RSS
When I was younger I used to follow politics somewhat closely. Every year I would read The Almanac of American Politics. With sites like Politico and Wikipedia there’s really no point. Additionally, I gave up my interest in closely following politics at around the same time (or a little later) I stopped closely following professional sports. To a great extent it was a matter of the opportunity cost, and the fact that I find most of the major camps rather uncongenial to me (e.g., I dislike the multiculturalism which seems embedded within the Democratic party today, and, the militarism which is reflexive for modern Republicans). But I do have one observation to make: the intensity of support for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are things I’ve noticed. I’d still bet that neither will win their parties’ nominations, but it definitely makes you wonder.
I’ve been very busy, so no time to really read many books. But I did do some preliminary analysis of 1000 Genomes’ data. Judging from the samples I wouldn’t be surprised if there is more evidence of inbreeding from genetics in the British Bangladeshi community than in the samples from Dhaka. The Gujarati Patel community exhibits somewhat more elevated rates of runs of homozygosity in comparison to Europeans or Bengalis, but the range and median in Pakistani populations is pretty extreme (while South Indian groups do evidence of consanguinity as you’d expect). Also, the ethno-linguistic identity of Pakistani populations is pretty obviously fluid. More on that later….
Daniel Falush is going to draft up a write-up on how to/not to use ADMIXTURE analyses….
@razibkhan @mathiesoniain @joe_pickrell @Graham_Coop draft 3 with input from all of you.. pic.twitter.com/ZKPxQvtrmV
— daniel falush (@DanielFalush) January 27, 2016
I’m pretty skeptical of reparations on prior grounds, and have long been so. I read The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks, 15 years ago, and recall it being more substantive that what’s on offer in our day. But, it has crossed my mind recently that cash has been shown to be very effective in development aid contexts. So why not in this situation? Yes, there are plenty of reasons to object, but it strikes me many of the same reasons apply in developed economies as well. It seems that the key for reparations to work and have some “buy-in” is it to be linked to a rollback of positive discrimination in public life. So it’s probably a nonstarter.
The schizophrenia paper. People have asked. Yes, this is a very big deal.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
I am sympathetic to those who argue Sanders-Trump enthusiasm is partly driven by decades of Democratic and Republican leadership disdain for poorer whites. As you know, both of them skew white in their supporters. And the one group generally considered acceptable to mock by *elite* leadership of both Red and Blue tribes is the culture of poor whites (though Blue tribe leadership professes more rural support). I grew up on a farm in rural Ohio. So when I talked to my Mom this weekend, I also randomly asked a few questions about politics. With an N=1 level of confidence, I came away feeling more convinced. The depth of enthusiasm for both is partly driven by decades of disdain for white poverty in “flyover” states. Not whole story, but surely part of it. Murray’s Coming Apart thesis.
The argument on reparations has both an economic and moral angle. Not sure if Robinson is more economic or not. But it seems to me that the TN Coates flavor recently coming into prominences comes primarily from a Catholic inspired sin-redemption moral angle. But is often misunderstood as an economic argument. Yes, Coates goes on about exploited black bodies. But he is very tentative about any financial success with reparations. On this point I think he is correct. It’s not the money so much as confessing sins, forgiveness, and (hopefully) moving on. So the amount of money to transfer has to be large enough to not be a joke, but the calculation itself and whether the money is squandered doesn’t make much difference (in this view). I don’t agree with Coates analysis of race as being the be-all end-all for understanding America, but I do see the moral logic of reparations as being more fundamental than the economic. It’s ostentiably about giving blacks what they are owed and having prejudicied whites acknowledging the truth about America’s history, but in some ways nearly as important is allowing progressives to also move on. So together we can focus on poverty in all races.
The argument on reparations has both an economic and moral angle. Not sure if Robinson is more economic or not. But it seems to me that the TN Coates flavor recently coming into prominences comes primarily from a Catholic inspired sin-redemption moral angle. But is often misunderstood as an economic argument. Yes, Coates goes on about exploited black bodies. But he is very tentative about any financial success with reparations. On this point I think he is correct. It's not the money so much as confessing sins, forgiveness, and (hopefully) moving on. So the amount of money to transfer has to be large enough to not be a joke, but the calculation itself and whether the money is squandered doesn't make much difference (in this view). I don't agree with Coates analysis of race as being the be-all end-all for understanding America, but I do see the moral logic of reparations as being more fundamental than the economic. It's ostentiably about giving blacks what they are owed and having prejudicied whites acknowledging the truth about America's history, but in some ways nearly as important is allowing progressives to also move on. So together we can focus on poverty in all races.Replies: @Razib Khan
understanding is that bernie is “wine track.”
I am struggling to comprehend the genetic understanding of race and simplify it into an easily understandable context that I can explain to others. This is especially true in confusion with regard to race as a social construct versus race as a biological reality.
The best analogy I have come up with is the basic color model. Its form consists of red, blue and yellow. In a variety of ways the colors can be mixed to form other colors. Furthermore, white and black can be added to each color in order to obtain different shades of that color. Does that mean that there is no absolute red, blue or yellow? No. But what belongs to each category is both subjective and scientific. I can say that turquoise is blue and someone else can say that turquoise is actually green. However, at the end of the day, turquoise falls on the electromagnetic spectrum and exists between the spectrum of green (yellow mixed with blue and possibly white) and the spectrum of blue.
This seems to be a good way of describing race. When one talks about no distinct races there is some truth to that statement but not much. It is also true that race is socially constructed to some extent. If I go to Egypt, I can pick someone from lower Egypt and note their skin is lighter than someone from upper Egypt. In the Egyptain view, the upper region Egyptian is black while the lower region Egyptian is white. However, compared to a wealthy Thai person, the lower Egyptian may be of a darker tone and may be considered a "black" in Thailand.
Likewise, while the upper Egyptian may refer to both the wealthy Thai person and the lower Egyptian as "white," the genetic reality is that they are more racially different than can be supposed by skin tone. In fact, it's likely that the Lower and Upper Egyptian retain more common SNPs and phenotypic traits through a common ancestry.
Likewise, with colors you can shade blue and make it nearly identical to a dark red. However, scientifically they are very different in terms of wavelength.
Does this analogy make sense? Would you consider a good way to explain the different concepts of race?Replies: @Roger Sweeny, @Andrew Ryan
You really are funny, Razib. You put something like this comment on reparations in your post, knowing full well that it is going to generate some of the dumbest and most outrageous comments that you will have to read and ban. Is it just for fun or are you trying to fathom the range of thought (or the lack thereof) and comment that is out here?
