It looks like the Chinese economy goes down as well as up. This, to me, is what's often puzzling about the "globalization" debate, but also national security debates about China -- in both instances it seems to be regarded as unproblematic to assume that China will indefinitely maintain an 8 percent annual growth rate year after year and what we need to primarily worry about is how to respond to this miraculous turn of events. It makes much more sense, it seems to me, to worry about how to cope with serious Chinese economic problems.
« Slick Dancing? | Main | Seashore »
Global Class War?
27 Feb 2007 03:22 pm
Comments (58)
First the Yao Ming injury, now an economic downturn. This is surely a karmic reaction to the anti-English menu bias currently plaguing--nay, devastating--equality in Chinatown.
The Shanghai stock market has nothing to do with the Chineese economy. No stock market does. I know this is heresy of the first order. It might be easier to digest if I modify the statement and say that over the short term the relationship between the overall economy and stocks has no correlation. The Shanghai market has been in the grips of a speculative boom for over a year. There have been several steep corrections of the 5% or more range during that time all of which corrlelate with the Government trying to reign in the stock frenzy. During that time the Chineese economy has plowed along just fine.
The Shanghai market is up I think over 100% over the last year. A classic bubble having no relationship to the overall economy.
It goes without saying Chinas economy will not grow in a straight line up forever. Point well taken. Just don't correlate the stock market with the economy.
I agree China will probably have a serious economic and or political dislocation eventually, and that this could spell trouble for the world economy.
I don't quite understand the title of this post, though. "Global Class War?"
Korha,
I think it's an allusion to a discussion going on over at TPM Cafe about the global investor class vs. the global working class, this being a demonstration of the transnational links of those on the non-shit-end of capitalism's stick, i.e., the investors.
Korha and Ben - it's also the title of Jeff Faux's book on globalization.
If you don't think China will grow at 8 percent forever, you ahve to explain why not.
Chinese growth is basically a matter of combining high levels of capital investment with labor from the coutnryside. US and other foreign markets are necessary (1) to provide a stable source of demand (2) to avoid the political implications of fostering domestic demand and (3) to ensure that Chinese firms are competitive on the global market.
What stops this process? Drying up of labor supply, reaching the equilibrium capital-labor ratio, reaching the global technological frontier. Those are where previous bursts of catch-up growth have ended. Fourth possibility is political/institutional, in particualr a brakdown in the channels that ensure that earnings of Chinese firms get reinvested rather than consumed or sent aborad. (This is where failed attempts at catch-up have stumbled.) Final possibility would be loss of access to foreign markets.
So how likely is it that any of these obstacles will be encountered in the short or even medium term? Compared with e.g. post-war Japan, China has much greater reserves of labor, is much less industrialized and is much further from the global technological frontier. The current international trade regime gives it better access to foreign markets than Japan had. And Japan averaged well over 8 percent growth in the 25-30 years after WWII.
I think the burden of proof lies with those who don't think China will have per capita GDP comparable to "the West" in a generation or two.
China may not grow at 8% forever, but it probably will sustain an average growth rate in that neighborhood for a long time. Why? Because they have some much room to grow. Sooner or later, even the Chinese people out whacking around in rice paddies will have laptops, cell phones, and LCD television sets. Needless to say, there will be bumps and curves in their economic road on the way there, just like any other economy.
The real concern for us shouldn't be whether or not Chinese economic growth will be a straight upward slope or something a little more complicated. Rather, we should be concerned about how they will respond to economic fluctuations. They are a large enough player in the world economy that a few rash moves could hurt a lot of other nations, including our own.
Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report
it seems to be regarded as unproblematic to assume that China will indefinitely maintain an 8 percent annual growth rate
Agree with lemuel and kasoff -- it's not at all problematic to assume China will grow at this rate for the foreseeable future, given the mix of economic conditions we can see and predict. Similarly, it's not hard to assume that the US economy will grow at 3-4%, and Europe at 2-3%. Surely it won't happen in a straight line, but it takes major external shocks (e.g. violent Chinese political revolution of some sort) to take you too far away from these numbers.
For those who haven't clicked on it, "The Thug Report" is somebody's compilation of crimes with non-white perpetrators, with the ehadline "I hate blacks" at the top. Foul stuff.
So Nick, you're one of Steve Sailer's pals, or what?
This is just a one day thing, and it's been caused by a specific policy change designed to actually slow growth. It's hardly a catastrophe, or unexpected for the government.
