Bolivia

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VetLegion


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.

Not that they had more children, but that the children were more likely to survive. People lived pretty damn close to starvation in those days. Among gentiles, it was starving peasants. Among Jews it was starving peddlars - but if you were smart enough, you didnt stay a peddlar, but became a large trader, or maybe became a rabbi and married into a merchant family, and your kids were more likely to survive.

at least thats the argument.

[VetLegion]

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

You didn't finish the sentence? I can give you numerous examples where more free markets worked better than less free markets, from China to my own country. I can also give you examples of crappy government monopoly industries which flourished when deregulated. A laissez-faire economy never existed, not even in 19th century England. Why do you insist on extremes?

What is better in a corrupt country, to let companies battle it out in the market or have state company monopoly which is not likely to be uncorrupt in a corrupt country?

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 must be kidding me. Which Constitution ever supported human rights violations, discrimination, corruption, nepotism, crime? I don't have to read the Mexican Constitution and I can still bet money that it's flawless or even beautiful.

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.

I have mentioned that I am not anarcho-capitalist (everything to markets). Institutions of state have to remain, but the government should to remove itself from the economy as far as possible.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Oerdin

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

Meaning, if you have your kids eat with chopsticks, watch anime and read Torah, they're set to be smart? Come on, you don't really believe that

Intelligence is part nature part nurture, but so far it seems to be about 2/3 nature and 1/3 nurture. Of course, the evidence is not conclusive.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VetLegion


Meaning, if you have your kids eat with chopsticks, watch anime and read Torah, they're set to be smart? Come on, you don't really believe that

POTM, who has a high IQ, and has studied torah, is now learning Japanese. As are several of her bright Jewish friends. Be afraid, be VERY afraid.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Not that they had more children, but that the children were more likely to survive. People lived pretty damn close to starvation in those days. Among gentiles, it was starving peasants. Among Jews it was starving peddlars - but if you were smart enough, you didnt stay a peddlar, but became a large trader, or maybe became a rabbi and married into a merchant family, and your kids were more likely to survive.

at least thats the argument.

There is something to that. Hopefully this stops being such a sensitive topic and we see more research about it.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


POTM, who has a high IQ, and has studied torah, is now learning Japanese. As are several of her bright Jewish friends. Be afraid, be VERY afraid.

How old is POTM and when can I meet her?

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Master Zen
So I take it Chileans and Costa Ricans are somehow biologically superior to Argentinans, Brazilians and Mexicans...

I doubt it.

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.

What? Companies can't profit unless they are a monopoly? I need a reference for this I'm affraid

In any case, you want an example: Microsoft.

For which government enforces intellectual property monopolies. Is that the only example of a non government supported monopoly you can think of? See what I'm saying? Markets tend to sort out monopolies if barriers to entry aren't too high. The most famous examples of monopolies, from Standard Oil to AT&T and beyond have been very involved with the government.

It's the indicator that YOU ARE QUOTING!!

Make sense with your arguments will ya?

Context-free discussions aren't cool, you know? Go back, read what I wrote and quote me saying that level of government spending in GDP is the only measure of government involvement in the economy. It's one of the indicators.

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

Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007 (pdf) which was released yesterday ranks glorious Mexico at 58th place, behind such laissez-faire giants such as communist China and half-communist India.

Index of Economic Freedom puts Mexico at 60th place, again behind communist China.

Maybe you didn't do enough?

Anyway, I don't claim expertise in Mexico. What is your explanation for mediocre economic growth? Surely not lack of government intervention?

and far far worse than the centralized government-sponsored growth between the 40s and 60s.

Economic growth is possible in socialism and communism. Soviet Union had it, Yugoslavia had it, Cuba had it, even North Korea had it before subsidies ran out. They all ultimately failed, or are just about to.

Planned economy usually manages to achieve high growth when it starts from a low level, has plenty of free labour lying around, and forces huge capital investments. This growth is then often turned into tanks and not higher living standards. Eventually returns get smaller and the growth stops. It's not a system that is viable in the long term.

