Is Immigration a Net Benefit or Drain?

[Jolly_Penguin]

I had a conversation today with a conservative friend who at first complained that immigrants "steal our jobs", and later claimed that immigrants "are lazy and drain out social support system". These two claims contradict one another.

My own sense is that in general immigrants are more productive and have a stronger work ethic than natural born citizens, and I welcome them with open arms not just on a compassionate and equal rights footing, but on an economic footing as well. I would even argue that refugees, having seen what they have seen, are likely to be more motivated and be more productive citizens than the self-entitled people who are born here.

My only qualm would be some of the cultural baggage that immigrants bring with them. Some of that sentiment is no doubt my own anti-religious bias, but I think there are some valid concerns there as well. We didn't have any honour killings where I live until immigration really picked up here for example.


Thoughts?

Why has the USA been so incredibly restrictive on immigrants, and especially on refugees? Your Statue of Liberty may need to be forfeited, yes?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I had a conversation today with a conservative friend who at first complained that immigrants "steal our jobs", and later claimed that immigrants "are lazy and drain out social support system". These two claims contradict one another.

Only if you examine them both at the same time. If you only take one talking point at a time, they're each perfectly valid stand-alone predictors of the problems that only the Conservatives can save us from.

 

[bilby]

Immigrants are, on average, a large net benefit to the economies of the countries they go to. Whether they are a net benefit to individual citizens of those countries varies, but the idea that someone can steal your job is crazy - if you are so shit at your job that some guy who has a totally different cultural background and who grew up speaking a different language from that of your homeland can take it from you, then you were on track to lose it anyway.

The majority of people who complain about migrants stealing their jobs are people who were unemployed before the migrants arrived, and who remain unemployed because they have the kind of shitty attitude that blames others for their own failings. Who wants an employee who won't even take responsibility for his own behaviour, and who feels entitled to something for nothing, just because he was born nearby?

 

[LordKiran]

Why has the USA been so incredibly restrictive on immigrants, and especially on refugees? Your Statue of Liberty may need to be forfeited, yes?

Simple, because middle America is too gullible and proud to see the immediate and obvious relationship between having their workers rights and unions curtailed, and then having themselves replaced by cheap foreign labor once there's nothing left to stop their employer from doing that very thing.

People in M.A. are so assured of their moral and ideological superiority that they cant even see they're being had. Pride before fall indeed.

 

[Ford]

I grew up in a place that was so close to the border that you could accidentally find yourself in another country just by drifting across the river on a fishing trip.

When I moved away from there, I landed in a place where you could walk across the border.

Both were places where the line between countries were pretty well defined on a map, but less well defined when it came to the people. There wasn't a sense that the people across the river (St. Clair or Rio Grande) were fundamentally "the other" at either border. They were just people. Our neighbors.

 

[Valjean]

Studies have shown immigrants to be a net economic gain, especially 'illegal' immigrants, who pay for social services and entitlements they have no access to. They also take jobs natives won't take or won't keep. Without them argiculture, meatpacking, ranching, construction, &c would face serious handicaps.
There is also the problem of the number of elderly increasing faster than the number of workers supporting them. Immigrants help this problem.

The fact that the crime rate among immigrants is lower than that of the general population is also something to consider.

 

[bilby]

Studies have shown immigrants to be a net economic gain, especially 'illegal' immigrants, who pay for social services and entitlements they have no access to. They also take jobs natives won't take or won't keep. Without them argiculture, meatpacking, ranching, construction, &c would face serious handicaps.
There is also the problem of the number of elderly increasing faster than the number of workers supporting them. Immigrants help this problem.

The fact that the crime rate among immigrants is lower than that of the general population is also something to consider.

As is the fact that native born citizens need to be educated at state expense, while adult immigrants bring the majority of their education with them, and don't need 10-12 years of expensive schooling.

 

[DBT]

Another view:


Perpetual Growth, endless growth, ad infinitum, forever, till the end of time.

''Economists are master illusionists who rely on a set of fictions, fantasies and forecasts that emanate from a core magical mantra of Perpetual Growth that goes untested year after year.

And yet it’s used to manipulate the public into a set of policies and decisions that are leading the American and the world economy down a path of unsustainable globalization and GDP growth assumptions that will self-destruct the planet.
Denial? We’re all addicted to the Myth of Perpetual Growth

Yes, economists are addicted to this ideology. Trapped deep in their denial, can’t see the problem, or admit it, or if they do, they are unable to stop themselves, see past their own myopic world view. They’re mercenaries working for capitalists who pay their salaries, and expect them to support the capitalist’s bizarre Myth of Perpetual Growth.

