In all cases, in all eras, among all peoples, 1) an homogenous population, 2) markets, 3) rule of law (tort law, not legislation), 4) and the resulting end of corruption generates good conditions.
A diverse population, lack of markets, rule by discretion, generate corruption, and result in bad conditions.
The correct if unpleasant answer.
- All groups that cannot, do not, or slowly integrate and compete are marginalized (disciplined). And furthermore, they should be, until they integrate so thoroughly that the marginalization (discipline for non conformity) does not exist, because the cost of their integration does not exist.
- Groups disrespect(discipline, outcast, or boycott,) competition with (against) their traditions, norms, status, and laws. And there is good reason to do so: they are paying a high cost of integrating underdeveloped peoples – without any benefit of doing so.
- Any group that is marginalized (disciplined, disrespected, outcast, boycotted) must have a reason for invading (moving to) a society that disciplines them. The question is, if the traditions, institutions, norms, status signals, and laws, are more desirable in the culture that they are invading, then therefore the traditions, institutions, norms, and status signals that they bring with them are de-facto ‘bad’.
- So, when in Rome do as Romans do, or do not go to Rome.
- Ergo, it depends on whether the invader (disciplined, marginalized) group is genetically problematic (ethnic) because they have an larger undomesticated under, working, or middle class, that forces the host group to bear the costs of their lack of genetic domestication – or whether they are cultural competitors (religious) that forces the host group to bear the cost of training the underdeveloped norms and traditions. Or whether they are commercial competitors, which most groups seem to tolerate as a benefit at the cost of some status signal loss. Or whether they are institutional competitors, bringing with them a competing law. Or whether they are military competitors, which all groups despise.
- It is possible to force all of the above costs on a host people: Genetic, Cultural, Commercial, Institutional(law), and Military.
That’s the answer. Groups are marginalized (disrespected, disciplined, outcast, boycotted) because they should be.
So the groups that are more marginalized (disciplined) than the others are the groups that are most costly to integrate.
And therefore “the most costly groups are those with the greatest cumulative set of costs: in the combination of genetic, cultural, commercial, institutional, and military.
(NOTE: Ergo why Islam is so costly and so universally resisted. It’s dysgenic, culturally primitive, low trust, commercially weak, imposes competing laws, is intellectually regressive and entirely anti-intellectual, and was spread entirely by violence, at the cost of destroying the four great civilizations of the ancient world, as well, as costing 500M deaths. Islam has a simple strategy which is to breed at the bottom – the inverse of the great civilizations: far west and far east.)
There actually aren’t any that are also true. (Really)
(No. Really. We produce “Wisdom Literature” in , mythological, theological, rational, historical, and scientific grammars: meaning rules of continuous disambiguation including disambiguation by permissible paradigms (vocabulary).)
Science produces humiliatingly parsimonious knowledge – and all of the universe and our experience in it can be explained as one continuous set of consequences from a few very simple causes.
In my study of history the number of truths is extremely small, all are knowable, and the number of falsehoods that we have invented to circumvent thought, emotion, and action that correspond with those truths is more numerous than the number of humans.
Did someone really ask this question? Really. FWIW, they were both wrong. The labor theory of value is false. Subjective value is true and marginalism has overwhelmingly demonstrated so.
Smith went to his grave thinking he was right, and he was right on the absurdly irreplacable returns of cooperation. But he was wrong on the labor theory of value.
Marx went to his grave knowing he was wrong. He read the marginalists and stopped writing. But he couldn’t stop taking income from Engels, so he pretended that he kept working.
Nothing more came from Marx – because his entire premise was wrong, and history has been unkind to his legacy.
The Correct Answer
There are two branches of Austrian Economics, the first being Mengerian (Christian) and the second being Misesian (Jewish). The Mengerian revolution gave us marginalism, and marginalism has been fully integrated into economics.
Mises discovered in economics, what Brouwer did in mathematics, and Bridgman did in physics, and others did later in grammar: Operationalism.