Anyway, one day things are not really a big deal, it's the long term trend that matters, and there's no reason to think it can't just keep going up until it matches ours.
Lemuel,
I challenge you to find anything like "I hate blacks" in Steve Sailer's writing.
You seem to know a lot about economics. Stick to what you know.
Lemuel,
You've also misrepresented the site. The "I Hate Blacks" line is *not* written by the author of the site, as you mistakenly (or purposely) insinuate, but is a quote from an article written by an Asian-American about blacks.
The site is also not a "compilation of crimes with non-white perpetrators," as you claim, but specifically a compilation of crimes with black perpetrators from ghetto cultures. It's pretty clear about that, and black ghetto culture is certainly something that needs criticism, don't you agree Lemuel?
Or are you one of those white guys who lives far, far from the ghetto and all the problems its culture causes for the people who lives there, then attacks as "racist" anyone who rightfully criticizes that culture?
Whoa, someone whacked a beehive.
Now he's quiet.
Now he's quiet.
Maybe he realized he was talking to a piece of fucking flith and got embarassed and left. That's what I do.
Easier to smear than debate, right Ed? Still waiting for Lemuel to tell me where it says that Steve Sailer hates blacks. Or maybe Sailer's a piece of filth, too, which is why he's regularly linked and referenced by Slate, the New York Times, National Review, and many others.
What's to stop Chinese near double digit economic growth for the forseeable future? The bussiness cycle of course.
What is the bussiness cycle? The bussiness cycle is the credit cycle. In this era of seemingly unlimited credit creation many have apparantly forgotten that. Credit is the primary source of capital which governs economic growth.
The credit cycle is immutable. It always follows the same path. From some low point credit begins to expand and economic growth accelerates. This adds to the 'animal spirits' of borrowers and lenders and credit growth accelerates. Bad loans are made. Eventually defaults begin to rise. Credit prices rise and lenders become more cautious. The virtuous circle of expanding liquidity reverses and growth stops or even reverses.
China is awash is bad loans. The banking system is surpisingly corrupt. Hundreds of billions of bad loans were bought off the books by the government a couple of years ago but there is plenty more where that came from. It's impossible to say how much because so much of Chinese banking and bussiness systems accounts are opaque at best, if not invisible.
I was in Shanghai 18 months ago. Supposedly half of the worlds construction cranes were there as well. Giant skyscrapers stand empty or nearly so, and more keep going up. Figure it out.
Capital is not unlimited. Never was, never will be.
Rapier,
This is why foreign demand is so critical to the Chinese growth model, just as it was to the Japanese and other late developers before them. No doubt there will be speculative bubbles in the Chinese real estate market, but they will not pose the same dangers as the real estate bubble does here, because (1) they don't reflect a lack of outlets for capital in productive investment (note that the collapse of the Japanese real estate bubble came at the same moment that the supply of rural labor had dried up) and (2) a collapse in teh bubble won't have the same effect on demand because so much Chinese investment is in export sectors.
Yes, there is a credit cycle, but there are also fundamentals. And in the modern world, the problem is less a shortage of capital than a glut of it. Where capital is genuinely scarce, as in modern China, you have the basis for prolonged growth. That's the point.
Orkon, soem points of view don't need debate, they need to be stigmatized and excldued from polite company. "Thug Report" is one of them. I only mentioned it because it was startling given how reasonable Nick Kasoff's comment here was. And that's all I have to say on that.
Rapier,
As Keynes wrote, "Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation."
Remember, the test of an effective banking system is how well it channels savings into productive investment, not the returns it delivers to savers. From the point of view of industrialization, a banking system that delivers low returns may be superior, if it means capital is getting to business on more favorable turns. From that point of view, at least some of the "corruption" Rapier mentions -- loans to businesses that "rationally" should not be getting them -- is a feature, not a bug.
Here again the export market is key to ensure that the enterprises getting concessionary loans aren't white elephants but able to compete in world markets. This was the Korean model: the state more or less forced savers to invest in domestic industry at conessionary rates, but in turn forced those enterprises to demonstrate success in penetrating world markets to continue getting the below-market loans. It worked very well until they were pressured by the US to open up their financial system in the 1980s.
Lemuel writes:
"some points of view don't need debate, they need to be stigmatized and excldued from polite company."
Do you think Steve Sailer is a voice that "needs to be stigmatized and excluded from polite company" and debate? Many reasonable voices disagree, including Mickey Kaus, Matt Yglesias, John Tierney, and David Brooks.