Cash transfers to the third-world extremly-poor are a very effective use of money and frequently life-changing.
Lottery winnings and other similar windfalls to the first-world relatively-poor tend to disappear quickly and result in no long-term change in standard of living, happiness, etc. for the recipients.
I’m sure you can come up with good hypotheses for the difference.
“But, it has crossed my mind recently that cash has been shown to be very effective in development aid contexts. ”
Has it??? I thought development aid in general hasn’t been successful, at least in many African states it seems to have been a failure or even made things worse. That’s just my impression though which isn’t based on any real knowledge of the subject…could you explain what’s behind your statement?
I think it’s quite a fair argument that reparations (or some other sort of direct cash transfer program) would be a more fair method of addressing discrimination than affirmative action policies. I’ve moved towards this view myself over the years.
Affirmative action undoubtedly benefits certain individuals. But I think it’s difficult to argue it significantly benefits those in the black community it does not directly touch. Indeed, I’ve found it odd how many on the left oppose school vouchers for a principled reason (that lifting a small percentage of people out of a bad situation does not solve a systematic injustice) but use the exact inverse reasoning when discussing affirmative action. Both are essentially acts of symbolic justice – altering outcomes for small amounts of people to help address wrongs which have been done to a much larger cohort. In contrast, reparations would be a smaller material benefit, but it would be spread across the entire group. People may not spend their own share of the kitty in a very thoughtful manor (most people of any race would not) but it’s not the responsibility of the state to ensure the wronged party profits from justice, only to deliver it.
Speaking of direct cash payments, before you closed the thread about R.A. Fisher, a few posters were critiquing my belief that a redistributionist policy (basic income essentially) is just, financially feasible, and likely to be a necessity within another generation. The general gist seemed to be that “teh poors” would outbreed us and destroy society. It got me to thinking – is there any evidence of this happening anywhere?
I know within the U.S. context while low-income people continue to have more children than upper-middle class people, family size has been decreasing for everyone barring groups like the old order Amish and Hasids. Europe has better social services than the U.S., especially for families, and almost universally lower birth rates. In developing countries birth rates have fallen dramatically over my entire lifetime, with the biggest decreases happening in nations which have had the largest increases to their standard of living. Even in the Gulf States, which already have what amounts to basic income for citizens, the birth rate has been dropping dramatically. Qatar, for example, had a rate of around 7 children per mother back in 1970. Today it’s down to 2.1, or 3.6 when non-citizens are excluded. If virtually every society shows a decline in its birth rate with rising living standards, whether it is due to more productive work, or merely living off the proceeds of others, it suggests to me that any basic income system would actually cause the birth rate to drop further, at least in the short-to-medium run.
As to the basic income, all of the incentives now are for the people receiving assistance to have more children. I see people all the time who are functioning but seem to understand that they are “barely” making it and they limit themselves to one child. If we had the basic income with no incentives for larger families, this group would use the economic reality to benefit themselves and their one or two child family (wholehearted joining our consumerist crazy society) .
I thought that your comment about them out-breeding us was interesting.Replies: @Karl Zimmerman
Has it??? I thought development aid in general hasn't been successful, at least in many African states it seems to have been a failure or even made things worse. That's just my impression though which isn't based on any real knowledge of the subject...could you explain what's behind your statement?Replies: @Erik Sieven, @Razib Khan
without massive development aid there would mich likely not have been the big decrease in mortality in subsaharan Africa, and thus also not the population growth subsaharan Africa has experienced in the last decades. without development aid the situation would be worse
Any thoughts on Afro-Asiatic urheimat?
It’s either Sanders, Paul, or Trump for me. Foreign policy is one of my biggest issues. If it comes down to Sanders or a Trump, Trump is the better of the two and will get my vote. Anyone others in the general election and I’ll sit home.
It’s awesome how Trump’s been like, “burn this bitch down” (to use Michael Brown’s stepfather’s incitation during the Ferguson, MO riots) when it’s come to the conservative neocon establishment. The dude is brilliant and knows exactly what he must do to win whatever he wants. He likes Bobby Fischer looking at a 4D chess board. I have no doubt once Trump’s in the general election he’ll move to a position that will be found appealing in even Portlandia. This election has shown how a master in the business game is orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the best in the political game.
I think of myself as being on the left and I am very much in favor of school vouchers from the local level all the way to the federal.
As to the basic income, all of the incentives now are for the people receiving assistance to have more children. I see people all the time who are functioning but seem to understand that they are “barely” making it and they limit themselves to one child. If we had the basic income with no incentives for larger families, this group would use the economic reality to benefit themselves and their one or two child family (wholehearted joining our consumerist crazy society) .
I thought that your comment about them out-breeding us was interesting.
I lean towards North Eastern Africa , from the Horn to the Sinai. More diversity of Afro-Asiatic in Africa, and only Semitic known to be outside of Africa.
I predicted 2 months that the nominees will be Trump and Sanders – I’ve been making political predictions since I was 10yo and have never been wrong yet.
Receiving cash or money will not have long term consequence on social position for any groups. Lottery winners are good examples to study.
For people with genetic capital, they can flourish almost anywhere, any place, any situations. With aid, they succeed faster. Without aid, they still do at end but bit of delayed.
In capitalistic society of market economy, the trick is to figure out what goods or service other people need. Then figuring out your own natural talent to provide such service: good muscle/action for professional athletes, good look for entertaining or just gold-digger, good brain for most professional/technical jobs, good verbal/social skill for public relation, politics, sales. Many more. If not good for any thing, too bad.
Give us a perspective here, are you 14 now?
I apologizing for commenting off topic in this thread but perhaps you’ll humor me with a response.
I am struggling to comprehend the genetic understanding of race and simplify it into an easily understandable context that I can explain to others. This is especially true in confusion with regard to race as a social construct versus race as a biological reality.
The best analogy I have come up with is the basic color model. Its form consists of red, blue and yellow. In a variety of ways the colors can be mixed to form other colors. Furthermore, white and black can be added to each color in order to obtain different shades of that color. Does that mean that there is no absolute red, blue or yellow? No. But what belongs to each category is both subjective and scientific. I can say that turquoise is blue and someone else can say that turquoise is actually green. However, at the end of the day, turquoise falls on the electromagnetic spectrum and exists between the spectrum of green (yellow mixed with blue and possibly white) and the spectrum of blue.
