn't naturally good (look at cancer, or humans that get too tall); wealth and knowledge creation are good. Bigger isn't better by itself; much will depend on the quality of the individuals; nobody prefers 10 killers to 1 because it's 10x the other.
You don't need to be a good person to be a successful politician, you must need to be able to gain their confidence, to tell them what they want to hear, to vote for or against only a big omnibus bills so there's always a reason for voting either way, to convince them that it's fine that government takes so much of your money by force so it can buy ever more voters and repay donors.
Interesting topic. It would be interesting to see if the left would continue to be so pro-immigration if the immigrants voted R. I think we all know the answer. And it may be me, but the voice and mannerisms of the guest is so off-putting that its hard to stick with the dialogue. Condescending millenial speak. I am a moderate conservative and I know almost no conservative who is opposed to immigration per se - we are opposed to unchecked, wide open immigration without a rational policy. I dont care anyones race, etc as long as they mirror the values that made the US the nation they seek to enter.
I wonder if instead of foreign election interference and American imperialism, we actively courted other nations to vote to join the United States. So instead of having to migrate illegally, people in central America could start to enjoy some of what our nation and governance system can offer without leaving their family and culture behind.
It isn't the idea.... it's the execution. Ideas are a dime a dozen and it's almost certain that any idea you can think of has already been thought of before you. It takes a big ego to think that you've found the magic idea that no one else has considered and that it will solve the world's problems. My suggestion would be to consider spending more time understanding the ideas that came before you and how to execute those ideas better.
Very interesting guest we're a few minutes in and he mentions the Atlantic BuzzFeed and I think slate or Salon maybe in the same sentence with that's Perry very interesting regarding the same perspective Etc... I'm not sure about naming the Atlantic and BuzzFeed like in the same sentence type but certainly that's very interesting.. in a shocking way because of narrative vs reality and The Atlantic's piece hoping for Biden to stay alive for the use of his corporeal body.. I'm glad he has left Vox and Ezra however..
California has big problems developing due to the limits of fresh water. When there is not enough rain coming down, no more river flow to divert to the city and no more ground water, then what? (Desalination is limited by power limitations). All continents have this problem looming, by the way. India and China are both pumping groundwater to the point that the levels are dropping fast. Are you sure there are no limits to how many people Planet Earth can support?
@@joyj7405 California has big problems of socialism. Yes, subsidies create perverse incentives; in a free market world, living in some parts of California would be prohibitively expensive.
@@joyj7405 _"Are you sure there are no limits to how many people Planet Earth can support?"_ I didn't say there are no limits, but we're nowhere near those limits. We use less land and less water to feed more people today than we did 30 years ago.
@@joyj7405 Really? Than why do the California liberal government dump millions of cubic feet water from reservoirs into the ocean??? Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom admin been doing it despite droughts and farming needs yet the same govt pushes for more housing. Housing has to have water, no??? Get a brain
Great talk. Great guest. I remember reading Yglesias’s blog pre-Vox. Then I got into twitter about 5 years ago (now kicked the habit, almost 3 years clean) and I came to really dislike the person he was on twitter. Concurrent with the general increase in sanctimony and terminal navel-gazing of the left media, Yglesias was writing opinions for Vox that I thought he was entirely too intelligent to actually hold. Then he had a semi-public spat with Ezra Klein and left shortly after. Thereupon my suspicions were confirmed; Matt Yglesias is indeed far too intelligent to believe many of the things he felt he had to say as the mouthpiece of Vox. Once again I love the guy when he expresses his genuine and thoughtful opinions as he’s free to do on substack.
I've got 23 minutes left, and neither one has said a word about the environmental consequences of overpopulation, or the fact that many places where tens of thousands of Americans live now will be underwater in 100 years. Perpetual economic growth is a myth. All populations of all animals and plants thrive until they reach their carrying capacity.
