The Portal Wiki

Cardinal Utility: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Cardinal Utility (edit)

Revision as of 18:26, 21 March 2026

18,056 bytes added ,  21 March
→‎2017
Line 42: Line 42:
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942457223896166401
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942870249874976769
|name=Eric Weinstein
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg @paulkrugman @NSF @theNASciences And, no I don’t call something a conspiracy because I disagree w/ experts. I usually agree w/ them! What I disageee with is using expertise to transfer wealth & agency from the supposedly childlike voters who intuit something is rigged but can’t name it in political 3 card Monty.
|content=@Noahpinion @TimBartik If you're honest, then stop w/ the red herrings on Demand Curve modeling as my point is TOTALLY agnostic to that. You write that my paper "Is a good idea that deserves much more thought!" Okay. Don't tell me. Show me a lack of capture. Put in demand curve shocks. NOTHING changes. https://t.co/n8s40niyuf
|thread=
|thread=
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 56: Line 56:
|content=Great. Let's do this then as I'm can play as an expert too: Harvard PhD. MIT/Harvard/NBER Post-Docs. Sloan Funded. NSF-Fellowship. Etc...
|content=Great. Let's do this then as I'm can play as an expert too: Harvard PhD. MIT/Harvard/NBER Post-Docs. Sloan Funded. NSF-Fellowship. Etc...


I'm sorry to tell you, *we* the experts have been lying to Laypeople on Trade, Immigration, STEM and Terror. The crumbling embargo was real. https://t.co/qzOTBiOErD
I'm sorry to tell you, *we* the experts have been lying to Laypeople on Trade, Immigration, STEM and Terror. The crumbling embargo was real.
https://x.com/RadioFreeTom/status/941911773376139264
|timestamp=4:46 PM · Dec 16, 2017
|timestamp=4:46 PM · Dec 16, 2017
}}
}}
Line 74: Line 75:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=2/ Let me tell you what we've been lying about (in elite terminology) on MAJOR issues one by one: immigration, trade, STEM, mortgage backed securities and self-regulation, terror, fake news and conspiracy. [I will need to run a few errands now, but will return here later today.]
|content=2/ Let me tell you what we've been lying about (in elite terminology) on MAJOR issues one by one: [[Immigration|immigration]], trade, STEM, mortgage backed securities and self-regulation, terror, [[Fake News|fake news]] and [[Conspiracy Fact|conspiracy]]. [I will need to run a few errands now, but will return here later today.]
|timestamp=5:19 PM · Dec 16, 2017
|timestamp=5:19 PM · Dec 16, 2017
}}
}}
Line 93: Line 94:
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=3/ IMMIGRATION: EXPERT LIES
|content=3/ IMMIGRATION: EXPERT LIES
Experts lie about work based immigration as needed for free markets to remove a tiny 'Harberger Triangle' of inefficiency. It is the reverse: an uncompensated taking of citizen's rights without securitization to transfer a massive 'Borjas Rectangle'.
Experts lie about work based immigration as needed for free markets to remove a tiny 'Harberger Triangle' of inefficiency. It is the reverse: an uncompensated taking of citizen's rights without securitization to transfer a massive '[[Borjas Rectangle Theory|Borjas Rectangle]]'.
|timestamp=7:44 PM · Dec 16, 2017
|timestamp=7:44 PM · Dec 16, 2017
}}
}}
Line 102: Line 103:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=4/ IMMIGRATION (CONTINUED). In free markets, citizens TRADE their rights of preferential labor market access a la Coase's theorem. The giant Borjas Rectangle would stay w/ labor. Inequality could reverse. Women/minorities would enter. Income might again rise. Foreigners welcomed.
|content=4/ IMMIGRATION (CONTINUED). In free markets, citizens TRADE their rights of preferential labor market access a la [[Ronald Coase|Coase's theorem]]. The giant [[Borjas Rectangle Theory|Borjas Rectangle]] would stay w/ labor. Inequality could reverse. Women/minorities would enter. Income might again rise. Foreigners welcomed.