This seems to be a good way of describing race. When one talks about no distinct races there is some truth to that statement but not much. It is also true that race is socially constructed to some extent. If I go to Egypt, I can pick someone from lower Egypt and note their skin is lighter than someone from upper Egypt. In the Egyptain view, the upper region Egyptian is black while the lower region Egyptian is white. However, compared to a wealthy Thai person, the lower Egyptian may be of a darker tone and may be considered a “black” in Thailand.
Likewise, while the upper Egyptian may refer to both the wealthy Thai person and the lower Egyptian as “white,” the genetic reality is that they are more racially different than can be supposed by skin tone. In fact, it’s likely that the Lower and Upper Egyptian retain more common SNPs and phenotypic traits through a common ancestry.
Likewise, with colors you can shade blue and make it nearly identical to a dark red. However, scientifically they are very different in terms of wavelength.
Does this analogy make sense? Would you consider a good way to explain the different concepts of race?
I am struggling to comprehend the genetic understanding of race and simplify it into an easily understandable context that I can explain to others. This is especially true in confusion with regard to race as a social construct versus race as a biological reality.
The best analogy I have come up with is the basic color model. Its form consists of red, blue and yellow. In a variety of ways the colors can be mixed to form other colors. Furthermore, white and black can be added to each color in order to obtain different shades of that color. Does that mean that there is no absolute red, blue or yellow? No. But what belongs to each category is both subjective and scientific. I can say that turquoise is blue and someone else can say that turquoise is actually green. However, at the end of the day, turquoise falls on the electromagnetic spectrum and exists between the spectrum of green (yellow mixed with blue and possibly white) and the spectrum of blue.
This seems to be a good way of describing race. When one talks about no distinct races there is some truth to that statement but not much. It is also true that race is socially constructed to some extent. If I go to Egypt, I can pick someone from lower Egypt and note their skin is lighter than someone from upper Egypt. In the Egyptain view, the upper region Egyptian is black while the lower region Egyptian is white. However, compared to a wealthy Thai person, the lower Egyptian may be of a darker tone and may be considered a "black" in Thailand.
Likewise, while the upper Egyptian may refer to both the wealthy Thai person and the lower Egyptian as "white," the genetic reality is that they are more racially different than can be supposed by skin tone. In fact, it's likely that the Lower and Upper Egyptian retain more common SNPs and phenotypic traits through a common ancestry.
Likewise, with colors you can shade blue and make it nearly identical to a dark red. However, scientifically they are very different in terms of wavelength.
Does this analogy make sense? Would you consider a good way to explain the different concepts of race?Replies: @Roger Sweeny, @Andrew Ryan
There is no “essence of Caucasian” like there actually is an “essence of red.” Races are simply descendant groups where most reproduction has been within the group.
No there isn't. The sRGB color model works really well, but if you look into it deeper you will see that there is nothing fundamental about it.
Razib, any thoughts on this:
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004401
I thought that the European (largely Italian) origins of maternal Ashkenazi ancestry was a settled issue by now.
Razib,
The correction to Lllorente et al. has shown that any back-migrations into Africa were much more geographically limited than previously reported. But even their corrected paper shows a very old Western Eurasian admixture in the African Horn. And, of course, some Somalians, Eritreans, and Ethiopians have long been noted for their Eurasian features. What’s the timeline here for the admixture in the African Horn? Are we to assume that the back-migration occurred after the emergence of some kind of Eurasian “look”? Or have there simply been multiple population movements in the region, with later admixture explaining the contemporary range of Horn phenotypes?
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/02/01/038406
the horn of africa event is likely recent, 2-3 K. first, the ancient sample has no eurasian, second, there is variation among modern groups in the region, third, LD decay methods can pick up the admixture.
lots of suggestions for years, supported by this paper, that there's been an older event which spread across africa. probably something to do with the ppl related to EEF....
Once again the betting markets are a better indication of whom will win the parties nominations for president than the pundits/experts. Huge preference right now for Clinton versus Rubio after the Iowa results are in and as of February 2nd. Republican nominee odds Rubio -145 Trump +270 Cruz+500, and for the Democratic nominee Clinton -560 Sanders +800.
Man I wish I had bet against Trump right before the Iowa primary results but the most reliable pollster for the Iowa caucuses, the Des Moines Register poll, got it wrong for only the second time since 1988.
Thanks once again Razib and commentators for making this as much as possible an ideology free zone.
i like to entertain counterfactuals and arguments that go against my priors. if people flip the shit out at ideas which make them uncomfortable, than fuck them. they can go to free republic & salon 🙂 (on the old GNXP blog i actually banned a contributor who was an old college friend because of such a meltdown)
JS Mills
That is...remarkable.
Has it??? I thought development aid in general hasn't been successful, at least in many African states it seems to have been a failure or even made things worse. That's just my impression though which isn't based on any real knowledge of the subject...could you explain what's behind your statement?Replies: @Erik Sieven, @Razib Khan
http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/cash-transfers
Such transfers temporarily spike economic activity and may even have some residual long-term benefits, but weighed against these are long-term negative consequences such as discouragement of work, social resentment, corruption, and dependency (that retards economic/infrastructure self-sufficiency).Replies: @Karl Zimmerman
> like there actually is an “essence of red.”
No there isn’t. The sRGB color model works really well, but if you look into it deeper you will see that there is nothing fundamental about it.
I thought that the European (largely Italian) origins of maternal Ashkenazi ancestry was a settled issue by now.Replies: @Razib Khan
not settled. it would be settled with X chromosome analysis….
The correction to Lllorente et al. has shown that any back-migrations into Africa were much more geographically limited than previously reported. But even their corrected paper shows a very old Western Eurasian admixture in the African Horn. And, of course, some Somalians, Eritreans, and Ethiopians have long been noted for their Eurasian features. What's the timeline here for the admixture in the African Horn? Are we to assume that the back-migration occurred after the emergence of some kind of Eurasian "look"? Or have there simply been multiple population movements in the region, with later admixture explaining the contemporary range of Horn phenotypes?Replies: @Razib Khan, @John Massey
What’s the timeline here for the admixture in the African Horn?
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/02/01/038406
the horn of africa event is likely recent, 2-3 K. first, the ancient sample has no eurasian, second, there is variation among modern groups in the region, third, LD decay methods can pick up the admixture.
lots of suggestions for years, supported by this paper, that there’s been an older event which spread across africa. probably something to do with the ppl related to EEF….
From the study you cited:
I witnessed all four of these factors transpire overseas with cash transfers. Time and time again.