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.

I know all this. Actually, given your registration date, I think I have written about Taiwan and South Korea's protectionist policies on this forum before you even registered

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.

Name me one competitive industry Latin American governments have ever created? It's not like they haven't tried.

See the problem?

But the government has NOT retreated from the economy.

Not entirely [China]. But as government retreated, things got better. It's a clue for everyone but you it seems.

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).

Me, ignoring? The effect of nutrition is well known and still doesn't explain

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.

The Bell Curve is a book, not a theory. It wasn't shoved under the carpet, though it was widely criticized because it is definitely not politically correct. I haven't read it, so I can't comment further.

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

Unlike you, I actually do like empirical research. The one I linked to, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, gives IQ for my country of 90 (Mexico is 87, practically the same given the amount of noise in the reasearch). Unlike you, I don't find those findings offensive at all.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Master Zen
So I take it Chileans and Costa Ricans are somehow biologically superior to Argentinans, Brazilians and Mexicans...

I doubt it.

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.

What? Companies can't profit unless they are a monopoly? I need a reference for this I'm affraid

In any case, you want an example: Microsoft.

For which government enforces intellectual property monopolies. Is that the only example of a non government supported monopoly you can think of? See what I'm saying? Markets tend to sort out monopolies if barriers to entry aren't too high. The most famous examples of monopolies, from Standard Oil to AT&T and beyond have been very involved with the government.

It's the indicator that YOU ARE QUOTING!!

Make sense with your arguments will ya?

Context-free discussions aren't cool, you know? Go back, read what I wrote and quote me saying that level of government spending in GDP is the only measure of government involvement in the economy. It's one of the indicators.

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

Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007 (pdf) which was released yesterday ranks glorious Mexico at 58th place, behind such laissez-faire giants such as communist China and half-communist India.

Index of Economic Freedom puts Mexico at 60th place, again behind communist China.

Maybe you didn't do enough?

Anyway, I don't claim expertise in Mexico. What is your explanation for mediocre economic growth? Surely not lack of government intervention?

and far far worse than the centralized government-sponsored growth between the 40s and 60s.

Economic growth is possible in socialism and communism. Soviet Union had it, Yugoslavia had it, Cuba had it, even North Korea had it before subsidies ran out. They all ultimately failed, or are just about to.

Planned economy usually manages to achieve high growth when it starts from a low level, has plenty of free labour lying around, and forces huge capital investments. This growth is then often turned into tanks and not higher living standards. Eventually returns get smaller and the growth stops. It's not a system that is viable in the long term.

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.

I know all this. Actually, given your registration date, I think I have written about Taiwan and South Korea's protectionist policies on this forum before you even registered

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.

Name me one competitive industry Latin American governments have ever created? It's not like they haven't tried.

See the problem?

But the government has NOT retreated from the economy.

Not entirely [China]. But as government retreated, things got better. It's a clue for everyone but you it seems.

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).

Differences in nutrition don't suffice to explain differences in IQ, as those differences exist even within countries.

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.

The Bell Curve is a book, not a theory. It wasn't shoved under the carpet, though it was widely criticized because it is definitely not politically correct. I haven't read it, so I can't comment further.

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

Unlike you, I actually do like empirical research. The one I linked to, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, gives IQ for my country of 90 (Mexico is 87, practically the same given the amount of noise in the reasearch). Unlike you, I don't find those findings offensive at all

[VetLegion]

dp

[Barnabas]

The index of economic freedom you posted has mexico in position 60, and china in position 111.....

[GePap]

Originally posted by VetLegion
[q] Originally posted by GePap

There has been no such thing as economic growth before the industrial revolution. Golden ages have happened in enviroments with annual GDP/capita growth of about zero. They weren't economic progress in today's sense. Greek Golden Age wasn't an increase in population's living standard. Egyptian Golden Ages were what, building pyramids? A nation with low average IQ can do that if it has a few architects and organizers, and obedient workers.

Man, you most be smoking something good....