Unfortunately he was a the opposite of a scientist, a poor mathematician, a worse philosopher, and he produce ‘praxeology’ as a positive pseudoscience, rather than identifying operationalism in economics as a means of falsification.
I have written extensively on the Misesian Failure, and the Rothbardian exacerbation of that failure, and how Rothbardianism attempted to conflate eastern european anarchism with western european rule of law.
There are only a few questions that separate the Jewish Austrians (Misesian-Rothbardians) from the Mainstream that has fully incorporated Austrian (Mengerian) economics.
- The moral question of whether investors have a right to appreciation of a currency or even right of defense against a currency. Mises/Rothbard’s whole program was yes, but the answer is no.
- Whether or not the good produced by the constant destruction of the value of a currency, as a means of increasing consumption in order to increase employment in order to increase overall economic velocity -outweighs the bad of consistent overextension of the boom bust cycle , and whether that over extension will eventually lead to (a) collapse, and (b) lost opportunity for innovation, adaptation, and productivity rather than booms and busts. As far as I know the answer is no.
- That does not mean that the answer ist o preserve savings – it means that the means of increasing employment is not credit but direct distribution of liquidity to consumers to do what they will, rather than trying to force that liquidity to consumers through the financial and business sectors.
Because when a white person is called a racist, they understand (a) they are being alienated by the threat of violence (b) they are being alienated so that others can achieve self image by denigrating others, (c) they are aware that only european whites and east asians have succeeded in building high trust polities. (d) they are aware the critics are just hateful and envious.
“No man is a hero to his debtors.”
And the whole world is our debtor.
We dragged makinkind one civilization at a time out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, tyranny, the vicissitudes of nature, and the uncertainty of a universe hostile to human life, and they resisted, kicking and screaming all the while. All these people are doing is kicking and screaming at being dragged out of their ancestral childhoods.
A parent must never take the words of his teenagers seriously, any more than europeans must take the words of the underclasses seriously.
Iâll try to give you the best answer possible today.
- All humans flock to opportunities, exploit opportunities, and defect from flocking to opportunities as the opportunities are exhausted and other, more preferable, opportunities emerge.
- In this sense, all human economies seek disequilibrium, because it is only in disequilibrium that opportunities exist (If we ever managed equality then we will all be poor.)
- Without credit, opportunities cannot be exploited at the lowest possible price (discount) simply because either (a) scarcity of the monetary resource, and (b) extraction of profits (premiums) and âRentsâ by savers.
( This topic is a significant point of contention, if not the central point of contention. The Rightâs position [and mine] is that itâs not clear that earning money from your savings is necessary or beneficial – only that it not be deflated. The Left/Keynesians hold the position that you do not even have any right to the stored value of your savings. The l|Libertarian position is that you have a right to âseek rentsâ as an investor using your savings. The libertarian is decidedly false since that is the means by which predatory subclasses have used high trust local norms to accumulate, centralize capital, and turn it against host peoples.)
- Credit (Promise of future repayment) assists in more people flocking to opportunities, exploiting those opportunities faster, but also defecting from those opportunities more slowly, and ending those opportunities not gradually but in a âbustâ, leaving late defectors having lost their investments and unable to fulfill their promises.
- Therefore, the question has been, and remains, how much credit to provide at what price such that opportunities are exploited *by those able to exit* but not by people who *will not be able to exit*. While economic discourse appears difficult, this is actually the central question. The answer is relatively simple, in that if we are financing a shift from one network of specialization and trade to another, then that is reducing the unnecessary friction, or if we are creating opportunity for unskilled risk, and therefore creating a moral hazard (trap).
(This topic is a significant point of contention, because it leaves most consumers out of the âlotteryâ that loose credit can create, and out of the temporary consumption that loose credit creates, and produces a moral hazard for banks and credit institutions, by forcing them to lend money during booms to stay in business then creating waves of bankruptcies during the consequential corrections.)