There are strong countries in the world. Democracy, Socialism, Communism, etc. There are many countries. And regardless of the safety of the people, eternal state management because of one's greed Russia has launched an invasion. You know him but you're close to him. There is also China, a war-aiding country in the war. But there's a situation that you can't understand. I do. that is. The small country that directs and supervises them, It means North Korea. No, I had no idea. peace-loving nations regardless of the shape of the country At the United Nations, He took the lead in defining that killing people is the greatest sin. This is because it is a representative country that has vowed to set an example to heaven. Isn't that a disgraceful story? If that starts, you'll get a lot of casualties. It's a country that even has weapons to do so. I finally demonstrated with a weapon. All countries keep talking about not doing it, but living a good life. But China and Russia are especially good. While watching, I know it and keep it loyal. Russia Has Reported to North Korea, Has Permitted, Has Initiated Invasion Next, is the reporting country China? So when do I ask for permission? Shouldn't we change the permanent members of the UN to protect the world? If I have to fill it up without China and Russia, Please add North Korea. A country that is so small that even the forms of freedom, democracy, and socialism are questionable is a powerful country. I don't even have qualifications. There's a saying. "I'm not running away because I'm afraid of dogs, I'm avoiding them because they're dirty". And please announce the additional provisions at the UN. Chinese and Russian national management I'd like to get approval from North Korea. Please add it. Now I hope that Russia and China will now announce to the rest of the world that they have been eliminated from exemplary peace-loving countries.!!!
![Is Matt Taibbi a Right-Winger? [S3 Ep.4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-bqyk7fJWtM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Is Matt Taibbi a Right-Winger? [S3 Ep.4]](/img/tr.png)
![The Failures of the NY Times with Ashley Rindsberg [S3 Ep.7]](/img/n.gif)
Glad you caught the show. Let me know what you think in the comments and I’ll reply as soon as I can. If you’re a regular listener and would like to show your support and gain access to exclusive talks with some incredible minds, check out the Coleman Unfiltered membership here: bit.ly/3B1GAlS
The Case for Overpopulation is always made in terms of Continuous Economic Growth for a Nation, as if Nations were Bee Hives or Ant Colonies. Never mind the quality of life of the People living in them!
I don’t think anyone should be talking about the necessity for Overpopulation until Humanity has first solved the Problem of Drought and Water Shortage that is Ocurring all over the Planet.
Well said. It's bizarre how people can embark on these conversations without addressing the ecological trade-offs; they should literally be the first thing to consider.
@@slider292 Have you considered that Matt wrote a book that perhaps addresses this in more detail?
@@tgiskardify I wasn't aware of the book until listening to this convo. Do you know if he addresses it?
@@slider292 It's the extremely obvious objection every misanthrope makes to population growth. Yes he addresses it.
@@tgiskardify Well, I certainly hope it's a more compelling case than yours, which appears to be nothing more than tarring people with labels.
I think there are two elements to this: 1. We have to build communities with resources and infrastructure that cater to families. Most of us young, single people living in apartments in the city couldn’t even imagine supporting a family in this environment and with our current expenses. 2. We need to foster a worldview that values marriage and procreation above things like the freedom to travel, eat at nice restaurants, afford the newest tech, and generally be spontaneous in our lifestyle.
How do we achieve this as a society? I honestly have no idea, especially given the deterioration of male/female relationships in our generation. I see plenty of young families at church … maybe they’re onto something.
@Marianne Ward it’s because it’s largely been dismissed as a myth. Technological advancement outpaced the birth rate. By the end of the century our problem may very well be the opposite, extreme economic strain due to depopulation because of low birth rates and a much larger elderly population.
Blaming rural people for how Democrats run cities is problematic
It might be kind of petty but I hate crowded spaces/densely populated areas. I find it psychotic and autistic to treat people as chicken in cages while looking at efficiency metrics.
That's selfish short term thinking. If you want your children to live in a world where freedom is protected we need to ensure America remains the most powerful country in the world economically. Hand over the future to China because large cities are unaesthetic to you. (I love living in a big city. You can stay in the suburbs if you want.)
@@AerysBat oh, I probably should’ve clarify it first… I’m not an American - my country is 4 times more densely populated than the US, yet people like Bryan Caplan still think “there’s so much space left!”
