tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post1545959449926038281..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: IQ and the Wealth of Nations?Lord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-6707314646795327762012-08-11T03:42:45.787-07:002012-08-11T03:42:45.787-07:00On developing countries:
http://www.aier.org/arti...On developing countries:<br /><br />http://www.aier.org/article/7605-among-nations-output-converges<br /><br />The link, from the American Institute for Economic Research, points out the big difference between developed and developing countries:<br /><br />1) Developing countries are not as industrialized, and tend to have grossly underused capacities (higher unemployment), due to low productivity<br />2) Developing countries also have less access to technology<br /><br />The solution these countries have implemented were to simply move workers to higher-producing industrial and service sectors, away from agriculture, and adopt technologies already in use by advanced economies, dramatically enhancing growth.<br /><br />Countries that did not do this suffered, like Somalia, with a pathetic 2.6% GDP growth rate during the last decade, and current unemployment at above 47%<br /><br />Other African countries, like Sudan, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Mozambique grew faster, not because of their low bases (Somalia has a low base too...) but due to the above mentioned steps.<br /><br />They have to do better however, by bringing down unemployment through boosting demand.HiddenBaithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06901488356749798440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-54202301021843491272012-07-29T03:53:25.212-07:002012-07-29T03:53:25.212-07:00A wealth of nonsense is a more accurate descriptio...A wealth of nonsense is a more accurate description.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-65104794395681907472012-07-29T03:44:58.089-07:002012-07-29T03:44:58.089-07:00Lord Keynes, there is a wealth of information in t...Lord Keynes, there is a wealth of information in this blog: http://menghusblog.wordpress.com/<br /><br />I believe you may have debated with this person before on the issue of free banking. I recall you losing your composure, hehehe...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822025819046965291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-5437987424618747002012-07-25T19:04:01.063-07:002012-07-25T19:04:01.063-07:00fyi. This blogger has broken down National Longitu...fyi. This blogger has broken down National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, TIMMS, PISA and GSS results for third generation Hispanics compared to third generation Whites.<br /><br />"The differences ranges from 0.35 SD (GSS) to 0.77 SD (TIMSS grade 8 science). The average of the differences comes out to 0.61 SD or, when averaging PISA, TIMSS, and PIRLS tests scores per year, per grade (e.g., PISA 2009 MAth + Reading), 0.59 SD. This is not largely different from the general intelligence difference reported by Roth et al. (2001), which is notable given what was said about Spearman’s hypothesis. On re-analysis, Ron Unz’s claim concerning the difference in the GSS sample was upheld; this claim, though, was contradicted by all other samples."<br /><br />In terms of the GSS he notes Murray (2007)<br /><br />The decline in the B–W difference in the GSS vocabulary test for persons born since mid-century is entirely attributable to a decline in white performance,...<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/bqa3cx3Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01133142115539961665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-31299412299835258932012-07-25T15:31:40.624-07:002012-07-25T15:31:40.624-07:00Lord Keynes,
Right on about Prof. Chang. This re...Lord Keynes, <br /><br />Right on about Prof. Chang. This reminds me of the cultural arguments discussed in Ha-Joon Chang's book "Bad Samaritans." At one point the Koreans and Japanese were written off as dull and lazy. However, once industrial development occurred, those stereotypes went into reverse. <br /><br />Biological determinism is the last defense of a failed status quo, which is why these IQ arguments are coming up in this, the twilight of neoliberalism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-37579048569251855182012-07-24T08:23:57.517-07:002012-07-24T08:23:57.517-07:00(1) The level of education and skilled labour is n...(1) The level of education and skilled labour is no doubt a factor in economic development.<br /><br />But even low average IQ nations have, most probably, sufficient people with high levels of education and skilled labour, since we are talking about an average, not a uniform level. The "average" job even in an industrial economy does not require IQs of even 100:<br /><br />http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/01/average-iq-by-occupation-estimated-from.html<br /><br />(2) The US industrialiased with an average IQ, in modern terms, of 76.