- There are very few substantive questions in economics. (a) The means of calculating credit price and availability is one, (b) whether we can bypass the financial sector and provide liquidity directly to citizens(consumers) without simply having landlords and creditors absorb the profits now going to the financial sector, (c) the third is purely ethical and moral: and that is, do we return to intergenerational lending (all of human history until the keynesians), so that there is a good reason to provide income on savings, or do we continue extraction of rents through the financial system by charging the citizenry to borrow against their own production, or do we, as above, end the unnecessary distribution of credit capacity (and interest) for consumer consumption by just bypassing the financial sector altogether. Every other question in economics a derivative of these questions – or it is simply the use of economic analysis to investigate demonstrated human behavior, given that the (soft) social sciences (pseudosciences) of psychology, sociology, and political âscienceâ have failed to produce any repeatable scientific findings by means of self reporting or direct testing.
Therefore, the Tulip Bubble is just a nice simple example that we use to illustrate how consumers can borrow money to invest in what they donât understand and lose it.
There are thousands of other examples, particularly in the new world, but the Tulip Bulb Bubble is more helpful because it communicates to average people that they too are vulnerable to malincentives, not just people with much more money.
In other words, invest in what you do and know, and otherwise invest in index funds. In other words, Just as Little Red Riding Hood is a lesson to young girls who would do improper things for money are certain times, the Tulip Bulb serves as a parable for consumers – do what you know, and only what you know.
In general, as the single most explanatory rule of behavior “Do only that which you can pay the restitution for if you fail.” Because while unstated, it is the rule by which both legal, moral, and normative blame is determined.
They cannot pay and are not even cognizant of, the cost of restitution. And creating and bearing a child is perhaps the greatest crime moral crime, becasue it subjects family and indeed all of society, to moral hazard: they are forced to pay for your bad judgement, and the bad judgment of your parents and family, becasue they cannot morally correct your decision by killing the child. (Although that has been done frequently in history it is not done today.)
When the family was the principle unit of economic production, when we lived in intergenerational households because of it, when children began contributing to the work of the household by age five, when child mortality was as much as 50%, death in childbirth common, and the vicissitudes of life unpredictable, pregnancy uncontrollable, children disposable, and women in particular had no control over their destinies we treated children very close to domesticated animals. And none of those conditions apply today – at least, for anyone who would ask the question, or read the post.
For most of history 13–14 was the beginning of adulthood. Girls may be indeed mature enough to care for children by 16 and certainly 17 if they are under the care of an intergenerational household and began working in the household and caring for siblings from six or seven. Boys, if they are put to work by the same age, and have responsibility by 12 or 14, can be, like girls caretakers in an intergenerational household, especially if they have done any military service. But boys do not finish maturing until 22, just as girls are ending their optimum fertility (23). Our questionably effective education system has extended childhood development so much so that males are now mentally, emotionally, and socially mature only in their late twenties (if that). School is unquestionably effective through grade 5, but by grade 7 is only marginally effective. So we are effectively losing 5+ years of socialization, employment, and emotional development in order to keep children in school more than the entirely adequate 2–3 hours per day, if they participate in the work force in simple work after that (I started working holidays time at 7 years old. And by 10 and 11 worked holidays and whenever else I could. ) Under those conditions we could (as they do in eastern europe) have children earlier. Without those conditions, and perpetuating today’s environement, the single mother disaster will continue, and the boys that ‘check out of society and stay there’ will continue.
So the answer to age of sex at 13 is “Not in this current world we live in.”
The rest of the world is being indoctrinated on French Revolutionary ethos and tactics of human rights
Does this storming of the proverbial Bastille begin to make a little more sense
We are very close now. Very. At this level of agitation it will take a single spark that drives one side or the other to march. And I am pretty sure it will be the next election cycle.
There are two major admixture events that affected north africa.
- In historical order, Egyptians consist of about 45% late east africans, 45% South caucasians, and 10% Phoenicians.
- The last major migration out of africa was about 25000 years ago. Africa is best thought of as three or four separate “continents” due to its size and geography. The mediterranean, the desert, the ‘green band’ from west africa to ethiopia/Yemen, the inhospitable south, and the south/southeast coast.
- The civilization that developed on the trade route between ethiopia and yemen gave birth to that major migration. That migration “E”, spread north and then west into north africa.
