The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMichael Hudson Archive
Celebrating the One Percent
Is Inequality Really Good for the Economy?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_152105888

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

To paraphrase Mark Twain, everyone complains about inequality, but nobody does anything about it.

What they do is to use “inequality” as a takeoff point to project their own views on how to make society more prosperous and at the same time more equal. These views largely depend on whether they view the One Percent as innovative, smart and creative, making wealth by helping the rest of society – or whether, as the great classical economists wrote, the wealthiest layer of the population consist of rentiers, making their income and wealth off the 99 Percent as idle landlords, monopolists and predatory bankers.

Economic statistics show fairly worldwide trends in inequality. After peaking in the 1920s, the reforms of the Great Depression helped make income distribution more equitable and stable until 1980.[1]Anthony B. Atkinson, author of Inequality: What Can Be Done? coined the phrase “Inequality Turn” to describe when economic inequality began to widen around 1980. He was a mentor of Thomas Piketty, and together they worked with Saez to create an historical database on top incomes. Then, in the wake of Thatcherism in Britain and Reaganomics in the United States, inequality really took off. And it took off largely by the financial sector (especially as interest rates retreated from their high of 20 percent in 1980, creating the greatest bond market boom in history). Real estate and industry were financialized, that is, debt leveraged.

Inequality increased steadily until the global financial crash of 2008. Since then, as bankers and bondholders were saved instead of the economy, the top One Percent have pulled even more sharply ahead of the rest of the economy. Meanwhile, the bottom 25 percent of the economy has seen its net worth and relative income deteriorate.

Needless to say, the wealthy have their own public relations agents, backed by the usual phalange of academic useful idiots. Indeed, mainstream economics has become a celebration of the wealthy rentier class for a century now, and as inequality is sharply widening today, celebrators of the One Percent have found a pressing need for their services.

A case in point is the Scottish economist Angus Deaton, author of The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality. (2013). Elected President of the AEA in 2010, he was given the Nobel Economics Prize in 2015 for analyzing trends in consumption, income distribution, poverty and welfare in ways that cause no offense to the wealthy, and in fact treat the increasingly inequitable status quo as perfectly natural and in its own kind of mathematical equilibrium. (This kind of circular mathematical reasoning is the criterion of good economics today.)

His book treats the movie The Great Escape as a metaphor. He deridingly pointed out that nobody would have called the movie “The prisoners left behind.” Describing the escapers as brilliant innovators, he assumes that the wealthiest One Percent likewise have been smart and imaginative enough to break the bonds of conventional thinking to innovate. The founders of Apple, Microsoft and other IT companies are singled out for making everyone’s life richer. And the economy at large has experienced a more or less steady upward climb, above all in public health extending lifespans, conquering disease and pharmaceutical innovation.

I recently was put on the same stage as Mr. Deaton in Berlin, along with my friend David Graeber. We three each have books translated into German to be published this autumn by the wonderful publisher Klett-Cotta, who organized the event at at the Berlin Literaturfestival in mid-September.

In a certain way I find Deaton’s analogy with the movie The Great Escape appropriate. The wealthy have escaped. But the real issue concerns what have they escaped from. They have escaped from regulation, from taxation (thanks to offshore banking enclaves and a rewriting of the tax laws to shift the fiscal burden onto labor and industry). Most of all, Wall Street banksters have escaped from criminal prosecution. There is no need to escape from jail if you can avoid being captured and sentenced in the first place!

A number of recent books – echoed weekly in the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page – attribute the wealthiest One Percent to the assumption that they must be smarter than most other people. At least, smart enough to get into the major business schools and get MBAs to learn how to financialize corporations with zaitech or other debt leveraging, reaping (indeed, “earning”) huge bonuses

The reality is that you don’t have to be smart to make a lot of money. All you need is greed. And that can’t be taught in business schools. In fact, when I went to work as a balance-of-payments analyst at Chase Manhattan in 1964, I was told that the best currency traders came from the Brooklyn or Hong Kong slums. Their entire life was devoted to making money, to rise into the class of the proverbial Babbitts of our time: nouveau riches lacking in real culture or intellectual curiosity.

Of course, for bankers who do venture to “stretch the envelope” (the fraudster’s euphemism for breaking the law, as Citigroup did in 1999 when it merged with Travelers’ Insurance prior to the Clinton administration rejecting Glass-Steagall), you do need smart lawyers. But even here, Donald Trump explained the key that he learned from mob lawyer Roy Cohn: what matters is not so much the law, as what judge you have. And the U.S. courts have been privatized by electing judges whose campaign contributors back deregulators and non-prosecutors. So the wealthy escape from being subject to the law.

Although no moviegoers wanted to see the heroes of the Great Escape movie captured and put back in their prison camp, a great many people wish that the Wall Street crooks from Citigroup, Bank of America and other junk-mortgage fraudsters would be sent to jail, along with Angelo Mazilo of Countrywide Financial. Little love is given to their political lobbyists such as Alan Greenspan, Attorney General Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer and their hirees who refused to prosecute financial fraud.

ORDER IT NOW

Deaton did cite “rent seekers” – but in the sense that his predecessor Nobel prizewinner Buchanan did, locating rent seeking within government, not real estate, monopolies such as pharmaceuticals and information technology, health insurance, cable companies and high finance. So any blame for poverty falls on either the government or on the debtors, renters, unemployed and not-wellborn who are the main victims of today’s rentier economy.

Deaton’s Great Escape sees some problems, but not in the economic system itself – not debt, not monopoly, not the junk mortgage crisis or financial fraud. He cites global warming as the main problem, but not the political power of the oil industry. He singles out education as the way to raise the 99 Percent – but says nothing about the student loan problem, the travesty of for-profit universities funding junk education with government-guaranteed bank loans.

He measures the great improvement in well-being by GDP (gross domestic product). Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs notoriously described his investment bank’s managers and partners of being the most productive individuals in the United States for earning $20 million annually (not including bonuses) – all of which is recorded as adding to the financial sector’s “output” of GDP. There is no concept at all that this is what economists call a zero-sum activity – that is, that Goldman Sachs’s salaries may be unproductive, parasitic, predatory, and the rest of the economy’s loss or overhead.

Such thoughts do not occur in the happy-face views promoted by the One Percent. Deaton’s praise-hymn to the elites assumes that everyone earns what they get, by playing a productive role, not an extractive one.

An even more blatant denial of rent-seeking is a new book by one of the founders of Bain Capital (Mitt Romney’s firm), Edward Conard, The Upside of Inequality attackingthe “demagogues” and “propagandists” who claim that the winnings of the One Percent are largely unearned. Curiously, he does not include Adam Smith, David Ricardo or John Stuart Mill as such “propagandists.” Yet that is what classical free market economics was all about: freeing economies from the unearned rental income and rising land prices that landlords make “in their sleep,” as John Stuart Mill put it. This propaganda book thus misrepresents the program that the major founders of economics urged: public ownership or collection of land rent, natural resource rent, and pubic operation of natural monopolies, headed by the financial sector.

For Conard, the reason for the soaring wealth of the One Percent is not financial, real estate or other monopolistic rent seeking, but the wonders of the information economy. It is Josef Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” of less productive technology, by hard working and dedicated innovators whose creativity raises the level of everyone. So the wealth of the One Percent is a measure of society’s forward march, not a predatory overhead extracted from the economy at large.

Conard’s policy conclusion is that regulation and taxation slows this march of economies toward prosperity as led by the One Percent. As a laudatory Wall Street Journal review of his book summarized his message:“Redistribution – whether achieved through taxation, regulatory restrictions, or social norms – appears,” he asserts, “to have large detrimental effects on risk-taking, innovation, productivity, and growth over the long run, especially in an economy where innovation produced by the entrepreneurial risk-taking of properly trained talent increasingly drives growth.”[2]Richard Epstein, “The Necessity of the Rich,” Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2016. The libertarian reviewer’s only criticism is hilarious: “Mr. Conard overlooks vast numbers of possible reforms. He never, for instance, discusses the weakening of patent law (a real inhibitor of innovation), or the arduous compliance culture that has grown up in the wake of Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare, or how zoning, rent stabilization and affordable-housing laws strangle the housing market. By ignoring the threat that regulation increasingly poses to the economy, his case for the upside of inequality is far weaker than it should be.” His solution is to lower taxes on the rich!

My friend Dave Kelley notes the policy message that is being repeated ad nauseum these days: the assertion that “progressive moves like taxation end up hurting the economy rather than helping it. This ‘I would feed you but you might become dependent on food’ theory is central in showing how consumer societies like ours are returning to feudal distributions of wealth.” This seems to be the policy proposal of the three leading candidates for U.S. President – in our modern post-Citizens United world where elections are bought in much the way that consulships were back in the closing days of the Roman Republic.

[1] Anthony B. Atkinson, author of Inequality: What Can Be Done? coined the phrase “Inequality Turn” to describe when economic inequality began to widen around 1980. He was a mentor of Thomas Piketty, and together they worked with Saez to create an historical database on top incomes.

[2] Richard Epstein, “The Necessity of the Rich,” Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2016. The libertarian reviewer’s only criticism is hilarious: “Mr. Conard overlooks vast numbers of possible reforms. He never, for instance, discusses the weakening of patent law (a real inhibitor of innovation), or the arduous compliance culture that has grown up in the wake of Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare, or how zoning, rent stabilization and affordable-housing laws strangle the housing market. By ignoring the threat that regulation increasingly poses to the economy, his case for the upside of inequality is far weaker than it should be.”

 
• Category: Economics • Tags: American Media, Banking Industry, Inequality 
Hide 104 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. There is rent seeking, and then there is highway roberry, Wells Fargo is but the latest example in a long line of plunder by the criminal elite, with the ultimate insult to injury being a fine of only $185m, and 5,300 little and middle people being sacked while the divisional head gets a parachute of $125m, and so far no criminal indictments. Nice work, if you can get it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /mhudson/celebrating-the-one-percent/#comment-1576953
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. “The reality is that you don’t have to be smart to make a lot of money. All you need is greed.”

    How refreshing. An honest rant against our common enemy instead of another exercise in identity politics.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
    • Replies: @Jim
    If all it took was greed nearly everybody would be rich.
    , @woodNfish
    While I generally liked and agreed with the author, that was the most ignorant statement in it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. RobRich says: • Website

    The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135–the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers–typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities.

    With a little Libertarian reform, in the US thanks to them the top 10% are now millionaires, and would be more if we got stupid things like taxes out of the way.

    Their enemies are the left-influenced envious midwits like the author of this article who have weak character, produce inferior or crackpot work, or demand deranged regulatory schemes when left unsupervised. People like the author could have $10 million and be unhappy and say capitalism has failed if someone had $11 million.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    RobRich says "The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135–the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers–typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities."

    Would that this were true!

    The "inventors, surgeons, engineers" with IQs of 135, while doing the heavy lifting in research and innovation which have created gains in productivity (that, incidentally, have not been shared with the workers) have not, in fact, been rewarded with salaries or bonuses anywhere near commensurate those earned by the financiers--this is the whole point of Mike's thesis, which you have obviously missed.

    Many of you people don't know about this but there was a real war in American Corporate boardrooms in the early 1980's between two factions. The Old Guard (largely WASPs) held that the corporation had an obligation both to the community in which it lived and to its workers. They believed in e.g. corporate donations to community social goods such as local museums, philharmonics, scholarships for disadvantaged school kids etc. These guys claimed that the corporations reason for being was to manufacture a product that sold into the marketplace.

    They were opposed by the new-money corporate raider types who had leveraged their way into wealth and the new generation of Financiers, largely MBAs from Ivy League Universities who witnessed and admired their rise to power. This new guard viewed the corporation as having a responsibility to, first of all, maximize return to stockholders. They rejected the vision of the corporation as having any obligation to the community. Profit that had formerly been earmarked for reinvestment in Research and Development and expanding infrastructure was to be redistributed to shareholders as dividends. Plants were relocated abroad to lower labor costs and take advantage of higher yield emerging markets, thereby maximizing profit. Stodgy notions of responsibility were derided and rejected--literally--by retiring the Old Guard. The Old Guard was voted out of the Boardroom just as they were purged from the Republican Party by the NeoCons. This is a little discussed topic, but it really happened and some of us were witnesses to it.

    There were real ideological battles between those who thought that the company must make something to sell and those who envisioned a future in which, Enron-like, the corporation could exist as some sort of trading company with no other product but its organizing technique--much as President Clinton viewed the finance sector in general, which, if you remember, he predicted would sell its expertise to an astonished and admiring world. And we all know how that turned out. This is when GM began to earn more from finance than manufacturing.

    This new Financial Elite rules America today. Greedy for fame and lucre, rubes such as the Clintons and Obamas are their frontmen and lackeys and the Democratic Party, in a neat Judo throw, now represents the interests of the very wealthy over against those of the worker, all the while passing itself off as the party of the oppressed. What a cruel joke.
    , @bigbadwolf
    "The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135–the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers–typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities."

    That is complete bollocks. Inventors, surgeons, and engineers are typically not among the super-rich. Of the latest cohort of Ph.D. engineers, 44% had no job or even post-doc. Inventors routinely get shafted by the big corporates, who hire lawyers to circumvent patent regulations -- cases can drag on for years. Surgeons and physicians do not need and typically do not have stellar IQs. They might make a comfortable living -- but not $10m, $100m, or a $1bn.

    The commanding heights of the US economy are monopolized by a group of parasitic rentiers and financiers. Leeches and parasites.
    , @War for Blair Mountain
    What a stupid-dishonest comment which is what I would expect from a greedy libertarian or a greedy Alt Righter. The gross wrealth inequality in the US is a direct consequence of deliberate policy decisions of the Greedy Cheating Mega-CEOs.
    Hudson is not advocating perfect economic inequality.



    If the very wealthy don't pay their fair share in taxes....which they aren't...they will make sure that the Native Born White American Working Class..pays a much higher percentage of their income in taxes....And this is exactly what's happening.
    , @Alden
    You obviously don't know any engineers or surgeons. You can't name one surgeon or engineer who makes more than $400,000 a year working as an engineer or surgeon.
    There people with engineering degrees who don't work as engineers but as top top executives make more than $400,000 a year but the haven't worked as engineers for decades but as upper upper management

    Surgeons don't make all that much any more either. The gross income of a practice does not translate into much more than $200,00 to $300,000 before taxes for the surgeons.

    Plastic surgeons in expensive areas like California New York etc make the most but though the practice may make several million a year by the time they have paid all the expenses taxes and employees the surgeons don't have that much to share for their salaries and profit

    Patents? They don't go to the engineers chemists and researchers but to the company for which they work.
    Your post reminds me of something the teachers at up scale suburban high schools used to preach back in the 1960s. Go to college and get rich

    Get out and meet some engineers and surgeons. Nowadays a lot of nurse practitioners and nurse anesthetists make almost as much as Drs without spending half a million or more on college and med school and delaying an adult career until age 33 or so.

    Engineers would be better off getting into the electrician or plumbers unions. At least when an electrician is laid off he or she can go to the union hall, get on the hiring list and get the next job that comes along
    A laid off engineer has to send off hundreds of resumes and hire a head hunter and wait months to get another job if he's lucky.

    I remember when NASA in California laid off hundreds of engineers. The lucky ones ended up teaching high school or community college math
    , @interesting
    WOW, so Kimberly "Kim" Kardashian is that scary smart!!

    who fucking knew, i always thought she was just preying on the morons among us.

    i always wondered why people called Bush "shrub" as if he was stupid but you've opened my eyes to his superior intellect. Same with killary and Bill they must be part of that super duper smart crowd you speak of.
    , @Stephen R. Diamond
    135 super-genius? That's the intellect of an Al Gore or Hillary Clinton.

    But Trump is the proof that you can make a lot of money and not be very smart at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @RobRich
    The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135--the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers--typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities.

    With a little Libertarian reform, in the US thanks to them the top 10% are now millionaires, and would be more if we got stupid things like taxes out of the way.

    Their enemies are the left-influenced envious midwits like the author of this article who have weak character, produce inferior or crackpot work, or demand deranged regulatory schemes when left unsupervised. People like the author could have $10 million and be unhappy and say capitalism has failed if someone had $11 million.

    RobRich says “The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135–the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers–typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities.”

    Would that this were true!

    The “inventors, surgeons, engineers” with IQs of 135, while doing the heavy lifting in research and innovation which have created gains in productivity (that, incidentally, have not been shared with the workers) have not, in fact, been rewarded with salaries or bonuses anywhere near commensurate those earned by the financiers–this is the whole point of Mike’s thesis, which you have obviously missed.

    Many of you people don’t know about this but there was a real war in American Corporate boardrooms in the early 1980′s between two factions. The Old Guard (largely WASPs) held that the corporation had an obligation both to the community in which it lived and to its workers. They believed in e.g. corporate donations to community social goods such as local museums, philharmonics, scholarships for disadvantaged school kids etc. These guys claimed that the corporations reason for being was to manufacture a product that sold into the marketplace.

    They were opposed by the new-money corporate raider types who had leveraged their way into wealth and the new generation of Financiers, largely MBAs from Ivy League Universities who witnessed and admired their rise to power. This new guard viewed the corporation as having a responsibility to, first of all, maximize return to stockholders. They rejected the vision of the corporation as having any obligation to the community. Profit that had formerly been earmarked for reinvestment in Research and Development and expanding infrastructure was to be redistributed to shareholders as dividends. Plants were relocated abroad to lower labor costs and take advantage of higher yield emerging markets, thereby maximizing profit. Stodgy notions of responsibility were derided and rejected–literally–by retiring the Old Guard. The Old Guard was voted out of the Boardroom just as they were purged from the Republican Party by the NeoCons. This is a little discussed topic, but it really happened and some of us were witnesses to it.