|timestamp=7:49 PM · Dec 16, 2017
|timestamp=7:49 PM · Dec 16, 2017
}}
}}
Line 111: Line 112:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=5/ IMMIGRATION (CONTINUED). Here is an expert article I wrote on the subject (peer reviewed, UN sponsored Journal): https://t.co/RpUWq1vj4Z
|content=5/ IMMIGRATION (CONTINUED). Here is an expert article I wrote on the subject (peer reviewed, UN sponsored Journal): https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_protect/@protrav/@migrant/documents/publication/wcms_201871.pdf


Of course the expert community pretends it isn't there as they support a wealth transfer through forced takings of workers' livelihoods.
Of course the expert community pretends it isn't there as they support a wealth transfer through forced takings of workers' livelihoods.
Line 163: Line 164:
|content=@LibertyRBlack The seamstress and the Shmata salesman.
|content=@LibertyRBlack The seamstress and the Shmata salesman.
|timestamp=8:33 PM · Dec 16, 2017
|timestamp=8:33 PM · Dec 16, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942133707485298688
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg Nah. It’s about [[Universal Institutional Betrayal|institutional betrayal]]. Nobody resents Elon Musk or Tony Stark for wealth. The poor want experts.
And I’m just looking to you & Sam as my fellow experts to help me try to stop those betrayed from sending a wrecking-ball through the infrastructure of our world.
|timestamp=8:45 PM · Dec 16, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942136473347702784
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg Oh cool. [[Universal Institutional Betrayal|“Institutional Betrayal”]] is an academic theory for trauma differentiation of @jjforegon. You in particular should find it interesting I think. People betrayed by institutions with mandates to care for them behave differently re trauma.
Helps to explain a lot in 2008-17.
|timestamp=8:56 PM · Dec 16, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942138500039634944
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg Also, the public that is HIGH agency is looking for alternate non-institutional experts: @nntaleb @BretWeinstein @jordanbpeterson @CHSommers @SamHarrisOrg @HeatherEHeying @PiaMalaney @peterthiel @DouglasKMurray @Raheelraza @tristanharris @sparker etc....
|timestamp=9:04 PM · Dec 16, 2017
}}
}}
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 172: Line 204:
|content=@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg  
|content=@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg  


These are from trade theorist  @paulkrugman in his “Protectionist Moment” piece. I’m not trying to win here. I’m worried that you aren’t watching how this neo-liberal edifice is being abandoned because the expert’s public stance was a lie. https://t.co/335ziGS6Sj
These are from trade theorist  @paulkrugman in his “Protectionist Moment” piece. I’m not trying to win here. I’m worried that you aren’t watching how this neo-liberal edifice is being abandoned because the expert’s public stance was a lie.
|media=ERW-X-post-942142980227342336-DRMqCvFVwAAbJXy.jpg
|media1=ERW-X-post-942142980227342336-DRMqCvIV4AE4p0o.jpg
|timestamp=9:22 PM · Dec 16, 2017
|timestamp=9:22 PM · Dec 16, 2017
|media1=ERW-X-post-942142980227342336-DRMqCvFVwAAbJXy.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-942142980227342336-DRMqCvIV4AE4p0o.jpg
}}
}}
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 215: Line 247:
10/TRADE (CONT.)
10/TRADE (CONT.)
Look at the slide & listen to this talk from a former Clinton administration economist. Notice the words 'Esoteric' vs. 'Exoteric'. Claiming the real arguments are too complex to math guys like me is laughable:
Look at the slide & listen to this talk from a former Clinton administration economist. Notice the words 'Esoteric' vs. 'Exoteric'. Claiming the real arguments are too complex to math guys like me is laughable:
https://t.co/Tbf9GTl343 https://t.co/YGM8KdXmdf
{{#widget:YouTube|id=uCgUkfhB8Uk|start=179}}
|media=ERW-X-post-942155892241207296-DRMz5UFUEAAJwGC.jpg
|timestamp=10:14 PM · Dec 16, 2017
|timestamp=10:14 PM · Dec 16, 2017
|media1=ERW-X-post-942155892241207296-DRMz5UFUEAAJwGC.jpg
}}
}}
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 229: Line 261:


As if nothing happened.