- There was an admixture event between west eurasians (Caucasians “J1″) and these peoples. Current admixture (E+J1) is about even between the two. (An interesting nit is that it’s possible north africans domesticated cattle separately. ) I am not sure of the admixture relationship between the Phoenicians and Berbers, although I am certain there are people in the world who know that. It’s not an area that I have studied. As I understand it the Phoenicians (east mediterraneans) contributed about ten percent to the current distribution. So between Red Sea origins, north African expansion, conquest by or integration with, south caucasians (people with black hair), and conquest by/integration with the Phoenicians (as well as some mixture because of the usual mediterranean trade), I think we understand most of the genetic history of North Africans.
- The Arab conquest of North Africa that destroyed North African, Egyptian, and Levantine civilizations left less genetic impression on these peoples than one would think.
- In my understanding, there has been negligible crossover between subsaharan africans and north africans because the desert and distance has been prohibitive.
- The Roman defeat of Carthage (west phoenicians) was a catastrophe for mankind just as the battle between Sparta and Athens, and between Germany(ie: sparta) and england(ie:athens) were catastrophes. We never seem to learn from history that the farmer-army and merchant-navy require each other to compete successfully
- The Arab conquest was far worse however (as it was everywhere in the world), because islam is the last civilization to adjust to the end of the Abrahamic Dark Age and the Restoration of Science (the enlightenment) and the most resistant to it – and even if we are lucky, it will take another one to two hundred years of progress to bring north africa out of its current condition.
As far as I know the soft (pseudo) sciences are done. Economics has taken over social and political science, and cognitive science has taken over psychology. The reason being that we are unable to report or theorize objectively in any and all aspects of life.
As Max Weber anticipated, all life is reducible to calculation and life that is not reducible is not true.
I want to add what I believe the science currently tells us about differences in group intelligence.
- Differences in demographic distribution. Rather than state that the races possess terribly meaningful differences, the data suggests pretty strongly that certain groups have expanded their middle and upper classes under agrarianism, and some have expanded their lower and subclasses under pastoralism.
- Success at Neoteny/Pedomorphism in other words, ‘self domestication’ of certain groups was more effective largely because of geography. This is why intensity and rate sexual development is the inverse of intelligence in all groups. And this is measurable by testosterone in each race and subrace. Africans a lot, steppe/desert people a bit less, caucasians quite a bit less, and east asians a lot less. Why? Early maturity is absolutely necessary in Africa if for no other reason than the disease gradient. Late maturity or reduced depth of maturity (see body odor differences between races and ages), is beneficial in the rigours of above 45th agrarianism, and the genetic underclass cannot survive the seasonal cycles.
- Balance of Dimorphism. Male and female brains differ in structure and chemistry. Verbal and spatial specializations (biases really) follow these differences. Some groups demonstrate both bias to the female reproductive strategy and verbal superiority, some balance, and some demonstrate the bias to male reproductive strategy and spatial superiority.
As far as I know all substantive differences in Homo Sapiens Sapiens are explicable by minor variations in endocrine expression both in utero and in early development.
And that our racial differences are largely due to (a) the generation we left africa or remained there, and (b) the degree of neoteny and balance we achieved during self-domestication, and (c) the number and diversity of competitors we faced in our geography.
And so far the data agrees.
(The correct answer for the many well intentioned f—-ls)
Trump always and everywhere negotiates. Great negotiators are not afraid of opponents, they are thrilled by the competition. Trump is a ruthless negotiator who has made an industry out of baiting opponents, entrapping them, and then controlling them. He creates opportunity for greedy people to act greedy, traps them and the exploits them for their greediness. This is why the bankruptcies are merely a tactic he uses to entrap greedy people, and corrupt bureaucrats. Where the ignorant person sees failure, the sophisticated person sees strategy.
Trump is a competitor in the Nietzschean mold. He sees a meeting with Putin as an opportunity to learn how to win just as he sees a meeting with Kim as an opportunity to learn how to win. The worst that happens is that nothing happens. The best that happens is that he finds (as did Regan) an opportunity. He does not care about ‘face’ or your approval. He only cares about opportunities to win.