Such transfers temporarily spike economic activity and may even have some residual long-term benefits, but weighed against these are long-term negative consequences such as discouragement of work, social resentment, corruption, and dependency (that retards economic/infrastructure self-sufficiency).
1. Cash transfers do not increase the money supply, they only redistribute it. Hence there is no inflation in a global sense, although there may be some on a localized level. Still, this should be balanced against prices deflating somewhere else. And if the cash is transferred from a group with a high savings rate to one with a very high spend rate, the result should be more economic growth overall.
2. Basic income models probably do discourage work. That said, I firmly believe with the way automation is going we're only a generation or so away from a wide swathe of human labor becoming functionally useless within a market setting. I'm not the only one who thinks so - it's become enough of a big idea now in the tech world that Y Combinator is funding a "basic income startup". I honestly think the work discouragement of basic income will become a feature, not a bug, of the system. If you can have a decent standard of living without working, employers are going to have to offer you a good wage package to compensate for losing so much free time.
3. The "unfair" aspect of basic income models can be dealt with by making them universal. I don't think it's feasible to have a basic income system on a global level yet, but I certainly think setting up universal systems within developed countries is financially possible.
4. Unless you have a command economy, or a true post-scarcity world where goods and services are functionally free, you're going to have people with more "moxie" who fleece the financially illiterate out of their cash. But this isn't something unique to basic incomes or cash transfers - it's just as true for wage work. Witness the exploitation of payday lending services.Replies: @Yudi, @Twinkie
I’d think that would depend a lot on the circumstances, no? Especially since a lot of these programs are based on barriers people face today rather than anything that happened in the past.
… in an imperfect state of the human mind, the interests of truth requires a diversity of opinions.
JS Mills
The correction to Lllorente et al. has shown that any back-migrations into Africa were much more geographically limited than previously reported. But even their corrected paper shows a very old Western Eurasian admixture in the African Horn. And, of course, some Somalians, Eritreans, and Ethiopians have long been noted for their Eurasian features. What's the timeline here for the admixture in the African Horn? Are we to assume that the back-migration occurred after the emergence of some kind of Eurasian "look"? Or have there simply been multiple population movements in the region, with later admixture explaining the contemporary range of Horn phenotypes?Replies: @Razib Khan, @John Massey
Some of the Oromo of the Ethiopian Highlands are Christians, but it’s not Christianity that a lot of modern Christians would recognise. And some of the Fulani are Jewish, but likewise it’s a different Judaism that most people would recognise. So, I think that puts an upper bound on it – 1st Century AD, and maybe going back some time before that. Razib’s 2-3K sounds like the right ballpark.
Not Fulani, I mean Falasha.
As to the basic income, all of the incentives now are for the people receiving assistance to have more children. I see people all the time who are functioning but seem to understand that they are “barely” making it and they limit themselves to one child. If we had the basic income with no incentives for larger families, this group would use the economic reality to benefit themselves and their one or two child family (wholehearted joining our consumerist crazy society) .
I thought that your comment about them out-breeding us was interesting.Replies: @Karl Zimmerman
People on public assistance don’t seem to have larger families. For example, this 2010 study of TANF recipients found the average number of children per household is 1.8. The Census found the same year the average number of people under age 18 in families with children was 1.92.
Of course, TANF is not the be all end all of public assistance. After welfare reform in the 1990s, many of the long-term unemployed shifted to SSI, as it lacks lack the lifetime benefit limits of TANF. That said, my understanding of the benefit structure is you receive no money for children in the household unless they are also disabled. While some parents do claim their kids are “learning disabled” in order to get these benefits fraudulently, the number of children covered by SSI is rather small (1.2 million, versus 3.3 million for TANF) and you cannot say the cost structure provides incentives to have more children.
The only way would be to look at the total structure and I don't know if that has been done. We can look at different aspects and see what we want. For example, each additional child is worth a minimum of $1,000 via the child tax credit.Replies: @Karl Zimmerman
Such transfers temporarily spike economic activity and may even have some residual long-term benefits, but weighed against these are long-term negative consequences such as discouragement of work, social resentment, corruption, and dependency (that retards economic/infrastructure self-sufficiency).Replies: @Karl Zimmerman
Of course a study of the positive possibilities of cash transfers would have to list the potential negatives if it wanted any intellectual honesty. Regarding the different downsides, this is my own thought.
1. Cash transfers do not increase the money supply, they only redistribute it. Hence there is no inflation in a global sense, although there may be some on a localized level. Still, this should be balanced against prices deflating somewhere else. And if the cash is transferred from a group with a high savings rate to one with a very high spend rate, the result should be more economic growth overall.
2. Basic income models probably do discourage work. That said, I firmly believe with the way automation is going we’re only a generation or so away from a wide swathe of human labor becoming functionally useless within a market setting. I’m not the only one who thinks so – it’s become enough of a big idea now in the tech world that Y Combinator is funding a “basic income startup”. I honestly think the work discouragement of basic income will become a feature, not a bug, of the system. If you can have a decent standard of living without working, employers are going to have to offer you a good wage package to compensate for losing so much free time.
3. The “unfair” aspect of basic income models can be dealt with by making them universal. I don’t think it’s feasible to have a basic income system on a global level yet, but I certainly think setting up universal systems within developed countries is financially possible.
4. Unless you have a command economy, or a true post-scarcity world where goods and services are functionally free, you’re going to have people with more “moxie” who fleece the financially illiterate out of their cash. But this isn’t something unique to basic incomes or cash transfers – it’s just as true for wage work. Witness the exploitation of payday lending services.
I am open to the facts. I was speaking just from observational and anecdotal information.
The only way would be to look at the total structure and I don’t know if that has been done. We can look at different aspects and see what we want. For example, each additional child is worth a minimum of $1,000 via the child tax credit.
I don’t want to get side-tracked into the periphery. Proles fornicating and reproducing like rabbits is not “the problem”, if, in fact, that is what they are doing. The problem is the failure of the “smart fraction” to lead and to maintain an economic solution that has “room” for everybody.
The only way would be to look at the total structure and I don't know if that has been done. We can look at different aspects and see what we want. For example, each additional child is worth a minimum of $1,000 via the child tax credit.Replies: @Karl Zimmerman
True enough. But there are also “pro-natal” tax policies which benefit middle and upper class individuals. For example, the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit – where 60% of the benefit goes to the top 40% and only 1% to the bottom 20%. Although they don’t go directly to upper-middle income families, the deduction of mortgage interest and tax-free status of employer-provided health benefits are huge tax expenses for the government which mostly benefit the middle/upper classes. Families tend to benefit from these more than single people as well, considering they have more expensive health plans, and buy larger, more expensive houses.