    There were real ideological battles between those who thought that the company must make something to sell and those who envisioned a future in which, Enron-like, the corporation could exist as some sort of trading company with no other product but its organizing technique–much as President Clinton viewed the finance sector in general, which, if you remember, he predicted would sell its expertise to an astonished and admiring world. And we all know how that turned out. This is when GM began to earn more from finance than manufacturing.

    This new Financial Elite rules America today. Greedy for fame and lucre, rubes such as the Clintons and Obamas are their frontmen and lackeys and the Democratic Party, in a neat Judo throw, now represents the interests of the very wealthy over against those of the worker, all the while passing itself off as the party of the oppressed. What a cruel joke.

    Read More
    • Agree: John Jeremiah Smith
    • Replies: @Montefrío
    The metamorphosis of Greenwich, CT, from an affluent but sleepy 50s town made up of villages of varying wealth to the vulgar nightmare monument to greed it has become is a subject worthy of a book. Anon's comment about the overthrow of the "Old Guard" is accurate across the board(pun intended): "white shoe" law firms, investment banks, brokerages...

    A degree of financial security is desirable, but the pathological pursuit of MORE long after one has enough is repulsive. Seneca had some wise words on the subject.
    , @Father O'Hara
    Who are these (((New Guard))) people? And why are they so contemptuous of the larger society? A conundrum indeed!
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Your contribution as "Anonymous" would be more valuable if readers could know that your online identity was stable. If you were Oldanon or Anontrad for example you might have a following that didn't suspect trolling.
    , @another fred

    Many of you people don’t know about this but there was a real war in American Corporate boardrooms in the early 1980′s between two factions. The Old Guard (largely WASPs) held that the corporation had an obligation both to the community in which it lived and to its workers. They believed in e.g. corporate donations to community social goods such as local museums, philharmonics, scholarships for disadvantaged school kids etc. These guys claimed that the corporations reason for being was to manufacture a product that sold into the marketplace.
     
    An excellent point in an excellent post. In my working career I witnessed this first hand.

    I don't know if you are the same "Anonymous" who wrote of the 1% facing a firing squad in #85, but that is another point that may lie in the future, at least in some countries.

    Neither faction, the top nor the bottom of society are angels, though. The danger for the top dogs is when they squeeze the productive silent middle into alliance with the lumpenproletariat.

    Have no illusions though, that alliance with the lumpen has dangers of its own. Revolutions from below do not establish prosperous polities. They may necessarily clear rot at the top, but they are not picnics.
    , @RobRich
    Irrelevant to my point, except to show your envy of others: to you a millionaire is poor if there is a billionaire somewhere.

    Not to mention the many making $100K+ a year.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @RobRich
    The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135--the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers--typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities.

    With a little Libertarian reform, in the US thanks to them the top 10% are now millionaires, and would be more if we got stupid things like taxes out of the way.

    Their enemies are the left-influenced envious midwits like the author of this article who have weak character, produce inferior or crackpot work, or demand deranged regulatory schemes when left unsupervised. People like the author could have $10 million and be unhappy and say capitalism has failed if someone had $11 million.

    “The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135–the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers–typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities.”

    That is complete bollocks. Inventors, surgeons, and engineers are typically not among the super-rich. Of the latest cohort of Ph.D. engineers, 44% had no job or even post-doc. Inventors routinely get shafted by the big corporates, who hire lawyers to circumvent patent regulations — cases can drag on for years. Surgeons and physicians do not need and typically do not have stellar IQs. They might make a comfortable living — but not $10m, $100m, or a $1bn.

    The commanding heights of the US economy are monopolized by a group of parasitic rentiers and financiers. Leeches and parasites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    I recall Linda Gottfredson's data indicated the average IQ of US physicians to be about 125.
    , @RobRich
    The point is they ARE the top 1% of the population and do well.

    You miss that you, me and they're like morons to hyper-geniuses who either have great social or hard capital if they desire, all things being equal etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. I suppose the epithet “super genius” justifies one to fulfill mad dreams of dominating everyone else. Super sociopath is more apt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Jim says:

    I sure that the vast majority of the elite have IQ’s well over one standard deviation above the US average. Obviously people like Jim Simons or Bill Gates are highly intelligent. I recall seeing some data about the educational attainments of CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies. Virtually all were college graduates and an astounding percentage had Phd’s.

    The defendents at Nuremburg, who were reasonably representative of the high elite of Nazi Germany, were given IQ tests by US Army psychologists. Their average IQ was about 128, close to two standard deviations above the German average. I think only Streicher and Kaltenbrunner were much below 120 and both of them were still substantially above the German average.

    The data across the world that I’ve seen on this matter indicate that elites in various countries across the world generally have average IQ’s more than one-and-half standard deviations above the average of their respective countries.

    The fact that people in the elite are highly intelligent is of course completely compatible with the assertion that many of their activities may be harmful to the rest of us. However it is simply silly to assert that the success of elite individuals has nothing to do with any of their personal characteristics other than greed. High intelligence is very characteristic of elite individuals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nsa
    You nailed it, Jim. It's called the Bell Curve....intelligence alone explains why the Jooies are on top and run things, and the Afros are on the bottom sucking dry tit. That great american philosopher, John Wayne, famously quipped: "life is tough, but it's doubly tough if you're stupid".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Jim says:
    @bigbadwolf
    "The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135–the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers–typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities."

    That is complete bollocks. Inventors, surgeons, and engineers are typically not among the super-rich. Of the latest cohort of Ph.D. engineers, 44% had no job or even post-doc. Inventors routinely get shafted by the big corporates, who hire lawyers to circumvent patent regulations -- cases can drag on for years. Surgeons and physicians do not need and typically do not have stellar IQs. They might make a comfortable living -- but not $10m, $100m, or a $1bn.

    The commanding heights of the US economy are monopolized by a group of parasitic rentiers and financiers. Leeches and parasites.

    I recall Linda Gottfredson’s data indicated the average IQ of US physicians to be about 125.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Jim says:
    @WorkingClass
    "The reality is that you don’t have to be smart to make a lot of money. All you need is greed."

    How refreshing. An honest rant against our common enemy instead of another exercise in identity politics.

    If all it took was greed nearly everybody would be rich.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. The Brits did a study on these issues where they followed people from diverse economic backgrounds for several decades. They found that, over the long haul, success correlated strongly with class. It is societal connections that generally determine economic outcomes. There are exceptions of course.

    I eventually tracked down to my own satisfaction, where the inequality was coming from. Bear in mind that we are talking about gross inequality, not merely average or typical inequality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    The economist Gregory Clark has made extensive studies of social mobility over very long periods of time in places like Britain, China etc. He has found that social mobility over long periods tends to be low both in Britain, China and just about everywhere he was able to get data. He believes that genetics is the most important factor in causing this phenomenon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. mukat says:

    With #WhiteGenocide about halfway completed in the United States, it doesn’t matter whether we have Ron Paul’s, Michael Snyder’s or Larry Summers’ economy.

    If I may speak for those of us on the right, we’ll accept any goddamn economy from the left if you will stop imposing #WhiteGenocide. Please, stop.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Jim says:
    @Si1ver1ock
    The Brits did a study on these issues where they followed people from diverse economic backgrounds for several decades. They found that, over the long haul, success correlated strongly with class. It is societal connections that generally determine economic outcomes. There are exceptions of course.

    I eventually tracked down to my own satisfaction, where the inequality was coming from. Bear in mind that we are talking about gross inequality, not merely average or typical inequality.

    The economist Gregory Clark has made extensive studies of social mobility over very long periods of time in places like Britain, China etc. He has found that social mobility over long periods tends to be low both in Britain, China and just about everywhere he was able to get data. He believes that genetics is the most important factor in causing this phenomenon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Could be genetics.

    Could be inherited family culture and familial pressures. Over time, family members who don't respond to family pressures to succeed marry out and strangers attracted to an elite family's approach to life will marry in. Thus the family name becomes merely a "banner" under which people with the particular approach to life - greed, power lust - congregate.

    In Poland, Christian nobles who wished to engage in money lending converted to Judaism, and rich Jews who wished to be landowners were babtized.

    "Genetics" has become a simplistic catch all phrase for people who don't want to think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. woodNfish says:
    @WorkingClass
    "The reality is that you don’t have to be smart to make a lot of money. All you need is greed."

    How refreshing. An honest rant against our common enemy instead of another exercise in identity politics.

    While I generally liked and agreed with the author, that was the most ignorant statement in it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Another historically inaccurate article from an historically ignorant economist. Throughout this piece there is no mention of Free Trade, now known as Globalisation. This is the fundamental driver of economic inequality in America and other ( formerly ) industrial economies.
    The Kennedy Round of Gatt was agreed 1967-68 and ushered in, more or less, Free Trade from 1972-3. In real terms, median wages of full time American workers peaked as long ago as 1973 and are now over 20% less than in 1973. Other countries have experienced losses, though not as bad.
    The process ran like this. Free Trade. Massive import penetration, closure of indigenous companies and whole sectors. Foreign importers buy these companies or set up their own ones. 1990s, these companies as well as indigenous survivors outsource and offshore. Massive American job losses, balance of trade deficits and social problems.
    Likewise, the free movement of services is the root cause of the financial malignancy we suffer.
    We need Mercantilism and we need it soon !

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfred1860
    Free trade is just another example of deregulation and caving to the pressure exerted by the rentier class.
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    Throughout this piece there is no mention of Free Trade, now known as Globalisation. This is the fundamental driver of economic inequality in America and other ( formerly ) industrial economies.
     
    Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    Unregulated, unbalanced, predatory "free trade" contributes significantly to economic inequality in America.

    Regulated, countered-and-balanced free trade, and a non-corrupt American government, would contribute significantly to economic equality in America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. AaronB says:
    @Jim
    The economist Gregory Clark has made extensive studies of social mobility over very long periods of time in places like Britain, China etc. He has found that social mobility over long periods tends to be low both in Britain, China and just about everywhere he was able to get data. He believes that genetics is the most important factor in causing this phenomenon.

    Could be genetics.

    Could be inherited family culture and familial pressures. Over time, family members who don’t respond to family pressures to succeed marry out and strangers attracted to an elite family’s approach to life will marry in. Thus the family name becomes merely a “banner” under which people with the particular approach to life – greed, power lust – congregate.

    In Poland, Christian nobles who wished to engage in money lending converted to Judaism, and rich Jews who wished to be landowners were babtized.

    “Genetics” has become a simplistic catch all phrase for people who don’t want to think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Conversions to Judaism on the part of Polish nobles were certainly miniscule if they ever happened at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Anonymous
    RobRich says "The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135–the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers–typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities."

    Would that this were true!

    The "inventors, surgeons, engineers" with IQs of 135, while doing the heavy lifting in research and innovation which have created gains in productivity (that, incidentally, have not been shared with the workers) have not, in fact, been rewarded with salaries or bonuses anywhere near commensurate those earned by the financiers--this is the whole point of Mike's thesis, which you have obviously missed.

    Many of you people don't know about this but there was a real war in American Corporate boardrooms in the early 1980's between two factions. The Old Guard (largely WASPs) held that the corporation had an obligation both to the community in which it lived and to its workers. They believed in e.g. corporate donations to community social goods such as local museums, philharmonics, scholarships for disadvantaged school kids etc. These guys claimed that the corporations reason for being was to manufacture a product that sold into the marketplace.

    They were opposed by the new-money corporate raider types who had leveraged their way into wealth and the new generation of Financiers, largely MBAs from Ivy League Universities who witnessed and admired their rise to power. This new guard viewed the corporation as having a responsibility to, first of all, maximize return to stockholders. They rejected the vision of the corporation as having any obligation to the community. Profit that had formerly been earmarked for reinvestment in Research and Development and expanding infrastructure was to be redistributed to shareholders as dividends. Plants were relocated abroad to lower labor costs and take advantage of higher yield emerging markets, thereby maximizing profit. Stodgy notions of responsibility were derided and rejected--literally--by retiring the Old Guard. The Old Guard was voted out of the Boardroom just as they were purged from the Republican Party by the NeoCons. This is a little discussed topic, but it really happened and some of us were witnesses to it.

    There were real ideological battles between those who thought that the company must make something to sell and those who envisioned a future in which, Enron-like, the corporation could exist as some sort of trading company with no other product but its organizing technique--much as President Clinton viewed the finance sector in general, which, if you remember, he predicted would sell its expertise to an astonished and admiring world. And we all know how that turned out. This is when GM began to earn more from finance than manufacturing.

    This new Financial Elite rules America today. Greedy for fame and lucre, rubes such as the Clintons and Obamas are their frontmen and lackeys and the Democratic Party, in a neat Judo throw, now represents the interests of the very wealthy over against those of the worker, all the while passing itself off as the party of the oppressed. What a cruel joke.

    The metamorphosis of Greenwich, CT, from an affluent but sleepy 50s town made up of villages of varying wealth to the vulgar nightmare monument to greed it has become is a subject worthy of a book. Anon’s comment about the overthrow of the “Old Guard” is accurate across the board(pun intended): “white shoe” law firms, investment banks, brokerages…

    A degree of financial security is desirable, but the pathological pursuit of MORE long after one has enough is repulsive. Seneca had some wise words on the subject.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "A degree of financial security is desirable, but the pathological pursuit of MORE long after one has enough is repulsive. Seneca had some wise words on the subject."

    Agree. The people today who keep seeking more wealth, despite having enormous amounts, are pigs, especially the ones like Zuckerberg who seek even more money by hiring less expensive foreign workers instead of American ones.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @RobRich
    The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135--the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers--typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities.

    With a little Libertarian reform, in the US thanks to them the top 10% are now millionaires, and would be more if we got stupid things like taxes out of the way.

    Their enemies are the left-influenced envious midwits like the author of this article who have weak character, produce inferior or crackpot work, or demand deranged regulatory schemes when left unsupervised. People like the author could have $10 million and be unhappy and say capitalism has failed if someone had $11 million.

    What a stupid-dishonest comment which is what I would expect from a greedy libertarian or a greedy Alt Righter. The gross wrealth inequality in the US is a direct consequence of deliberate policy decisions of the Greedy Cheating Mega-CEOs.
    Hudson is not advocating perfect economic inequality.

    If the very wealthy don’t pay their fair share in taxes….which they aren’t…they will make sure that the Native Born White American Working Class..pays a much higher percentage of their income in taxes….And this is exactly what’s happening.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    To be more concrete on this issue of wealth inequality in the US:

    The economic dispossession of The Native Born White American Working Class is a direct consequence of the open and deliberate policy of the Greedy Cheating White MEGA-CEO to globalize US labor markets so as to deny the Native Born White American Working Class of the very great benefit of a very severe labor scarcity that would have occurred if:

    1)if the 1965 Immigration Reform Act had not been passed

    2)if a National Origins Immigration Policy had been passed that completely excluded all nonwhites forever..

    Economic dispossession is nasty enough…but the Globalization of US labor markets has also has had the very nasty demographic consequences for the Historic Native Born White American Working Cass…for the open and deliberate policy of globalizing US labor markets via the legal importation of nonwhite scab labor from around the world has allowed various nonwhite Fifth Columns from places such as China and India to entrench themselves on US soil which allows the various nonwhite fifth columns to vote whitey into a violently persecuted racial minority on Nov 8 2016.

    And if you accept my analysis above, then it should be very obvious that IQ test score psychometric jibber jabber as a framework for understanding what is going on in the US in 2016 is irrelevant and worthless…

    It is not just the number of nonwhites that migrate to the US. Nonwhite scab labor scales up because nonwhite foreigners breed on US soil and produce a nonwhite geneline. So the total amount of nonwhite scab labor in US Labor Markets=nonwhite foreigners+their US born children….The scale of nonwhite scab labor in US labor markets is much bigger than anyone realizes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    And if you accept my analysis above, then it should be very obvious that IQ test score psychometric jibber jabber as a framework for understanding what is going on in the US in 2016 is irrelevant and worthless…
     
    Awwww...stop spoiling all that HBD fun they're having!!

    Yes, the "IQ" argument -- which may have some trivial degree of application to culture-oriented niche situations -- is utter crap as applied to economics.
    , @Alden
    Don't forget the conservatives, globalists, idiot intellectuals, and especially employers beloved high IQ Asians who seem to have all the STEM jobs sewed up.

    Ever try to find an American White Man physician or dentist under the age of 60 in California? It's very difficult, especially dentists
    And even when one does find an American White Man dr every other dr in the practice and all the clerks and techs are non White women.

    But go to an Asian Persian Israeli Indian or Russian dr or dentist and all the clerks and techs are his or her clan members, no American Whites need apply.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Verymuchalive
    Another historically inaccurate article from an historically ignorant economist. Throughout this piece there is no mention of Free Trade, now known as Globalisation. This is the fundamental driver of economic inequality in America and other ( formerly ) industrial economies.
    The Kennedy Round of Gatt was agreed 1967-68 and ushered in, more or less, Free Trade from 1972-3. In real terms, median wages of full time American workers peaked as long ago as 1973 and are now over 20% less than in 1973. Other countries have experienced losses, though not as bad.
    The process ran like this. Free Trade. Massive import penetration, closure of indigenous companies and whole sectors. Foreign importers buy these companies or set up their own ones. 1990s, these companies as well as indigenous survivors outsource and offshore. Massive American job losses, balance of trade deficits and social problems.
    Likewise, the free movement of services is the root cause of the financial malignancy we suffer.
    We need Mercantilism and we need it soon !