As if nothing happened.
https://t.co/r9jNDgk3Ei https://t.co/oXko1AShoG
{{#widget:YouTube|id=uCgUkfhB8Uk|start=2811}}
|media=ERW-X-post-942158917181759488-DRM3PH5UMAArROG.jpg
|timestamp=10:26 PM · Dec 16, 2017
|timestamp=10:26 PM · Dec 16, 2017
|media1=ERW-X-post-942158917181759488-DRM3PH5UMAArROG.jpg
}}
}}
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 279: Line 311:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg @paulkrugman @NSF @theNASciences Do we disagree on fundamentals over this: https://t.co/VLf1pZwjhP
|content=@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg @paulkrugman @NSF @theNASciences Do we disagree on fundamentals over this:
|media=ERW-X-post-942455838987337728-DRRGln_UIAALAJd.jpg
|timestamp=6:05 PM · Dec 17, 2017
|timestamp=6:05 PM · Dec 17, 2017
|media1=ERW-X-post-942455838987337728-DRRGln_UIAALAJd.jpg
}}
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942457223896166401
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg @paulkrugman @NSF @theNASciences And, no I don’t call something a conspiracy because I disagree w/ experts. I usually agree w/ them! What I disageee with is using expertise to transfer wealth & agency from the supposedly childlike voters who intuit something is rigged but can’t name it in political 3 card Monty.
|timestamp=6:11 PM · Dec 17, 2017
|timestamp=6:11 PM · Dec 17, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942507916824788992
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@nntaleb @RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg @BretWeinstein @jordanbpeterson @CHSommers @HeatherEHeying @PiaMalaney @peterthiel @DouglasKMurray @Raheelraza @tristanharris @sparker Hi Nassim, With 66 dyadic relationships between 12 individuals there was zero implied pairwise mutual endorsement or respect implied. I’m certainly happy to make that explicit here for the record if that wasn’t clear.
|timestamp=9:32 PM · Dec 17, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942508569022283776
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@nntaleb @RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg @BretWeinstein @jordanbpeterson @CHSommers @HeatherEHeying @PiaMalaney @peterthiel @DouglasKMurray @Raheelraza @tristanharris @sparker Will read. Thanks!
|timestamp=9:35 PM · Dec 17, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942804302774415360
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@Noahpinion So if we push out supply curves there is no first order depressing effect on price...except that maybe it rises? Man this is big. Like Nobel Big!
I mean...I did use supply and demand curves of [[George Borjas|Borjas]]. So...What did I get wrong? Do I need to retract:
https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_protect/@protrav/@migrant/documents/publication/wcms_201871.pdf
|timestamp=5:10 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Noahpinion-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/942808744949354496
|name=Noah Smith
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion
|username=Noahpinion
|content=The mistake, IMO, is in modeling immigration purely as a shift in labor supply (partial equilibrium). Since immigrants buy stuff locally, immigration also causes a rightward shift in labor *demand* (general equilibrium).
|timestamp=5:28 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942818918510444544
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Hence my use of the term '1st-order' (partial equilibrium). A full model would go well beyond what you write including social services, chain migration, dependency ratios, negative externalities, concentrated impact, vote dilution, patent production, sending country impact, etc..
|timestamp=6:08 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942819935301943296
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=A big game in economics is often who gets to use simple models & who gets forced into adding a million baroque complexities. I agree that immigrants add to demand. Also tax social services. Also pay taxes. Also send remittances. Also found businesses. Also crowd out natives. etc.
|timestamp=6:12 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942820529123213312
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Perhaps you were so busy reacting to the name [[George Borjas|Borjas]] that you missed the point of introducing [[Ronald Coase|Coase]]. Coase allows those many nth order effects to be subsumed in the choices of those impacted both positively & negatively. Hence the ability to have unlimited migration. Re-read it.
|timestamp=6:15 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942821656451457024
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let's not play games. The unpopular transfer from L to K by a forced taking of the rectangle without the securitization of labor's valuable asymmetric rights and workers rights to trade them stands as an issue having nothing to do with your attack on [[George Borjas|Borjas]].