Here is a very simple bit- AGRICULTURE, the single biggest, most important change is human economics. According to your "IQ" theory, obviously the people's who invesnted the single most important development in human history must have been smarter than those who did not. That means the people's of the areas were agriculture developed independently must be smater than those who could not come up the the idea. And since according to you these IQs carry over through the generations, those people's who came up with this idea should certainly be the ones thriving.

But then of course your statement that IQ can only be linked to economic development, and not social, technological, and phylosophical development is, well, INSANE. After all, if IQ were to matter at all, once would think it would matter in the field of ideas, no matter the field, since last time I looked IQ is not only about business ideas. For you to claim then that once can;t look at past "golden ages" because thier accomplishment is not measurable in GDP growth is total absurdity.

In today's complex society, where machinery has to be operated, built and fixed, where economic progress requires that great many people have very sophisticated skills (the average education period today is getting close to average lifespan in Roman ages), it is hardly possible to have low average IQ and good economic performance. I challenge you to find one example to the contrary.

First of all, your comment on "average age span" shows a gross level of ignorance. You should be big enough to know that low average life spans are the result of massive infant mortality rates more than anything. After all, the Roman legionare was expected to serve 25 years. I doubt they were recruited at birth. IF you made it past 5 years old back then, you had a fair chance of making it to 45, or more. Also, do you really think using a computer takes more brain power than, say being a stone mason? A potter? Hardly.

Society today is complex not because of the machines, but because of its immense size which calls for massive levels of compartmentalization and specialization.

As for your challenge, as I view the notion of linking what I consider the incomplete "science" of IQ, specially something and mendacious as "national average IQ" to anything, I simply ignore it, just as I would ignore a call for evidence against the aliens build the pyramid theory.

[Barnabas]

I think I recall reading that the measured average iq of spaniards jumped almost 15 points from their poor times with franco in comparison to the 90´s.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The index of economic freedom you posted has mexico in position 60, and china in position 111.....

Yeah. It was 2 AM, sorry about the wrong comparison in that case. The point stands though, 60th place out of 157 is not very good.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by GePap

Man, you most be smoking something good....

Here is a very simple bit- AGRICULTURE, the single biggest, most important change is human economics. According to your "IQ" theory, obviously the people's who invesnted the single most important development in human history must have been smarter than those who did not.

Wrong conclusion. Invention of agriculture may well have been an accident. Or one guy could have invented it (a she, more likely) and others just used it. It doesn't take much inteligence to plant stuff once you have the idea, so farmers probably weren't any more intelligent than hunter-gatherers. In fact, they may have been somewhat less intelligent initially, as a result of decreased quality of nutrition. In any case, the discovery of agriculture can't be seen as a good measure of average IQ of some population.

That means the people's of the areas were agriculture developed independently must be smater than those who could not come up the the idea.

This is silly.

And since according to you these IQs carry over through the generations, those people's who came up with this idea should certainly be the ones thriving.

You should at least have the decency to read the other posts in the thread. Agriculture was invented thousands of years ago, which was plenty of time for populations to diverge, as I wrote in one post.

For a society today to economically prosper, you have to have a certain percentage of smart people. Scientific research shows a correlation between this percentage and country's level of development. This wasn't so in agricultural societies. The fact that there were sporadic golden ages doesn't tell us anything about average IQ of those populations, let alone prove that it was high or low. The period before the industrial revolution is thus mostly irrelevant for the discussion of relationship between IQ and the wealth of nations.

[snoopy369]

I hardly think IQ is an appropriate deterimination of invention. Invention tends to go along with creativity/spontaneity, not intelligence in and of itself - as a peoples, anyway. Sure, you need the Da Vinci or Edison or whatnot, but you also need a culture/society that is open to creativity. You also need either a 'need' for the thing that's being invented [ie, agriculture] or an economically successful period if it's a non-need based thing (ie, entertainment). A lot of things go into invention other than intellect, to the extent that I'd believe cultural factors outweigh intellect to a large degree. Perhaps your 'scientific research' is actually correlating 'smart' with 'likely to develop things' by defining it as such ...