Worse, the public also bought into the myth. Yes, you believe everything you learned in college about economic theories, all the textbooks, everything you read in the daily press, the government reports, all those Wall Street analysts’ predictions relying on studies prepared by economists with credentials.


But driving the economists’ growth myth is population growth. It’s the independent variable in their equation. Population growth drives all other derivative projections, forecasts and predictions. All GDP growth, income growth, wealth growth, production growth, everything. These unscientific growth assumptions fit into the overall left-brain, logical, mind-set of western leaders, all the corporate CEOs, Wall Street bankers and government leaders who run America and the world.

But just because a large group collectively believes in something doesn’t make it true. Perpetual growth is still a myth no matter how many economists, CEOs, bankers and politicians believe it. It’s still an illusion trapped in the brains of all these irrational, biased and uncritical folks.
No-win scenario: Damned if we grow? Damned it we don’t grow?

Capitalism itself is at a crossroads. Growth is capitalism’s sacred cow but it’s “grow or die” theory doesn’t work anymore. With us since 1776, it’s being challenged by a “new god of reality” that’s flashing warnings of an emerging new reality from critics, contrarians and eco-economists. This war is pitting old and new economists:

Grow OR Die. Traditional economists (pro-capitalism): We’re told we need 3% GDP growth to support the next batch of 100 million Americans. We believe it on faith. Drill Baby Drill. Buy stuff. Get new jobs to fuel growth. We’re out of control. Exploding growth fuels demands as the rest of the world adds 2.9 billion new humans, all chasing their “American dream.”

Grow AND Die. New eco-economists (environmentalists): They see Big Oil’s destruction of our coastal economies, the rape of West Virginia’s coal mountains, the unintended consequences of uncontrolled carbon emissions and they ask: “When will economists, politicians and corporate leaders stop pretending Earth’s resources are infinitely renewable?”

Yes, our world is at a crossroads, facing a dilemma, confronting the ultimate no-win scenario, because the “Myth of Perpetual Growth” is essential to support the global population explosion. But all this “Growth” is also killing our world, wasting our planet’s non-renewable natural resources. “Eternal Growth” is suicidal, will eventually destroy Earth. We’re damned if we grow. Damned if we don’t.''


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/myth-of-perpetual-growth-is-killing-america-2012-06-12

 

[TV and credit cards]

Why has the USA been so incredibly restrictive on immigrants, and especially on refugees? Your Statue of Liberty may need to be forfeited, yes?

Trump aside, have we been or is it perception in that immigration has garnered more focus in the news?
Surely you're not scratching your head over Trump.

U.S. Immigrant Population and Share over Time, 1850-Present

 

[whichphilosophy]

View attachment 11883

Immigrants are, on average, a large net benefit to the economies of the countries they go to. Whether they are a net benefit to individual citizens of those countries varies, but the idea that someone can steal your job is crazy - if you are so shit at your job that some guy who has a totally different cultural background and who grew up speaking a different language from that of your homeland can take it from you, then you were on track to lose it anyway.

The majority of people who complain about migrants stealing their jobs are people who were unemployed before the migrants arrived, and who remain unemployed because they have the kind of shitty attitude that blames others for their own failings. Who wants an employee who won't even take responsibility for his own behaviour, and who feels entitled to something for nothing, just because he was born nearby?

It's a very racist comment to suggest foreigners are better workers than our own workers who are also from all ethnic backgrounds. We see this bouncing about the media and ultra-left media. Foreign workers from disadvantaged backgrounds will put up with more abuse and work in less safe working conditions with lower pay.

I am sure if there were no Mexicans in Florida, the fruit would still be picked as it has been done for the last few hundred years.

When the UK had very few foreign workers, hotel beds still got made, we still had nannies and housekeepers. The UK and US always need some foreign staff to fit various

While I worked in Hong Kong, laws passed by the outgoing British colonial power decreed that any foreign worker must be paid as much as local labour for the same job. Failure could result in severe fines and even prison for up to 3 years.

Needless to say while Hong Kong imported more labour and still does, it's citizens enjoy a reasonable level of employment. While illegal labour does exist, it is less prevalent. (I may be out of date now as I haven't been to HK for a few years, but I am told this is still the same situation).

In the UK there are mixed reports; some say migration is beneficial economically while others say this is not.