If Sailer's ideas are interesting and acceptable enough to them, why do you think you should be able to stigmatize his to the point where people are not allowed to discuss his ideas? I'd be interested to know which of Sailer's columns you find beyond the pale.
Lemuel --
Here is one of my favorite Sailer articles, "Interesting India, Competitive China." In it he discusses the question of which of those two "giga-nations" will rise higher on the world stage in the next few decades:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/india.htm
"India has just had a remarkable election. An Italian lady led India's left-of-center Congress Party to an upset triumph over the Hindu nationalist BJP, which, in a curious echo of the GOP’s failure to adopt the Sailer Strategy, had apparently been neglecting its base. [See Steve Sailer's blog: Scroll down.] This has reminded Americans of two things:
India, with its billion people and awakening economy, is awfully important.
We don't know much about it.
With the help of my many South Asian readers, I've been trying to brush up on India for the last five years, so let me share a few perspectives that you might not hear elsewhere.
It's helpful to compare India to the other giga-country, China, which is India's opposite in so many ways. China isn't as simple as it looks, but it's far less convoluted than India.
China's ancient history is superbly documented and fairly simple, in its repetitive dynastic cycles of consolidation, decline, and chaos. But don't bother trying to learn India's history. It would be insanely complicated … if anyone had bothered to write it down while it was happening."
I'm pretty sure Steve Sailer is not a "point of view," which means there's a bit of goalpost-shifting going on.
Do you think Steve Sailer is a voice that "needs to be stigmatized and excluded from polite company" and debate?
No, but the man is pretty much the only "academic racist" prominent on the blogosphere. He devotes most of his mental energy to "proving" that black (and possibly brown) people are inherently less intelligent than other races, and thus are unfit for full membership in civilization.
He's about a million times worse than Marty Peretz. That doesn't mean that everything he says is wrong, but it does make me kind of sick to see his name on a comment or post...
Mr. Noah: Exactly.
Mr. Noah writes:
"No, but the man is pretty much the only "academic racist" prominent on the blogosphere. He devotes most of his mental energy to "proving" that black (and possibly brown) people are inherently less intelligent than other races, and thus are unfit for full membership in civilization."
That's not a fair summary of Sailer's writings. He does not devote "most of his mental energy" to mean IQ differences between races and the implications of that, and he certainly does not deem groups with low mean IQs as "unfit for full membership in civilization."
I think a more fair summation is that Sailer acknowledges that there are average IQ difference between races, and is one of the few writers who acknowledges this, and deals with its implications. He is not mean-spirited and seeks to find ways for everyone to do the best that they can with what they have.
You write that "this doesn't mean that everything he says is wrong, but it does make me kind of sick to see his name on a comment or post..."
Understood. These are disturbing truths that make a lot of people uncomfortable. But one thing I've noticed about Sailer's writing is that people regularly call him a racist, a "bigoted scum" (John Podhoretz's memorable phrase), "disgusting," and so forth, but no one -- and I mean no one -- calls him wrong, including you.
That's what makes Sailer interesting to Kaus, Gladwell, Derbyshire, Kevin Drum, and other thinkers all over the political spectrum: he's almost always right, because he's data-driven, not PC- or wishful thinking driven.
And if you think he's wrong, try to debate him (or me here as his proxy; I'll be up for a while). Those who do tend to lose badly, and resort to the kind of name-calling we've seen here tonight in place of actual argumentation.
One final thing about Sailer (unless someone makes a counterpoint): as we've noted, Sailer acknowledges in his writing, as Charles Murray has, that there are average IQ differences between groups, and that we have no known way to significantly change that.
I understand that this is what people find objectionable about Sailer. But it might help you to stomach his writing to ask this question: what if it's true? If it's not, he can be ignored. But if it is, it has enormous, and I mean *enormous* implications for the world, and should be discussed honestly.
It's worse for the worst-off groups to pretend it isn't true if it is.
I'm waiting for an explanation from Steve Sailer's proxy as to why a site whose mission is merely "deservedly critiquing ghetto culture" would choose to reprint a clearly hateful anti-black diatribe. I mean, it's clear Orkon seeks to disclaim the notion that the site was endorsing the diatribe, but it's not clear what purpose he attributes to its republication.
Steve--
I've never seen that site before today, and my summary of it was based on only a few minutes' glance. But it's clear to me that Lemuel Pitkin misrepresented it thusly here:
"'The Thug Report' is somebody's compilation of crimes with non-white perpetrators, with the ehadline "I hate blacks" at the top. Foul stuff."