    Free trade is just another example of deregulation and caving to the pressure exerted by the rentier class.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. nsa says:
    @Jim
    I sure that the vast majority of the elite have IQ's well over one standard deviation above the US average. Obviously people like Jim Simons or Bill Gates are highly intelligent. I recall seeing some data about the educational attainments of CEO's of Fortune 500 companies. Virtually all were college graduates and an astounding percentage had Phd's.

    The defendents at Nuremburg, who were reasonably representative of the high elite of Nazi Germany, were given IQ tests by US Army psychologists. Their average IQ was about 128, close to two standard deviations above the German average. I think only Streicher and Kaltenbrunner were much below 120 and both of them were still substantially above the German average.

    The data across the world that I've seen on this matter indicate that elites in various countries across the world generally have average IQ's more than one-and-half standard deviations above the average of their respective countries.

    The fact that people in the elite are highly intelligent is of course completely compatible with the assertion that many of their activities may be harmful to the rest of us. However it is simply silly to assert that the success of elite individuals has nothing to do with any of their personal characteristics other than greed. High intelligence is very characteristic of elite individuals.

    You nailed it, Jim. It’s called the Bell Curve….intelligence alone explains why the Jooies are on top and run things, and the Afros are on the bottom sucking dry tit. That great american philosopher, John Wayne, famously quipped: “life is tough, but it’s doubly tough if you’re stupid”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    IQ test score does not explain extreme wealth inequality. IQ test score jibber jabber is used to justify the mega-greed of the MEGA-CEO GREEDY CHEATING CLASS. Economies and Political Systems can be organized in different ways.

    I have always argues that the scientific depth of IQ test psychometrics ranks near the bottom in terms of the scientific talent it attracts and in terms of scientific depth. IQ test score psychometrics is only about one thing:finding a scientific justification for a particular kind of economic and political system.


    Message to the Alt Right:IQ test score psychometrics is 100 percent irrelevant to the battle we are waging..to our revolt...And our revolt is fundamentally against post-1965 race-replacement immigration policy and the corresponding massive theft of Native Born White American Working Class Wealth by the White Liberal Greedy Cheating MEGA-CEO CLASS...This is all the Alt Right should be talking about in public instead of fashy haircuts....and wet dreams about Pinochet and Franco.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Inequality is good, crony capitalism is bad.

    Inequality due to crony capitalism is really bad.

    The US is swimming in crony capitalism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. @Verymuchalive
    Another historically inaccurate article from an historically ignorant economist. Throughout this piece there is no mention of Free Trade, now known as Globalisation. This is the fundamental driver of economic inequality in America and other ( formerly ) industrial economies.
    The Kennedy Round of Gatt was agreed 1967-68 and ushered in, more or less, Free Trade from 1972-3. In real terms, median wages of full time American workers peaked as long ago as 1973 and are now over 20% less than in 1973. Other countries have experienced losses, though not as bad.
    The process ran like this. Free Trade. Massive import penetration, closure of indigenous companies and whole sectors. Foreign importers buy these companies or set up their own ones. 1990s, these companies as well as indigenous survivors outsource and offshore. Massive American job losses, balance of trade deficits and social problems.
    Likewise, the free movement of services is the root cause of the financial malignancy we suffer.
    We need Mercantilism and we need it soon !

    Throughout this piece there is no mention of Free Trade, now known as Globalisation. This is the fundamental driver of economic inequality in America and other ( formerly ) industrial economies.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    Unregulated, unbalanced, predatory “free trade” contributes significantly to economic inequality in America.

    Regulated, countered-and-balanced free trade, and a non-corrupt American government, would contribute significantly to economic equality in America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Free Trade regulated, countered - and- balanced is not Free Trade anymore but a form of Mercantilism IMHO. We can disagree on what we call it - a rose is a rose by any other name - but these policies need to be implemented quickly before America and other Western countries suffer severe economic collapse. Mr Trump may be our last chance.
    The present situation is dire and best summed up by the old Pat Buchanan quote, "Free Trade, like Free Love, is not free."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @War for Blair Mountain
    To be more concrete on this issue of wealth inequality in the US:


    The economic dispossession of The Native Born White American Working Class is a direct consequence of the open and deliberate policy of the Greedy Cheating White MEGA-CEO to globalize US labor markets so as to deny the Native Born White American Working Class of the very great benefit of a very severe labor scarcity that would have occurred if:

    1)if the 1965 Immigration Reform Act had not been passed

    2)if a National Origins Immigration Policy had been passed that completely excluded all nonwhites forever..


    Economic dispossession is nasty enough...but the Globalization of US labor markets has also has had the very nasty demographic consequences for the Historic Native Born White American Working Cass...for the open and deliberate policy of globalizing US labor markets via the legal importation of nonwhite scab labor from around the world has allowed various nonwhite Fifth Columns from places such as China and India to entrench themselves on US soil which allows the various nonwhite fifth columns to vote whitey into a violently persecuted racial minority on Nov 8 2016.


    And if you accept my analysis above, then it should be very obvious that IQ test score psychometric jibber jabber as a framework for understanding what is going on in the US in 2016 is irrelevant and worthless...


    It is not just the number of nonwhites that migrate to the US. Nonwhite scab labor scales up because nonwhite foreigners breed on US soil and produce a nonwhite geneline. So the total amount of nonwhite scab labor in US Labor Markets=nonwhite foreigners+their US born children....The scale of nonwhite scab labor in US labor markets is much bigger than anyone realizes.

    And if you accept my analysis above, then it should be very obvious that IQ test score psychometric jibber jabber as a framework for understanding what is going on in the US in 2016 is irrelevant and worthless…

    Awwww…stop spoiling all that HBD fun they’re having!!

    Yes, the “IQ” argument — which may have some trivial degree of application to culture-oriented niche situations — is utter crap as applied to economics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Nothing correlates better with economic success than IQ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Most of all, Wall Street banksters have escaped from criminal prosecution. There is no need to escape from jail if you can avoid being captured and sentenced in the first place!

    Jail? Just kill them — there’s always more to take their places, if anything they do AT ALL has some valid economic function. Seriously, just kill them; it’s a good thing.

    It’s a situation similar to what happens when you lift a sheet of tin used to cover a granary. The full range of rats, from pink babes to rank adults, runs wild trying to escape the light. You may lay about vigorously with shovel, but many will get away. You’ve gotta keep after ‘em, ya know? That’s what virtue, honesty, integrity and principled humanity is all about — smacking the crap out of evil, every day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Alden says:
    @RobRich
    The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135--the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers--typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities.

    With a little Libertarian reform, in the US thanks to them the top 10% are now millionaires, and would be more if we got stupid things like taxes out of the way.

    Their enemies are the left-influenced envious midwits like the author of this article who have weak character, produce inferior or crackpot work, or demand deranged regulatory schemes when left unsupervised. People like the author could have $10 million and be unhappy and say capitalism has failed if someone had $11 million.

    You obviously don’t know any engineers or surgeons. You can’t name one surgeon or engineer who makes more than $400,000 a year working as an engineer or surgeon.
    There people with engineering degrees who don’t work as engineers but as top top executives make more than $400,000 a year but the haven’t worked as engineers for decades but as upper upper management

    Surgeons don’t make all that much any more either. The gross income of a practice does not translate into much more than $200,00 to $300,000 before taxes for the surgeons.

    Plastic surgeons in expensive areas like California New York etc make the most but though the practice may make several million a year by the time they have paid all the expenses taxes and employees the surgeons don’t have that much to share for their salaries and profit

    Patents? They don’t go to the engineers chemists and researchers but to the company for which they work.
    Your post reminds me of something the teachers at up scale suburban high schools used to preach back in the 1960s. Go to college and get rich

    Get out and meet some engineers and surgeons. Nowadays a lot of nurse practitioners and nurse anesthetists make almost as much as Drs without spending half a million or more on college and med school and delaying an adult career until age 33 or so.

    Engineers would be better off getting into the electrician or plumbers unions. At least when an electrician is laid off he or she can go to the union hall, get on the hiring list and get the next job that comes along
    A laid off engineer has to send off hundreds of resumes and hire a head hunter and wait months to get another job if he’s lucky.

    I remember when NASA in California laid off hundreds of engineers. The lucky ones ended up teaching high school or community college math

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    I used to live in Fort Bend County right next to Houston. I remember once driving around in that area and remarking to the person I was with that all the huge mansions probably belonged to doctors and lawyers. On no, I was told, they belong to petroleum engineers. Last I heard, newly graduated petroleum engineers with no experience whatever were being hired at starting salaries of $100,000. Probably beats becoming an electrician or plumber.
    , @Lucius

    Patents? They don’t go to the engineers chemists and researchers but to the company for which they work.
     
    At my company, an engineer who receives a patent gets a $500 bonus. The patent, as you say, is the company's.

    There people with engineering degrees who don’t work as engineers but as top top executives make more than $400,000 a year but the haven’t worked as engineers for decades but as upper upper management
     
    Those jobs are few and far between, and at THAT, they're not in the 1%. Average income of the 1% is 715,000USD or so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @nsa
    You nailed it, Jim. It's called the Bell Curve....intelligence alone explains why the Jooies are on top and run things, and the Afros are on the bottom sucking dry tit. That great american philosopher, John Wayne, famously quipped: "life is tough, but it's doubly tough if you're stupid".

    IQ test score does not explain extreme wealth inequality. IQ test score jibber jabber is used to justify the mega-greed of the MEGA-CEO GREEDY CHEATING CLASS. Economies and Political Systems can be organized in different ways.

    I have always argues that the scientific depth of IQ test psychometrics ranks near the bottom in terms of the scientific talent it attracts and in terms of scientific depth. IQ test score psychometrics is only about one thing:finding a scientific justification for a particular kind of economic and political system.

    Message to the Alt Right:IQ test score psychometrics is 100 percent irrelevant to the battle we are waging..to our revolt…And our revolt is fundamentally against post-1965 race-replacement immigration policy and the corresponding massive theft of Native Born White American Working Class Wealth by the White Liberal Greedy Cheating MEGA-CEO CLASS…This is all the Alt Right should be talking about in public instead of fashy haircuts….and wet dreams about Pinochet and Franco.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The advantage of high IQ in America was destroyed by the federal government in less than 10 years. 1968 affirmative action civil rights act, and just 3 1970s court decisions, Bakke, Griggs vs Duke power and Kaiser vs Weber.
    That law and those findings decreed that the most highly qualified intelligent White must be shoved aside in favor of an illiterate black or non White immigrant.

    The EEOC, civil rights division of the DOJ numerous state county and city agencies plus mega bucks taxpayer legal foundations such as ACLU ferociously enforce the no Whites need apply laws.
    Banks have quotas on commercial loans By federal and most state law, a certain number of unqualified non Whites must be given loans and a certain number of qualified Whites must be turned down for commercial loans. And if you are White forget about SBA loans tax breaks and other incentives that go only to non Whites and crooked immigrants.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Jim says:
    @AaronB
    Could be genetics.

    Could be inherited family culture and familial pressures. Over time, family members who don't respond to family pressures to succeed marry out and strangers attracted to an elite family's approach to life will marry in. Thus the family name becomes merely a "banner" under which people with the particular approach to life - greed, power lust - congregate.

    In Poland, Christian nobles who wished to engage in money lending converted to Judaism, and rich Jews who wished to be landowners were babtized.

    "Genetics" has become a simplistic catch all phrase for people who don't want to think.

    Conversions to Judaism on the part of Polish nobles were certainly miniscule if they ever happened at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Probably, it's just a good illustration of the principle. It did happen, but was not common.

    Point is, imagine an elite family one thousand years ago. Over time, ambitious people who wish to become elite marry into this family. We know this was quite common. The name stays the same, the genetic stock changes every few generations.

    The persistence of elite family names is EXACTLY what anyone would expect. The initial aristocractic names would HAVE to remain highly prevalent even as genes completely changed. The only thing that could change this is foreign conquest and imposition of new aristocratic names. That's why in England we see Norman names but not Anglo Saxon ones, as no rich parvenu seeking social cachet would marry into old names that no longer have value.

    No need to appeal to genes, unless you have a pre-assumption.

    As for IQ and success, greed matters more, but who measures greed?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Jim says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    And if you accept my analysis above, then it should be very obvious that IQ test score psychometric jibber jabber as a framework for understanding what is going on in the US in 2016 is irrelevant and worthless…
     
    Awwww...stop spoiling all that HBD fun they're having!!

    Yes, the "IQ" argument -- which may have some trivial degree of application to culture-oriented niche situations -- is utter crap as applied to economics.

    Nothing correlates better with economic success than IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Nothing correlates better with economic success than IQ.
     
    LOL. Sorry, but circumstances of birth show the greatest correlation to economic success. The more affluent situation (family wealth, social position) into which you are born, the more affluent you will be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Jim says:
    @Alden
    You obviously don't know any engineers or surgeons. You can't name one surgeon or engineer who makes more than $400,000 a year working as an engineer or surgeon.
    There people with engineering degrees who don't work as engineers but as top top executives make more than $400,000 a year but the haven't worked as engineers for decades but as upper upper management

    Surgeons don't make all that much any more either. The gross income of a practice does not translate into much more than $200,00 to $300,000 before taxes for the surgeons.

    Plastic surgeons in expensive areas like California New York etc make the most but though the practice may make several million a year by the time they have paid all the expenses taxes and employees the surgeons don't have that much to share for their salaries and profit

    Patents? They don't go to the engineers chemists and researchers but to the company for which they work.
    Your post reminds me of something the teachers at up scale suburban high schools used to preach back in the 1960s. Go to college and get rich

    Get out and meet some engineers and surgeons. Nowadays a lot of nurse practitioners and nurse anesthetists make almost as much as Drs without spending half a million or more on college and med school and delaying an adult career until age 33 or so.

    Engineers would be better off getting into the electrician or plumbers unions. At least when an electrician is laid off he or she can go to the union hall, get on the hiring list and get the next job that comes along
    A laid off engineer has to send off hundreds of resumes and hire a head hunter and wait months to get another job if he's lucky.

    I remember when NASA in California laid off hundreds of engineers. The lucky ones ended up teaching high school or community college math

    I used to live in Fort Bend County right next to Houston. I remember once driving around in that area and remarking to the person I was with that all the huge mansions probably belonged to doctors and lawyers. On no, I was told, they belong to petroleum engineers. Last I heard, newly graduated petroleum engineers with no experience whatever were being hired at starting salaries of $100,000. Probably beats becoming an electrician or plumber.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    $100,000 is not mega rich It's comfortable upper middle class depending on the cost of housing taxes etc where you live. And most of the many engineers I have known work in 3 year contracts and scramble for a long time to get another job when the lay offs come and they always come.

    Most of the electricians I know make about $200,000 to $220,000 a year. Of course that doesn't mean much in California. Most of the engineers I knew ended up teaching math after a few layoffs. I spent the last 14 years of my working life at a top 10 university. The White American engineers and programmers just were not hired. The non citizen and student visa Asians generally were hired late winter of senior year.
    , @interesting
    "hired at starting salaries of $100,000"

    that's shit money and wouldn't qualify you to buy a crap shack in socal
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Alden says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    To be more concrete on this issue of wealth inequality in the US:


    The economic dispossession of The Native Born White American Working Class is a direct consequence of the open and deliberate policy of the Greedy Cheating White MEGA-CEO to globalize US labor markets so as to deny the Native Born White American Working Class of the very great benefit of a very severe labor scarcity that would have occurred if:

    1)if the 1965 Immigration Reform Act had not been passed

    2)if a National Origins Immigration Policy had been passed that completely excluded all nonwhites forever..


    Economic dispossession is nasty enough...but the Globalization of US labor markets has also has had the very nasty demographic consequences for the Historic Native Born White American Working Cass...for the open and deliberate policy of globalizing US labor markets via the legal importation of nonwhite scab labor from around the world has allowed various nonwhite Fifth Columns from places such as China and India to entrench themselves on US soil which allows the various nonwhite fifth columns to vote whitey into a violently persecuted racial minority on Nov 8 2016.


    And if you accept my analysis above, then it should be very obvious that IQ test score psychometric jibber jabber as a framework for understanding what is going on in the US in 2016 is irrelevant and worthless...


    It is not just the number of nonwhites that migrate to the US. Nonwhite scab labor scales up because nonwhite foreigners breed on US soil and produce a nonwhite geneline. So the total amount of nonwhite scab labor in US Labor Markets=nonwhite foreigners+their US born children....The scale of nonwhite scab labor in US labor markets is much bigger than anyone realizes.

    Don’t forget the conservatives, globalists, idiot intellectuals, and especially employers beloved high IQ Asians who seem to have all the STEM jobs sewed up.

    Ever try to find an American White Man physician or dentist under the age of 60 in California? It’s very difficult, especially dentists
    And even when one does find an American White Man dr every other dr in the practice and all the clerks and techs are non White women.

    But go to an Asian Persian Israeli Indian or Russian dr or dentist and all the clerks and techs are his or her clan members, no American Whites need apply.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. AaronB says:
    @Jim
    Conversions to Judaism on the part of Polish nobles were certainly miniscule if they ever happened at all.

    Probably, it’s just a good illustration of the principle. It did happen, but was not common.