So from my perspective, amping my country’s current density up by eg 100% would mean there won’t be a quiet suburb to afford. And it’s great that you think that it’s only an issue of aesthetics but really, I, unlike you, can’t stand living in huge cities and my (and many other people) quality of life would deteriorate significantly.
The US has a lot of leeway before reaching this hypothetical level, but I’m just angry that people prone to sensory overload or who find themselves at home in smaller communities should adjust to a “superior” lifestyle even if it doesn’t suit them.
@@AerysBat okay, I’ve looked up your Twitter - your psychological disposition is certainly highly unusual. You can’t expect normies to just mold themselves into similar mindset, or to become happy big city neolibs out of principle. Human psychology is not malleable enough. Though of course you can disregard happiness of people dissimilar to you.
Anyway, the US indeed has a lot of space left, but I’ve got agitated by how you implied that the aesthetics rather than life quality* is the main criteria I’m following.
*of course life quality of people who, like me, tried to live in a big city, and never learned to like it
You must produce before you consume. Your productivity generates the wealth you can then freely win-win trade with others.
Nice! Love Matty, but am opposed to increasing the population. Can’t wait to check it out.
Oh, he's opposed to overpopulation..! Take notice, people!
@@daveBit15 My point was that I enjoy hearing a case made for something I oppose, by someone I highly respect.
@@slider292 Sorry, my comment is stupid. It's a subject that touches me very close, and it happens to be central to progressive ideology.
@@daveBit15 All good.
How about maintaining the population? The possibility of population collapse is pretty scary to me.
Since hormonal birth control, became available, fertility rates have fallen, marriage rates have fallen, and divorce rates have risen. It precipitated monumental social changes whose full consequences are yet to be realized.
100%. The ripple effects have fundamentally reshaped society and not at all in totally positive ways. The costs have been massive.
His voice sounds like a leftist but he thinks like a moderate. It took me 20 minutes to start trusting him.
The marriage penalty isn't a big consideration for people who are able to produce sufficient wealth. But if getting married causes you to lose income, to lose benefits, it is a big consideration.
Matthew Yglesias is two people. One is a wise, fairly balanced, fairly open intellect with many unique and valuable observations.
The other is a man who could -for long periods - tolerate the smug, uber-woke bullying of Ezra Klein, and who (similarly to Klein) sees no value in breaking away from the rhetorical delivery style of a 14 yo Valley Girl.
Strange that he cannot see this 🤔
The immigration debate is like the question of the ship with no original parts. If all the people who originally live there are displaced by people who don’t share their culture and hold them in contempt and the economic benefits all go to the newcomers, what difference does it make if the economy is larger on a spreadsheet somewhere? It obviously was the wrong choice. The original people whatever their problems at least had a home.
This is not abstract tallying up exercise. This is about the kind of world you want to live in. It's about whether in 30 years, you see America backing down from ascendent global authoritarianism, or whether the US remains the unquestioned #1 for the rest of yoru life. It's about whether your kids will have to cower to the power of Chinese social media censorship. And the 1 Billion Americans project is not just about immigration, it's also about bringing our OWN native birth rate up. You Mr. Clark should have more kids. Or at the very least, our government should offer you support to do it.
Unregulated industries have prices drop over time, and they include so many of the things we love about technology. The more protected an industry, the higher the price and in general the lower the quality for lack of competition.
Prices aren't the only concern. If it weren't for the massive regulation of pollution and dumping in the 1970s, we'd be living in a hellhole right now. LA County has three times the population now as it did in the 1960s, yet the air now is significantly cleaner than it was then, even with way more cars. The industries didn't regulate themselves. California forced them to, and that benefited the entire country.