The words on either side of "I hate blacks" are pretty important, but Lemuel chose to snip them out: the full headline is:
"Asian Newspaper: 'I Hate Blacks" -- San Francisco's 'Voice of Asian America' Publishes Racist Diatribe: SF Chronicle Comments."
In addition, the site is clearly a critique of *black ghetto culture* -- it links to several conservative black columnists like Thomas Sowell, Star Parker and Gregory Kaine.
As I said upthread, do you really believe that black ghetto culture is not a destructive force that needs to be severely criticized? If so, then Bill Cosby, Juan Williams, and growing legions of other black thinkers would disagree with you.
Ergo, Lemuel Pitkin distorted the content of "The Thug Report" here, as he distorted Steve Sailer's writings. If you can show otherwise on either count, my ears are open. But the evidence looks clear; snipping important words on *either side* of a quote is hard to backtrack on.
Steve --
Sorry, I didn't address your point directly. I don't really know what the purpose was of reprinting the Asian-American columnist's diatribe. Perhaps to show that diversity is not always strength, even when whites are not one of the two races involved?
Would you find that point -- questioning the value of diversity over homogeneity -- beyond the pale? We hear endless stories in the press of how wonderful diversity is -- surely, if it's such a great thing, it can withstand a few counterpoints.
Hey, what's the deal? I just noticed that Matt linked to John Derbyshire today as well, and Derbyshire is just as much of a "racial realist" as Sailer is, yet no one gave Matt shit for linking to him.
If you don't believe me, read this:
http://www.olimu.com/Journalism/Texts/Commentary/SpecterOfDifference.htm
RE: Yes, there is a credit cycle, but there are also fundamentals. And in the modern world, the problem is less a shortage of capital than a glut of it.
The apparant glut of capital is the direct product of a credit system totally unhinged and out of control. A huge portion of the trillions of dollars in debt insturments and their derivatives which race about the globe on a daily basis and which are accepted as nearly money are actually just the product of what amounts to a Ponzi scheme. This Ponzi scheme is dependent upon an ever expanding supply of credit.
Within the last month tens of billions of dollars of the paper emanating from the late great mortgage machine has been terribly wounded. Tens of billions are not such huge deal in the big scheme of things but it does represent trouble at the margin. As much as anything the whiff of real contraction from the mortgage market could be said to be the cause of todays market.
It is little appreciated by even progressives, much less the true market fundamentalist believers, that economic growth is a monetary and thus credit phenomenon. Don't get me wrong when I say this as I am not predicting a depression but a famous quote emanated from Wall Street the day of the great crash which said the fundamentals were sound. That was essentially true. It didn't make any difference.
Oh, come on. Sailer's entire academic theory of race is "Racism is awesome, and here's why." You can agree with him, and be a racist, but don't argue against the premise. Arguing that anyone's intelligence or role in society is largely predisposed by their race, especially to push broad conclusions about innate superiority and inferiority, is racism. You can maintain that the data is correct (in itself a problematic position), but of course it's racist.
That Steve Sailer thinks China's history is "simplistic" shows exactly how deep a thinker he really is. Sounds more like someone who's read one or two Jonathan Spence books and proclaims himself an expert.
That Orkon believes that IQ is unchangeable shows that he is just as ignorant.
"But if it is, it has enormous, and I mean *enormous* implications for the world, and should be discussed honestly."
Uh, not really.
Carpeicthus: As Steven Pinker put it, data cannot be racist. Your position appears to contradict that statement. Besides, wishing something not to be true doesn't make it so.
Tequila, if you know of a way to boost IQ, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you. Please enlighten.
And Carp -- if you can find anything in Sailer's writing's approaching "Racism is awesome, and here's why," I'd love to see it. Presumably it's in the same piece where Lemuel Pitkin claims Sailer "hates blacks."
If the man's writings are so odious, why can't his work be summarized fairly here and criticized on that basis? The only attacks on Sailer here are backed up by invented quotes ("I hate blacks," "Racism is awesome") that have never been written by Sailer and are *not* accurate summaries of his work.
Another group of writers who cite Sailer regularly, incidentally, are young DC libertarians like Will Wilkinson and David Weigel.
So many heretics!