Indeed. When not destroyed by invasion or environmental conditions, stratified societies collapse because of a failure of leadership on the part of the ruling class. In my mind, the crucial issue for the ruling class today is dealing with the ramifications of automation – which is essentially replacing labor needs with capital investment, resulting in a devaluation of wage work (and potentially it’s large-scale elimination within 1-2 generations). If we have a smart ruling class, they’ll buy out the proles with more redistribution, and everyone can live a comfortable life based upon what computers, robots, and 3D printers provide. If not, they’re in for a world of hurt.
Human at end is still a biological species in the nature, subject to natural law which is survival of the fittest. Different environment favors different fittest phenotypes. If there is endless supply of living material, ones who can survive and reproduce without any effort become the fittest in this environment. The ones who still want to put extra effort to live and reproduce become less fit for such environment. The fittest phenotype will expand and replace less fit type in the long run. If environment is that extra effort is rewarded for more survival offspring, then hard-working is fittest phenotype in this environment. In the long run, people with less effort or ability are gradually replaced by people with stronger ability/effort. Historically second environment has been most part of human history, especially for harsh environment like freezing cold northern land.
Human appendix, depigmentation of northern people, feet of snake, toes of antelope or horse are all devolutional result when some feature is no longer biologically needed. Evolution is about the survival of fittest, not survival of idealistic quality.
Though current information you cited show no more increased reproduction from welfare recipients, you should not be surprised that there is sudden mutations which take advantage of free living material. Nature is about random mutations which can be harmful or beneficial in particular environment. Laziness (socially constructed idea, preserve body energy in nature) is considered bad feature in most societies. But with free living material, it is biologically beneficial mutation due to such laziness taking advantage of such particular environment and preserve biological energy. Nature has its own way to operate against human conscious wish. As scientists, we are able to observe how nature / universe function against our own best wish.
If you provide right environment, it is just matter of time that certain genetic change will succeed in taking advantage of such survival environment.
Good question.
Human at end is still a biological species in the nature, subject to natural law which is survival of the fittest. Different environment favors different fittest phenotypes. If there is endless supply of living material, ones who can survive and reproduce without any effort become the fittest in this environment. The ones who still want to put extra effort to live and reproduce become less fit for such environment. The fittest phenotype will expand and replace less fit type in the long run. If environment is that extra effort is rewarded for more survival offspring, then hard-working is fittest phenotype in this environment. In the long run, people with less effort or ability are gradually replaced by people with stronger ability/effort. Historically second environment has been most part of human history, especially for harsh environment like freezing cold northern land.
Human appendix, depigmentation of northern people, feet of snake, toes of antelope or horse are all devolutional result when some feature is no longer biologically needed. Evolution is about the survival of fittest, not survival of idealistic quality.
Though current information you cited show no more increased reproduction from welfare recipients, you should not be surprised that there is sudden mutations which take advantage of free living material. Nature is about random mutations which can be harmful or beneficial in particular environment. Laziness (socially constructed idea, preserve body energy in nature) is considered bad feature in most societies. But with free living material, it is biologically beneficial mutation due to such laziness taking advantage of such particular environment and preserve biological energy. Nature has its own way to operate against human conscious wish. As scientists, we are able to observe how nature / universe function against our own best wish.
If you provide right environment, it is just matter of time that certain genetic change will succeed in taking advantage of such survival environment.
If automation makes physical labor unnecessary, it is environment change which should make individuals who only can contribute physical labor as unfit individual in the new environment. Without conscious effort/intervention, unfit type should go extinct according to biological evolution. But with human help to such unfit individual, you end with above situation. Catch-22.
The best way to study such difficult situation is to set up experiment of working dog breed. Nowadays, very few working dogs are bred for their working ability. For example, sheep dogs. One group is bred for nothing; control is selected for their ability to work with sheep. You should be able to observe the result in our life time since dog reproductive cycle of one year (comparing human 20 years). I guess a lot of people can predict outcome very clear already.
We human are actually product of selective breeding in most civilization. The breeders were feudal lord or landlords who only let productive people work or live on their land. Hunter-gatherers are more selected by nature instead of human masters. It is most productive people who are the fittest in such environment. It is not conscious effort to do such breeding but pursuit of wealth from both lords and peasants. Less productive individuals were constantly selected out due to inability to provide for the family and reproduce. Downward social mobility from the lords continued to fill the gap left by losers. If such process stops, reverse should happens since nature never stands still.
Capitalism economy is actually very much resembling the nature law which is about survival of the fittest. Super rich and powerful corporations never provide merciful help to weak small business, especially competitors. It is not because that big corporations is not rich enough. It is about preserving rule of competitions. A lot of time they would rather destroy their extra productions than giving away for free due to the very reason. Due to such brutal competition, market economy is always superior to other type. Collaboration only happens when there is mutual benefit. As Alan Greenspan said, the process is painful, but the result is superior.
With long term consequence in mind, bright leaders should foresee what is coming. If you were able to turn all females into gold-diggers who refuse to marry bottom males, then you have a counter mechanism. But female gold-digger is also product natural survival when poor men would can not provide living material for the survival of offspring due difficult survival environment. Females from region with harsh survival environment become gold-digger for good reason because gold-digger females became the fittest in such environment. If male providers mean nothing, selection of productive males by females would fade away just like non-bird species. (monogamous bird with male as provider). Lion is not selected according to ability to provide.
Survival of the fittest. Keep that in mind.
It is the dividing line between people and all other hominids.Replies: @Yak-15
I am struggling to comprehend the genetic understanding of race and simplify it into an easily understandable context that I can explain to others. This is especially true in confusion with regard to race as a social construct versus race as a biological reality.
The best analogy I have come up with is the basic color model. Its form consists of red, blue and yellow. In a variety of ways the colors can be mixed to form other colors. Furthermore, white and black can be added to each color in order to obtain different shades of that color. Does that mean that there is no absolute red, blue or yellow? No. But what belongs to each category is both subjective and scientific. I can say that turquoise is blue and someone else can say that turquoise is actually green. However, at the end of the day, turquoise falls on the electromagnetic spectrum and exists between the spectrum of green (yellow mixed with blue and possibly white) and the spectrum of blue.