    Point is, imagine an elite family one thousand years ago. Over time, ambitious people who wish to become elite marry into this family. We know this was quite common. The name stays the same, the genetic stock changes every few generations.

    The persistence of elite family names is EXACTLY what anyone would expect. The initial aristocractic names would HAVE to remain highly prevalent even as genes completely changed. The only thing that could change this is foreign conquest and imposition of new aristocratic names. That’s why in England we see Norman names but not Anglo Saxon ones, as no rich parvenu seeking social cachet would marry into old names that no longer have value.

    No need to appeal to genes, unless you have a pre-assumption.

    As for IQ and success, greed matters more, but who measures greed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    If no one has measured greed in a scientifically valid way then there is no empirical basis for the assertion that greed levels are higher in more economically successful individuals.
    , @Jim
    AaronB - I'm curious. What are the know cases of Polish nobles converting to Judaism?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Alden says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    IQ test score does not explain extreme wealth inequality. IQ test score jibber jabber is used to justify the mega-greed of the MEGA-CEO GREEDY CHEATING CLASS. Economies and Political Systems can be organized in different ways.

    I have always argues that the scientific depth of IQ test psychometrics ranks near the bottom in terms of the scientific talent it attracts and in terms of scientific depth. IQ test score psychometrics is only about one thing:finding a scientific justification for a particular kind of economic and political system.


    Message to the Alt Right:IQ test score psychometrics is 100 percent irrelevant to the battle we are waging..to our revolt...And our revolt is fundamentally against post-1965 race-replacement immigration policy and the corresponding massive theft of Native Born White American Working Class Wealth by the White Liberal Greedy Cheating MEGA-CEO CLASS...This is all the Alt Right should be talking about in public instead of fashy haircuts....and wet dreams about Pinochet and Franco.

    The advantage of high IQ in America was destroyed by the federal government in less than 10 years. 1968 affirmative action civil rights act, and just 3 1970s court decisions, Bakke, Griggs vs Duke power and Kaiser vs Weber.
    That law and those findings decreed that the most highly qualified intelligent White must be shoved aside in favor of an illiterate black or non White immigrant.

    The EEOC, civil rights division of the DOJ numerous state county and city agencies plus mega bucks taxpayer legal foundations such as ACLU ferociously enforce the no Whites need apply laws.
    Banks have quotas on commercial loans By federal and most state law, a certain number of unqualified non Whites must be given loans and a certain number of qualified Whites must be turned down for commercial loans. And if you are White forget about SBA loans tax breaks and other incentives that go only to non Whites and crooked immigrants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Alden


    And IQ test scores are completely irrelevant to what you posted above.


    Another reason for getting rid of IQ tests...IQ tests screens for the White canon fodder class...Vietnam War Era..and most definitely in 2016...


    Perhaps you fantasize along with John Derbyshire that you will have a pleasant debate with blacks in a conference room at some think tank in DC...


    I submit that IQ tests in terms of scientific depth ranks at the bottom...the fundamental interest in IQ test score psychometrics for the mad calibrators is economic and political-as your post makes very clear.


    We are in the midst of a full-blown race war last time I checked...IQ test score jibber-jabber is completely irrelevant....If you need "scientific" permission to revolt against racial and economic DISPOSSESION...I mean what foolishness....
    , @Jim
    There is certainly an awful lot of discrimination in favor of non-whites in the US. But often discrimination of this type doesn't have as great an effect as sometimes thought. In Malaysia for the last sixty years there has been strong legal discrimination against ethnic Chinese in favor of Malays. It is very difficult for ethnic Chinese to gain admittance to top Malaysian universities and near impossible for them to get government jobs. Nevertheless after sixty years of this there has hardly been any change in the relative economic success of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia vs. that of Malays.

    The IQ advantage of ethnic Chinese often Malays, which is roughly similar to the IQ advantage of US Jews over US gentiles, easily trumps the legal discrimination against them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Alden says:
    @Jim
    I used to live in Fort Bend County right next to Houston. I remember once driving around in that area and remarking to the person I was with that all the huge mansions probably belonged to doctors and lawyers. On no, I was told, they belong to petroleum engineers. Last I heard, newly graduated petroleum engineers with no experience whatever were being hired at starting salaries of $100,000. Probably beats becoming an electrician or plumber.

    $100,000 is not mega rich It’s comfortable upper middle class depending on the cost of housing taxes etc where you live. And most of the many engineers I have known work in 3 year contracts and scramble for a long time to get another job when the lay offs come and they always come.

    Most of the electricians I know make about $200,000 to $220,000 a year. Of course that doesn’t mean much in California. Most of the engineers I knew ended up teaching math after a few layoffs. I spent the last 14 years of my working life at a top 10 university. The White American engineers and programmers just were not hired. The non citizen and student visa Asians generally were hired late winter of senior year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    That's the starting salary for someone with no experience. The average petroleum engineer in Houston is probably in the 98th percentile of US income.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Jim
    Nothing correlates better with economic success than IQ.

    Nothing correlates better with economic success than IQ.

    LOL. Sorry, but circumstances of birth show the greatest correlation to economic success. The more affluent situation (family wealth, social position) into which you are born, the more affluent you will be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OutWest
    There’s certain relativity to your thought. My father grew up in abject poverty –his father died young. He wanted to be an engineer but, despite a scholarship couldn’t swing it. I was raised in lower middle class circumstances, worked my way through seven years of college and have done reasonably well. My kids had cars and choice of colleges and are doing quite well –better than me and are on the lower rungs of affluent.

    I am concerned that the ladder has been pulled up for those starting this journey. But it never was easy.
    , @Jim
    Children of higher SES parents inherit their parent's genes which accounts for the correlation between SES of parents and the children's success. Behavioral genetic studies of identical twins raised together and apart can disentangle genetic influences from environmental. There have been many studies of these types in recent decades. An Australian researcher recently published the results of a study of 3000 twins followed over nine years. He obtained results basically similar to what other such studies have shown, viz. genetics is the most important factor in life outcomes while the effect of shared environment is minor.

    A very interesting feature of these studies is that they indicated that after genetics the most important thing is something called "non-shared environment". "Non-shared environment" refers to non-genetic factors which are not shared between siblings. Thus they exclude such things as SES, family structure, parental style, type of schooling etc. The nature of "non-shared environment" is obscure at the present and Steven Pinker has suggested that it is mostly experimental error. Other possibilities suggested for "non-shared environment" are stochastic errors in fetal development.

    Finding out what "non-shared environment" consists of is one of the most intriguing questions in the current study of human behavior.

    But we know enough today to say that shared environment factors such as SES (rich or poor), family structure (single parent or two parent), parental style (strict or permissive), type of schooling etc. have only a minor impact.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. OutWest says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Nothing correlates better with economic success than IQ.
     
    LOL. Sorry, but circumstances of birth show the greatest correlation to economic success. The more affluent situation (family wealth, social position) into which you are born, the more affluent you will be.

    There’s certain relativity to your thought. My father grew up in abject poverty –his father died young. He wanted to be an engineer but, despite a scholarship couldn’t swing it. I was raised in lower middle class circumstances, worked my way through seven years of college and have done reasonably well. My kids had cars and choice of colleges and are doing quite well –better than me and are on the lower rungs of affluent.

    I am concerned that the ladder has been pulled up for those starting this journey. But it never was easy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    There’s certain relativity to your thought.
     
    I'm not sure what you mean. I interpret it as suggesting something along the lines of "the richer you start, the richer you may end up". Thus, you and I starting as lower middle class may end as lower middle class (no gain), or we may achieve some moderate degree of affluence (as you describe: "have done reasonably well"). Donald Trump, who inherited $500M, may end up a mere multi-millionaire (no gain), or may progress to multi-billionaire.

    Yes, in the US, the corruption of government and law by the unbridled greed of the oligarchs has managed to, as you say, "pull up the ladder". It's a case of complete domination of local, state, and federal governments, media and education systems by the desires of the rich. All the wealth in the universe is not enough for one rich person to feel he or she has enough. Frankly, at this late date in the collapse of the USA, it surprises me still that people believe the hogwash spewed by the media, government, and education. The rich, who once held 30% of the nation's wealth, now hold over 90%, and that fact is blithely treated by those three mentioned institutions as just being a natural state of affairs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Alden
    The advantage of high IQ in America was destroyed by the federal government in less than 10 years. 1968 affirmative action civil rights act, and just 3 1970s court decisions, Bakke, Griggs vs Duke power and Kaiser vs Weber.
    That law and those findings decreed that the most highly qualified intelligent White must be shoved aside in favor of an illiterate black or non White immigrant.

    The EEOC, civil rights division of the DOJ numerous state county and city agencies plus mega bucks taxpayer legal foundations such as ACLU ferociously enforce the no Whites need apply laws.
    Banks have quotas on commercial loans By federal and most state law, a certain number of unqualified non Whites must be given loans and a certain number of qualified Whites must be turned down for commercial loans. And if you are White forget about SBA loans tax breaks and other incentives that go only to non Whites and crooked immigrants.

    Alden

    And IQ test scores are completely irrelevant to what you posted above.

    Another reason for getting rid of IQ tests…IQ tests screens for the White canon fodder class…Vietnam War Era..and most definitely in 2016…

    Perhaps you fantasize along with John Derbyshire that you will have a pleasant debate with blacks in a conference room at some think tank in DC…

    I submit that IQ tests in terms of scientific depth ranks at the bottom…the fundamental interest in IQ test score psychometrics for the mad calibrators is economic and political-as your post makes very clear.

    We are in the midst of a full-blown race war last time I checked…IQ test score jibber-jabber is completely irrelevant….If you need “scientific” permission to revolt against racial and economic DISPOSSESION…I mean what foolishness….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. 2008 crysis was suppose to be the equalizer. instead tax payers paid for the consequences of the risk.

    use to be huge gain = huge risk, it is now huge gain = tax payer risk.

    you got to love it.

    our govt + officials + politicians shit on the citizens. it is kinda depressing at times. damn, I need a cold beer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Lucius says:
    @Alden
    You obviously don't know any engineers or surgeons. You can't name one surgeon or engineer who makes more than $400,000 a year working as an engineer or surgeon.
    There people with engineering degrees who don't work as engineers but as top top executives make more than $400,000 a year but the haven't worked as engineers for decades but as upper upper management

    Surgeons don't make all that much any more either. The gross income of a practice does not translate into much more than $200,00 to $300,000 before taxes for the surgeons.

    Plastic surgeons in expensive areas like California New York etc make the most but though the practice may make several million a year by the time they have paid all the expenses taxes and employees the surgeons don't have that much to share for their salaries and profit

    Patents? They don't go to the engineers chemists and researchers but to the company for which they work.
    Your post reminds me of something the teachers at up scale suburban high schools used to preach back in the 1960s. Go to college and get rich

    Get out and meet some engineers and surgeons. Nowadays a lot of nurse practitioners and nurse anesthetists make almost as much as Drs without spending half a million or more on college and med school and delaying an adult career until age 33 or so.

    Engineers would be better off getting into the electrician or plumbers unions. At least when an electrician is laid off he or she can go to the union hall, get on the hiring list and get the next job that comes along
    A laid off engineer has to send off hundreds of resumes and hire a head hunter and wait months to get another job if he's lucky.

    I remember when NASA in California laid off hundreds of engineers. The lucky ones ended up teaching high school or community college math

    Patents? They don’t go to the engineers chemists and researchers but to the company for which they work.

    At my company, an engineer who receives a patent gets a $500 bonus. The patent, as you say, is the company’s.

    There people with engineering degrees who don’t work as engineers but as top top executives make more than $400,000 a year but the haven’t worked as engineers for decades but as upper upper management

    Those jobs are few and far between, and at THAT, they’re not in the 1%. Average income of the 1% is 715,000USD or so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Glad you pointed out that there are few CEO CFO vp type jobs. One excuse economists have for low starting wages is that if you are smart and work hard put in lots of unpaid overtime because you are "professional " not hourly wage you will get promotion after promotion and in 10 years will be at least middle management

    But there are many drone jobs and few management jobs in any one organization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Throughout this piece there is no mention of Free Trade, now known as Globalisation. This is the fundamental driver of economic inequality in America and other ( formerly ) industrial economies.
     
    Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    Unregulated, unbalanced, predatory "free trade" contributes significantly to economic inequality in America.

    Regulated, countered-and-balanced free trade, and a non-corrupt American government, would contribute significantly to economic equality in America.

    Free Trade regulated, countered – and- balanced is not Free Trade anymore but a form of Mercantilism IMHO. We can disagree on what we call it – a rose is a rose by any other name – but these policies need to be implemented quickly before America and other Western countries suffer severe economic collapse. Mr Trump may be our last chance.
    The present situation is dire and best summed up by the old Pat Buchanan quote, “Free Trade, like Free Love, is not free.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @OutWest
    There’s certain relativity to your thought. My father grew up in abject poverty –his father died young. He wanted to be an engineer but, despite a scholarship couldn’t swing it. I was raised in lower middle class circumstances, worked my way through seven years of college and have done reasonably well. My kids had cars and choice of colleges and are doing quite well –better than me and are on the lower rungs of affluent.

    I am concerned that the ladder has been pulled up for those starting this journey. But it never was easy.

    There’s certain relativity to your thought.

    I’m not sure what you mean. I interpret it as suggesting something along the lines of “the richer you start, the richer you may end up”. Thus, you and I starting as lower middle class may end as lower middle class (no gain), or we may achieve some moderate degree of affluence (as you describe: “have done reasonably well”). Donald Trump, who inherited $500M, may end up a mere multi-millionaire (no gain), or may progress to multi-billionaire.

    Yes, in the US, the corruption of government and law by the unbridled greed of the oligarchs has managed to, as you say, “pull up the ladder”. It’s a case of complete domination of local, state, and federal governments, media and education systems by the desires of the rich. All the wealth in the universe is not enough for one rich person to feel he or she has enough. Frankly, at this late date in the collapse of the USA, it surprises me still that people believe the hogwash spewed by the media, government, and education. The rich, who once held 30% of the nation’s wealth, now hold over 90%, and that fact is blithely treated by those three mentioned institutions as just being a natural state of affairs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. mtn cur says:

    The super rich are OCD about money, sex,. and power and stay focused on goals that allow them to posture grandly in the game of my dog is bigger than your dog and whomever dies with the best polo pony wins; meanwhile, the simpletons of the other classes are OCD about gratuitous consumerism, whether for posturing for their fellow turkeys or merely feeding their addictions. Meanwhile, the transfer of real property from the working class to the gentry will continue until nothing is left but the nobility and their serfs, along with a few ascetics bright enough to discern the difference between what they actually need as opposed to what they merely like. These latter will probably be assassinated for thought crimes or murdered during a five minute hate. Sick puppies at the top and at the bottom. Reading a three word label that says “made in China” is not rocket science. It is hard to feel sorry for any but the kids.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    mtn cur

    What you have described is the world view of the two WASP Trust Fund twerps over at Radix Journal...Richard Spencer and his sidekick Hannibal Bateman...they want to restore the Dark Age-Middle Age-Feudal Order...for these two Fashy Fascist WASP Twerps...everything went wrong with the elimination of Feudalism in European Society...I am really growing to hate Richard Spencer.

    There is an alternative to preppy fashy fascism:The late 19th century-early 20th century Native Born White American Populist Labor Revolts.

    Richard Spencer is irrelevant to the White Working Class. Spencer is very relevant to his arse hump buddy Jack Donavan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. aandrews says:

    Does the observation of your friend, Dave Kelley, come from an essay or book?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Batte for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Have this get this dig in at the fashy fascist twerps over at Radix Journal:

    Hannibal Bateman…Listen up you little f….g preppy twerp:Take your wet dreams for Pinochet and Franco and other Berber-Muzzie geneline types from Spain and shove it up your preppy Fascist arse…The kind of Hierarchy that deserves to be exterminated off the Planet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. Jim says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Nothing correlates better with economic success than IQ.
     
    LOL. Sorry, but circumstances of birth show the greatest correlation to economic success. The more affluent situation (family wealth, social position) into which you are born, the more affluent you will be.

    Children of higher SES parents inherit their parent’s genes which accounts for the correlation between SES of parents and the children’s success. Behavioral genetic studies of identical twins raised together and apart can disentangle genetic influences from environmental. There have been many studies of these types in recent decades. An Australian researcher recently published the results of a study of 3000 twins followed over nine years. He obtained results basically similar to what other such studies have shown, viz. genetics is the most important factor in life outcomes while the effect of shared environment is minor.

    A very interesting feature of these studies is that they indicated that after genetics the most important thing is something called “non-shared environment”. “Non-shared environment” refers to non-genetic factors which are not shared between siblings. Thus they exclude such things as SES, family structure, parental style, type of schooling etc. The nature of “non-shared environment” is obscure at the present and Steven Pinker has suggested that it is mostly experimental error. Other possibilities suggested for “non-shared environment” are stochastic errors in fetal development.

    Finding out what “non-shared environment” consists of is one of the most intriguing questions in the current study of human behavior.

    But we know enough today to say that shared environment factors such as SES (rich or poor), family structure (single parent or two parent), parental style (strict or permissive), type of schooling etc. have only a minor impact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Children of higher SES parents inherit their parent’s genes which accounts for the correlation between SES of parents and the children’s success.
     
    You may wish to go back and read what I wrote. Here, let me help ...

    Sorry, but circumstances of birth show the greatest correlation to economic success. The more affluent situation (family wealth, social position) into which you are born, the more affluent you will be.
     