As this technorati search shows...
http://www.technorati.com/search/%22steve+sailer%22
...here are some of the blogs "with a lot of authority" (technorati's highest influence group) that have *favorably* cited and linked to Steve Sailer over the past year:
Reason Magazine
Rod Dreher
Lubos Motl
Time Magazine (Andrew Sullivan's blog)
Gawker
Malcolm Gladwell
EconLog (Bryan Caplan)
Freakonomics blog (Levitt and Dubner)
2 Blowhards
John Derbyshire
Reiham Salam/Ross Douthat (The American Scene)
In addition, in the past seven years Sailer has had his articles published in, among many others:
The New York Post
The American Conservative
VDare.com
National Post (Canada)
The Washington Examiner
The American Spectator
The Claremont Review of Books
Slate
The National Interest
Insight
The Washington Times
National Review
San Diego Union-Tribune
The American Enterprise
The New York Press
etc. etc.
So Lemuel, Ed, Steve, and other would-be censors: I'm thankful for the internet, since a handful of people no longer decide what ideas are worthy of being discussed, and which ideas must be "stigmatized and excluded," as Lemuel put it.
Huh. I thought this was about China, not Steve Sailer.
I'm of two minds on Steve. On the one hand, as Orkon argues, people say he's evil but don't debate him on the merits. And him and the 'race-realist' crowd do have a point: we know evolution's affected hemoglobin structure, skin color, lactose digestion, and god knows how many other things between races in response to the environments we evolved in, so how can we say that the central nervous system doesn't differ between races as well? Every other organ system is affected by evolution except the CNS. Does that make any sense to people?
Of course not. The real issue, and the reason we all assert this scientific canard, is the use of scientific racism pre-1965 or so to enforce the Jim Crow racial hierarchy. And that's the problem with Sailer: he and his Southern paleocon buddies want to bring back Jim Crow. Take a look at the comments on his site: me and this other fellow spent half a thread defending the historical accuracy of the Holocaust. So he's technically correct, but we all know he or his friends have got a white sheet with eyeholes cut out under his bed, and perhaps a peaked cap under the cupboard as well.
Still, feminism's survived the discovery of biological differences between male and female brains, which nobody rejects anymore except Harvard presidents who want to keep their jobs. So what do we do?
SFG writes:
"...people say he [Sailer] is evil but don't debate him on the merits. And him and the 'race-realist' crowd do have a point: we know evolution's affected hemoglobin structure, skin color, lactose digestion, and god knows how many other things between races in response to the environments we evolved in, so how can we say that the central nervous system doesn't differ between races as well? Every other organ system is affected by evolution except the CNS. Does that make any sense to people? Of course not...[this is a] scientific canard."
Agreed on all points.
SFG continues:
"The real issue, and the reason we all assert this scientific canard, is the use of scientific racism pre-1965 or so to enforce the Jim Crow racial hierarchy. And that's the problem with Sailer: he and his Southern paleocon buddies want to bring back Jim Crow...So [Sailer] is technically correct, but we all know he or his friends have got a white sheet with eyeholes cut out under his bed, and perhaps a peaked cap under the cupboard as well...So what do we do?"
As with Lemuel implying that Steve Sailer "hates blacks" upthread, and Carpeicthus summarizing Sailer's worldview as "racism is awesome, and here's why," your statement that "Sailer...wants to bring back Jim Crow" is indefensible.
As I challenged Lemuel and Carp above to back up their invented quotes with citations from Sailer's writing and was met with silence, so I challenge you to find *anything* in Sailer's work that implies he wants to "bring back Jim Crow" or that Sailer has "a white sheet with eyeholes cut out under his bed." Unless you can show a citation, this is simply a smear cut from whole cloth.
You do raise the between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place dilemma we face, though. As (Harvard psychology professor) Steven Pinker wrote here:
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_3.html#pinker
"The year 2005 saw several public appearances of what will I predict will become the dangerous idea of the next decade: that groups of people may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments...the prospect of genetic tests of group differences in psychological traits is both more likely and more incendiary, and is one that the current intellectual community is ill-equipped to deal with."
In other words, the Sun does not revolve around the Earth because Copernicus said it did, it just does. Lemuel Pitkin calling Copernicus a "heliophile" or some similar "racist"-type slur back then would not have changed the Earth's path around the Sun.