Putin is terribly rational and very simple: russians never want to repeat the 1990’s and they respect strength. He saved them from chaos and has given them self respect back. All his stunts that cause us to react are just image building. We are just a tool for him to show his people he is strong. Just as we are just a tool for Kim to demand cash when he is bankrupt. Putin is actually very weak because he is under the control of his dependence upon the export of petroleum. The difference is that Kim can starve his people and retain power, and Putin can’t. Stalin would have starved them. Putin isn’t that strong.
Trump’s point of view, and it is not false, is that Americans are weak negotiators trying to win friends and make their jobs easy at the expense of the middle american work force. His opinion (and he’s right) is that china is rising to replace us by stealing our technology and undermining our markets. It does not take skill to negotiate an agreement that is favorable to your opponents.
How do I know this. I do exactly the same thing. Why? Because Kings, Generals, and Entrepreneurs, unlike corporate heads, bureaucrats, and politicians have a constituency of one. Themselves. Some people go public to make a windfall. some of us stay private so that we remain our masters. Trump stays private to remain his own master. The only place a man can still be king is in commerce.
Very few people in contemporary life actually participate in the market economy at personal financial risk. Kings, Generals, Investors, and Entrepreneurs of every scale, do it every day.
Trump acts like a king, general, and entrepreneur because he has always been an entrepreneur, and he was trained in a military school.
He’s not looking for your approval. He’s just always testing himself to see if he can out compete. Because that is the only test that the Nietzschean man cares about: the test of the markets.
Terrible answers. Here is the correct one.
Belief and Faith, because of our theological heritage have been conflated quite intentionally. So we have to deconflate (disambiguate) them before we can answer the question.
A belief or reported preference refers to that which you report (state) that you understand to be True, and honestly think you will or do, act as if is True. (whether or not you actually act as such is something different.)
A demonstrated preference refers to what we do regardless of what we believe, say we believe. This is why social sciences and psychology were pseudosciences and economics was necessary to stop them from spreading pseudoscience: people demonstrate preferences when they vote or purchase things, and they report, and say they believe very differently from how they vote or purchase. Hence we use only indirectly produced information to test people’s demonstrated preferences, and nearly all surveys are to large part meaningless on anything that someone would virtue signal (Google “Virtue Signaling”).
An article of Faith requires we preserve belief (act as if true) something that is contrary to the evidence in order to preserve the value of acting in accordance with Wisdom Literature in order to achieve desirable ends, even when we don’t understand the relationship between cause and effect. In economic terms faith allows us to buy cheap options on achieving a personal or collective good, and renders one’s plans and actions invulnerable to rational and scientific persuasion. That is their value. It turns out that faith in others is the optimum strategy for producing high trust cooperation. That was just a theory until we proved it in the past century.
An ideology functions, like literature, to inspire individuals to action under democracy. Ideologies need not be rational or consistent, and are less vulnerable to criticism if they are not. Ideology is the result of our change to (limited) democracy.
A philosophy provides methods of decidability in order to achieve a desired state of affairs. The domain of philosophy is individual preferences, and interpersonal good.
A logic provides a grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation) for the testing (criticism) of sets of constant relations for internal consistency between two or more states (falsification by competition).
All disciplinary languages (grammars) from math to logic, to programming, to contract language, to common language, to fiction (and even ficitnoalisms – meaning pseudoscience, and theology) consist of variations in the rules of grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation), including variations in permissible vocabulary (paradigms).
A science provides a formal process and makes use of instrumentation for the use of measurements for the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, by the falsification (passage of testing) of categorical consistency, internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, scope completeness, limits, and parsimony. If the science is a social science it must also include tests of rational choice given available knowledge and incentives (rationality), and if a matter of law, tests of voluntary reciprocity (morality)
As far as I know this is the ‘state of the art’ set of definitions.
The Propertarian Institute,
Andrew Heywood : Political Ideologies : An Introduction.