This seems to be a good way of describing race. When one talks about no distinct races there is some truth to that statement but not much. It is also true that race is socially constructed to some extent. If I go to Egypt, I can pick someone from lower Egypt and note their skin is lighter than someone from upper Egypt. In the Egyptain view, the upper region Egyptian is black while the lower region Egyptian is white. However, compared to a wealthy Thai person, the lower Egyptian may be of a darker tone and may be considered a "black" in Thailand.
Likewise, while the upper Egyptian may refer to both the wealthy Thai person and the lower Egyptian as "white," the genetic reality is that they are more racially different than can be supposed by skin tone. In fact, it's likely that the Lower and Upper Egyptian retain more common SNPs and phenotypic traits through a common ancestry.
Likewise, with colors you can shade blue and make it nearly identical to a dark red. However, scientifically they are very different in terms of wavelength.
Does this analogy make sense? Would you consider a good way to explain the different concepts of race?Replies: @Roger Sweeny, @Andrew Ryan
Try dog breeds. Same species but dramatically different traits.
The best way to study such difficult situation is to set up experiment of working dog breed. Nowadays, very few working dogs are bred for their working ability. For example, sheep dogs. One group is bred for nothing; control is selected for their ability to work with sheep. You should be able to observe the result in our life time since dog reproductive cycle of one year (comparing human 20 years). I guess a lot of people can predict outcome very clear already.
We human are actually product of selective breeding in most civilization. The breeders were feudal lord or landlords who only let productive people work or live on their land. Hunter-gatherers are more selected by nature instead of human masters. It is most productive people who are the fittest in such environment. It is not conscious effort to do such breeding but pursuit of wealth from both lords and peasants. Less productive individuals were constantly selected out due to inability to provide for the family and reproduce. Downward social mobility from the lords continued to fill the gap left by losers. If such process stops, reverse should happens since nature never stands still.
Capitalism economy is actually very much resembling the nature law which is about survival of the fittest. Super rich and powerful corporations never provide merciful help to weak small business, especially competitors. It is not because that big corporations is not rich enough. It is about preserving rule of competitions. A lot of time they would rather destroy their extra productions than giving away for free due to the very reason. Due to such brutal competition, market economy is always superior to other type. Collaboration only happens when there is mutual benefit. As Alan Greenspan said, the process is painful, but the result is superior.
With long term consequence in mind, bright leaders should foresee what is coming. If you were able to turn all females into gold-diggers who refuse to marry bottom males, then you have a counter mechanism. But female gold-digger is also product natural survival when poor men would can not provide living material for the survival of offspring due difficult survival environment. Females from region with harsh survival environment become gold-digger for good reason because gold-digger females became the fittest in such environment. If male providers mean nothing, selection of productive males by females would fade away just like non-bird species. (monogamous bird with male as provider). Lion is not selected according to ability to provide.
Survival of the fittest. Keep that in mind.Replies: @iffen, @Karl Zimmerman
The true value of a people or civilization is the condition of those who are less able.
It is the dividing line between people and all other hominids.
The best way to study such difficult situation is to set up experiment of working dog breed. Nowadays, very few working dogs are bred for their working ability. For example, sheep dogs. One group is bred for nothing; control is selected for their ability to work with sheep. You should be able to observe the result in our life time since dog reproductive cycle of one year (comparing human 20 years). I guess a lot of people can predict outcome very clear already.
We human are actually product of selective breeding in most civilization. The breeders were feudal lord or landlords who only let productive people work or live on their land. Hunter-gatherers are more selected by nature instead of human masters. It is most productive people who are the fittest in such environment. It is not conscious effort to do such breeding but pursuit of wealth from both lords and peasants. Less productive individuals were constantly selected out due to inability to provide for the family and reproduce. Downward social mobility from the lords continued to fill the gap left by losers. If such process stops, reverse should happens since nature never stands still.
Capitalism economy is actually very much resembling the nature law which is about survival of the fittest. Super rich and powerful corporations never provide merciful help to weak small business, especially competitors. It is not because that big corporations is not rich enough. It is about preserving rule of competitions. A lot of time they would rather destroy their extra productions than giving away for free due to the very reason. Due to such brutal competition, market economy is always superior to other type. Collaboration only happens when there is mutual benefit. As Alan Greenspan said, the process is painful, but the result is superior.
With long term consequence in mind, bright leaders should foresee what is coming. If you were able to turn all females into gold-diggers who refuse to marry bottom males, then you have a counter mechanism. But female gold-digger is also product natural survival when poor men would can not provide living material for the survival of offspring due difficult survival environment. Females from region with harsh survival environment become gold-digger for good reason because gold-digger females became the fittest in such environment. If male providers mean nothing, selection of productive males by females would fade away just like non-bird species. (monogamous bird with male as provider). Lion is not selected according to ability to provide.
Survival of the fittest. Keep that in mind.Replies: @iffen, @Karl Zimmerman
It seems like English might not be your first language, so I’m not entirely sure I’m getting the full gist here of your two responses, but a few points.
1. You should not presume that automation is only going to effect “dumb” blue collar jobs. Software is already replacing educators and lawyers, and the ability to replace accountants is considered to be only a few years away. Skilled professions will likely be more able to protect their fiefdoms than low-wage workers because they have more political pull, but it’s not like professors have been able to do anything to stop the gutting of their field (adjunct faculty often make a quarter of what professors used to). Indeed, the incentive to automate skilled work, if possible, is greater, because the wages are so much higher.
2. I don’t think natural selection operates on humans at detectable levels on as short of a period as you believe. Greg Cochran (who is certainly in the HBD camp) has said there’s no evidence of a dysgenic decline in intelligence in the west over the last century. It can of course work over centuries, but cultural evolution (a “secular trend” toward smaller families) can trump biological evolution in the shorter run. And it’s not as if the current system of social benefits will last for centuries, even if modern-day cultural norms do.
3. If we’re looking at the eventuality of a post-scarcity future (which I think we are if we get around our energy constraints – not in a generation, but in a century) we have to decide what being a human is actually for. Within the capitalistic world our value is essentially as units of production. When our productive skill becomes largely useless, then what? I suppose we could reduce the population (either through ethical or unethical reasons) until only “productive” people are left. But what if you reach the point where machines can run everything without us? If we remain stuck in the human utility model, we just die out and let the machines run the economy themselves. At some point we have to consider the alternative, which divorces human flourishing from economic action – the pursuit of happiness rather than mere survival.
My entire presentation is about human wishful thinking vs natural process.Agree. That is my point.
