​Join me for Episode 102 of the Let People Prosper Show to hear a deep discussion with the fantastic Dr. Veronique (Vero) de Rugy, the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, who migrated from France to America.

We Explore:
-How the entrepreneurial spirit contributes to immigration between countries.
- What the differences are between national conservatism and classical liberalism.
- Which policies would improve the economic and fiscal picture.

Like, subscribe, and share the Let People Prosper Show, and visit vanceginn.substack.com and vanceginn.com for more insights from me, my research, and ways to invite me on your show, give a speech, and more.

Originally published at American Institute for Economic Research.

​The Economist recently compared Joe Biden’s and Donald Trump’s economic records, concluding Biden wins so far. While the article raises valid points, it excludes key details that make the findings questionable. 

Ten months from now, there’s a high likelihood Biden and Trump could go head-to-head again for the presidency, especially after the results from the Iowa caucus. But voters should be informed about the effects of their policies on key issues like immigration, inflation, and wages. 

Starting with a divisive bang, let’s look at each leader’s track record concerning immigration. 

The Economist correctly noted that apprehensions along the southern border were much lower under Trump. They increased by the most in 12 years during the economic expansion of 2019, decreased early in the COVID-19 pandemic when people could be turned away for public health concerns, and rose again during the lockdowns. 

While some may see apprehensions rising between Trump and Biden as a loss for Biden, I see it as a loss for both. 

This metric is somewhat unreliable, given one person can be caught and counted multiple times, and those caught are a subset of total migrants. The truth is immigration is good for the economy, but government failures create unnecessarily complex barriers against legal immigration, contributing to the humanitarian crisis along the Mexico border today. 

Neither President has pushed for what’s needed (market-based immigration reforms) both lose. 

Inflation is another hot topic, especially for Biden. 

The Economist hands the win to Trump, as inflation was far lower during his presidency. But can we give him the credit? 
Remember, Trump pressured the Federal Reserve to reduce its interest rate target and expand its balance sheet, which was inflationary. His deficit spending skyrocketed during the lockdowns and was mostly monetized by the Federal Reserve, contributing to what was always going to be persistent inflation. Biden made this deficit spending and resulting inflation much worse. 

Add in the Fed’s many questionable decisions, such as doubling its assets, cutting and maintaining a zero interest rate target for too long, and focusing too much on woke nonsense, and we can see how this was always going to be persistent inflation.

But even the Fed’s latest projections indicate it won’t hit its average inflation target of two percent until at least 2026. Likely, it will cut the current federal funds rate target range of 5.25 percent to 5.5 percent three times this year, keep a bloated balance sheet to finance massive budget deficits, and run record losses. If so, this inflation projection is too rosy.

Some of Trump’s policies helped stabilize prices, including his tax and regulation reductions. But he still allowed egregious spending. Biden has doubled down on red ink that has contributed to the recent 40-year-high inflation rate.

While inflation has been moderating recently under Biden, Trump gets the win. Of course, neither Presidents nor Congress control inflation, as that job is the Fed’s, but its fiscal policies influence it.  

When it comes to inflation-adjusted wages, The Economist grants a tie. 

Let’s consider real average weekly earnings that include hourly earnings and hours worked per week, adjusted for the chained consumer price index, which adjusts for the substitution bias and has been used for indexing federal tax brackets since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

Trump’s era witnessed a robust upward trajectory of real earnings, with considerable gains by lower-income earners, thereby reducing income inequality. We must acknowledge a real wage spike in 2020 during Trump’s lockdowns, marked by the loss of 22 million jobs and various challenges. To maintain a fair analysis, I disregard this spike.

A year later, real wages demonstrated a decline under Biden. Extending the timeframe to two years later, real wages remain relatively flat to slightly increased. 

To provide a contextual understanding, when we consider the trend under Trump, excluding the 2020 spike, real wages for all private workers or production and nonsupervisory workers fall below those observed during Biden. It’s worth noting, however, that these wages have been higher since 2019, albeit nearly stagnant for all private workers. 

Given real earnings, I agree with The Economist that Trump and Biden are tied. 

While much more can be said for each President’s policies, continuing to add context when making assessments is crucial.

I give Trump a nuanced “win” overall because his policies supported more flourishing during his first three years until the terrible mistake of the COVID lockdowns, with its huge, long-term costs. I should note that I made a strong case inside the White House for no shutdowns and less government spending but, alas, my efforts, and those by others, lost to Fauci, Birx, and Trump. 

Given the improved purchasing power during his presidency, Trump receives better poll ratings than Biden after three years of their presidencies. But this win doesn’t mean that Trump’s record is best regarding these issues, protectionism, and more. 

Let’s hope free-market capitalism, the best path to let people prosper, is on display this November, no matter who is on the ballot. 

​In this bonus episode, we discuss:
​
1) How immigration helps the U.S. economy and the truth behind common immigration myths, such as fear that immigrants "steal jobs,"
2) Why the tariffs against China didn't work, and the tyranny of excessive government spending; and
3) Dangers of antitrust laws, and the importance of letting markets work.

​Be sure to check out and subscribe to “The Immigration Guy” podcast.

You can watch this episode and others along with my Let People Prosper Show on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor. Please share, subscribe, like, and leave a 5-star rating!

​For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, check out my website (www.vanceginn.com) and please subscribe to my newsletter (www.vanceginn.substack.com), share this post, and leave a comment.