Holy shit, no. For goods and services with no appreciable startup barriers, that can hold true. Competition can bring efficiencies in economic terms (although as John points out, it does not bring improvements in other important metrics). For industries with significant startup barriers, lack of regulation creates monsters. Do you think that phone services are optimized for customer satisfaction? The cable industry? These industries have perennially low satisfaction rates among customers because the mechanics of the free market *stifles* competition in those industries. The startup costs vs. the acceptable market price for those services is such that it is impossible for botique services to arise except through the careful use of regulation. Or, if you want a more concrete example, look at what happened to California when they deregulated their energy in the early 00's. There was that whole Enron thing, Gray Davis got recalled, and everyone in California got to experience rolling brown-outs, blackouts, and runaway inflation of power costs to the tune of hundreds of percent in increase year over year. Pepperidge Farm remembers. I remember too, because I was stationed in San Diego at the time. So no, often times, highly regulated industries only benefit the general public BECAUSE they're so highly regulated.
Please, create a charity that accepts voluntary donations for your cause of increasing the birth rate. The use of government extortion/violence/theft to fund it is the epitome of greed and envy tied to a clear approval of using violence to take what you want, that might makes right.
How would you keep immigrants in Buffalo if Buffalo's government wanted more immigrants while other places did not? Would they be in Buffalo Prison, unable to leave Buffalo or just unable to work and rent/buy property outside of Buffalo, and how long is it before they've served their term and become free?
He is either real cynical or real naive on this point
If I were to regard Yglesias as being cynical it probably is a dishonest position, he KNOWS very well that as long as there is anything resembling free movement between parts of the continental US means increase of immigration in any locality will lead to increased downstream immigration elsewhere, but he won't address it and it will always remain a gap in his proposed model because this is contrary to his desired endpoint which is to increase immigration
And if I were to regard him as being naive, then I guess it might be something like, if he regards immigration as good-in-all-cases and will always increase local conditions, then under such a paradigm immigration to Buffalo will improve Buffalo, and lack of immigration outside of Buffalo will degrade the outside of Buffalo, so there would be no real incentive for the immigrants to Buffalo to leave Buffalo, seeing as how the conditions within Buffalo would be better than outside...?
What people do we know that don't like to have somewhere to call home? And the situation of a home, is it not a neighborhood characterised by reasonable security, redundancy, provision for common defence of, not life styles or socio economic status, but institutions which support peace, home, and family?
A person who claims that new construction in a neighborhood can only be positive has obviously never thought about sewage capacity.
Building additional sewage capacity is easy actually
A person that argues against the merits of population growth on the basis of sewage capacity in a given neighborhood should abstain from commenting on such subject.
You know sewers can be expanded right?
I don’t want 1 billion Americans. I don’t want half a billion Americans. Though we have the space to accommodate these numbers, the aesthetic, environmental, social, political and practical costs are not worth the potential economic gains.
Agree
You've never been to Nevada, Utah, Oregon, Idaho, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Iowa, Alaska, etc. have you?
@@schenksteven1 I live in Utah. The West is the West because it is open, filled with National Parks and wild terrain. We like it this way and don't want to end up like Korea, with 52,000,000 people in a land area the size of Ohio.
The same however holds true for almost every place in the US, excepting LA and the East Coast from Boston to DC. If we trebled the size of our population, every locality would feel it and the pressure would be enormous. Everything becomes exponentially more difficult with added pop. especially in these numbers.
You don't have to live in a city if you don't want to. Utah will still have beautiful expansive parks and you can own a huge property. In fact if you buy property now, it will be worth much much more if increase birth rates and immigration. (Your property value will skyrocket.)
@@AerysBat No, the numbers we are talking about will likely destroy the environment, a way of life, the animals and irreversibly warp the politics as well.
I have zero desire to permit such massive numbers as these and in fact favor limiting immigration to maintain an overall population slightly above what we have today.
At least for the foreseeable future.
No comparison between right and left grievances, identities
When the bodies politic are based on correct criteria, they will be smaller and more numerous, allowing for more sea lanes, lighthouses, metaphorically speaking. This will make sharing the ocean less like sharing an artificial strait.
Population does not equate with prosperity, power, tech, etc…and also has huge downsides that one must recognize
Everything else being equal, yes, population does equate with prosperity. No, it doesn't have any downsides, other than in the heads of neo-Malthusians.
Nope. Demonstrably false, look through your history a bit. There are enormous challenges in managing large populations and usually these result in large conflicts, and massive destruction. Population has advantages certainly,\ but the disadvantages are massive and you must be wary.