In 58 BC, the patrician-turned-plebeian Clodius Pulcher advanced a popularist political agenda in his bid for the tribunate by offering free grain for the poor. The expense was considerable, and Julius Caesar later reformed the dole. Augustus considered abolishing it altogether, but instead reduced the number of the recipients to 200,000, and perhaps later 150,000.Replies: @iffen, @Karl Zimmerman
It is difficult to see how Obama and others of similar recent immigrant origins could be eligible, and they make up a substantial proportion of black academics. Ta-Nehisi Coates and other successful blacks (ie the blacks who write about what the black community opinion is about reparations) would lose relatively speaking and object to low class blacks cashing in high flying blacks’ entitlement to AA sinecures . Businesses that have tried to pay everyone the same have run into problems. To work, reparations would have to be regressive (ie give the rich blacks more than the poor ones).
Of course, Coates' giant article on reparations doesn't give any specifics about what it would look like, so I'm going on impressions here.
As immigrant, I congratulate myself to achieve this level of English that you can understand something (joke). But seriously, ask me any specific part you do not understand.
My entire presentation is about human wishful thinking vs natural process.
Agree. That is my point.
In 58 BC, the patrician-turned-plebeian Clodius Pulcher advanced a popularist political agenda in his bid for the tribunate by offering free grain for the poor. The expense was considerable, and Julius Caesar later reformed the dole. Augustus considered abolishing it altogether, but instead reduced the number of the recipients to 200,000, and perhaps later 150,000.
It's not that we don't understand what the proponents of social Darwinism are saying; it's that you are in error in the conclusions that you draw.
I will say that while I don't think human nature has changed that much since antiquity, human capabilities have. There was simply far less abundance prior to the industrial era, with economic exchange essentially being zero sum. There were economic expansions and contractions, but generally the way you got more was just from directly expropriating it from others, either on an individual scale or a global scale. Most recently global GDP growth has been in the range of 3%-4% per year, while global population growth has declined to only a bit over 1%. Rich people are getting richer, but so is the vast majority of the population in developing countries. Maybe that will change due to resource constraints or climate change. But at this point I see no evidence we're on the precipice of returning to a zero-sum world. I see the inverse - a world increasingly edging towards post-scarcity - more likely.
It is the dividing line between people and all other hominids.Replies: @Yak-15
What happens when the lower echelon people become too numerous to support?
However, from my inadequate reading of history the most often consequence was starvation.
IMO the control of the elites is tenuous. They are still smart. For example, we no longer have a draft assembled military.
We are one major catastrophe away from being able to send them to the promised land.
Sometimes in the past they would break into the granaries and take the food set aside for the elites.
However, from my inadequate reading of history the most often consequence was starvation.
IMO the control of the elites is tenuous. They are still smart. For example, we no longer have a draft assembled military.
We are one major catastrophe away from being able to send them to the promised land.
My entire presentation is about human wishful thinking vs natural process.Agree. That is my point.
In 58 BC, the patrician-turned-plebeian Clodius Pulcher advanced a popularist political agenda in his bid for the tribunate by offering free grain for the poor. The expense was considerable, and Julius Caesar later reformed the dole. Augustus considered abolishing it altogether, but instead reduced the number of the recipients to 200,000, and perhaps later 150,000.Replies: @iffen, @Karl Zimmerman
ask me any specific part you do not understand.
It’s not that we don’t understand what the proponents of social Darwinism are saying; it’s that you are in error in the conclusions that you draw.
My entire presentation is about human wishful thinking vs natural process.Agree. That is my point.
In 58 BC, the patrician-turned-plebeian Clodius Pulcher advanced a popularist political agenda in his bid for the tribunate by offering free grain for the poor. The expense was considerable, and Julius Caesar later reformed the dole. Augustus considered abolishing it altogether, but instead reduced the number of the recipients to 200,000, and perhaps later 150,000.Replies: @iffen, @Karl Zimmerman
It is true that a good political leader considers the long-term consequences of policies. But while one can reasonably come up with projections a generation or two into the future, you cannot do so for a century or more. Maybe vat-grown food will totally replace agriculture. Maybe we’ll become posthuman and download into machines. Maybe there will be a human-engineered pandemic which kills billions. Making climate projections for 100 years hence is already difficult, and there are considerably less variables there than in the near-infinite malleability of human culture and technology.
I will say that while I don’t think human nature has changed that much since antiquity, human capabilities have. There was simply far less abundance prior to the industrial era, with economic exchange essentially being zero sum. There were economic expansions and contractions, but generally the way you got more was just from directly expropriating it from others, either on an individual scale or a global scale. Most recently global GDP growth has been in the range of 3%-4% per year, while global population growth has declined to only a bit over 1%. Rich people are getting richer, but so is the vast majority of the population in developing countries. Maybe that will change due to resource constraints or climate change. But at this point I see no evidence we’re on the precipice of returning to a zero-sum world. I see the inverse – a world increasingly edging towards post-scarcity – more likely.
Biting a little on Daniel Falush’s comment (surprised no one else did), it seems hard to know what actually is “over-sampling your favourite group”. It might seem odd if the Kalash or whoever form a component but what means would we have for saying they’re oversampled rather than sampled to about the right amount? (Obviously, “It’s oversampling if Daniel Falush thinks it’s oversampling” would really suck).
The only methodology that’s seems sort of systematic for deciding I can think of is to use estimates of historical population size from the autosome to include samples in proportion to the historical population size, combined with using a statistical test of population distinction to check that you’re not including the same population twice. But would that actually work?
1. Cash transfers do not increase the money supply, they only redistribute it. Hence there is no inflation in a global sense, although there may be some on a localized level. Still, this should be balanced against prices deflating somewhere else. And if the cash is transferred from a group with a high savings rate to one with a very high spend rate, the result should be more economic growth overall.
2. Basic income models probably do discourage work. That said, I firmly believe with the way automation is going we're only a generation or so away from a wide swathe of human labor becoming functionally useless within a market setting. I'm not the only one who thinks so - it's become enough of a big idea now in the tech world that Y Combinator is funding a "basic income startup". I honestly think the work discouragement of basic income will become a feature, not a bug, of the system. If you can have a decent standard of living without working, employers are going to have to offer you a good wage package to compensate for losing so much free time.
3. The "unfair" aspect of basic income models can be dealt with by making them universal. I don't think it's feasible to have a basic income system on a global level yet, but I certainly think setting up universal systems within developed countries is financially possible.