Your move.
|timestamp=6:19 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Noahpinion-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/942822929171132416
|name=Noah Smith
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion
|username=Noahpinion
|content=Yes, the key is that immigration causes labor demand, as well as labor supply, to shift to the right.
That's going to shrink that rectangle a lot, and could even make the rectangle positive for native-born workers rather than negative.
|timestamp=6:24 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Noahpinion-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/942824066624389120
|name=Noah Smith
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion
|username=Noahpinion
|content=Just to show this with an easy thought experiment, imagine a bunch of rich retirees moved here and spent down their savings. That would shift ONLY labor demand, and not labor supply, unambiguously boosting wages for native-born workers.
|timestamp=6:29 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Noahpinion-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/942824286611439616
|name=Noah Smith
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion
|username=Noahpinion
|content=Now, working immigrants are not rich retirees. But you can apply the same principle. Working immigrants supply labor, but they also demand goods and services produced by labor. So both curves shift, not just one.
|timestamp=6:30 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=TimBartik-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/TimBartik/status/942825948063436800
|name=Tim Bartik
|usernameurl=https://x.com/TimBartik
|username=TimBartik
|content=Also, because immigration causes shift in demand for capital goods, such as housing, in the short-run and medium run there are "accelerator" effects that temporarily boost labor demand even further. See JMP by Greg Howard: https://economics.mit.edu/files/13670
|timestamp=6:36 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Noahpinion-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/942826382945669120
|name=Noah Smith
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion
|username=Noahpinion
|content=Very true, but Eric wanted to stick to the simplest possible model, and I'm obliging him! :-)
|timestamp=6:38 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942833454290419714
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Look again at my paper and you will see something very odd from a mathematician: there are no equations. That came from reviewing this style of argument you are engaging in now. The point isn't this or that effect. It is forced transfers by capital vs voluntary trade with labor.
|timestamp=7:06 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Noahpinion-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/942826382945669120
|name=Noah Smith
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion
|username=Noahpinion
|content=Remember, Eric, I'm not talking equations! I'm only talking about your graphs! 😊
|timestamp=6:38 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942835372735676416
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So put in a moving demand curve or even negative rectangles or other red herrings.
The issue is choice. Our work based immigration programs are loved by employers and generally resented by those on whom they are imposed because they involve an unpopular and unsecuritized taking.
|timestamp=7:14 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Noahpinion-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/942836099650605061
|name=Noah Smith
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion
|username=Noahpinion
|content=Sure! No disagreement about that. I'm only taking issue with the idea that immigration can be modeled as a labor supply shock with no labor demand shock! We must include both.
|timestamp=7:16 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942836997776752640
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=No one is arguing that in a full model. The issue isn't about immigrants either. It is about forcible [[Coasian rights|non-Coasian]] taking of rights through law by employers without trade or consent of labor aided by economics 'experts' portrayed falsely under the banner of free markets.
|timestamp=7:20 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Noahpinion-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/942837560207867904
|name=Noah Smith
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion
|username=Noahpinion
|content=What if my company hires entry-level native-born workers? Seems like a similar situation. The only difference is citizenship.
|timestamp=7:22 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942839136745951232
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Noah, I'm just really not sure what game you're playing. Economists add (e.g. "your model forgot this externality!") and subtract effects (e.g. "for simplicity we neglect"). None of this matters to my paper or point. None of it. My point is expert aided non-consensual transfers.
|timestamp=7:29 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Noahpinion-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/942839387636817920
|name=Noah Smith
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion
|username=Noahpinion
|content=No games, Eric. Nothing complicated.
