Bolivia

[Master Zen]

Since the neoclassical textbook lover likes to answer in multiple posts, here goes...

Originally posted by VetLegion
There is nothing welfare about the fastest growing countries in recent history. Protectionism is another thing.

The most successful economies have been the scandinavians. They are the epitome of welfare states. The other successful economies in the sense of growth have been China and the Asian Tigers, all of which have used either large centralized governments or protectionist measures on infant industries (with the exception of the city-states of HK and Singapore).

All of these are cases of the antithesis of laissez-faire economics which is the whole point of your clearly fallacious argument.

All countries I know of have used protectionism to some degree at some time in their history. This is not the issue being discussed.

Protectionism goes against laissez-faire free markets. Again, your love for the perfect market is unfounded.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Yeah, social-democratic can work, but only in near-zero corruption enviroment. Which means: ethnically and culturally homogenous states with lots of social capital.

Give me a single example of laissez-faire free market neoliberal economic policy working in a corrupt country. You are implying

It's three times that of the white US population.

And it's like 0.01% of the population in Mexico. I wonder, do they give social capital lessons to the wetbacks who cross the Rio Grande?

People can adapt if they have to. But if Mexicans become a majority in USA, and start to control courts, police and politics, it is going to become another Mexico, no doubt about it.

The Mexicans who likely are already a part of the court, police and politics are those who are at least 2nd or 3rd generation Mexican-Americans. They grew up in the US, they are far more American than Mexican in their involvement with institutions. Sorry but your argument that Mexicans are somehow born more corrupt and inept than Americans because of ethnic and cultural lines is nothing more than sheer racist bullsh*t.

All institutions are basically OK. I don't think I could find flaws in Mexico's constitution, or organization of Mexico's courts. I think that on paper it's just fine. But it's still relatively corrupt country. Can you tell me why?

You haven't even READ them to know if they are well written or not. You don't KNOW Mexican law so don't even begin to imply that you are suddenly knowledgable about its potential shortcomings. You "think" that on paper it's just fine and yet you've never even seen that paper.

You are basically arguing nonsense based on what you "think" a foreign country is all about. No wonder you are not making sense...

Capitalism is natural to humans. We don't pool and share stuff, we sell it to each other. If you call that a system so be it, but it's really just letting people do what they want. It can work anywhere because of its simplicity. I hope I don't have to explain why it's efficient. You mention economics textbooks all the time, I hope you read some

Actually you're the one that apparently needs to do some major reading on economics.

In any case, I have not argued one bit against capitalism. I simply think that leaving everything to the market such as you are advocating is idiotic.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by VetLegion
I'm not quoting textbooks verbatim. I take a look at Latin American countries and I see countries whom I think should be more economically prosperous than they are. We can disagree as to how to achieve that. I think it's impossible to draft laws without flaws. I think that it's more or less futile to try to design uncorruptible institutions. It's does come down to people.

So I take it Chileans and Costa Ricans are somehow biologically superior to Argentinans, Brazilians and Mexicans...

Sieg hail brother!

How many monopolies can you name that have managed to become such without government intervention on their behalf?

Recap of neoclassical economic theory which you so love: perfect competition in a market results in zero benefits. For companies to derive profit they must engage in monopolic practices to a certain degree. You should look into the history of amalgamation of industries (among other things).

In any case, you want an example: Microsoft.

Share of budget spending in GDP is just one of indicators of government involvement in the economy, not the only one. There's direct government ownership of companies, regulation, etc.

It's the indicator that YOU ARE QUOTING!!

Make sense with your arguments will ya?

Again, if you knew Latin American history you'd know that the grand majority of government owned enterprises were privatized during the 90's. Government since that decade has become LESS and yet growth has been mediocre and far far worse than the centralized government-sponsored growth between the 40s and 60s.

You mention Japan as a country with lesser government intervention. Have you heard of MITI? Look into it. Thanks to government planning the Japanese economy has succesfully fostered industries in which they had no hope of competing. Take watch-making and motorcycles. The market would have NEVER allowed Japanese firms to become world-class because in their infancy they had no hope of competing with European or US firms. Look at Japanese and Korean shipbuilding also, same case. I won't even begin to mention electronics.

There are literally THOUSANDS of examples of industries being created because of government intervention and these industries ending up become far more competitive than those they ended up displacing. If you had even a remote clue of economics you'd know it and would stop spouting the laissez-faire nonsense that has filled the last two pages of this thread.

You asked for examples where government retreat from the economy did good for the economy and I gave you China. That's like the ultimate megaproof.

