So you're saying importing more people like those that worked in Bear Sterns would have been in the national interest? This sounds completely backwards to me.
Besides, with your particular method, how do you prevent people from over-bidding and then being unable to pay the fee?
No, whatever algorithm is used to select immigrants, wealth surely is not the thing to use.
Based on our knowledge back when Bear Sterns was still alive, yes. It would have been our best guess as to what is in the national interest. It turns out that the best guess would have been wrong, but that's unavoidable. Perfect information isn't available, and people make mistakes. Our central planners didn't know any better than the markets (Bush, Clinton and various other politicians tried to inflate the housing bubble).
As for those who don't pay up, immediate deportation without the possibility of re-entry. Combine this with a policy of enforcing immigration law, and we might get a workable system.
Given how many startups fail, you don't think "life without parole" is a bit harsh? It certainly will prevent them from trying again...
I also think that if you average over a long enough time span, it seems that those that hit the moon, money-wise, at one particular time barely break even over the long run. (Except they've already taken home their own salaraies, of course.) That's what I meant by it being a bad idea; at any given time the highest earners will, by selection effect, be those with the riskiest, most highly leveraged strategies. I can do without those, I think we need people that create wealth, not concentrate it into their own hands.
Besides, with your particular method, how do you prevent people from over-bidding and then being unable to pay the fee?
No, whatever algorithm is used to select immigrants, wealth surely is not the thing to use.