    Yes, I know that genetics is a lot of fun, and one hell of a happy escape tunnel for you HBD enthusiasts. But, it's bullshit, for the most part. Important, significant in many details, but bullshit in any real-life macro environment.
    , @War for Blair Mountain
    Study X versus study Y....study X versus study Y...study x versus study Y...study X versus study Y...


    What is the point?..other than to take a laser-beam-like-focus off of the fact that the Chinese and Hindu Fifth Columns in the US are actively involved in the destruction of thousands of years of acquired Native Born White American Scientific...Medical...Engineering experience and know-how..very much within the realm of genocide you know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @mtn cur
    The super rich are OCD about money, sex,. and power and stay focused on goals that allow them to posture grandly in the game of my dog is bigger than your dog and whomever dies with the best polo pony wins; meanwhile, the simpletons of the other classes are OCD about gratuitous consumerism, whether for posturing for their fellow turkeys or merely feeding their addictions. Meanwhile, the transfer of real property from the working class to the gentry will continue until nothing is left but the nobility and their serfs, along with a few ascetics bright enough to discern the difference between what they actually need as opposed to what they merely like. These latter will probably be assassinated for thought crimes or murdered during a five minute hate. Sick puppies at the top and at the bottom. Reading a three word label that says "made in China" is not rocket science. It is hard to feel sorry for any but the kids.

    mtn cur

    What you have described is the world view of the two WASP Trust Fund twerps over at Radix Journal…Richard Spencer and his sidekick Hannibal Bateman…they want to restore the Dark Age-Middle Age-Feudal Order…for these two Fashy Fascist WASP Twerps…everything went wrong with the elimination of Feudalism in European Society…I am really growing to hate Richard Spencer.

    There is an alternative to preppy fashy fascism:The late 19th century-early 20th century Native Born White American Populist Labor Revolts.

    Richard Spencer is irrelevant to the White Working Class. Spencer is very relevant to his arse hump buddy Jack Donavan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Jeff77450 says:

    “To paraphrase Mark Twain, everyone complains about (income/wealth) inequality, but nobody does anything about it.” I’m not complaining about income/wealth inequality. You know what kind of society has essentially zero wealth inequality? Hunter-gatherers. In a hunter-gatherer society no one can possess more wealth than they can personally transport & protect. Yes, the alpha-males may get first pick of the females and the choicer cuts of meat, but that’s about it.

    In just about every other economic-system, e.g. feudalism, mercantilism and the various shades-of-grey capitalist & socialists systems, wealth always concentrates in the hands of a few. “Deal with it.”

    The so-called poor in the developed world are rich beyond the wildest dreams of 99.999% of all people who have ever lived. My parents & their families were born & raised in truly horrific poverty in the 1920s & ’30s. They lived in wooden shacks with no electricity, plumbing or insulation. They hauled water from a stream. One Winter during the Great Depression things were so bad that my father’s family lived in a man’s barn. For all intents & purposes there was no government assistance, not that my grandfathers would’ve accepted any.

    Growing up my wife & I weren’t poor but we were working-class and there wasn’t a lot of money. Thanks to serving in the army for three years and earning the education benefits I got an education, we worked, practiced thrift and saved and had some luck, both good & bad. With three sons to get through college things were rather lean until really just a few years ago. At the age of 57 our net-worth is ~$900K and this year we’ll gross ~$240K. Rightly or wrongly I don’t have a lot of sympathy for a large number of so-called poor people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "In just about every other economic-system, e.g. feudalism, mercantilism and the various shades-of-grey capitalist & socialists systems, wealth always concentrates in the hands of a few. “Deal with it.”
    In this case 1% sooner or later will have to deal with firing squad...
    Deal with it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Jim
    Children of higher SES parents inherit their parent's genes which accounts for the correlation between SES of parents and the children's success. Behavioral genetic studies of identical twins raised together and apart can disentangle genetic influences from environmental. There have been many studies of these types in recent decades. An Australian researcher recently published the results of a study of 3000 twins followed over nine years. He obtained results basically similar to what other such studies have shown, viz. genetics is the most important factor in life outcomes while the effect of shared environment is minor.

    A very interesting feature of these studies is that they indicated that after genetics the most important thing is something called "non-shared environment". "Non-shared environment" refers to non-genetic factors which are not shared between siblings. Thus they exclude such things as SES, family structure, parental style, type of schooling etc. The nature of "non-shared environment" is obscure at the present and Steven Pinker has suggested that it is mostly experimental error. Other possibilities suggested for "non-shared environment" are stochastic errors in fetal development.

    Finding out what "non-shared environment" consists of is one of the most intriguing questions in the current study of human behavior.

    But we know enough today to say that shared environment factors such as SES (rich or poor), family structure (single parent or two parent), parental style (strict or permissive), type of schooling etc. have only a minor impact.

    Children of higher SES parents inherit their parent’s genes which accounts for the correlation between SES of parents and the children’s success.

    You may wish to go back and read what I wrote. Here, let me help …

    Sorry, but circumstances of birth show the greatest correlation to economic success. The more affluent situation (family wealth, social position) into which you are born, the more affluent you will be.

    Yes, I know that genetics is a lot of fun, and one hell of a happy escape tunnel for you HBD enthusiasts. But, it’s bullshit, for the most part. Important, significant in many details, but bullshit in any real-life macro environment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Correlation is not causation. SES correlates with economic success but behavioral genetic studies show that this correlation mostly reflects the fact that high SES parents tend to have high IQ's and their children inherit those genes.

    It's similar to the fact that children who hear a lot of Mozart's music have higher IQ's. This isn't due to any magic effect of Mozart's music but simply reflects the fact that parents who are likely to play Mozart for their children have higher IQ's and their children inherit genes for higher IQ from these parents. It's also the same for the supposed benefits of reading to one's children.

    Human behavior is a biological phenomenon. Nothing is more important in biology than polynucleotides.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Jim
    Children of higher SES parents inherit their parent's genes which accounts for the correlation between SES of parents and the children's success. Behavioral genetic studies of identical twins raised together and apart can disentangle genetic influences from environmental. There have been many studies of these types in recent decades. An Australian researcher recently published the results of a study of 3000 twins followed over nine years. He obtained results basically similar to what other such studies have shown, viz. genetics is the most important factor in life outcomes while the effect of shared environment is minor.

    A very interesting feature of these studies is that they indicated that after genetics the most important thing is something called "non-shared environment". "Non-shared environment" refers to non-genetic factors which are not shared between siblings. Thus they exclude such things as SES, family structure, parental style, type of schooling etc. The nature of "non-shared environment" is obscure at the present and Steven Pinker has suggested that it is mostly experimental error. Other possibilities suggested for "non-shared environment" are stochastic errors in fetal development.

    Finding out what "non-shared environment" consists of is one of the most intriguing questions in the current study of human behavior.

    But we know enough today to say that shared environment factors such as SES (rich or poor), family structure (single parent or two parent), parental style (strict or permissive), type of schooling etc. have only a minor impact.

    Study X versus study Y….study X versus study Y…study x versus study Y…study X versus study Y…

    What is the point?..other than to take a laser-beam-like-focus off of the fact that the Chinese and Hindu Fifth Columns in the US are actively involved in the destruction of thousands of years of acquired Native Born White American Scientific…Medical…Engineering experience and know-how..very much within the realm of genocide you know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. This ‘I would feed you but you might become dependent on food’ theory is central in showing how consumer societies like ours are returning to feudal distributions of wealth

    This is not an exaggeration either. And it’s ominous. The last time we came to this pass the peasants stormed The Bastille. And we know what happened after that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OutWest
    The Irish potato famine (around 1858) might be a more recent example of not wanting to encourage dependency. But that was more a deferred genocide.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Anonymous
    RobRich says "The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135–the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers–typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities."

    Would that this were true!

    The "inventors, surgeons, engineers" with IQs of 135, while doing the heavy lifting in research and innovation which have created gains in productivity (that, incidentally, have not been shared with the workers) have not, in fact, been rewarded with salaries or bonuses anywhere near commensurate those earned by the financiers--this is the whole point of Mike's thesis, which you have obviously missed.

    Many of you people don't know about this but there was a real war in American Corporate boardrooms in the early 1980's between two factions. The Old Guard (largely WASPs) held that the corporation had an obligation both to the community in which it lived and to its workers. They believed in e.g. corporate donations to community social goods such as local museums, philharmonics, scholarships for disadvantaged school kids etc. These guys claimed that the corporations reason for being was to manufacture a product that sold into the marketplace.

    They were opposed by the new-money corporate raider types who had leveraged their way into wealth and the new generation of Financiers, largely MBAs from Ivy League Universities who witnessed and admired their rise to power. This new guard viewed the corporation as having a responsibility to, first of all, maximize return to stockholders. They rejected the vision of the corporation as having any obligation to the community. Profit that had formerly been earmarked for reinvestment in Research and Development and expanding infrastructure was to be redistributed to shareholders as dividends. Plants were relocated abroad to lower labor costs and take advantage of higher yield emerging markets, thereby maximizing profit. Stodgy notions of responsibility were derided and rejected--literally--by retiring the Old Guard. The Old Guard was voted out of the Boardroom just as they were purged from the Republican Party by the NeoCons. This is a little discussed topic, but it really happened and some of us were witnesses to it.

    There were real ideological battles between those who thought that the company must make something to sell and those who envisioned a future in which, Enron-like, the corporation could exist as some sort of trading company with no other product but its organizing technique--much as President Clinton viewed the finance sector in general, which, if you remember, he predicted would sell its expertise to an astonished and admiring world. And we all know how that turned out. This is when GM began to earn more from finance than manufacturing.

    This new Financial Elite rules America today. Greedy for fame and lucre, rubes such as the Clintons and Obamas are their frontmen and lackeys and the Democratic Party, in a neat Judo throw, now represents the interests of the very wealthy over against those of the worker, all the while passing itself off as the party of the oppressed. What a cruel joke.

    Who are these (((New Guard))) people? And why are they so contemptuous of the larger society? A conundrum indeed!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Is that New Guard reference Australian? (I confirmed by Googling "new guard" that the 1920s conservative New Guard movement is highest on the search list).

    But then I have read recently that the enclosure with triple parentheses connotes an anti-Semitic Jewish reference. Is "Father O'Hara" an esoteric tribute to New York's 1940s Father Coughlin?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. nickels says:

    It will always be an open question whether the fall of the banks the pain of economic collapse would have been as bad as the violent revolution based on the resulting extreme inequality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. gwynedd1 says:

    After reading the first two paragraphs I was thinking this guy really know what he is talking about , and have not seen this since …..oh it is Michael Hudson.

    Read More
    • Agree: Astuteobservor II
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. @RobRich
    The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135--the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers--typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities.

    With a little Libertarian reform, in the US thanks to them the top 10% are now millionaires, and would be more if we got stupid things like taxes out of the way.

    Their enemies are the left-influenced envious midwits like the author of this article who have weak character, produce inferior or crackpot work, or demand deranged regulatory schemes when left unsupervised. People like the author could have $10 million and be unhappy and say capitalism has failed if someone had $11 million.

    WOW, so Kimberly “Kim” Kardashian is that scary smart!!

    who fucking knew, i always thought she was just preying on the morons among us.

    i always wondered why people called Bush “shrub” as if he was stupid but you’ve opened my eyes to his superior intellect. Same with killary and Bill they must be part of that super duper smart crowd you speak of.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Jim
    I used to live in Fort Bend County right next to Houston. I remember once driving around in that area and remarking to the person I was with that all the huge mansions probably belonged to doctors and lawyers. On no, I was told, they belong to petroleum engineers. Last I heard, newly graduated petroleum engineers with no experience whatever were being hired at starting salaries of $100,000. Probably beats becoming an electrician or plumber.

    “hired at starting salaries of $100,000″

    that’s shit money and wouldn’t qualify you to buy a crap shack in socal

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    "that's shit money" - You sound greedy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. OutWest says:
    @Connecticut Famer
    This ‘I would feed you but you might become dependent on food’ theory is central in showing how consumer societies like ours are returning to feudal distributions of wealth

    This is not an exaggeration either. And it's ominous. The last time we came to this pass the peasants stormed The Bastille. And we know what happened after that.

    The Irish potato famine (around 1858) might be a more recent example of not wanting to encourage dependency. But that was more a deferred genocide.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Jim says:
    @Alden
    $100,000 is not mega rich It's comfortable upper middle class depending on the cost of housing taxes etc where you live. And most of the many engineers I have known work in 3 year contracts and scramble for a long time to get another job when the lay offs come and they always come.

    Most of the electricians I know make about $200,000 to $220,000 a year. Of course that doesn't mean much in California. Most of the engineers I knew ended up teaching math after a few layoffs. I spent the last 14 years of my working life at a top 10 university. The White American engineers and programmers just were not hired. The non citizen and student visa Asians generally were hired late winter of senior year.

    That’s the starting salary for someone with no experience. The average petroleum engineer in Houston is probably in the 98th percentile of US income.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jeff77450
    • Replies: @Alden
    $100,000 is in the top one percent of earned income, employees income. But it's certainly not near the one percent that runs things
    But engineers, especially petroleum engineers get laid off all the time, it's just part of the job. And that makes a big difference in life time earnings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Jim says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Children of higher SES parents inherit their parent’s genes which accounts for the correlation between SES of parents and the children’s success.
     
    You may wish to go back and read what I wrote. Here, let me help ...

    Sorry, but circumstances of birth show the greatest correlation to economic success. The more affluent situation (family wealth, social position) into which you are born, the more affluent you will be.
     
    Yes, I know that genetics is a lot of fun, and one hell of a happy escape tunnel for you HBD enthusiasts. But, it's bullshit, for the most part. Important, significant in many details, but bullshit in any real-life macro environment.

    Correlation is not causation. SES correlates with economic success but behavioral genetic studies show that this correlation mostly reflects the fact that high SES parents tend to have high IQ’s and their children inherit those genes.

    It’s similar to the fact that children who hear a lot of Mozart’s music have higher IQ’s. This isn’t due to any magic effect of Mozart’s music but simply reflects the fact that parents who are likely to play Mozart for their children have higher IQ’s and their children inherit genes for higher IQ from these parents. It’s also the same for the supposed benefits of reading to one’s children.

    Human behavior is a biological phenomenon. Nothing is more important in biology than polynucleotides.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Correlation is not causation.
     
    Yup.

    SES correlates with economic success but behavioral genetic studies show that this correlation mostly reflects the fact that high SES parents tend to have high IQ’s and their children inherit those genes.
     
    Cart:Horse fallacy

    It’s similar to the fact that children who hear a lot of Mozart’s music have higher IQ’s. This isn’t due to any magic effect of Mozart’s music but simply reflects the fact that parents who are likely to play Mozart for their children have higher IQ’s and their children inherit genes for higher IQ from these parents. It’s also the same for the supposed benefits of reading to one’s children.
     
    Utter malarkey.

    Human behavior is a biological phenomenon. Nothing is more important in biology than polynucleotides.
     
    Behavior is an observed, physical phenomenon. Sorry, but you just spilled waaaaaaay too much crap for me to take you seriously. Bye now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Jim says:
    @Alden
    The advantage of high IQ in America was destroyed by the federal government in less than 10 years. 1968 affirmative action civil rights act, and just 3 1970s court decisions, Bakke, Griggs vs Duke power and Kaiser vs Weber.
    That law and those findings decreed that the most highly qualified intelligent White must be shoved aside in favor of an illiterate black or non White immigrant.

    The EEOC, civil rights division of the DOJ numerous state county and city agencies plus mega bucks taxpayer legal foundations such as ACLU ferociously enforce the no Whites need apply laws.
    Banks have quotas on commercial loans By federal and most state law, a certain number of unqualified non Whites must be given loans and a certain number of qualified Whites must be turned down for commercial loans. And if you are White forget about SBA loans tax breaks and other incentives that go only to non Whites and crooked immigrants.

    There is certainly an awful lot of discrimination in favor of non-whites in the US. But often discrimination of this type doesn’t have as great an effect as sometimes thought. In Malaysia for the last sixty years there has been strong legal discrimination against ethnic Chinese in favor of Malays. It is very difficult for ethnic Chinese to gain admittance to top Malaysian universities and near impossible for them to get government jobs. Nevertheless after sixty years of this there has hardly been any change in the relative economic success of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia vs. that of Malays.

    The IQ advantage of ethnic Chinese often Malays, which is roughly similar to the IQ advantage of US Jews over US gentiles, easily trumps the legal discrimination against them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @map
    This is abject nonsense if you think about it for a moment. The ethnic Chinese have used their high IQ to practically run everything, yet they are experiencing all this "discrimination" from the put-upon Malays.

    People at the top of things run things for their benefit. They certainly won't tolerate "discrimination."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Jim says:
    @AaronB
    Probably, it's just a good illustration of the principle. It did happen, but was not common.

    Point is, imagine an elite family one thousand years ago. Over time, ambitious people who wish to become elite marry into this family. We know this was quite common. The name stays the same, the genetic stock changes every few generations.

    The persistence of elite family names is EXACTLY what anyone would expect. The initial aristocractic names would HAVE to remain highly prevalent even as genes completely changed. The only thing that could change this is foreign conquest and imposition of new aristocratic names. That's why in England we see Norman names but not Anglo Saxon ones, as no rich parvenu seeking social cachet would marry into old names that no longer have value.

    No need to appeal to genes, unless you have a pre-assumption.