But the government has NOT retreated from the economy. It has mearly changed the way in which it has intervened by substituting pure communism into capitalism in certain areas of the country. Your megaproof is still moot.

Empirical realitiy shows us a couple of things you won't like. It shows us that people matter for economic success. You wrote:

You base your prediction (which I agree with) on "institutions" (which BTW. change or dissapear with change of economic systems), but if you're fair you'll admit it's about the people.

On a related note, this is not politically correct, but you should check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq_and_the_wealth_of_nations

It shows average Mexican IQ to be 87 on the scale where US' is 99. IQ seems to be pretty correlated with GDP/capita. Are you really comfortable with discussing empirical reality?

Correlation does not imply causality VetLegion. If you were smart enough you'd know that.

In any case your little argument about IQ is quite amusing. It is also quite futile in proving your point since IQ is very much determined by environmental factors (a poor country will ALWAYS have less IQ than a rich one because of the effect of nutrition on intelligence... an empirical scientific reality which you are deliberately ignoring).

No wonder the IQ argument has found little ground in economists circles just like the old Bell curve theory was immediately shoved under the rug once it was shown that asians had higher IQs than whites.

You my friend, are a racist who disguises that fact through statistics.

[Barnabas]

If east asians have higher iqs than whites, then native americans should be doing great, since they all came from north east asia thru bering, and are considered skeletically (does that word exist?) mongoloid like the japanese, koreans etc

Unless, east asians got smart the last 10 thousand years, after the migration to America thru the bering strait.


By the way some, worrying article

"Un informe argentino alerta del riesgo de guerra civil en Bolivia y su coste en refugiados.
El Gobierno llama al pueblo a empuñar las armas para defender al presidente Morales.
Un informe argentino sobre la probabilidad de una guerra civil en Bolivia y la intempestiva convocatoria presidencial a empuñar las armas para defender al jefe del Ejecutivo, Evo Morales, y su decreto de nacionalización de los hidrocarburos han sacudido a la oposición y a la ciudadanía, asediada en los últimos días por bloqueos y otras protestas en todo el país. El estudio calcula en un millón de personas el flujo de refugiados bolivianos que pueden llegar a territorio argentino, con un coste de entre 440 y 730 millones de dólares anuales para el Estado del país vecino.

El Cronista Comercial de Buenos Aires atribuye a la agencia DyN la información sobre un documento de trabajo elevado a la cancillería argentina que señala “una probabilidad de ocurrencia del 56% de una guerra civil en Bolivia”. La preocupación generada por este informe fue en aumento ante la inusual convocatoria formulada por el presidente interino, Álvaro García Linera [Evo Morales ha viajado a Nueva York para participar en la Asamblea General de la ONU], que pidió empuñar las armas para defender al Gobierno revolucionario, durante una concentración indígena en la provincia de Omasuyos; tras las palabras de García Linera, los dirigentes campesinos informaron de su intención de enviar a grupos de pobladores de esa región para derrocar a la oligarquía de Santa Cruz... continues, ..."

http://www.elpais.es/articulo/elpporint/20060922elpepuint_3/Tes/informe/argentino/alerta/riesgo/guerra/civil/Bolivia//coste/refugiados

Basically nationalization of oil, and the gov saying that weapons may be encessary to defend that, + separatis feelings in wealthier whiter less populated provinces, make some argentine agencies think that there is a 56% chance of civil war in bolivia ( how do you calculate that??!?!?)
And if that happened Argentina could receive like a million bolivian refugees and it woulc cost argentina hundreds of millions of dollars

I dont think it will happen anyway

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Master Zen


I have no beef with Lula, in fact I would very much wish we had someone like him here. I simply disagree with your assessment that Brazil is arguably the most successful Latin American nation because I really don't see it that way. The most successful countries in the region right now are Chile and Costa Rica... neoliberal economies but which actually do have respectable institutional frameworks. Just look at how they rank in most corruption rankings and Chile actually beats many European countries in this regard...

.. which ultimately reinforces my point that it's not the economic model that matters, it's the institutional framework in a country which does.

Costa Rica have been stronger institutionally for quite some time, and Chile has had fairly strong economic growth for some time as well, IIUC. IIUC Brazils position when Lula took over was more challenging, and Lula was not expected to do nearly this well - he came in talking of defaulting, and ended up paying off the full IMF debt, had reasonably good growth numbers, etc. OTOH maybe Chile is doing better than I thought.

[Barnabas]

Chile is doing better, arguably the best latin american country

Chile has grown at very solid around 5% rates this past years

Brazil has been stable under Lula, like Mexico, but growth has been mediocre, like Mexico

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
If east asians have higher iqs than whites, then native americans should be doing great, since they all came from north east asia thru bering, and are considered skeletically (does that word exist?) mongoloid like the japanese, koreans etc

Unless, east asians got smart the last 10 thousand years, after the migration to America thru the bering strait.