4. Unless you have a command economy, or a true post-scarcity world where goods and services are functionally free, you're going to have people with more "moxie" who fleece the financially illiterate out of their cash. But this isn't something unique to basic incomes or cash transfers - it's just as true for wage work. Witness the exploitation of payday lending services.Replies: @Yudi, @Twinkie
Regarding #4, one of the great advantages of UBI is the possibility of cracking down on lending to people who can’t handle the money–right now, payday lenders, and credit card companies point out that such people cannot live without their services. Give them cash regularly, and that defense is much weaker. Both the lower classes and the financial system would become more stable if lending became more restricted again.
There should be severe limitations on these payday lenders. Maybe allow one rollover, after that 2nd one if you don’t get your money back, too f**ing bad. We don’t allow people to indenture themselves anymore but we allow debt peonage. One thing that really burns my butt is that the 1st National Bank of Patricianville gets to charge overdraft fees every month which works out to hundreds of percent interest and they are “pillars” of the community, not like those low-life loan sharks. Ha! Almost every civilized person believes that just because you are tougher and stronger you shouldn’t be allowed to just take someone’s money. OTOH if you are “smart” enough to take it away from somebody you are then hero worshipped by millions.
I have the vague impression that TNC’s idea of reparations is that it would mostly be programs, maybe grants to organisations, not cash to individuals. Would the programs and organisations in question also happen to create desireable jobs for people like TNC? Who can say!
Of course, Coates’ giant article on reparations doesn’t give any specifics about what it would look like, so I’m going on impressions here.
So there is reparations from I guess the entire US polity to a specific subset of the polity (which now may need to be defined without the use of the concept of race)…….
Then What?
Thinking of this led me to the concept in Cultural Anthropology of Reciprocity . Not relying on my poor memory I went to Wiki and found this:
Sahlins’ typology[edit]
In these circumstances, reciprocal exchange can be divided in two types: dyadic back-and-forth exchange (reciprocity), and pooling (redistribution). Pooling is a system of reciprocities. It is a within group relationship, whereas reciprocity is a between relationship. Pooling establishes a centre, whereas reciprocity inevitably establishes two distinct parties with their own interests.[12] While the most basic form of pooling is that of food within the family, it is also the basis for sustained community efforts under a political leader.
Reciprocity, in contrast, is a dyadic exchange covering a range of possibilities, depending on individual interests…” ( some possibilities are then discussed).
The American idea of the “melting pot” which seems to go back to the 1780’s seems to have envisioned a within group where redistribution is the social norm. And it did work quite well.
Having actively lived through it, I personally feel that MLK’s belief that the melting pot could be extended to Blacks had a reasonable chance of working albeit slowly.
That is moot when Stokely Carmichael substituted the Separatist notion of Back Power. Which of course quickly spread and is the basis of current multiculturalism.
I present this at length because according to Sahglin’s typology the nature of the exchange of these now two groups no longer has a rational for redistribution. But now demands a reciprocity.
In so far as a Sahlin-type analysis is correct then we are in an anomalous meta-stable situation. Where pooling is still accepted by the non-black community in a relationship demands a dyadic exchange. If I understand correctly the fudge factor is that there is a dyadic exchange with the polity paying off a large debt previously incurred.
I suggest that it is more then possible that a large reparation payment might indeed be seen by the polity as putting paid to the debt.
If the debt is seen as paid, then could the concept of pooling be withdrawn from the black community in favor say of a separate set of books?
The Indian Partition and the Yugoslav breakup-wars are just two reminders of the dangers of Multi-ethnic polities given permission to separate.
jaro
1. Cash transfers do not increase the money supply, they only redistribute it. Hence there is no inflation in a global sense, although there may be some on a localized level. Still, this should be balanced against prices deflating somewhere else. And if the cash is transferred from a group with a high savings rate to one with a very high spend rate, the result should be more economic growth overall.
2. Basic income models probably do discourage work. That said, I firmly believe with the way automation is going we're only a generation or so away from a wide swathe of human labor becoming functionally useless within a market setting. I'm not the only one who thinks so - it's become enough of a big idea now in the tech world that Y Combinator is funding a "basic income startup". I honestly think the work discouragement of basic income will become a feature, not a bug, of the system. If you can have a decent standard of living without working, employers are going to have to offer you a good wage package to compensate for losing so much free time.
3. The "unfair" aspect of basic income models can be dealt with by making them universal. I don't think it's feasible to have a basic income system on a global level yet, but I certainly think setting up universal systems within developed countries is financially possible.
4. Unless you have a command economy, or a true post-scarcity world where goods and services are functionally free, you're going to have people with more "moxie" who fleece the financially illiterate out of their cash. But this isn't something unique to basic incomes or cash transfers - it's just as true for wage work. Witness the exploitation of payday lending services.Replies: @Yudi, @Twinkie
My remarks, which are based on my actual, real life experiences observing and participating in cash transfers in, let’s say, “developing economies,” are exactly in that context, which I believe relates to Mr. Khan’s original point (“cash has been shown to be very effective in development aid contexts”).
You are missing the point. This is about the negative consequences of cash transfers in an otherwise poor region. If there is local inflation, people there suffer regardless of whether the global inflation is zero sum.
Again, come back to the real world please. There isn’t going to any “automation” in, say, Afghanistan, Iraq or Indonesia for some time, if at all.
And are we just going to print money to make it available for all in a given region? See 1.
The local elites/warlords/gangsters hoarding the grant grants meant to stimulate the local economy is in no way comparable to “payday lending services.” Nobody points a gun at you to go use predatory, but legal lending.
Dear Mr. Khan:
What do you think about this paper (which I have not read)
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564
“Taking race out of human genetics”
Michael Yudell, Dorothy Roberts, Rob DeSalle, Sarah Tishkoff
?
Traditional … .
“…on the old GNXP blog I actually banned a contributor who was an old college friend…”
That is…remarkable.
Just looking again at the Rathlin island Bronze Age “Irish”, and I notice that they accord very well with my father, who lives in Ireland, and is “Native Irish” and has results as follows:
1. Hemochromatosis C282Y allele – positive – he is rs1800562 = AG, where A is derived
2. Blue Eye HERC2/OCA2 allele – positive – he is rs12913832 = GG, where G is derived
3. Lactase Persistent LCT allele – positive – he is rs4988235 = AA, where A is derived
4. Y-Chromosome R1b – positive – he is R1b-M222 -> S7073 -> S568 -> S566 -> PF1169 -> FGC440