    As for IQ and success, greed matters more, but who measures greed?

    If no one has measured greed in a scientifically valid way then there is no empirical basis for the assertion that greed levels are higher in more economically successful individuals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    There is an empirical basis, there merely isn't a scientific basis.

    Science can measure what's it's tools allow - to then say whatever our tools can't measure isn't real is silly. You're being scientistic.

    Really, though, IQ surely correlates with success, as in - successful people have higher than average IQs. But plenty of high IQ people aren't successful, and the highest IQ people aren't very rich.

    So sure, you have to be somewhat smart to be successful, but you don't have to be very smart, and it isn't enough - greed, ambition, lack of morals are hugely important.

    So intead of relying on slogans that conceal, let's look at the complicated picture.
    , @RobRich
    Great point.

    Has any Marxist social scientist ever scientifically measured greed?

    You want to see greed, watch the local young socialists argue over a bar bill.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Jim
    Correlation is not causation. SES correlates with economic success but behavioral genetic studies show that this correlation mostly reflects the fact that high SES parents tend to have high IQ's and their children inherit those genes.

    It's similar to the fact that children who hear a lot of Mozart's music have higher IQ's. This isn't due to any magic effect of Mozart's music but simply reflects the fact that parents who are likely to play Mozart for their children have higher IQ's and their children inherit genes for higher IQ from these parents. It's also the same for the supposed benefits of reading to one's children.

    Human behavior is a biological phenomenon. Nothing is more important in biology than polynucleotides.

    Correlation is not causation.

    Yup.

    SES correlates with economic success but behavioral genetic studies show that this correlation mostly reflects the fact that high SES parents tend to have high IQ’s and their children inherit those genes.

    Cart:Horse fallacy

    It’s similar to the fact that children who hear a lot of Mozart’s music have higher IQ’s. This isn’t due to any magic effect of Mozart’s music but simply reflects the fact that parents who are likely to play Mozart for their children have higher IQ’s and their children inherit genes for higher IQ from these parents. It’s also the same for the supposed benefits of reading to one’s children.

    Utter malarkey.

    Human behavior is a biological phenomenon. Nothing is more important in biology than polynucleotides.

    Behavior is an observed, physical phenomenon. Sorry, but you just spilled waaaaaaay too much crap for me to take you seriously. Bye now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    If you had wanted to take him seriously you would at least have acknowledged that what he was saying about human behaviour being a biological phenomenon wasn't a contradiction of your "Behavior is an observed, physical phenomenon". Obviously he is referring to causation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Montefrío
    The metamorphosis of Greenwich, CT, from an affluent but sleepy 50s town made up of villages of varying wealth to the vulgar nightmare monument to greed it has become is a subject worthy of a book. Anon's comment about the overthrow of the "Old Guard" is accurate across the board(pun intended): "white shoe" law firms, investment banks, brokerages...

    A degree of financial security is desirable, but the pathological pursuit of MORE long after one has enough is repulsive. Seneca had some wise words on the subject.

    “A degree of financial security is desirable, but the pathological pursuit of MORE long after one has enough is repulsive. Seneca had some wise words on the subject.”

    Agree. The people today who keep seeking more wealth, despite having enormous amounts, are pigs, especially the ones like Zuckerberg who seek even more money by hiring less expensive foreign workers instead of American ones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    It strikes me personally as pretty weird but on the other hand I don't doubt that Zuckerberg is a very high IQ individual.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. AaronB says:
    @Jim
    If no one has measured greed in a scientifically valid way then there is no empirical basis for the assertion that greed levels are higher in more economically successful individuals.

    There is an empirical basis, there merely isn’t a scientific basis.

    Science can measure what’s it’s tools allow – to then say whatever our tools can’t measure isn’t real is silly. You’re being scientistic.

    Really, though, IQ surely correlates with success, as in – successful people have higher than average IQs. But plenty of high IQ people aren’t successful, and the highest IQ people aren’t very rich.

    So sure, you have to be somewhat smart to be successful, but you don’t have to be very smart, and it isn’t enough – greed, ambition, lack of morals are hugely important.

    So intead of relying on slogans that conceal, let’s look at the complicated picture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Actually adherence to societal norms seems to increase with higher IQ. Arrest and conviction rates peak at about IQ 85 and are low for individuals with IQ's above 100.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. map says:
    @Jim
    There is certainly an awful lot of discrimination in favor of non-whites in the US. But often discrimination of this type doesn't have as great an effect as sometimes thought. In Malaysia for the last sixty years there has been strong legal discrimination against ethnic Chinese in favor of Malays. It is very difficult for ethnic Chinese to gain admittance to top Malaysian universities and near impossible for them to get government jobs. Nevertheless after sixty years of this there has hardly been any change in the relative economic success of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia vs. that of Malays.

    The IQ advantage of ethnic Chinese often Malays, which is roughly similar to the IQ advantage of US Jews over US gentiles, easily trumps the legal discrimination against them.

    This is abject nonsense if you think about it for a moment. The ethnic Chinese have used their high IQ to practically run everything, yet they are experiencing all this “discrimination” from the put-upon Malays.

    People at the top of things run things for their benefit. They certainly won’t tolerate “discrimination.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Economic success does not necessarily translate into political power. Ashkenazi Jews had been an extremely economically successful group in Germany for centuries but they were not able to prevent the Holocaust. On the other hand the much greater political power of Malays in Malaysia as compared to the Chinese doesn't seem to much alter the fact that ethnic Chinese tend to be wealthier and have higher incomes.

    To be sure a sufficiently severe level of persecution such as the Holocaust will certainly make a difference in economic outcomes. But wide-spread official discrimination against ethnic Chinese such as practiced in Malaysia seems to have little effect on economic outcomes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Correlation is not causation.
     
    Yup.

    SES correlates with economic success but behavioral genetic studies show that this correlation mostly reflects the fact that high SES parents tend to have high IQ’s and their children inherit those genes.
     
    Cart:Horse fallacy

    It’s similar to the fact that children who hear a lot of Mozart’s music have higher IQ’s. This isn’t due to any magic effect of Mozart’s music but simply reflects the fact that parents who are likely to play Mozart for their children have higher IQ’s and their children inherit genes for higher IQ from these parents. It’s also the same for the supposed benefits of reading to one’s children.
     
    Utter malarkey.

    Human behavior is a biological phenomenon. Nothing is more important in biology than polynucleotides.
     
    Behavior is an observed, physical phenomenon. Sorry, but you just spilled waaaaaaay too much crap for me to take you seriously. Bye now.

    If you had wanted to take him seriously you would at least have acknowledged that what he was saying about human behaviour being a biological phenomenon wasn’t a contradiction of your “Behavior is an observed, physical phenomenon”. Obviously he is referring to causation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    If you had wanted to take him seriously you would at least have acknowledged that what he was saying about human behaviour being a biological phenomenon wasn’t a contradiction of your “Behavior is an observed, physical phenomenon”. Obviously he is referring to causation.
     
    Then he should have said that, eh? After which he might have wanted to prove it, which would have gotten him a Nobel Prize next year, had he published this year.

    Behavior : The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal stimuli.

    Behavior is NOT a biological phenomenon. Behavior is the actual external activity seen (and presumably recorded) by an external observer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Father O'Hara
    Who are these (((New Guard))) people? And why are they so contemptuous of the larger society? A conundrum indeed!

    Is that New Guard reference Australian? (I confirmed by Googling “new guard” that the 1920s conservative New Guard movement is highest on the search list).

    But then I have read recently that the enclosure with triple parentheses connotes an anti-Semitic Jewish reference. Is “Father O’Hara” an esoteric tribute to New York’s 1940s Father Coughlin?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stogumber
    If, as Anonymous declared above, the Old Guard was WASP; then there is obviously something like a New Guard, and if it is non-WASP, the most important part will be the people which by their own declarations replaced the WASPs.
    You can drop the triple parentheses, but you can't drop the facts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Anonymous
    RobRich says "The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135–the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers–typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities."

    Would that this were true!

    The "inventors, surgeons, engineers" with IQs of 135, while doing the heavy lifting in research and innovation which have created gains in productivity (that, incidentally, have not been shared with the workers) have not, in fact, been rewarded with salaries or bonuses anywhere near commensurate those earned by the financiers--this is the whole point of Mike's thesis, which you have obviously missed.

    Many of you people don't know about this but there was a real war in American Corporate boardrooms in the early 1980's between two factions. The Old Guard (largely WASPs) held that the corporation had an obligation both to the community in which it lived and to its workers. They believed in e.g. corporate donations to community social goods such as local museums, philharmonics, scholarships for disadvantaged school kids etc. These guys claimed that the corporations reason for being was to manufacture a product that sold into the marketplace.

    They were opposed by the new-money corporate raider types who had leveraged their way into wealth and the new generation of Financiers, largely MBAs from Ivy League Universities who witnessed and admired their rise to power. This new guard viewed the corporation as having a responsibility to, first of all, maximize return to stockholders. They rejected the vision of the corporation as having any obligation to the community. Profit that had formerly been earmarked for reinvestment in Research and Development and expanding infrastructure was to be redistributed to shareholders as dividends. Plants were relocated abroad to lower labor costs and take advantage of higher yield emerging markets, thereby maximizing profit. Stodgy notions of responsibility were derided and rejected--literally--by retiring the Old Guard. The Old Guard was voted out of the Boardroom just as they were purged from the Republican Party by the NeoCons. This is a little discussed topic, but it really happened and some of us were witnesses to it.

    There were real ideological battles between those who thought that the company must make something to sell and those who envisioned a future in which, Enron-like, the corporation could exist as some sort of trading company with no other product but its organizing technique--much as President Clinton viewed the finance sector in general, which, if you remember, he predicted would sell its expertise to an astonished and admiring world. And we all know how that turned out. This is when GM began to earn more from finance than manufacturing.

    This new Financial Elite rules America today. Greedy for fame and lucre, rubes such as the Clintons and Obamas are their frontmen and lackeys and the Democratic Party, in a neat Judo throw, now represents the interests of the very wealthy over against those of the worker, all the while passing itself off as the party of the oppressed. What a cruel joke.

    Your contribution as “Anonymous” would be more valuable if readers could know that your online identity was stable. If you were Oldanon or Anontrad for example you might have a following that didn’t suspect trolling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Your contribution as “Anonymous” would be more valuable if readers could know that your online identity was stable. If you were Oldanon or Anontrad for example you might have a following that didn’t suspect trolling.
     
    ROFLMAO. And your contribution as "Wizard of Oz" does what? Strike fear and trembling? Something "great and terrible", perchance?

    The most common error, or "sin" if one prefers such terminology, in the pursuit of online, er, "discussion", is the practice of taking one's self too seriously.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Alden says:
    @Lucius

    Patents? They don’t go to the engineers chemists and researchers but to the company for which they work.
     
    At my company, an engineer who receives a patent gets a $500 bonus. The patent, as you say, is the company's.

    There people with engineering degrees who don’t work as engineers but as top top executives make more than $400,000 a year but the haven’t worked as engineers for decades but as upper upper management
     
    Those jobs are few and far between, and at THAT, they're not in the 1%. Average income of the 1% is 715,000USD or so.

    Glad you pointed out that there are few CEO CFO vp type jobs. One excuse economists have for low starting wages is that if you are smart and work hard put in lots of unpaid overtime because you are “professional ” not hourly wage you will get promotion after promotion and in 10 years will be at least middle management

    But there are many drone jobs and few management jobs in any one organization.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Alden says:
    @Jim
    That's the starting salary for someone with no experience. The average petroleum engineer in Houston is probably in the 98th percentile of US income.

    $100,000 is in the top one percent of earned income, employees income. But it’s certainly not near the one percent that runs things
    But engineers, especially petroleum engineers get laid off all the time, it’s just part of the job. And that makes a big difference in life time earnings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    I think that it's about in the 97th percentile. But $100,000 is just a starting salary. the average petroleum engineer is probably in the 98th percentile, a 2 percenter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Wizard of Oz
    If you had wanted to take him seriously you would at least have acknowledged that what he was saying about human behaviour being a biological phenomenon wasn't a contradiction of your "Behavior is an observed, physical phenomenon". Obviously he is referring to causation.

    If you had wanted to take him seriously you would at least have acknowledged that what he was saying about human behaviour being a biological phenomenon wasn’t a contradiction of your “Behavior is an observed, physical phenomenon”. Obviously he is referring to causation.

    Then he should have said that, eh? After which he might have wanted to prove it, which would have gotten him a Nobel Prize next year, had he published this year.

    Behavior : The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal stimuli.

    Behavior is NOT a biological phenomenon. Behavior is the actual external activity seen (and presumably recorded) by an external observer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Actually it is by their complex behavior that we pretty much recognize biological entities. The Taj Mahal is a very complex entity but we recognize that it is not a biological entity because it's behavior is pretty simple - it just sits there. The way that we generally recognize that an animal such as a dog or a human is dead is that although it may appear to look like a live dog or human it exhibits a marked reduction in complex behavior - it just lies there.

    Complex behavior is the essence of biology and it is how we would recognize extraterrestrial life if we were ever able to do so. Incidentally as far as your definition of behavior - complex behavior is shown by all biological organisms not just persons and animals. Also referring to "external or internal stimuli" really adds nothing to the definition other than to say that behavior has causes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Wizard of Oz
    Your contribution as "Anonymous" would be more valuable if readers could know that your online identity was stable. If you were Oldanon or Anontrad for example you might have a following that didn't suspect trolling.

    Your contribution as “Anonymous” would be more valuable if readers could know that your online identity was stable. If you were Oldanon or Anontrad for example you might have a following that didn’t suspect trolling.

    ROFLMAO. And your contribution as “Wizard of Oz” does what? Strike fear and trembling? Something “great and terrible”, perchance?

    The most common error, or “sin” if one prefers such terminology, in the pursuit of online, er, “discussion”, is the practice of taking one’s self too seriously.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Jim says:
    @AaronB
    There is an empirical basis, there merely isn't a scientific basis.

    Science can measure what's it's tools allow - to then say whatever our tools can't measure isn't real is silly. You're being scientistic.

    Really, though, IQ surely correlates with success, as in - successful people have higher than average IQs. But plenty of high IQ people aren't successful, and the highest IQ people aren't very rich.

    So sure, you have to be somewhat smart to be successful, but you don't have to be very smart, and it isn't enough - greed, ambition, lack of morals are hugely important.

    So intead of relying on slogans that conceal, let's look at the complicated picture.

    Actually adherence to societal norms seems to increase with higher IQ. Arrest and conviction rates peak at about IQ 85 and are low for individuals with IQ’s above 100.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Jim says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    If you had wanted to take him seriously you would at least have acknowledged that what he was saying about human behaviour being a biological phenomenon wasn’t a contradiction of your “Behavior is an observed, physical phenomenon”. Obviously he is referring to causation.
     
    Then he should have said that, eh? After which he might have wanted to prove it, which would have gotten him a Nobel Prize next year, had he published this year.

    Behavior : The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal stimuli.

    Behavior is NOT a biological phenomenon. Behavior is the actual external activity seen (and presumably recorded) by an external observer.

    Actually it is by their complex behavior that we pretty much recognize biological entities. The Taj Mahal is a very complex entity but we recognize that it is not a biological entity because it’s behavior is pretty simple – it just sits there. The way that we generally recognize that an animal such as a dog or a human is dead is that although it may appear to look like a live dog or human it exhibits a marked reduction in complex behavior – it just lies there.

    Complex behavior is the essence of biology and it is how we would recognize extraterrestrial life if we were ever able to do so. Incidentally as far as your definition of behavior – complex behavior is shown by all biological organisms not just persons and animals. Also referring to “external or internal stimuli” really adds nothing to the definition other than to say that behavior has causes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Complex behavior is the essence of biology
     
    Don't be absurd.

    and it is how we would recognize extraterrestrial life if we were ever able to do so.
     
    OoooWEEEEoooooo.

    Incidentally as far as your definition of behavior – complex behavior is shown by all biological organisms not just persons and animals.
     
    Didn't say it wasn't. So what?

    Also referring to “external or internal stimuli” really adds nothing to the definition other than to say that behavior has causes.
     
    What "internal stimuli"? LOL. You attribute all behavior to internal, unseen, unknown causes, which you cannot substantiate. 99.99% of observable behavior is readily attributable to external stimuli operating as stimulus/response. The rest is unexplained, and you insisting that it's genetic is your opinion, which you are welcome to entertain, but it is by no means proven.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Jim says:
    @Alden
    $100,000 is in the top one percent of earned income, employees income. But it's certainly not near the one percent that runs things
    But engineers, especially petroleum engineers get laid off all the time, it's just part of the job. And that makes a big difference in life time earnings.

    I think that it’s about in the 97th percentile. But $100,000 is just a starting salary. the average petroleum engineer is probably in the 98th percentile, a 2 percenter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Also it is not uncommon for petroleum engineers to eventually rise to high management positions in which they may genuinely become part of the 1% ( I think roughly incomes over $500,000 per year).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Jim says:
    @Jim
    I think that it's about in the 97th percentile. But $100,000 is just a starting salary. the average petroleum engineer is probably in the 98th percentile, a 2 percenter.

    Also it is not uncommon for petroleum engineers to eventually rise to high management positions in which they may genuinely become part of the 1% ( I think roughly incomes over $500,000 per year).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Jim says:
    @map
    This is abject nonsense if you think about it for a moment. The ethnic Chinese have used their high IQ to practically run everything, yet they are experiencing all this "discrimination" from the put-upon Malays.