Similarly, there simply *are* group differences in "talents and temperaments," whether we like it or not, and we don't know how to change them. Sailer does not have a white sheet under his bed; he is one of the few intellectuals grappling seriously and honestly with the implications of these differences. As Pinker advises, we need to have a humane and fair intellectual structure to accommodate that, and that is what Sailer and those who read him are trying to come up with.
we know evolution's affected hemoglobin structure, skin color, lactose digestion, and god knows how many other things between races
Wrong. Evolution ahs affected the distribution of traits between populations. Conventional races have no genetic basis whatsoever. In terms of ancestry, most East Africans are more closely related to Europeans than to other Africans. Tibetans are more closely related to American Indians than to Japanese. And so on. Anyone who regards black, white, Asian, etc. as biological catgories is a racist, pure and simple.
Lemuel Pitkin writes:
"Conventional races have no genetic basis whatsoever. Anyone who regards black, white, Asian, etc. as biological catgories is a racist, pure and simple."
Widely-believed due to the, shall we say, disinformation of Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, but incorrect. See Armand Leroi here:
"Who speaks of "racial stocks" anymore? After all, to do so would be to speak of something that many scientists and scholars say does not exist. If modern anthropologists mention the concept of race, it is invariably only to warn against and dismiss it. Likewise many geneticists. "Race is social concept, not a scientific one," according to Dr. Craig Venter -and he should know, since he was first to sequence the human genome. The idea that human races are only social constructs has been the consensus for at least 30 years.
But now, perhaps, that is about to change."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/14leroi.html?ex=1268456400&en=b3dac786e0583b4e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt
And Craig Venter -- the above-mentioned defender of Pitkinism, the guy who mapped the human genome, is now playing for the Orkon team:
"Revealing the genetic basis of personality and behavior will create societal conflicts
From our initial analysis of the sequence of the human genome, particularly with the much smaller than expected number of human genes, the genetic determinists seemed to have clearly suffered a setback. After all, those looking for one gene for each human trait and disease couldn't possibly be accommodated with as few as twenty-odd thousand genes when hundreds of thousands were anticipated...All this will soon undergo a revolutionary transformation. The rate of change of DNA sequencing technology is continuing at an exponential pace. We are approaching the time when we will go from having a few human genome sequences to complex databases containing first tens, to hundreds of thousands, of complete genomes, then millions. Within a decade we will begin rapidly accumulating the complete genetic code of humans along with the phenotypic repertoire of the same individuals. By performing multifactorial analysis of the DNA sequence variations, together with the comprehensive phenotypic information gleaned from every branch of human investigatory discipline, for the first time in history, we will be able to provide answers to quantitatively questions of what is genetic versus what is due to the environment...However, when these new powerful computers and databases are used to help us analyze who we are as humans, will society at large, largely ignorant and afraid of science, be ready for the answers we are likely to get?
"We attribute behaviors in other mammalian species to genes and genetics but when it comes to humans we seem to like the notion that we are all created equal, or that each child is a "blank slate". As we obtain the sequences of more and more mammalian genomes including more human sequences, together with basic observations and some common sense, we will be forced to turn away from the politically correct interpretations, as our new genomic tool sets provide the means to allow us to begin to sort out the reality about nature or nurture. In other words, we are at the threshold of a realistic biology of humankind.
It will inevitably be revealed that there are strong genetic components associated with most aspects of what we attribute to human existence including personality subtypes, language capabilities, mechanical abilities, intelligence, sexual activities and preferences, intuitive thinking, quality of memory, will power, temperament, athletic abilities, etc. We will find unique manifestations of human activity linked to genetics associated with isolated and/or inbred populations.
The danger rests with what we already know: that we are not all created equal. Further danger comes with our ability to quantify and measure the genetic side of the equation before we can fully understand the much more difficult task of evaluating environmental components of human existence. The genetic determinists will appear to be winning again, but we cannot let them forget the range of potential of human achievement with our limiting genetic repertoire."
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_12.html#venter
So what's better, Lemuel -- sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring these unignorable issues and smearing anyone who brings them up as someone who "hates blacks" and should be "excluded and stigmatized" from debate? Or putting our heads to work on, as Steven Pinker urges us, coming up with an intellectual framework that accepts these undeniable realities?
As Venter put it: "will society at large, largely ignorant and afraid of science, be ready for the answers we are likely to get?" If Steve Sailer is listened to, then society might be ready. If Lemuel Pitkin et al silence Sailer et al successfully, we are in trouble.
Also Lemuel: your style of argumentation appears to be "make shit up, and then when Orkon points out that I'm wrong and cites links, ignore them and make more shit up," but can you please provide a citation for this statement:
"In terms of ancestry, most East Africans are more closely related to Europeans than to other Africans. Tibetans are more closely related to American Indians than to Japanese."