@@thomassenbart Nope: the misguided actions of governments result in large conflicts and massive destruction. Population has ZERO to do with it.
Population growth brings a better division of labor, with subsequent specialization and increase in productivity. Hence, more wealth per capita. THAT IS A DEMONSTRABLE HISTORIC FACT.
@@daveBit15 You are simply ignoring reality. Pop. growth does not bring forth a better division of labor. That can happen but is hardly a necessary result of a large pop.
In history, large populations were almost always, on the brink of starvation, with 90+% engaged in subsistence farming. No great division of labor happened simply because there were a lot of people.
It also does not bring forward higher productivity, probably the opposite actually and your assertion is not historic at all.
Productivity/growth generally comes from better ways to spend working hours, per person and is usually driven by technological innovation, not population size. In history, nations with large populations have low wages and employ many hands to do what can be accomplished by a few, motivated individuals. It is simple supply and demand.
I would guess you have never lived in a high population nation. I have and the redundancy of labor and manpower is amazing, simply because it is so cheap. Productivity is not increased through numbers.
Here are a few historical and current examples. Look at India and China. I would venture you do not know the histories of either but both are full of division and incessant civil war, ethnic contentions and governmental limitations controlling such large populations.
India was only united because of the British, a small population nation with superior tech, military and productivity etc...than the myriad Indian Kingdoms in the Sub Continent.
Chinese history is also one of almost continual civil war, warlords, rebellion and starvation due to a massive population which was almost impossible to govern efficiently or for very long.
Large populations invariably have massive diversity due to, language, ethnicities, cultures, values, religions etc...that always lead to internal strife and usually war and mass poverty, slavery and genocide. This is the history of empire.
Huge downsides just look at China and India, both countries have huge ghettos where people live in squalor yet their one- two percent are filthy rich and control everything.
I totally agree with Matt's main idea, especially regarding localized control of immigration. However I think we should view filling up our continent in a long-term, responsible way. If a growing America is good, then. we should plan to grow over the next several centuries, not just this one. We should aim for 500 million this century, and then we can take it slow depending on what happens with China and the various world shifts that will happen this century. No need to rush our immigration process to the limit if its our greatest strength.
Fewer and fewer people with access to more and more goods is the dictionary definition of "The Good Life."
Some people love empty beaches, empty parks, empty hiking trails, empty fishing spots, empty vistas of nature, empty stores....more people doesn't make it better, and climate change has made clear that more consumption tends to add pollution and resource utilization.
While the author does make a few solid points I think that first fixing the problems behind the current population decline need addressed.
Those who argue for increased immigration fail to realize that quality of life is not based upon economics. Sure it's an element, but culture, family, history, community, are as important if not more so.
The more homogeneous a population, the more one is willing to extend charity/welfare. It's just an obvious, basic fact, and true around the world. If you don't feel your fellow citizens share your culture and values, then you are less likely to have empathy for them.
Again, don't shoot the messenger. It's an obvious fact, whether Black, White, Inuit, or Chinese; it's universal.
also, I think urbanization goes against this... ask anyone anywhere living in huge city and they say same. Quality of life goes down in bigger and bigger city. When people are miserable or stressed, they can hardly help anyone, not even their own family(I remember they said in NYC billionaires are most neurotic and paranoid people and never have time to other things than worry of their wealth).
Most of the quality of life which is impacted by public policy is the economic aspects.
@effexon if that were really true, they would move to a rural area.
@spencerantoniomarlen-starr3069 The majority of people in the US don't live in Manhattan or downtown San Fran.
They live in rural areas, small towns, suburbs, and city streets with individual homes; not urban apartment or condo complexes.
>Yglesias articulates the problem of the modern era in which the sides of the political divide have become more polarized
>has no idea on how to even begin to approach resolving this
>does not update his existing raft of ideas in line with this developing situation
>continues to push some kind of decades-old pet project which would not resolve any of the current problems but would only exacerbate them
What more is there to say, other than this man is a king among fools?
this may not reflect the reality on the ground, but maybe instead of relying solely on increasing population for this premise, you could look to automation. there is so much donkey work that can be automated away with relative ease, given the right social infrastructure.
