Modern Economics

That's true... but why then do we not see the same aversion to social spending in nations that are highly homogeneous?

Sorry if this was implied somewhere and I missed it. What is the first best solution?

The problem isn't the productivity loses, it's that it fails to address the issue it set out to resolve. Perception is reality and unfortunately those perceptions are often reinforced rather than over come through observation.

 

Is there any such obvious link between social spending and homogeneity? I don't know of any evidence that finds anything so obvious

Zero discrimination

In terms of positive discrimination its a shift towards the second best. It is found to achieve that! In terms of AA to change social norms, I don't see any evidence to suggest it cannot do that. Its perhaps more likely, however, to impact on statistical discrimination (where we realise that the use of subjective 'group characteristics' leads us to bogus conclusion about the merits of the individual)

 

Haven't done the research frankly it was based on observation. I look at countries in the Netherlands and see very high levels of social spending and virtually no issues with public good provision, which contrasts sharply to the US and from my understanding, the UK.

Aside from the fact that hasn't actually addressed the issue it was created to solve. In my state for instance hiring requirements for minorities excludes certain minority groups. Seems like a better approach to the issue would be to incentive a diverse workforce, rather than mandating it. The rewards would be exponential, because their twofold.

 

Public good provision is simply cheaper with a more homogeneous population. Its one of the main reasons we'd expect political disintegration within the likes of the EU (and in the world generally with globalisation).

Those countries that have used positive discrimination measures more extensively have lower discrimination problems. It just isn't a utopia generator as that first best isn't available!

 

Marching in the streets alone will bring little notice from the elite government politicians because it is a hollow display of resentment. But, marching in the streets with a rifle over your shoulder will scare the hell of of them. They will see their very lives are at risk and will abandon their self interests to do the will of the people. They will suddenly reject their belief in globalism (that makes money for their friends) and embrace protectionism by implementing long overdue tariifs on Chinese goods. This will of course force their rich friends to come home and embrace the American worker.

 

Protectionism is for industry profit. Protectionism is for the authoritarian. Protectionism shows a contempt for good sense

 

I think it's simply that they latched on to a model early on. If you look at the kinds of things studied, you'd be better off looking in the direction of Ecology. Things like dynamic equilibrium and K strategy (slow more costly production of a better "product" ) VS R strategy (make lots of cheap "product") would be more of a use in discribing an economic system or even comparing two economies.

 

They? Who are 'they' then? Given modern economics is characterised by multiple different approaches you're going to struggle