    People at the top of things run things for their benefit. They certainly won't tolerate "discrimination."

    Economic success does not necessarily translate into political power. Ashkenazi Jews had been an extremely economically successful group in Germany for centuries but they were not able to prevent the Holocaust. On the other hand the much greater political power of Malays in Malaysia as compared to the Chinese doesn’t seem to much alter the fact that ethnic Chinese tend to be wealthier and have higher incomes.

    To be sure a sufficiently severe level of persecution such as the Holocaust will certainly make a difference in economic outcomes. But wide-spread official discrimination against ethnic Chinese such as practiced in Malaysia seems to have little effect on economic outcomes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @map
    Of course economic power translates into political power. The economic system sustaining the political power of the Jews collapsed which is why they could not prevent the Holocaust from happening. Other than that, they were sitting pretty.

    There is no official Malay discrimination against the rich and powerful Chinese minority. Just because a member of Amy Chua's family was killed by their chauffeur to the complete indifference of the Malaysian Police does not make "World on Fire" theories correct.

    A further note on this HBD "meritocracy" nonsense: Remember, we do not exist as atomistic individuals. We exist as families. Wealthy and powerful Chinese families are not going to disadvantage their own dull children in favor of the occasional brilliant Malay. Privileged families privilege their children regardless of their HBD merit. Let's not turn HBD into a a form of libertarian economics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Jim says:
    @interesting
    "hired at starting salaries of $100,000"

    that's shit money and wouldn't qualify you to buy a crap shack in socal

    “that’s shit money” – You sound greedy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Jim says:
    @AaronB
    Probably, it's just a good illustration of the principle. It did happen, but was not common.

    Point is, imagine an elite family one thousand years ago. Over time, ambitious people who wish to become elite marry into this family. We know this was quite common. The name stays the same, the genetic stock changes every few generations.

    The persistence of elite family names is EXACTLY what anyone would expect. The initial aristocractic names would HAVE to remain highly prevalent even as genes completely changed. The only thing that could change this is foreign conquest and imposition of new aristocratic names. That's why in England we see Norman names but not Anglo Saxon ones, as no rich parvenu seeking social cachet would marry into old names that no longer have value.

    No need to appeal to genes, unless you have a pre-assumption.

    As for IQ and success, greed matters more, but who measures greed?

    AaronB – I’m curious. What are the know cases of Polish nobles converting to Judaism?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Jim says:
    @Anonymous
    "A degree of financial security is desirable, but the pathological pursuit of MORE long after one has enough is repulsive. Seneca had some wise words on the subject."

    Agree. The people today who keep seeking more wealth, despite having enormous amounts, are pigs, especially the ones like Zuckerberg who seek even more money by hiring less expensive foreign workers instead of American ones.

    It strikes me personally as pretty weird but on the other hand I don’t doubt that Zuckerberg is a very high IQ individual.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Jim
    Actually it is by their complex behavior that we pretty much recognize biological entities. The Taj Mahal is a very complex entity but we recognize that it is not a biological entity because it's behavior is pretty simple - it just sits there. The way that we generally recognize that an animal such as a dog or a human is dead is that although it may appear to look like a live dog or human it exhibits a marked reduction in complex behavior - it just lies there.

    Complex behavior is the essence of biology and it is how we would recognize extraterrestrial life if we were ever able to do so. Incidentally as far as your definition of behavior - complex behavior is shown by all biological organisms not just persons and animals. Also referring to "external or internal stimuli" really adds nothing to the definition other than to say that behavior has causes.

    Complex behavior is the essence of biology

    Don’t be absurd.

    and it is how we would recognize extraterrestrial life if we were ever able to do so.

    OoooWEEEEoooooo.

    Incidentally as far as your definition of behavior – complex behavior is shown by all biological organisms not just persons and animals.

    Didn’t say it wasn’t. So what?

    Also referring to “external or internal stimuli” really adds nothing to the definition other than to say that behavior has causes.

    What “internal stimuli”? LOL. You attribute all behavior to internal, unseen, unknown causes, which you cannot substantiate. 99.99% of observable behavior is readily attributable to external stimuli operating as stimulus/response. The rest is unexplained, and you insisting that it’s genetic is your opinion, which you are welcome to entertain, but it is by no means proven.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    John Jeremiah Smith

    Don't want to sidetrack this discussion anymore than it has, but I just want to point out that there is the Chomsky-Fodor critique of behaviorism. For the record, I'm in the Chomsky-Fodor Camp. Unz Review Readers can go google this old debate...And this debate also significantly overlaps with the great Chomsky-Piaget debate about learning. What is interesting about this debate in its various manifestations is that at the heart of it is the problem of induction and its usefulness for explaining-understanding how the human mind-brain works. And this underlying "problem of induction" explains the great failure of AI.


    I am in the camp that the "problem of induction" is not a very relevant nor very interesting problem. George Will's..yes, that George Will....father wasted his entire academic career on trying to resolve the problem of induction...only to conclude that it wasn't worth the effort.
    , @Jim
    Polynucleotides are not "unknown causes". They are actual physical molecules about which we have a tremendous amount of information and which can now be extensively manipulated. As for external stimuli, a rock gets a lot of external stimuli and shows very little in the way of complex behavior. More is required for complex behavior than external stimuli.

    Of course the obvious striking thing about biological entities is their complex behavior. In the case of extraterrestrial organisms it might turn out that some might have a different physical basis than life on Earth. We don't know of anything today which can play the role of polynucleotides but given the enormous number of possible organic molecules there may exist other possibilities. However in any case an extraterrestrial entity that exhibited behavior of roughly the same degree of complexity as life on Earth would be considered alive. We don't consider the rocks on Mars to be alive because they don't show much in the way of complex behavior.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Complex behavior is the essence of biology
     
    Don't be absurd.

    and it is how we would recognize extraterrestrial life if we were ever able to do so.
     
    OoooWEEEEoooooo.

    Incidentally as far as your definition of behavior – complex behavior is shown by all biological organisms not just persons and animals.
     
    Didn't say it wasn't. So what?

    Also referring to “external or internal stimuli” really adds nothing to the definition other than to say that behavior has causes.
     
    What "internal stimuli"? LOL. You attribute all behavior to internal, unseen, unknown causes, which you cannot substantiate. 99.99% of observable behavior is readily attributable to external stimuli operating as stimulus/response. The rest is unexplained, and you insisting that it's genetic is your opinion, which you are welcome to entertain, but it is by no means proven.

    John Jeremiah Smith

    Don’t want to sidetrack this discussion anymore than it has, but I just want to point out that there is the Chomsky-Fodor critique of behaviorism. For the record, I’m in the Chomsky-Fodor Camp. Unz Review Readers can go google this old debate…And this debate also significantly overlaps with the great Chomsky-Piaget debate about learning. What is interesting about this debate in its various manifestations is that at the heart of it is the problem of induction and its usefulness for explaining-understanding how the human mind-brain works. And this underlying “problem of induction” explains the great failure of AI.

    I am in the camp that the “problem of induction” is not a very relevant nor very interesting problem. George Will’s..yes, that George Will….father wasted his entire academic career on trying to resolve the problem of induction…only to conclude that it wasn’t worth the effort.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    John Jeremiah Smith


    I'll take it one step further..if Jim is willing to admit that intelligence is a complex phenotype, then his faith and the mad calibrator's faith in the scientific depth and explanatory power of IQ test score psychometrics shouldn't be as strong as it is. IQ tests are stripped down math-logic puzzles..stripped away of any meaningfull context. Yet in engineering,mathematics and science, the problems come embedded with a whole lot of historical and thematic context. One can not make a meaningfull contribution in any of the aforementioned fields without understanding the context in which a particular problem-question arises. The bigger issue is the phenomenological framework for understanding and asking the right questions and coming up with interesting research projects-frameworks that are deep-profound in science, mathematics, and engineering....Context is everything!!!!!
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    there is the Chomsky-Fodor critique of behaviorism
     
    Yes, indeed, there is the Chomsky-Fodor critique. Be that as it may, I am one to insist that behavior is behavior, and has a quite simple, comprehensible, even useful and generally-applicable definition (see above somewhere). I am not a devotee of the "Behaviorism" school of psychology, which I tend to refer to, somewhat sarcastically, as "Behavioristics".

    Please to observe that Mr. Scalpel declares that all behavior is genetic ("biological") in origin. That is absolute crap, and he doesn't "get" why. Yes, I know that HBD devotees may not appear to be pure head-cases until a point has been reached where disengagement looks rude. But, fuck that, don't care.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. TG says:

    Kudos. Well said.

    I get very tired of all these ‘conservatives’ and ‘libertarians’ who claim that a society should be no more than ‘stand back and let the big dog eat.’ You don’t have to be a Stalinist to find wealthy bankers bailing themselves out of their failed financial schemes with taxpayer funds, and then claiming to be ‘wealth creators,’ wholly despicable.

    We forget that so much of traditional economic thought was aimed at preventing these abuses. Again, kudos for reminding us so clearly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobRich
    No Libertarian ever claimed this. They do spend time targeting bigots who make that claim.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    John Jeremiah Smith

    Don't want to sidetrack this discussion anymore than it has, but I just want to point out that there is the Chomsky-Fodor critique of behaviorism. For the record, I'm in the Chomsky-Fodor Camp. Unz Review Readers can go google this old debate...And this debate also significantly overlaps with the great Chomsky-Piaget debate about learning. What is interesting about this debate in its various manifestations is that at the heart of it is the problem of induction and its usefulness for explaining-understanding how the human mind-brain works. And this underlying "problem of induction" explains the great failure of AI.


    I am in the camp that the "problem of induction" is not a very relevant nor very interesting problem. George Will's..yes, that George Will....father wasted his entire academic career on trying to resolve the problem of induction...only to conclude that it wasn't worth the effort.

    John Jeremiah Smith

    I’ll take it one step further..if Jim is willing to admit that intelligence is a complex phenotype, then his faith and the mad calibrator’s faith in the scientific depth and explanatory power of IQ test score psychometrics shouldn’t be as strong as it is. IQ tests are stripped down math-logic puzzles..stripped away of any meaningfull context. Yet in engineering,mathematics and science, the problems come embedded with a whole lot of historical and thematic context. One can not make a meaningfull contribution in any of the aforementioned fields without understanding the context in which a particular problem-question arises. The bigger issue is the phenomenological framework for understanding and asking the right questions and coming up with interesting research projects-frameworks that are deep-profound in science, mathematics, and engineering….Context is everything!!!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    IQ tests are stripped down math-logic puzzles..stripped away of any meaningfull context. Yet in engineering,mathematics and science, the problems come embedded with a whole lot of historical and thematic context.
     
    Ssshhhhhhh....leave the HBD-ists to their happy thoughts.

    I've never seen so much nonsense spouted as the IQ stuff with the alt-righters and the white supremacists. Leaves me in stitches sometimes. But, heck, it keeps them occupied.
    , @Jim
    That is not true in mathematics which is almost totally context-free. Grigori Perelman may or may not have known the context in which the Poincare Conjecture arose (actually Poincare never conjectured it and apparently only mentioned the problem once) but whether he did or did not know much about the origin of the Poincare Conjecture was irrelevant to his solution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @War for Blair Mountain
    John Jeremiah Smith

    Don't want to sidetrack this discussion anymore than it has, but I just want to point out that there is the Chomsky-Fodor critique of behaviorism. For the record, I'm in the Chomsky-Fodor Camp. Unz Review Readers can go google this old debate...And this debate also significantly overlaps with the great Chomsky-Piaget debate about learning. What is interesting about this debate in its various manifestations is that at the heart of it is the problem of induction and its usefulness for explaining-understanding how the human mind-brain works. And this underlying "problem of induction" explains the great failure of AI.


    I am in the camp that the "problem of induction" is not a very relevant nor very interesting problem. George Will's..yes, that George Will....father wasted his entire academic career on trying to resolve the problem of induction...only to conclude that it wasn't worth the effort.

    there is the Chomsky-Fodor critique of behaviorism

    Yes, indeed, there is the Chomsky-Fodor critique. Be that as it may, I am one to insist that behavior is behavior, and has a quite simple, comprehensible, even useful and generally-applicable definition (see above somewhere). I am not a devotee of the “Behaviorism” school of psychology, which I tend to refer to, somewhat sarcastically, as “Behavioristics”.

    Please to observe that Mr. Scalpel declares that all behavior is genetic (“biological”) in origin. That is absolute crap, and he doesn’t “get” why. Yes, I know that HBD devotees may not appear to be pure head-cases until a point has been reached where disengagement looks rude. But, fuck that, don’t care.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Human behavior doesn't come from a "soul", an "autonomous self" or a "ghost in the machine". It basis as with everything biological is the physical structure of polynucleotides.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @War for Blair Mountain
    John Jeremiah Smith


    I'll take it one step further..if Jim is willing to admit that intelligence is a complex phenotype, then his faith and the mad calibrator's faith in the scientific depth and explanatory power of IQ test score psychometrics shouldn't be as strong as it is. IQ tests are stripped down math-logic puzzles..stripped away of any meaningfull context. Yet in engineering,mathematics and science, the problems come embedded with a whole lot of historical and thematic context. One can not make a meaningfull contribution in any of the aforementioned fields without understanding the context in which a particular problem-question arises. The bigger issue is the phenomenological framework for understanding and asking the right questions and coming up with interesting research projects-frameworks that are deep-profound in science, mathematics, and engineering....Context is everything!!!!!

    IQ tests are stripped down math-logic puzzles..stripped away of any meaningfull context. Yet in engineering,mathematics and science, the problems come embedded with a whole lot of historical and thematic context.

    Ssshhhhhhh….leave the HBD-ists to their happy thoughts.

    I’ve never seen so much nonsense spouted as the IQ stuff with the alt-righters and the white supremacists. Leaves me in stitches sometimes. But, heck, it keeps them occupied.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Actually in mathematics the problems are largely context-free.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Jeff77450
    "To paraphrase Mark Twain, everyone complains about (income/wealth) inequality, but nobody does anything about it." I'm not complaining about income/wealth inequality. You know what kind of society has essentially zero wealth inequality? Hunter-gatherers. In a hunter-gatherer society no one can possess more wealth than they can personally transport & protect. Yes, the alpha-males may get first pick of the females and the choicer cuts of meat, but that's about it.

    In just about every other economic-system, e.g. feudalism, mercantilism and the various shades-of-grey capitalist & socialists systems, wealth always concentrates in the hands of a few. "Deal with it."

    The so-called poor in the developed world are rich beyond the wildest dreams of 99.999% of all people who have ever lived. My parents & their families were born & raised in truly horrific poverty in the 1920s & '30s. They lived in wooden shacks with no electricity, plumbing or insulation. They hauled water from a stream. One Winter during the Great Depression things were so bad that my father's family lived in a man's barn. For all intents & purposes there was no government assistance, not that my grandfathers would've accepted any.

    Growing up my wife & I weren't poor but we were working-class and there wasn't a lot of money. Thanks to serving in the army for three years and earning the education benefits I got an education, we worked, practiced thrift and saved and had some luck, both good & bad. With three sons to get through college things were rather lean until really just a few years ago. At the age of 57 our net-worth is ~$900K and this year we'll gross ~$240K. Rightly or wrongly I don't have a lot of sympathy for a large number of so-called poor people.

    “In just about every other economic-system, e.g. feudalism, mercantilism and the various shades-of-grey capitalist & socialists systems, wealth always concentrates in the hands of a few. “Deal with it.”
    In this case 1% sooner or later will have to deal with firing squad…
    Deal with it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. map says:
    @Jim
    Economic success does not necessarily translate into political power. Ashkenazi Jews had been an extremely economically successful group in Germany for centuries but they were not able to prevent the Holocaust. On the other hand the much greater political power of Malays in Malaysia as compared to the Chinese doesn't seem to much alter the fact that ethnic Chinese tend to be wealthier and have higher incomes.

    To be sure a sufficiently severe level of persecution such as the Holocaust will certainly make a difference in economic outcomes. But wide-spread official discrimination against ethnic Chinese such as practiced in Malaysia seems to have little effect on economic outcomes.

    Of course economic power translates into political power. The economic system sustaining the political power of the Jews collapsed which is why they could not prevent the Holocaust from happening. Other than that, they were sitting pretty.

    There is no official Malay discrimination against the rich and powerful Chinese minority. Just because a member of Amy Chua’s family was killed by their chauffeur to the complete indifference of the Malaysian Police does not make “World on Fire” theories correct.

    A further note on this HBD “meritocracy” nonsense: Remember, we do not exist as atomistic individuals. We exist as families. Wealthy and powerful Chinese families are not going to disadvantage their own dull children in favor of the occasional brilliant Malay. Privileged families privilege their children regardless of their HBD merit. Let’s not turn HBD into a a form of libertarian economics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    The history of the persecution of Jews in European history such as their expulsion from Spain and their expulsion from England show that being economically successful does not necessarily translate into political power. Ethnic Chinese in places like Indonesia and Jamaica have been extremely successful without acquiring any significant amount of political power. At the time of the anti-Chinese riots in Jamaica the Jamaican Chinese controlled about 98% of the retail establishments in Jamaica and were much wealthy then the Jamaican majority. The economic success of the Asian minority in Uganda under Idi Amin did not protect them from expulsion.

    By the way I believe that Amy Chua's aunt was killed in the Philippines not in Malaysia. There also the ethnic Chinese have way outperformed the local the Filipino population.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Anonymous
    RobRich says "The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135–the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers–typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities."