Clovis was 13 500 years ago. That is plenty of time for populations to diverge. In fact, it has been suggested that average Ashkenazi IQ, which is today one standard deviation above that of the white population, has diverged to that level in about 1000 years.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Master Zen
The most successful economies have been the scandinavians. They are the epitome of welfare states. The other successful economies in the sense of growth have been China and the Asian Tigers, all of which have used either large centralized governments or protectionist measures on infant industries (with the exception of the city-states of HK and Singapore).

All of these are cases of the antithesis of laissez-faire economics which is the whole point of your clearly fallacious argument.

All of those are very homogenous countries. Man, you have concentration issues. Go back and read what I wrote. Socialism can function to some degree in homogenous societies (is this the third or fourth time I am writing this?). In those who aren't homogenous, it can't.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VetLegion


Clovis was 13 500 years ago. That is plenty of time for populations to diverge. In fact, it has been suggested that average Ashkenazi IQ, which is today one standard deviation above that of the white population, has diverged to that level in about 1000 years.

Are you arguing for drift from a founder effect, or something else?

Are you familiar with the work suggesting a connection between IQ and certain neurological genetic diseases common among ashkenazis, notably Tay Sachs and certain dystonias? Oh wait, you linked to a site that discusses that, you must be familiar.

So much for Ashkenazi IQ

Or maybe Ashkenazi ADD

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Master Zen

You mention Japan as a country with lesser government intervention. Have you heard of MITI? Look into it. Thanks to government planning the Japanese economy has succesfully fostered industries in which they had no hope of competing. Take watch-making and motorcycles. The market would have NEVER allowed Japanese firms to become world-class because in their infancy they had no hope of competing with European or US firms. Look at Japanese and Korean shipbuilding also, same case. I won't even begin to mention electronics.

IIRC MITI tried to keep Honda from exporting cars, in an attempt to protect Nissan and Toyota. Honda defied them, and a good thing for Japan. Some have said Japan succeeded despite MITI as much as because of it.

Similarly for the interventionism elsewhere in East Asia.

[Dinner]

I always thought Argentina, Chile, Urugauy, and parts of Paraguay should have been one country. In Victoria that's the first thing I do when I play Argentina.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by VetLegion


Clovis was 13 500 years ago. That is plenty of time for populations to diverge. In fact, it has been suggested that average Ashkenazi IQ, which is today one standard deviation above that of the white population, has diverged to that level in about 1000 years.

This is pretty much boiled down to culture. Nature lost the nature vs nurture argument a long time ago.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Are you arguing for drift from a founder effect, or something else?

Are you familiar with the work suggesting a connection between IQ and certain neurological genetic diseases common among ashkenazis, notably Tay Sachs and certain dystonias? Oh wait, you linked to a site that discusses that, you must be familiar.

So much for Ashkenazi IQ

Or maybe Ashkenazi ADD

You're Ashkenazim, right? That doesn't automatically mean you're smart you know

There is a scientific paper which discusses origins of Ashkenazi IQ through selection for smart people over hundreds of years. I've read it (maybe there is a link on Wikipedia). It is based on a couple of assumptions. One that I find weak is that smarter people tended to have more children than those less smart. It isn't true today and I don't see why it would be true in middle ages.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


This is pretty much boiled down to culture. Nature lost the nature vs nurture argument a long time ago.

"Cochran et. al. hypothesize that the eugenic pressure was strong enough that mutations creating higher intelligence when inherited from one parent but creating disease when inherited from both parents would still be selected for, which could explain the unusual pattern of genetic diseases found in the Ashkenazi population, such as Tay-Sachs and other sphingolipid diseases. Some of these diseases have been shown to correlate with high intelligence, and others are known to cause neurons to grow an increased number of connections to neighboring neurons.[3"

Ive never seen the correlation studies. I know at least one very intelligent a Jew with torsions dystonia, and I know of one family with a father whos a Tay Sachs carrier, and both he and his daughter have high IQs Id be very curious how IQs for Ashkenazi Jews who are Tay Sachs carriers or sufferers from Tortion dystonia compare to IQs for other Ashkenazi Jews.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VetLegion


You're Ashkenazim, right? That doesn't automatically mean you're smart you know

In many ways Im dumb, I suppose. But on IQ tests, I perform very well. As does my daughter.

Of course Im sure alot of people here of all backgrounds do well - a game like Civ probably draws certain types.