Emmanuel Todd: The Explanation of Ideology
Thomas Sowell: A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles
Um, just to add tidbits for those fascinated by genetic heritage:
Finnic peoples appear to have evolved around the Obskaya Gulf region (northern Russia near the arctic circle) as all of us seem to have evolved near waterways.
It appears that they were invaded by (enslaved by, fought with) asiatic siberians in recent prehistory.
We don’t think of it today, but the ‘eskimos’ (Inuit/Siberian/Arctic peoples) around the arctic circle were aggressive warriors and were successful at exterminating multiple tribal groups – including most of their predecessors in the new world.
North Russians (Muscovites) are about 25% finnish composition. (If you are still one of those people that think ‘breeds of humans’ are indifferent science has arleady falsified the blank slate, and is in the process of falsifying tribe, subrace, and racial similarities – and we are pretty sure we know the sources of those differences.)
Every gene study I have seen suggest that the mongol invasion had very little impact on the slavic peoples. Conversely, the slavic slave trade had a significant genetic impact on the Byzantine/Turkic population.
The region’s major gene exporter was today’s Poland, and Poles, Ukrainians, and southern Russians (who are, contrary to russian ‘historicism’, ethnic and previously linguistic ukrainians) spread throughout the territory. They do not have this Finnic and Siberian admixture.
Russia found eastern european and baltic countries too difficult to rule becasue they were more developed than ethnic russians. So the soviets moved rural russians who had been serfs (slaves) only one or two generations before, into eastern europe and the baltics as the work force.
The asiatic population of siberia is trivial. Ethnic russians dominate the population everywhere except tribal areas just as canadians host tribal communities in the north.
So we do see a bit of asiatic gene expression because of (a) russian relocation programs, (b) mongol invasion, (c) the usual territorial cross breeding, and (d) the mobility created by sail, rail, road, and the russian and soviet empires.
(b) Putin’s only error (as a resident of Kiev myself) was in using deception of the little green men, insurrection, and propaganda rather than picking up the phone and just speaking the truth “We just can’t allow our don basin tech, and only warm water port out of our influence so we are going to step in, and ask for your support, and pay for this undesirable action with discounted gas to ukraine for 50 years. I will work to help world leaders understand why this was unfortunate necessary for the preservation of the international balance of powers.”
(c) Postwar American policy is trivially simple, but stated morally instead of descriptively:
“This can’t happen again. So:
1) we will work to force states to focus on modernization and joining the world economy, and prohibit territorial expansion, or opposition to that integration of trade.
2) We will work to support self determination to the extent that it does not violate #1 -borders and trade. This will assist in the development of economic integration and limit future wars.
3) BUT if you choose self determination and choose poorly in violation of #1 we will punish you regardless. it is this last “BUT” that Americans don’t state.
But there is nothing in that foreign policy that wasn’t stated by Burke, Smith and Hume.
The USA has a long history of criticizing the “constant wars’ of other countries. But the price of creating the international order is policing contradictions of it. And so the USA became what it despised. Because all empires have no other options. Rule by commerce, rule by violence, rule by deceit (religion).
You don’t have to agree with me. You just have to follow me for a year or two until you understand how to use the methodology. And the veil will drop from your eyes. I see it over and over and over again. Not only in the people who agree, but those who understand but disagree, and go on to use it in their own way. You will not be unaffected by Acquisitions, Testimonialism and Propertarianism. It will enable you to understand the human universe just as physics helps you understand the physical universe.
MARKETS FOR VIA-POSTITIVA IN EVERYTHING. THE ONLY MONOPOLY IS VIA-NEGATIVA DECIDABILITY: TRUTH.
Reading Pinker’s Enlightenment Now. And all it’s doing is making me angry.
Once you understand (((their))) use of Pilpul it’s like listening to Jim Jones discussing the heaven that awaits those that drink the Cool Aide.
They create moral hazard by the use of appeals to reasonableness. I have to fund a study that will demonstrate how vulnerable we are to suicide by signal.
Women do not know of what they speak, and (((those))) authors do not know of what they speak, because they do not speak from evolution, but from devolution, so that the unfit genes can prosper.