    Would that this were true!

    The "inventors, surgeons, engineers" with IQs of 135, while doing the heavy lifting in research and innovation which have created gains in productivity (that, incidentally, have not been shared with the workers) have not, in fact, been rewarded with salaries or bonuses anywhere near commensurate those earned by the financiers--this is the whole point of Mike's thesis, which you have obviously missed.

    Many of you people don't know about this but there was a real war in American Corporate boardrooms in the early 1980's between two factions. The Old Guard (largely WASPs) held that the corporation had an obligation both to the community in which it lived and to its workers. They believed in e.g. corporate donations to community social goods such as local museums, philharmonics, scholarships for disadvantaged school kids etc. These guys claimed that the corporations reason for being was to manufacture a product that sold into the marketplace.

    They were opposed by the new-money corporate raider types who had leveraged their way into wealth and the new generation of Financiers, largely MBAs from Ivy League Universities who witnessed and admired their rise to power. This new guard viewed the corporation as having a responsibility to, first of all, maximize return to stockholders. They rejected the vision of the corporation as having any obligation to the community. Profit that had formerly been earmarked for reinvestment in Research and Development and expanding infrastructure was to be redistributed to shareholders as dividends. Plants were relocated abroad to lower labor costs and take advantage of higher yield emerging markets, thereby maximizing profit. Stodgy notions of responsibility were derided and rejected--literally--by retiring the Old Guard. The Old Guard was voted out of the Boardroom just as they were purged from the Republican Party by the NeoCons. This is a little discussed topic, but it really happened and some of us were witnesses to it.

    There were real ideological battles between those who thought that the company must make something to sell and those who envisioned a future in which, Enron-like, the corporation could exist as some sort of trading company with no other product but its organizing technique--much as President Clinton viewed the finance sector in general, which, if you remember, he predicted would sell its expertise to an astonished and admiring world. And we all know how that turned out. This is when GM began to earn more from finance than manufacturing.

    This new Financial Elite rules America today. Greedy for fame and lucre, rubes such as the Clintons and Obamas are their frontmen and lackeys and the Democratic Party, in a neat Judo throw, now represents the interests of the very wealthy over against those of the worker, all the while passing itself off as the party of the oppressed. What a cruel joke.

    Many of you people don’t know about this but there was a real war in American Corporate boardrooms in the early 1980′s between two factions. The Old Guard (largely WASPs) held that the corporation had an obligation both to the community in which it lived and to its workers. They believed in e.g. corporate donations to community social goods such as local museums, philharmonics, scholarships for disadvantaged school kids etc. These guys claimed that the corporations reason for being was to manufacture a product that sold into the marketplace.

    An excellent point in an excellent post. In my working career I witnessed this first hand.

    I don’t know if you are the same “Anonymous” who wrote of the 1% facing a firing squad in #85, but that is another point that may lie in the future, at least in some countries.

    Neither faction, the top nor the bottom of society are angels, though. The danger for the top dogs is when they squeeze the productive silent middle into alliance with the lumpenproletariat.

    Have no illusions though, that alliance with the lumpen has dangers of its own. Revolutions from below do not establish prosperous polities. They may necessarily clear rot at the top, but they are not picnics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @RobRich
    The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135--the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers--typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities.

    With a little Libertarian reform, in the US thanks to them the top 10% are now millionaires, and would be more if we got stupid things like taxes out of the way.

    Their enemies are the left-influenced envious midwits like the author of this article who have weak character, produce inferior or crackpot work, or demand deranged regulatory schemes when left unsupervised. People like the author could have $10 million and be unhappy and say capitalism has failed if someone had $11 million.

    135 super-genius? That’s the intellect of an Al Gore or Hillary Clinton.

    But Trump is the proof that you can make a lot of money and not be very smart at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    135 is more than 2 standard deviations above the US average so less than one percent of the US population. It is about 3 standard deviations above the world average which is about 90.
    , @RobRich
    130 is a genius. 135+ is super-genius until you get to 165+ hyper-geniuses (and reach the limits of measurement). Trump blasts IQ tests, and wisely uses baby-talk for such as you. Bad!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Jim says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    135 super-genius? That's the intellect of an Al Gore or Hillary Clinton.

    But Trump is the proof that you can make a lot of money and not be very smart at all.

    135 is more than 2 standard deviations above the US average so less than one percent of the US population. It is about 3 standard deviations above the world average which is about 90.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Jim says:
    @map
    Of course economic power translates into political power. The economic system sustaining the political power of the Jews collapsed which is why they could not prevent the Holocaust from happening. Other than that, they were sitting pretty.

    There is no official Malay discrimination against the rich and powerful Chinese minority. Just because a member of Amy Chua's family was killed by their chauffeur to the complete indifference of the Malaysian Police does not make "World on Fire" theories correct.

    A further note on this HBD "meritocracy" nonsense: Remember, we do not exist as atomistic individuals. We exist as families. Wealthy and powerful Chinese families are not going to disadvantage their own dull children in favor of the occasional brilliant Malay. Privileged families privilege their children regardless of their HBD merit. Let's not turn HBD into a a form of libertarian economics.

    The history of the persecution of Jews in European history such as their expulsion from Spain and their expulsion from England show that being economically successful does not necessarily translate into political power. Ethnic Chinese in places like Indonesia and Jamaica have been extremely successful without acquiring any significant amount of political power. At the time of the anti-Chinese riots in Jamaica the Jamaican Chinese controlled about 98% of the retail establishments in Jamaica and were much wealthy then the Jamaican majority. The economic success of the Asian minority in Uganda under Idi Amin did not protect them from expulsion.

    By the way I believe that Amy Chua’s aunt was killed in the Philippines not in Malaysia. There also the ethnic Chinese have way outperformed the local the Filipino population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @map
    The expulsion from Spain was after the Muslim yoke was taken off the neck of the Spaniards. Before, the Jews were doing very well under stable Muslim rule. The expulsion from England was the same. Turmoil and revolutionary conditions are what dislodge a market-dominant minority, where people get tired of the political influence of these people, usually behind the scenes.

    Economic power always leads to political power. Abuse of political power is what leads to revolutions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Jim says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    IQ tests are stripped down math-logic puzzles..stripped away of any meaningfull context. Yet in engineering,mathematics and science, the problems come embedded with a whole lot of historical and thematic context.
     
    Ssshhhhhhh....leave the HBD-ists to their happy thoughts.

    I've never seen so much nonsense spouted as the IQ stuff with the alt-righters and the white supremacists. Leaves me in stitches sometimes. But, heck, it keeps them occupied.

    Actually in mathematics the problems are largely context-free.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Jim says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    there is the Chomsky-Fodor critique of behaviorism
     
    Yes, indeed, there is the Chomsky-Fodor critique. Be that as it may, I am one to insist that behavior is behavior, and has a quite simple, comprehensible, even useful and generally-applicable definition (see above somewhere). I am not a devotee of the "Behaviorism" school of psychology, which I tend to refer to, somewhat sarcastically, as "Behavioristics".

    Please to observe that Mr. Scalpel declares that all behavior is genetic ("biological") in origin. That is absolute crap, and he doesn't "get" why. Yes, I know that HBD devotees may not appear to be pure head-cases until a point has been reached where disengagement looks rude. But, fuck that, don't care.

    Human behavior doesn’t come from a “soul”, an “autonomous self” or a “ghost in the machine”. It basis as with everything biological is the physical structure of polynucleotides.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Jim says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    John Jeremiah Smith


    I'll take it one step further..if Jim is willing to admit that intelligence is a complex phenotype, then his faith and the mad calibrator's faith in the scientific depth and explanatory power of IQ test score psychometrics shouldn't be as strong as it is. IQ tests are stripped down math-logic puzzles..stripped away of any meaningfull context. Yet in engineering,mathematics and science, the problems come embedded with a whole lot of historical and thematic context. One can not make a meaningfull contribution in any of the aforementioned fields without understanding the context in which a particular problem-question arises. The bigger issue is the phenomenological framework for understanding and asking the right questions and coming up with interesting research projects-frameworks that are deep-profound in science, mathematics, and engineering....Context is everything!!!!!

    That is not true in mathematics which is almost totally context-free. Grigori Perelman may or may not have known the context in which the Poincare Conjecture arose (actually Poincare never conjectured it and apparently only mentioned the problem once) but whether he did or did not know much about the origin of the Poincare Conjecture was irrelevant to his solution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Jim says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Complex behavior is the essence of biology
     
    Don't be absurd.

    and it is how we would recognize extraterrestrial life if we were ever able to do so.
     
    OoooWEEEEoooooo.

    Incidentally as far as your definition of behavior – complex behavior is shown by all biological organisms not just persons and animals.
     
    Didn't say it wasn't. So what?

    Also referring to “external or internal stimuli” really adds nothing to the definition other than to say that behavior has causes.
     
    What "internal stimuli"? LOL. You attribute all behavior to internal, unseen, unknown causes, which you cannot substantiate. 99.99% of observable behavior is readily attributable to external stimuli operating as stimulus/response. The rest is unexplained, and you insisting that it's genetic is your opinion, which you are welcome to entertain, but it is by no means proven.

    Polynucleotides are not “unknown causes”. They are actual physical molecules about which we have a tremendous amount of information and which can now be extensively manipulated. As for external stimuli, a rock gets a lot of external stimuli and shows very little in the way of complex behavior. More is required for complex behavior than external stimuli.

    Of course the obvious striking thing about biological entities is their complex behavior. In the case of extraterrestrial organisms it might turn out that some might have a different physical basis than life on Earth. We don’t know of anything today which can play the role of polynucleotides but given the enormous number of possible organic molecules there may exist other possibilities. However in any case an extraterrestrial entity that exhibited behavior of roughly the same degree of complexity as life on Earth would be considered alive. We don’t consider the rocks on Mars to be alive because they don’t show much in the way of complex behavior.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. map says:
    @Jim
    The history of the persecution of Jews in European history such as their expulsion from Spain and their expulsion from England show that being economically successful does not necessarily translate into political power. Ethnic Chinese in places like Indonesia and Jamaica have been extremely successful without acquiring any significant amount of political power. At the time of the anti-Chinese riots in Jamaica the Jamaican Chinese controlled about 98% of the retail establishments in Jamaica and were much wealthy then the Jamaican majority. The economic success of the Asian minority in Uganda under Idi Amin did not protect them from expulsion.

    By the way I believe that Amy Chua's aunt was killed in the Philippines not in Malaysia. There also the ethnic Chinese have way outperformed the local the Filipino population.

    The expulsion from Spain was after the Muslim yoke was taken off the neck of the Spaniards. Before, the Jews were doing very well under stable Muslim rule. The expulsion from England was the same. Turmoil and revolutionary conditions are what dislodge a market-dominant minority, where people get tired of the political influence of these people, usually behind the scenes.

    Economic power always leads to political power. Abuse of political power is what leads to revolutions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Actually revolution during the height of repression is pretty rare. There was no revolution in the time of Stalin. By the time the Soviet system was overthrown the level of repression was miniscule compared to what it had been under Stalin. By the time of the French Revolution the Ancien Regime had long become a pussycat. In fact when the Estates General were convened virtually everybody in France including the nobility accepted the need for reform.

    It's not likely that there will be a revolution anytime soon in North Korea although the abuse of political power there has rarely been equaled in history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Jim says:
    @map
    The expulsion from Spain was after the Muslim yoke was taken off the neck of the Spaniards. Before, the Jews were doing very well under stable Muslim rule. The expulsion from England was the same. Turmoil and revolutionary conditions are what dislodge a market-dominant minority, where people get tired of the political influence of these people, usually behind the scenes.

    Economic power always leads to political power. Abuse of political power is what leads to revolutions.

    Actually revolution during the height of repression is pretty rare. There was no revolution in the time of Stalin. By the time the Soviet system was overthrown the level of repression was miniscule compared to what it had been under Stalin. By the time of the French Revolution the Ancien Regime had long become a pussycat. In fact when the Estates General were convened virtually everybody in France including the nobility accepted the need for reform.

    It’s not likely that there will be a revolution anytime soon in North Korea although the abuse of political power there has rarely been equaled in history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Stogumber says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Is that New Guard reference Australian? (I confirmed by Googling "new guard" that the 1920s conservative New Guard movement is highest on the search list).

    But then I have read recently that the enclosure with triple parentheses connotes an anti-Semitic Jewish reference. Is "Father O'Hara" an esoteric tribute to New York's 1940s Father Coughlin?

    If, as Anonymous declared above, the Old Guard was WASP; then there is obviously something like a New Guard, and if it is non-WASP, the most important part will be the people which by their own declarations replaced the WASPs.
    You can drop the triple parentheses, but you can’t drop the facts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. […] of the Great Depression helped make income distribution more equitable and stable until 1980.[1] Then, in the wake of Thatcherism in Britain and Reaganomics in the United States, inequality really […]

    Read More
  99. […] Celebrating the One Percent by Michael Hudson for The Unz Review. […]

    Read More
  100. RobRich says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    RobRich says "The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135–the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers–typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities."

    Would that this were true!

    The "inventors, surgeons, engineers" with IQs of 135, while doing the heavy lifting in research and innovation which have created gains in productivity (that, incidentally, have not been shared with the workers) have not, in fact, been rewarded with salaries or bonuses anywhere near commensurate those earned by the financiers--this is the whole point of Mike's thesis, which you have obviously missed.

    Many of you people don't know about this but there was a real war in American Corporate boardrooms in the early 1980's between two factions. The Old Guard (largely WASPs) held that the corporation had an obligation both to the community in which it lived and to its workers. They believed in e.g. corporate donations to community social goods such as local museums, philharmonics, scholarships for disadvantaged school kids etc. These guys claimed that the corporations reason for being was to manufacture a product that sold into the marketplace.

    They were opposed by the new-money corporate raider types who had leveraged their way into wealth and the new generation of Financiers, largely MBAs from Ivy League Universities who witnessed and admired their rise to power. This new guard viewed the corporation as having a responsibility to, first of all, maximize return to stockholders. They rejected the vision of the corporation as having any obligation to the community. Profit that had formerly been earmarked for reinvestment in Research and Development and expanding infrastructure was to be redistributed to shareholders as dividends. Plants were relocated abroad to lower labor costs and take advantage of higher yield emerging markets, thereby maximizing profit. Stodgy notions of responsibility were derided and rejected--literally--by retiring the Old Guard. The Old Guard was voted out of the Boardroom just as they were purged from the Republican Party by the NeoCons. This is a little discussed topic, but it really happened and some of us were witnesses to it.

    There were real ideological battles between those who thought that the company must make something to sell and those who envisioned a future in which, Enron-like, the corporation could exist as some sort of trading company with no other product but its organizing technique--much as President Clinton viewed the finance sector in general, which, if you remember, he predicted would sell its expertise to an astonished and admiring world. And we all know how that turned out. This is when GM began to earn more from finance than manufacturing.

    This new Financial Elite rules America today. Greedy for fame and lucre, rubes such as the Clintons and Obamas are their frontmen and lackeys and the Democratic Party, in a neat Judo throw, now represents the interests of the very wealthy over against those of the worker, all the while passing itself off as the party of the oppressed. What a cruel joke.

    Irrelevant to my point, except to show your envy of others: to you a millionaire is poor if there is a billionaire somewhere.

    Not to mention the many making $100K+ a year.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. RobRich says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    135 super-genius? That's the intellect of an Al Gore or Hillary Clinton.

    But Trump is the proof that you can make a lot of money and not be very smart at all.

    130 is a genius. 135+ is super-genius until you get to 165+ hyper-geniuses (and reach the limits of measurement). Trump blasts IQ tests, and wisely uses baby-talk for such as you. Bad!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. RobRich says: • Website
    @bigbadwolf
    "The top 1% are generally those with super-genius IQ over 135–the top businesspeople, inventors, surgeons, engineers–typically with an advanced degree from a top university and who guide successful communities."

    That is complete bollocks. Inventors, surgeons, and engineers are typically not among the super-rich. Of the latest cohort of Ph.D. engineers, 44% had no job or even post-doc. Inventors routinely get shafted by the big corporates, who hire lawyers to circumvent patent regulations -- cases can drag on for years. Surgeons and physicians do not need and typically do not have stellar IQs. They might make a comfortable living -- but not $10m, $100m, or a $1bn.

    The commanding heights of the US economy are monopolized by a group of parasitic rentiers and financiers. Leeches and parasites.

    The point is they ARE the top 1% of the population and do well.

    You miss that you, me and they’re like morons to hyper-geniuses who either have great social or hard capital if they desire, all things being equal etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. RobRich says: • Website
    @TG
    Kudos. Well said.

    I get very tired of all these 'conservatives' and 'libertarians' who claim that a society should be no more than 'stand back and let the big dog eat.' You don't have to be a Stalinist to find wealthy bankers bailing themselves out of their failed financial schemes with taxpayer funds, and then claiming to be 'wealth creators,' wholly despicable.

    We forget that so much of traditional economic thought was aimed at preventing these abuses. Again, kudos for reminding us so clearly.

    No Libertarian ever claimed this. They do spend time targeting bigots who make that claim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. RobRich says: • Website
    @Jim
    If no one has measured greed in a scientifically valid way then there is no empirical basis for the assertion that greed levels are higher in more economically successful individuals.

    Great point.

    Has any Marxist social scientist ever scientifically measured greed?

    You want to see greed, watch the local young socialists argue over a bar bill.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Michael Hudson Comments via RSS