Our main problem however is affordable housing.
The UK is about 2 million affordable houses short. With house prices, even the once well to do middle classes also look for government housing as the rent is very low.

 

[LordKiran]

View attachment 11883

Immigrants are, on average, a large net benefit to the economies of the countries they go to. Whether they are a net benefit to individual citizens of those countries varies, but the idea that someone can steal your job is crazy - if you are so shit at your job that some guy who has a totally different cultural background and who grew up speaking a different language from that of your homeland can take it from you, then you were on track to lose it anyway.

The majority of people who complain about migrants stealing their jobs are people who were unemployed before the migrants arrived, and who remain unemployed because they have the kind of shitty attitude that blames others for their own failings. Who wants an employee who won't even take responsibility for his own behaviour, and who feels entitled to something for nothing, just because he was born nearby?

It's a very racist comment to suggest foreigners are better workers than our own workers who are also from all ethnic backgrounds.

lolwut? Race doesn't factor into it at all. Way to miss-characterize another's argument. Shame on you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some take jobs, some leech. I see no incompatibility in the two positions.

 

[rousseau]

Immigration is a net benefit. If that weren't the case you wouldn't see the opposite effect in developing nations, who experience brain drains.

By creating well crafted immigration policy one is able to attract and retain high skilled workers who boost your economy. By disallowing high skilled immigrants completely you re-strict internal employers to hiring your own people, who by definition can't be as skilled as the global population as a whole.

Yea it can suck for the people who are competing with immigrants for jobs, but generally attracting smart people to your country is a good thing.

 

[Derec]

Is Immigration a Net Benefit or Drain?

I would say that, like with so many other things, it depends. Both the open border types who want unlimited migration and say that all immigration is good are insane as are the radical nativists who want all immigration stopped.

It depends on numbers and who the immigrants are. First of all, illegal immigration should not be tolerated. You can't control how many or who enters when you have illegal migration. Besdies, these people have already shown willingness to flaunt the laws of the country they want to make their home.
Immigration should be based on the host country's needs in numbers, and those who immigrate should share the host country's basic cultural and societal norms. People from cultures incompatible with Western values should not be let in en masse, but some individuals from these countries are fine. Thus, there should be individual vetting. There should be more immigrants like Ayan Hirsi Ali and fewer like Ahmed Khadr. Unfortunately, islamophiles on the Left prefer the latter to the former.

My only qualm would be some of the cultural baggage that immigrants bring with them.

Indeed. I think your country is insane for letting people like the Khadr family in and giving them citizenship, only to see them engage in terrorism and hide behind their Canadian citizenship.
Like Abdullah Khadr, who supplied weapons to Al Qaeda but whom Canada refused to extradite to US to face justice. And Khadr family are not the only ones. The Toronto 18 are also CINO (Canadian In Name Only) Islamic terrorists.

And I don't think anybody in their right mind would think Germany letting in a million mass Muslim migrants (holy alliteration Batman!) in 2005 alone was in any way good for Germany. Neither would anybody sane believe that EU is aided in any way by the invasion of hundreds of thousands of boat migrants from Africa and Asian countries such as Bangladesh. Again, most of them are Muslim, many are completely illiterate and vast majority are military age males.

Why has the USA been so incredibly restrictive on immigrants, and especially on refugees? Your Statue of Liberty may need to be forfeited, yes?

Times change and immigration needs change with them. And then so should immigration policies and laws.
US is still very accepting of migration, even if things are different than they were in the 19th century.
As far as refugees go, I think difference must be made between giving people temporary refuge during hostilities and permanent immigration of refugees. The latter should be restricted to those who are compatible with Western values and want to genuinely integrate into the societies they immigrate into. Many do not. In the Atlanta area, the suburb of Clarkston has been taken over by very conservative Islamics, many from Somalia. You can't go to the Kroger on North Decatur and DeKalb Industrial without feeling like you are in Saudi Arabia, with many women wearing not a more common hijab but a full veil.
There is also a high incidence of things like FGM among Islamic migrants.
2nd doctor arrested in Minnesota girls' genital mutilation case
To sum up, it entirely depends on how many immigrants you have compared to you needs and who these immigrants are.

 

[Derec]

Studies have shown immigrants to be a net economic gain, especially 'illegal' immigrants, who pay for social services and entitlements they have no access to.

