1. What ever you choose, you have a two thirds probability of being wrong. That is, the car is more likely behind one of the other two doors.

2. When the host reveals that it is not behind one of those doors, you have a two thirds probability that it is behind the remaining door (the one you did not choose), so you should switch. The likelihood that you are wrong is only 33% (the original probability that you had chosen the correct door).

However, I still Bayesian stuff hard.

I’d say in general that recessions and immigration are not a linked issue. In the current instance, however, we had the dynamic of the housing boom inviting immigrants to build and buy houses, and all that flowing through the system, and then the downturn putting pressure on unskilled labor, so I would say that there is some linkage.

Economics may have started as the study of political economy, but now many seem to just worship at the altar of GDP growth.

Thanks for dropping by. From all I’ve read, its really hard to prove immigrants’ positive (or negative) contribution to the economy. So I rely on comparative advantage. This sets me apart from most immigration skeptics who usually tend to be anti-free-trade as well. I accept Aretae’s purely economic position on immigration. But the politics overwhelms the economics in the long run. Also, I’m not sure what “purely economic” means, economics started as the study of Political Economy – this analysis would be right up in there.

Also, personally I don’t believe immigration has anything to do with recessions, or if they do, at least not this one.

Aretae wants to focus on purely the economic aspects, but I don’t think he carries the day on that matter. The US has recently taken in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined, and yet with all these immigrants running around supposedly creating value, our economy still tanked as bad or worse than others.