I started taking notes, but it’s …. it’s pointless. I’d have to refute nearly every paragraph.
ECONOMICS OF THE TREATY
THE CORRECT, EVEN IF UNPLEASANT, ANSWER
If you look at the ethnicity, gender, and academic degrees of media members at all levels (you can do this without much difficulty by picking any outlet and doing a trivial bit of research), you will find obvious, ethnic, gender, and degree similarities that are unavoidable.
The attack on western civilization (nuclear family, empiricism, meritocracy, rule of law, markets in everything) has been going on for over a century. But between the postwar immigration of underclasses, and the 1965 immigration act designed specifically to undermine western civilization’s demonstrated falsification of the marxist program, and the 1965 and later invasion of the universities (sometimes at gunpoint) by the postmodernists and their pseudosciences, we have produced a vast number of ‘education, journalism, psychology, sociology, and literature’ degrees that are very little different from the majority of the clergy.
This pseudoscientific, pseudorational, and philosophical denial of empiricism, truth, and reason, serves as a secular relgiion that replaced the church and pulpit with postmodern nonsense, instead of theological nonsense.
We replaced the Military Industrial Complex and the Church with the Bureaucratic Complex and The Academy-Media Complex as the church.
It’s pretty obvious that the academy which was originally created by the church (particularly Harvard and Yale in america) simply stepped in to replace the church’s supernatural theology, with the marxist-postmodernist secular theology, with the only difference being pseudoscience and pseudorealism this time versus supernaturalism.
Data is data is data. Genders, Classes, and Groups pursue whatever group competitive strategy that they inherited from their parents and all that changes from generation to generation over the centuries is the vocabulary and excuses we make for pursuing those strategies.
Western civ evolved not first but fastest because the nuclear family, empiricism, rule of law of reciprocity, and the resulting markets in all aspects of life, both forced continuous innovation, prohibited rents (other than the church, which made most capital in europe stagnant), allowed downward migration of middle classreproduction and produced the greatest eugenic evolution outside of the ashekanzi and chinese (who did so by bureaucratic market rather than commercial means).
The evolutionary strategies of human females was to use disapproval, shaming, ridicule, and gossip to constrain alphas by organizing betas to resist them. This process continues today but in industrial form.
There is nothing more sophisticated going on, than we did with our simian ancestors. It’s all hooting, hollering, gossip and shaming to control alphas. We just have industrialized the process from storyteller, to pulpit, to the written word, to the printed word, to the electronically transmitted word.
But the apes still fling feces, while the aristocracy (paternal) creates technology, competition, markets, and law – dragging the same primitive instincts out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, starvation, child mortality, early death, disease, the vicissitudes of nature, and a universe that is by all accounts hostile to life.
It’s really trivially simple – like all of science.
(Note: economics in some countries means ‘business’ which means ‘gut course’. In Anglo countries, ‘economics’ refers to the measurement of behaviors, institutions, economies, policies, and investments using available data.)
The difference between Accounting and Economics is the difference between Arithmetic(accounting), Algorithms (computer science) and Calculus(economics) which is only a bit less difficult than Algebraic Geometry (physics), which is only a bit less difficult than Lie Groups(Pure Mathematics).
Economics requires the use of calculus and statistics largely for the purpose of ‘fitting’ data that doesn’t necessarily fit, because nothing you measure (no category) is causally consistent over time. This differs from Physics in which the categories we measure are constant we just don’t know what causes them (although we are slowly getting there).
Accounting is a clerical degree that the average person can obtain, and earn a middle class income.
Economics is one of the harder degrees because everything in economics is counter-intuitive, and it is math, data, (and logic) intensive.
If you are in the upper 10% of graduates, Economics is probably the highest value lifetime degree.
Republicans, like males, act they do not gossip or care about gossip.
Democrats like women gossip, and they care about gossip.
That is why, while liberals are smarter than conservatives, republicans are smarter and wealthier than democrats. (really – its the size of each demographic ).
In other words, we treat democrats like men treat women and children: with frustrated humor.