Bullshit. Illegals get free K-12 education and access to healthcare.
Because Of Obamacare, Illegal Immigrants Get Taxpayer-Financed Care
They also get in-state tuition at colleges and California has a special student loan program just for illegals. Basically, in many states people are rewarded for coming here illegally.

Those studies touting all the benefits of illegal immigration are biased pro-illegal hatchet jobs that ignore the costs due to criminality (including gangs such as Latin Lords or MS13), costs of printing everything in Spanish as well as English and having every damn company asking me to "press 1 for English" because many illegals are here for 20+ years without bothering to learn any English and so companies are forced to spend millions on bilingual phone systems and phone operators. Think also about the cost for government agencies to provide interpreters for all these English-resistant migrants when they go to court, doctor or some government agency. Or costs of bilingual education, because god-forbid illegal Mexicans or Guatemalans be forced to have their free K-12 education in English.

They also take jobs natives won't take or won't keep. Without them argiculture, meatpacking, ranching, construction, &c would face serious handicaps.

That's because illegals will work for far less. They also tend to live in overcrowded housing, depressing housing values of the whole neighborhood if there are houses with 20 people cramped in a three bedroom bungalow. They also send a lot of money back home. These remitances of course remove money from circulation in the local economy, which depresses economic activity.
I.e. if an American had earned the money the illegal Mexican did, he'd have spent it all in US or saved it in a US bank account. An illegal Mexican will send a significant portion of that money back home, rather than reinvesting the money in the US economy.

There is also the problem of the number of elderly increasing faster than the number of workers supporting them. Immigrants help this problem.

We need to get away from the idea that exponential population growth (characterized by a constant population growth rate), be it through birth rates or immigration, should be maintained. Exponential growth is never sustainable in the long run and you have a choice between a Malthusian crash or a graceful leveling off of population resembling a sigmoid function.

I am not saying that we should stop all immigration. But this idea that all immigration is automatically a net positive no matter the numbers and no matter who the immigrants are is insane.

The fact that the crime rate among immigrants is lower than that of the general population is also something to consider.

I doubt that very much. Are you excluding immigration related crimes for illegals? Identity theft (stealing social security numbers to obtain employment) is a felony, as is reentry after deportation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Immigration is a net benefit. If that weren't the case you wouldn't see the opposite effect in developing nations, who experience brain drains.

By creating well crafted immigration policy one is able to attract and retain high skilled workers who boost your economy. By disallowing high skilled immigrants completely you re-strict internal employers to hiring your own people, who by definition can't be as skilled as the global population as a whole.

Yea it can suck for the people who are competing with immigrants for jobs, but generally attracting smart people to your country is a good thing.

I agree that attracting smart people to your country is a good thing. However, as far as US policy goes:

1) Said immigrants are basically tied to their employer. That means they can't vote with their feet against a low salary. In practice they are heavily exploited and US workers suffer because of it, and sometimes even US citizens. (We had a scandal here with J-1 workers. Their employers were way overworking them, putting patients at risk.) (While I don't know what all J-1 covers the issue was with foreign doctors who were supposed to work in underserved areas.)

2) It's unbalanced. We get a lot of smart people in some areas, not so many in others.

My fix for it:

Scrap the current H1-B visa. Instead, the visas go to the worker, not the employer. A guest worker visa can only be used to get a job if the unemployment rate (counting only citizens & permanent residents, not guest workers, and using U6, not U3) in both the area and the profession they are seeking employment is low enough.

Unemployment under 8%: Foreigners on such a visa can get jobs.
Unemployment 8% to 10%: Already-employed foreigners can keep their jobs and can change jobs, those who were not employed when the U6 crossed the 8% threshold can't get jobs.
Unemployment over 10%: foreign visas start getting culled by lottery. (We don't want a sharp shift when the rate clicks above 10%.)

A foreigner can apply for such a visa at any time regardless of the unemployment rate, it's just that can't actually be used if the unemployment rate is too high.

Since they can change employers freely they aren't basically slaves anymore. It also ties the number of workers to the unemployment rate rather than to politics. Companies gain no advantage in hiring a foreigner rather than an American so the anti-American discrimination will go away.

 

[Jaecp]

View attachment 11883

Immigrants are, on average, a large net benefit to the economies of the countries they go to. Whether they are a net benefit to individual citizens of those countries varies, but the idea that someone can steal your job is crazy - if you are so shit at your job that some guy who has a totally different cultural background and who grew up speaking a different language from that of your homeland can take it from you, then you were on track to lose it anyway.