According to Cavalli-Sforza's tables of genetic distance, both of these statements of yours are false:
http://www.friesian.com/trees.htm
Scroll down a bit, and you'll see that no, most East Africans are not more closely related to Europeans that to other Africans, and that, no, Tibetans are not more closely related to American Indians than to Japanese.
Again, do you just make this shit up, or do you have a link?
Why do I suspect you'll let this thread die here?
I'm certain to regret wading into this mess, but I'm still waiting to hear about these *enormous* implications for the world that Orkon believes stem from the genetic differences between populations. Should society force East Africans to become distance runners and West Africans to be sprinters? Should society force blondes to have more fun? It seems to me that the people Venter is afraid of are like YOU, Orkon. People who don't fully understand the implications of the data and will attempt to pervert the science to validate their hateful adgendas. So, please explain to me the enormity of the implications.
Karl wrote:
"I'm still waiting to hear about these *enormous* implications for the world that Orkon believes stem from the genetic differences between populations."
Whaddya mean, "still waiting"? Neither you nor anyone else asked, and frankly, they are pretty obvious.
For example, if it turns out to be true that there are IQ differences between groups (which seems likely, see Pinker and Venter upthread at edge.org) and that we don't know how to change that (ibid.), and that IQ is the major determinant of wealth (again, highly plausible, see Vanhanen and Lynn's "IQ and the Wealth of Nations"), then we are going to be stuck with a world for the foreseeable future where certain countries will be poor and others rich. This has *enormous* -- I repeat, *enormous* implications for us; besides being a huge moral issue, it also impacts immigration, the environment, international relations, finance, etc.
"Should society force East Africans to become distance runners and West Africans to be sprinters?"
No, society shouldn't force an East African to be a long-distance runner and a West African to be a sprinter. But society should realize that the reason more East Africans are excellent long-distance runners than West Africans, and vice-versa with sprinting, is genetic and not cultural. As you know if you've read Jon Entine's book, which I'm suspecting you have from the examples you cited.
Oh, and Karl -- you wrote:
"It seems to me that the people Venter is afraid of are like YOU, Orkon. People who don't fully understand the implications of the data and will attempt to pervert the science to validate their hateful adgendas."
Please cite where on this board I have conveyed a "hateful agenda."
It's fascinating -- whenever people run out of arguments on this issue, they accuse their interlocutor of "hate" or "racism," even if, as with Steve Sailer/Lemuel Pitkin upthread and myself here, the accuser is unable to cite any hateful statements whatsoever.
It's as if they think the words "racism" and "hate" are magical talismans that, when deployed, instantly and decisively end any argument in their favor. Sort of like when a scientist boxes a Christians into a corner and the Christian replies that his beliefs are based on "faith".
This has *enormous* -- I repeat, *enormous* implications for us; besides being a huge moral issue, it also impacts immigration, the environment, international relations, finance, etc.
By implication do you mean that we would change our immigration policy to restrict immigrants from countries with lower IQs? Would we change our trade policy in an attempt to take advantage of stupid countries and avoid trading with smart countries? Far from obvious, I'm still not understanding the implications of what you claim to be true about genetic differences. I have no idea how this could possibly affect the environment if these differences have always existed and it's simply an understanding of these differences that we've achieved. What implication does eye color have for the environment?
I completely fail to see how a 5 point difference in average IQ between white and black people would effect anything. In fact, such a finding, even if it were possible, does not have any significant implications whatsoever.
Korha writes:
"I completely fail to see how a 5 point difference in average IQ between white and black people would effect anything. In fact, such a finding, even if it were possible, does not have any significant implications whatsoever."
That's because you have not read any psychometrics. The black-white IQ gap is about 15 points, not 5. 5 is significant, 15 is an entire standard deviation.
For from not having "any significant implications whatsoever," mean IQ differences between countries and (more reliably) regions correlate strongly with differences in per capita GNP, a figure I assume you feel to be important. In Lynn & Vanhanen's IQ&tWoN, table 9.3, page 171 lists, for example, a .857 correlation between regional mean IQs and 1998 per capita GNP.
As Rushton explains:
"The bottom line: well over half (about 58 per cent) of the differences in national wealth can be explained in terms of national differences in average intelligence. Each IQ point above 70 in the national average was worth about $850 in per capita GDP."
http://www.vdare.com/misc/rushton_african_iq.htm
Karl writes:
"Far from obvious, I'm still not understanding the implications of what you claim to be true about genetic differences."