Dig your show, but disagree with your stance that America should seek to increase population to "stay on top". The entire planet is overpopulated. Freedom fosters Innovation and creativity, and that is fertile ground and path for humanity's best future. Overpopulation is unhealth and detrimental to optimal evolution. IMO, let's gooo.
Freedom also attracts innovation and creativity. How bout we discuss n debate this population topic? HMU
"The entire planet is overpopulated"
You don't know wtf are you talking about: the levels of prosperity we enjoy are a direct consequence of the growth in population.
"disagree with your stance that America should seek to increase population to "stay on top""
Here I'm with you: America shouldn't "seek" anything other than freedom.
More slaves for big corporations!
@@daveBit15 I do know what I, or we are talking about... overpopulation. Could not be any more literal here. And disagree with you, prosperity is correlated to population. IF @Coleman Hughes agrees with this, let's hear it. Bring me on the show, and lets discuss rationally.
@@edanya yeh
I think one big reason why republicans and democrats both embrace victimhood now has to do with how concentrated wealth has gotten at the way top social level
I think it's a bit revisionist to say that Republicans didn't embrace it 20 years ago. The "my job was shipped to China" or "that damn Mexican down the street is stealing my job!" was absolutely a thing 20 years ago. When Reagan was pushing the idea that black crack babies were sucking up all the federal funds in the form of welfare, I was still shitting my diapers and learning how to say "da da". So no, it's not a new thing by any means.
But I completely agree that for those people who have the power, money and status, it's beneficial for them to pit the poor against each other. So we end up with the left claiming that white people and cops are the cause of all of society's ills and the right claiming it's immigrants and godlessness. And those ideas disseminate from the people with the power and means to continually hammer those points home and are carried by people too disinterested in reality to parse the nuance.
One billion Americans in the future is nothing since India and China already exceed that (by the size of the US today). Growth isn't naturally good (look at cancer, or humans that get too tall); wealth and knowledge creation are good. Bigger isn't better by itself; much will depend on the quality of the individuals; nobody prefers 10 killers to 1 because it's 10x the other.
You don't need to be a good person to be a successful politician, you must need to be able to gain their confidence, to tell them what they want to hear, to vote for or against only a big omnibus bills so there's always a reason for voting either way, to convince them that it's fine that government takes so much of your money by force so it can buy ever more voters and repay donors.
Interesting topic. It would be interesting to see if the left would continue to be so pro-immigration if the immigrants voted R. I think we all know the answer. And it may be me, but the voice and mannerisms of the guest is so off-putting that its hard to stick with the dialogue. Condescending millenial speak. I am a moderate conservative and I know almost no conservative who is opposed to immigration per se - we are opposed to unchecked, wide open immigration without a rational policy. I dont care anyones race, etc as long as they mirror the values that made the US the nation they seek to enter.
In agreement. I migrated here with my family in the 70s and I'm for legal, managed, vetted immigration.
I wonder if instead of foreign election interference and American imperialism, we actively courted other nations to vote to join the United States. So instead of having to migrate illegally, people in central America could start to enjoy some of what our nation and governance system can offer without leaving their family and culture behind.
@@horus909 Thats interesting and I wouldnt be opposed to that in the right circumstances.
It isn't the idea.... it's the execution. Ideas are a dime a dozen and it's almost certain that any idea you can think of has already been thought of before you. It takes a big ego to think that you've found the magic idea that no one else has considered and that it will solve the world's problems. My suggestion would be to consider spending more time understanding the ideas that came before you and how to execute those ideas better.
Very interesting guest we're a few minutes in and he mentions the Atlantic BuzzFeed and I think slate or Salon maybe in the same sentence with that's Perry very interesting regarding the same perspective Etc...
I'm not sure about naming the Atlantic and BuzzFeed like in the same sentence type but certainly that's very interesting.. in a shocking way because of narrative vs reality and The Atlantic's piece hoping for Biden to stay alive for the use of his corporeal body..
I'm glad he has left Vox and Ezra however..