The majority of people who complain about migrants stealing their jobs are people who were unemployed before the migrants arrived, and who remain unemployed because they have the kind of shitty attitude that blames others for their own failings. Who wants an employee who won't even take responsibility for his own behaviour, and who feels entitled to something for nothing, just because he was born nearby?

It's a very racist comment to suggest foreigners are better workers than our own workers who are also from all ethnic backgrounds. We see this bouncing about the media and ultra-left media. Foreign workers from disadvantaged backgrounds will put up with more abuse and work in less safe working conditions with lower pay.

That's not racist. The domestic workers come from many ethnic backgrounds, but they've all been immersed in our culture for the most part. The same isn't true of someone from out of country. Not racism. Provincialism, maybe.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Another view:


Perpetual Growth, endless growth, ad infinitum, forever, till the end of time.

''Economists are master illusionists who rely on a set of fictions, fantasies and forecasts that emanate from a core magical mantra of Perpetual Growth that goes untested year after year.

And yet it’s used to manipulate the public into a set of policies and decisions that are leading the American and the world economy down a path of unsustainable globalization and GDP growth assumptions that will self-destruct the planet.
Denial? We’re all addicted to the Myth of Perpetual Growth

Yes, economists are addicted to this ideology. Trapped deep in their denial, can’t see the problem, or admit it, or if they do, they are unable to stop themselves, see past their own myopic world view. They’re mercenaries working for capitalists who pay their salaries, and expect them to support the capitalist’s bizarre Myth of Perpetual Growth.

Worse, the public also bought into the myth. Yes, you believe everything you learned in college about economic theories, all the textbooks, everything you read in the daily press, the government reports, all those Wall Street analysts’ predictions relying on studies prepared by economists with credentials.


But driving the economists’ growth myth is population growth. It’s the independent variable in their equation. Population growth drives all other derivative projections, forecasts and predictions. All GDP growth, income growth, wealth growth, production growth, everything. These unscientific growth assumptions fit into the overall left-brain, logical, mind-set of western leaders, all the corporate CEOs, Wall Street bankers and government leaders who run America and the world.

But just because a large group collectively believes in something doesn’t make it true. Perpetual growth is still a myth no matter how many economists, CEOs, bankers and politicians believe it. It’s still an illusion trapped in the brains of all these irrational, biased and uncritical folks.
No-win scenario: Damned if we grow? Damned it we don’t grow?

Capitalism itself is at a crossroads. Growth is capitalism’s sacred cow but it’s “grow or die” theory doesn’t work anymore. With us since 1776, it’s being challenged by a “new god of reality” that’s flashing warnings of an emerging new reality from critics, contrarians and eco-economists. This war is pitting old and new economists:

Grow OR Die. Traditional economists (pro-capitalism): We’re told we need 3% GDP growth to support the next batch of 100 million Americans. We believe it on faith. Drill Baby Drill. Buy stuff. Get new jobs to fuel growth. We’re out of control. Exploding growth fuels demands as the rest of the world adds 2.9 billion new humans, all chasing their “American dream.”

Grow AND Die. New eco-economists (environmentalists): They see Big Oil’s destruction of our coastal economies, the rape of West Virginia’s coal mountains, the unintended consequences of uncontrolled carbon emissions and they ask: “When will economists, politicians and corporate leaders stop pretending Earth’s resources are infinitely renewable?”

Yes, our world is at a crossroads, facing a dilemma, confronting the ultimate no-win scenario, because the “Myth of Perpetual Growth” is essential to support the global population explosion. But all this “Growth” is also killing our world, wasting our planet’s non-renewable natural resources. “Eternal Growth” is suicidal, will eventually destroy Earth. We’re damned if we grow. Damned if we don’t.''


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/myth-of-perpetual-growth-is-killing-america-2012-06-12

I wonder which economists he is talking about in particular. Most "traditional" economists are Keynesian, Monetarist, or some mix or derivation. Very few of those are pro-capitalism, but pro-Keynesianism.

 

[DBT]

Another view:


Perpetual Growth, endless growth, ad infinitum, forever, till the end of time.

''Economists are master illusionists who rely on a set of fictions, fantasies and forecasts that emanate from a core magical mantra of Perpetual Growth that goes untested year after year.

And yet it’s used to manipulate the public into a set of policies and decisions that are leading the American and the world economy down a path of unsustainable globalization and GDP growth assumptions that will self-destruct the planet.
Denial? We’re all addicted to the Myth of Perpetual Growth

Yes, economists are addicted to this ideology. Trapped deep in their denial, can’t see the problem, or admit it, or if they do, they are unable to stop themselves, see past their own myopic world view. They’re mercenaries working for capitalists who pay their salaries, and expect them to support the capitalist’s bizarre Myth of Perpetual Growth.