Just Econ 101.
|timestamp=7:30 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942840421650010112
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You're not even close. In econ 101, agents are rational. Remember? If workers benefit from immigration they will support it in droves. Right?
Let me guess, we have to add baroque adjustments to rationality to explain this self-defeating rejection of mass immigration? Something?
|timestamp=7:34 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Noahpinion-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/942843638928855040
|name=Noah Smith
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion
|username=Noahpinion
|content=Baroque adjustments?
Is "immigrants buy stuff" a baroque adjustment?
If so, just call me J.S. Bach!
|timestamp=7:46 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942842777208885248
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@Noahpinion @TimBartik Oh wow! That's what I *love* about economists: a total reliance on ad hoc selective application of standards to reach desired conclusions.
This is fun. Please apply that selective standard evenly to all of Econ 101 and let's watch your *entire* field disintegrate.
I'll wait.
|timestamp=7:43 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942844635751235584
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Ha! I'm trying Noah. But it's hard to Teleman something when his econ job depends on his not understanding it, no?
Now engage with the point. Why are the rational worker agents from Econ 101 not favoring this mass immigration that enriches them? Is this Econ 101 or Room 101?
|timestamp=7:50 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Noahpinion-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/942846052528525313
|name=Noah Smith
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion
|username=Noahpinion
|content=Well, I don't have polls of rational worker agents specifically, but just today I did write a post showing several polls indicating pro-immigrant sentiment in the United States: https://bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-18/anti-immigration-fervor-is-different-this-time
|timestamp=7:56 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Noahpinion-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/942846528938565633
|name=Noah Smith
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion
|username=Noahpinion
|content=In other words, I'm not Haydn anything. Can you Handel the data? :D
|timestamp=7:58 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942858250638082049
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Wait, don't those swings *undermine* your Econ 101 point? The power of the Purcell getcha every time. See attached from:
https://politico.com/f/?id=0000015d-c4ac-dd39-a75d-cfbfbc3e0002
Noah, I answered all your points substantively. Nothing depended on Partial v General or demand curve modeling. It's about capture. https://t.co/poJztJTjOz
|timestamp=8:44 PM · Dec 18, 2017
|media1=ERW-X-post-942858250638082049-DRWyou8VQAA1e1E.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942858774368329728
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It's not about polls. It's not about Partial vs General equlibrium models. Not about Econ 101. It's about taking something valuable almost no one would give by choice by having experts defend the interests of employers with selective modeling.
|timestamp=8:47 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Noahpinion-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/942859544165847040
|name=Noah Smith
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion
|username=Noahpinion
|content=A) I'm concerned not with the interests of employers, but with the national interests of the United States of America and its economic health.
B) I don't rely on selective modeling, but on empirical evidence, which I believe supports my position pretty solidly!!
|timestamp=8:50 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942865369680592896
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Noah, I answered every point. You are both for & against Econ 101 while I have no investment in it. If you want to forcibly transfer rights instead of letting workers trade them, ask yourself who you are really trying to benefit.
I'm trying to open borders too, but not as theft.
|timestamp=9:13 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/942865558969597952
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If you want to write a paper detailing my failures, it will be an honor to review it fairly. But it had ZERO dependence on any of the points you made. Including demand curves. Be well.
|timestamp=9:14 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Noahpinion-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/942859544165847040
|name=Noah Smith
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Noahpinion
|username=Noahpinion
|content=I will consider it. More likely a blog post. In any case, I hope you realize that the vast majority of immigration advocates in the econ profession are being intellectually honest, and not lying to anyone!
Take care, Eric!
|timestamp=9:21 PM · Dec 18, 2017
}}
|timestamp=9:32 PM · Dec 18, 2017
|media1=ERW-X-post-942870249874976769-DRW-IXyUEAA1LLM.jpg
}}
}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/26640"