Immigrants founded America, yet the path for immigrants to become U.S. citizens is harder than ever, and getting worse. 
Florida’s new law aimed to identify undocumented immigrants and prosecute any who have helped them enter the country will strain the state’s businesses, hospitals, and law enforcement. Meanwhile, the U.S. citizenship test, one of the final steps to becoming an official American, is undergoing changes that could make it more difficult for non-native English speakers to pass. 

These types of barriers to legal immigration, including border walls and complicated visa applications, hinder economic prosperity for immigrants and the native-born population. But America keeps discouraging immigration with more red tape because people fail to understand the economic impacts of immigration due to fear-mongering and false messaging. 

Thankfully, facts and data tell the true story that the country is overall helped by immigrants.  

Perhaps you’ve heard the common concern that immigrants  “steal jobs” and “lower wages.” On the surface, it seems intuitive that immigrants increasing the supply of workers would yield these effects. But that’s incomplete as there is no one labor market but many labor markets depending on skills, experiences, and other criteria. 

Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies with the Cato Institute and author of Wretched Refuse?, states, “To substitute natives, immigrants would have to be similar. But the competition is not even, so that doesn’t apply. Immigrants tend to have either high or low levels of education, while Americans are in the middle. There are also language differences. For immigrants who do not yet know English, they will not be selected for jobs that require verbal communication with the public.” 

Immigrants are more likely to find themselves competing for jobs against other immigrants instead of native-born workers for this reason. 

When immigrants move to the United States, the wages of native-born workers actually tend to increase. This is because immigrants contribute to increased demand by purchasing goods and services. As a result, businesses expand, leading to higher labor demand and wage growth for native workers. ​

Studies have shown that immigrants are twice as likely as native-born Americans to start businesses, ranging from small enterprises to large-scale ventures. This entrepreneurial spirit increases labor demand for immigrants and contributes to greater opportunities for everyone else.

As Nowrasteh puts it, “Every argument against immigration could be an argument against native-born Americans having babies.” 

When a child is born, that’s a new future worker who will grow up, enter the labor market, and could “steal” someone’s wages. Thankfully, it doesn’t work like that, and most people recognize that having children is adding to the labor market in the long term and not posing a threat to someone else’s job or wages. 

Another fear often promoted to discourage easier immigration is that immigrants cost us more tax dollars. Again, it sounds believable, but studies show differently.  

​Not only are new immigrants barred from using safety-net programs in most instances, but also, the average immigrant consumes 27% less welfare than the average native-born American. Making immigrants the scapegoat when assessing the cost of government programs distracts from the much more prominent concern of how many U.S. citizens depend on these programs, noting the need for safety net reforms for everyone. ​

Regarding taxes, immigrants pay more on average and generate more federal tax revenue. Due to the varying state tax codes, immigrants may or may not pay more taxes than citizens depending on which state they live. Moreover, most immigrants enter the country in their early twenties and immediately join the workforce, making them fiscally positive contributors who don’t rely on education subsidies.

Recognizing how immigration is often misunderstood as a threat when it is actually a huge benefit is critical if Americans hope to cultivate a prosperous economy where native-born and legal migrant workers can thrive. 

Restricting immigration limits the ability to work with individuals who possess the skills and talents that could enhance productivity and innovation in the long run, and the whole country suffers as a result. State and federal resources that discourage immigration would be better invested by reforming the path to immigration so that individuals who want to contribute to American society can do so with relative ease. 

While reasonable exclusions for national security threats may be necessary, beyond that, discouraging immigration harms the American economy. Physical barriers like the Texas-Mexico border wall are costly to build, maintain, and patrol, are ineffective at deterring people from entering the country, and represent the illogical fear of immigration leading to worse outcomes. 

Instead, reforming the visa system with a market-based approach to expand legal immigration opportunities would alleviate border chaos, reduce the black market, and enhance economic growth. New anti-immigration laws like the one in Florida will move America backward. 

Originally published by Econlib.

Today, I'm honored to be joined by Alex Nowrasteh, Director of Immigration Studies at Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.

We discuss:
1) Immigration myths, including "immigrants steal jobs," and why that isn't true;
2) What data reveal about where today's immigrants are coming from, how their life improves upon moving to America, and how America is improved by immigrants, and
3) Need for immigration reform, why one day we'll tear down the Texas border wall, and more.

You can watch this interview on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor. Please share on social media, subscribe to your favorite platform and my newsletter, like it and leave a 5-star rating.

• Alex Nowrasteh is the vice president for economic and social policy studies. His popular publications have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Washington Post, and most other major publications in the United States. Nowrasteh regularly appears on Fox News, MSNBC, Bloomberg, NPR, and numerous television and radio stations.​
• His peer-reviewed academic publications have appeared in the World Bank Economic Review, the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Public Choice, Kyklos, and others. He has also contributed numerous book chapters to various edited volumes. Nowrasteh is the coauthor (with Benjamin Powell) of the book Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions (Cambridge University Press, 2020), which is the first book on how economic institutions in receiving countries adjust to immigration.
• He is a native of Southern California and received a BA in economics from George Mason University and an MS in economic history from the London School of Economics.

Find show notes, thoughtful economic insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more at my website and here in my Substack newsletter. Please subscribe to this newsletter, share it with your friends and family, and leave me a comment.