Worse, the public also bought into the myth. Yes, you believe everything you learned in college about economic theories, all the textbooks, everything you read in the daily press, the government reports, all those Wall Street analysts’ predictions relying on studies prepared by economists with credentials.


But driving the economists’ growth myth is population growth. It’s the independent variable in their equation. Population growth drives all other derivative projections, forecasts and predictions. All GDP growth, income growth, wealth growth, production growth, everything. These unscientific growth assumptions fit into the overall left-brain, logical, mind-set of western leaders, all the corporate CEOs, Wall Street bankers and government leaders who run America and the world.

But just because a large group collectively believes in something doesn’t make it true. Perpetual growth is still a myth no matter how many economists, CEOs, bankers and politicians believe it. It’s still an illusion trapped in the brains of all these irrational, biased and uncritical folks.
No-win scenario: Damned if we grow? Damned it we don’t grow?

Capitalism itself is at a crossroads. Growth is capitalism’s sacred cow but it’s “grow or die” theory doesn’t work anymore. With us since 1776, it’s being challenged by a “new god of reality” that’s flashing warnings of an emerging new reality from critics, contrarians and eco-economists. This war is pitting old and new economists:

Grow OR Die. Traditional economists (pro-capitalism): We’re told we need 3% GDP growth to support the next batch of 100 million Americans. We believe it on faith. Drill Baby Drill. Buy stuff. Get new jobs to fuel growth. We’re out of control. Exploding growth fuels demands as the rest of the world adds 2.9 billion new humans, all chasing their “American dream.”

Grow AND Die. New eco-economists (environmentalists): They see Big Oil’s destruction of our coastal economies, the rape of West Virginia’s coal mountains, the unintended consequences of uncontrolled carbon emissions and they ask: “When will economists, politicians and corporate leaders stop pretending Earth’s resources are infinitely renewable?”

Yes, our world is at a crossroads, facing a dilemma, confronting the ultimate no-win scenario, because the “Myth of Perpetual Growth” is essential to support the global population explosion. But all this “Growth” is also killing our world, wasting our planet’s non-renewable natural resources. “Eternal Growth” is suicidal, will eventually destroy Earth. We’re damned if we grow. Damned if we don’t.''


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/myth-of-perpetual-growth-is-killing-america-2012-06-12

I wonder which economists he is talking about in particular. Most "traditional" economists are Keynesian, Monetarist, or some mix or derivation. Very few of those are pro-capitalism, but pro-Keynesianism.

Just listen to the news, read the papers, watch TV......practically all of the economists and political leaders you see and hear happen to chant the mantra of Perpetual Growth. I can't recall hearing an alternative proposal on mainstream media channels for a long time. Occasionally you may come across people like Brian Czech or Herman Daly being interviewed, but these dissenting voices tend presented as eccentrics (not taken seriously). Yet, as you say, classical economists did talk about the end to growth and the need for a new economy, but this is rare amongst our current crop of neoclassical thinkers.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I wonder which economists he is talking about in particular. Most "traditional" economists are Keynesian, Monetarist, or some mix or derivation. Very few of those are pro-capitalism, but pro-Keynesianism.

Just listen to the news, read the papers, watch TV......practically all of the economists and political leaders you see and hear happen to chant the mantra of Perpetual Growth. I can't recall hearing an alternative proposal on mainstream media channels for a long time. Occasionally you may come across people like Brian Czech or Herman Daly being interviewed, but these dissenting voices tend presented as eccentrics (not taken seriously). Yet, as you say, classical economists did talk about the end to growth and the need for a new economy, but this is rare amongst our current crop of neoclassical thinkers.

Yes, all that is true. If you look at the mainstream press, you'll see the most lauded and respected of the bunch is Paul Krugman. He is a Keynesian, not a Capitalist. He's not just a textbook Keynesian, which believes in fiscal policy to stimulate the economy; he's a modern Keynesian, which believes in fiscal policy, monetary policy, regulatory policy, etc, to stimulate the economy. He's not alone in this among all the mainstream economists.

That is why I had to ask which mainstream economists are pro-captialism, to differentiate them from Paul Krugman and his ilk. Do you consider the Keynesian Paul Krugman to be a classical economist?