Right, most people don't understand them, which is why we should be discussing them more. But we can't because of the "racist" smear. At least, not quite yet.
Ah, but even if differences exist among populations, then there are still differences among groups of people, whether you're talking about Germans and Zulus or Germans and Swedes, no?
And I don't think all those 15 points are genetic. There is massive racism today. For all I know, none of them are. But some difference must exist somewhere, and when someone finds it, our edifice of no human differences is going to come crashing down.
"That's because you have not read any psychometrics. The black-white IQ gap is about 15 points, not 5. 5 is significant, 15 is an entire standard deviation."
What? Just from some cursory searching it looks like the CURRENT black-white IQ gap in the U.S. is 10-15 points, not controlling for anything. Now throw in various socioeconomic factors, racism, the legacy of slavery, cultural differences, etc., all the things that disadvantage blacks--what you end up with is pretty slim pickings indeed.
"The bottom line: well over half (about 58 per cent) of the differences in national wealth can be explained in terms of national differences in average intelligence. Each IQ point above 70 in the national average was worth about $850 in per capita GDP."
Or perhaps low IQ is correlated with... I don't know, being POOR and UNEDUCATED? IQ is an incredibly flawed measurement in and of itself. It's astonishing that you're trying to generalize such a metric to explain the state of the entire world. I mean, what about the asians, who have higher IQ scores than whites yet somehow are less wealthy?
Orkon, you are not explaining the implications. I am supposed to imply that certain regions of the world have lower GNP because they are genetically inferior intellectually, but I fail to see the importance of that implication. You say that means we'll be "stuck with a world for the foreseeable future where certain countries will be poor and others rich." Does this new genetic correlation reveal the path to economic equality in the foreseeable future?
Also, you have failed to explain how differences in eye color impact the environment. Are you avoiding the issue?
Yes, I'm going to agree with the rest of the list here. The IQ differences could be an effect rather than a cause of low income. What I would expect to see is subtle differences in personality type arising from thousands of years of having a hunter-gatherer society versus a farming one, and it might not even break down along racial lines. But I wouldn't be too surprised if the alleles affecting, say, curiosity and attention span were a little different in frequencies between the Chinese, with their thousands of years of history as a farming people in a complex civilization, and the nomads on their border.
I don't agree with Orkon that economic inequality among nations is secondary to genetic differences in IQ and hence immutable though; we all thought yellow people were inferior until the Japanese creamed the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war and gave the USA a run for our money. (Though I think Africa isn't getting anywhere until AIDS goes away.) In fact, I'm beginning to see why other liberals go for this nature-does-not-exist crap: all the conservatives see any idea of innate human differences and use it as an excuse to justify presently existing inequality because it's genetically based and hence immutable. Pffft.
Though I really shouldn't accuse Sailer of having a white sheet with eyeholes under his bed, I don't know that and it's unfair. He does seem to be a little too fond of the Old South for my taste though. And I'm a little sick of his harping on immigration; I do think there's too much right now, but it's not always bad in every situation.
"He does seem to be a little too fond of the Old South for my taste though"
Got a citatation? I commend you for backing of on most of your attack on sailer, but you are still making a serious accusation. Please back it up.
Whether or not being fond of the Old South is in and of itself horrific is besides the point. The point is, by giving a citation along with your impressions you let people judge for themselves. Don't give people an excuse to just say "SFG thinks he loves the old south so I don't have to even read Sailer's drivel". That is absurdly unfair to Sailer as well as the people who believe your vague impression.
Looking back...eh...you're right. I guess sometimes a palecon is just a paleocon and you read things into people's positions that aren't really there. He has some pretty despicable commenters but you can't really blame Sailer for that.
There was a ridiculous suggestion a while back that the origin of autism is a genetic chemical-castration mechanism by Indian immigrants (can anyone find it?). But you're technically right that he doesn't express malice toward anyone, simply politically incorrect viewpoints which I rarely share, apart from believing immigration should be decreased, albeit for different reasons (labor shortage driving wages up).
As for the old South, notice I said 'for my taste'. Though I still don't think keeping people in an inferior state _and keeping them from moving out_ is fair or democratic.
Whatever. This thread is about to drop off the page anyway, and I think I've lost all my credibility with the MY crowd by saying anything nice about Sailer anyway.
Comments closed March 13, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I think you're probably right about the proper American attitude to the Chinese economy, but the securities market isn't the same thing as the economy. What is it that economists say - the stock market has predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions?
Posted by minderbender | February 27, 2007 3:51 PM