(Thanks for asking.)
It is very hard for people raised in the current era of cultural, political, legal, and economic pseudoscience, to grasp the very simple reality that all forms of property from your body and mind, to your children and mates, to your home and assets, to your political rights, to your country’s territory, and all the patterns of behavior that you count on and benefit from every day, exist because of violence, and violence alone.
Violence and violence alone determines control of yourself, your relations, and anything and everything else. All our organizations and institutions are but proxies for that violence. And only those capable of applying violence to preserve the order are ever in control of that order. And it takes very few people willing to use violence to end that order and replace it with another.
So, a State exists as a State for two very simple reasons: some group of people possesses sufficient violence to prevent other people from having it. And other states prefer those people control that State rather than an alternative group of people.
That’s it. In other words, States preserve other States – usually out of self interest: the preservation of the balance of powers in the region. During the agrarian era of the past, and during the current era where oil regions are so enabling of primitive peoples, we see Iraq->Kuwait and Iran->Syria, and Russia->Crimea (Black Sea deposits) ,and China->South China Sea.
The same goes for digital anything: digital states, digital title registries, digital currency. They exist only so long as the states in which the servers exist, the people who manage them, the means of transforming the digital to the material, the people who use them, allow them to exist.
I’ve written about this for years, but my understanding of history tells me that the digital currency experiment is merely performing private funding of research and development for the next era of state credit when the current postwar order deterministically fails.
There is no escape from violence, or paying the cost of violence, in the form of the organization of violence, we call the State.
It’s rather interesting that most crazy Republicans are Male, and most crazy Democrats are Female. It’s less polite to call out women as crazy since nearly half of american women are on anti-depressants, and as much as 30% of women have psychological disorders (really – do the research).
And it’s not like Bernie Sanders is holding a full deck either. (Although a Trump/Sanders race would have reduced America to Italian levels of political insanity without question, at least it would have been educational for the republic.)
There are some questions that you should not ask because they produce answers you will not like. It is my job to answer uncomfortable questions so I’ll give you the respect of the correct answer, if you’ll respect that it might be unpleasant.
We were horrified by the Galilean Revolution but we adapted to it anyway. In the west we were horrified by the Darwinian Revolution. But we adapted to it anyway. We were somewhat horrified by the consequences of industrialization but we adapted to it anyway. So some knowledge must be adapted to if we want to prosper.
Persians divided from common ancestors with Europeans a long time ago, but are the ethnic group closest to West Eurasians (Europeans) – They integrate well, tend toward professional occupations, and demonstrate relatively high trust versus their other levantine neighbors. They have an extraordinary history of intelligence and scholarship despite the destruction to their civilization, language, culture, and demographics by the Arab conquest. So they are ‘compatible’ with American Civilization.
Persians, like the Ashkenazi, are high performance ethnic group. They will do better in any country no matter where they go. The Indians and Chinese start with very large populations, and their best talent travels the world. They are consistently high performers. The difference is that Persians and Ashkenazi produce asymmetric success despite their small numbers.
Some groups consist largely of the upper genetic classes, some the middle, and some the lower. Economic, scientific, and artistic performance corresponds directly with the demographic constitution of an ethnic group. So no matter what anyone does, the fact that some ethnic groups consist almost exclusively of the genetic middle and upper classes means that they will always statistically outperform those groups with large underclasses. It’s just math.
So the differences in performances of ethnic groups is not so much due to genetic differences between groups but the scale of the underclass and the drag that the underclasses put on language, culture, institutions, and knowledge.
The problem that produces inequality isn’t race, or ethnicity, it’s class. Some groups have vast underclasses, and some have nearly eliminated them.
The Arab conquest was the most catastrophic event in human history, destroying the four great civilizations of the ancient world, causing 500M dead, and creating a 1400 year dark age from which only a remote corner of northern europe was able to rescue the world from.
And the side effect of that civilization was a rapid expansion of the size of the underclass due to the inability to develop a middle class, due to low trust, due to tribalism. Outbreeding with the slaves didn’t help much either. It just made it worse.