There's no such thing as "overpopulation."
California has big problems developing due to the limits of fresh water. When there is not enough rain coming down, no more river flow to divert to the city and no more ground water, then what? (Desalination is limited by power limitations). All continents have this problem looming, by the way. India and China are both pumping groundwater to the point that the levels are dropping fast. Are you sure there are no limits to how many people Planet Earth can support?
@@joyj7405 California has big problems of socialism. Yes, subsidies create perverse incentives; in a free market world, living in some parts of California would be prohibitively expensive.
@@joyj7405 _"Are you sure there are no limits to how many people Planet Earth can support?"_
I didn't say there are no limits, but we're nowhere near those limits. We use less land and less water to feed more people today than we did 30 years ago.
@@joyj7405 Really? Than why do the California liberal government dump millions of cubic feet water from reservoirs into the ocean??? Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom admin been doing it despite droughts and farming needs yet the same govt pushes for more housing. Housing has to have water, no??? Get a brain
The fact that Coleman Hughes does not have 50 million subscribers and is wrong with America
The rest fo the wordless does not need more Americans.
Great talk. Great guest. I remember reading Yglesias’s blog pre-Vox. Then I got into twitter about 5 years ago (now kicked the habit, almost 3 years clean) and I came to really dislike the person he was on twitter. Concurrent with the general increase in sanctimony and terminal navel-gazing of the left media, Yglesias was writing opinions for Vox that I thought he was entirely too intelligent to actually hold. Then he had a semi-public spat with Ezra Klein and left shortly after. Thereupon my suspicions were confirmed; Matt Yglesias is indeed far too intelligent to believe many of the things he felt he had to say as the mouthpiece of Vox. Once again I love the guy when he expresses his genuine and thoughtful opinions as he’s free to do on substack.
Is it naive and predictable for me to say that I like reading the New York Times?
Adblock 😆😏
I've got 23 minutes left, and neither one has said a word about the environmental consequences of overpopulation, or the fact that many places where tens of thousands of Americans live now will be underwater in 100 years. Perpetual economic growth is a myth. All populations of all animals and plants thrive until they reach their carrying capacity.
I, too, was very surprised there was no mention of climate change.
My favorite immigration question is this: would you be cool with 30% of your neighborhood becoming Mormon Fundamentalist?
There are strong countries in the world.
Democracy, Socialism, Communism, etc.
There are many countries.
And regardless of the safety of the people,
eternal state management
because of one's greed
Russia has launched an invasion.
You know him but you're close to him.
There is also China, a war-aiding country in the war.
But there's a situation that you can't understand.
I do.
that is.
The small country that directs and supervises them,
It means North Korea.
No, I had no idea.
peace-loving nations
regardless of the shape of the country
At the United Nations,
He took the lead in defining that killing people is the greatest sin.
This is because it is a representative country that has vowed to set an example to heaven.
Isn't that a disgraceful story?
If that starts, you'll get a lot of casualties.
It's a country that even has weapons to do so.
I finally demonstrated with a weapon.
All countries keep talking about not doing it, but living a good life.
But China and Russia are especially good.
While watching, I know it and keep it loyal.
Russia Has Reported to North Korea, Has Permitted, Has Initiated Invasion
Next, is the reporting country China?
So when do I ask for permission?
Shouldn't we change the permanent members of the UN to protect the world?
If I have to fill it up without China and Russia,
Please add North Korea.
A country that is so small that even the forms of freedom, democracy, and socialism are questionable is a powerful country.
I don't even have qualifications.
There's a saying.
"I'm not running away because I'm afraid of dogs, I'm avoiding them because they're dirty".
And please announce the additional provisions at the UN.
Chinese and Russian national management
I'd like to get approval from North Korea.
Please add it.
Now
I hope that Russia and China will now announce to the rest of the world that they have been eliminated from exemplary peace-loving countries.!!!
Matt you need to have four kids minimum
1 billion? With the current abortion law? I don't think so.
It can happen easily with open borders on North and South.
@@soniag4516 You can also gain weight by eating macdonalds all day every day, doesn't mean it's wise.