<br /><br />These low average IQs are not an impediment to industrialisation and economic development.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-9945742306869636182012-07-24T08:14:26.412-07:002012-07-24T08:14:26.412-07:00Let's state this another way: are you wholly ...Let's state this another way: are you wholly and completely denying the assertion that IQ is "one major factor" in causing national per capita GDP differences among countries?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-57015909830760070032012-07-24T02:04:15.979-07:002012-07-24T02:04:15.979-07:00"How can averagely endowed and resource-poor ...<i>"How can averagely endowed and resource-poor countries countries become rich? Advanced technology must be a factor, right? "</i><br /><br />Capital goods and advanced technology will be *imported* from the developed nations: they are not starting from scratch and reinventing the wheel, buddy.<br /><br />And as for intelligence, how high an IQ does it take for unskilled and semi-skilled labour to work in manufacturing jobs?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-64156934830158615762012-07-24T02:00:04.605-07:002012-07-24T02:00:04.605-07:00With political and social stability, the right pol...With political and social stability, the right policies - especially at the international level - would allow many of these nations to develop, I would bet.<br /><br />And if you have growth rates of over 5% for 3 decades, that is all what is required for industrial take off.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-599143472941901282012-07-23T09:11:11.937-07:002012-07-23T09:11:11.937-07:00I could just as well ask you:
What about Jamaica?...I could just as well ask you:<br /><br />What about Jamaica? What about Haiti? What about Sierra Leone, Liberia, Nigeria, Niger, Mali, Ghana, or the rest of West Africa? What about Central African Republic, Zimbabwe, Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, or the rest of Central Africa? What about Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and other non-East Asian parts of Asia?<br /><br />Many of these have inadequate growth rates, going down to 4% p.a. or below!<br /><br />The aggregate population of all the countries I mentioned easily comprise a large enough sample to show that Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China are indeed an exception that proves the rule.<br /><br />If we look into India itself, only a minority of the states, such as Punjab or Maharashtra have performed in double digit rates for about 40 years, whereas the likes of Bihar and Orissa have been left in complete stagnation.<br /><br />That's because the resource and climate differences obviously ensure that Bihar can never be a Punjab. And to overcome those resource and climate differences, a lot of private investment is required - investment which only arises in and goes to rich states like Punjab.Prateekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15287835907015065883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-48075153765130218582012-07-23T08:59:17.537-07:002012-07-23T08:59:17.537-07:00Prateek: So it seems that high growth rates are RA...Prateek: So it seems that high growth rates are RARELY sustainable in the long run.<br /><br />LK: Japan? South Korea? Taiwan? China?<br /><br />As Prateek earlier posted: "Taking the cumulative numbers, only one-tenth of the developing economies grew by more than 5% for three decades."<br /><br />Ten percent. What percentage is your benchmark for "rare"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-41236501104404344572012-07-23T08:42:10.314-07:002012-07-23T08:42:10.314-07:00"Does an average IQ of 78 not blatantly contr..."Does an average IQ of 78 not blatantly contradict Lynn and Vanhanen's own central thesis?<br /><br />Of course it does: already it has to be admitted that lucrative resource endowments like energy can make your nation rich, despite IQ levels."<br /><br />L&V assert that "the difference in average national IQ is <b>one major factor</b> causing the national differences in GDP." They do not say that IQ accounts for ALL differences in per cap GDP levels. The fact that oil can also can make a country rich does NOT contradict their thesis.<br /><br />A country with a low estimated IQ and rich natural resources can have a high per capita GDP. However, it's rare for a country to have both a low IQ and few resources to be rich. <br /><br />How can averagely endowed and resource-poor countries countries become rich? Advanced technology must be a factor, right? Adopting, applying, and creating technology requires intelligence. Thus it cannot be a stretch to say that high average intelligence is "one major factor" contributing to economic growth. Right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-4704083222914936672012-07-23T08:32:40.080-07:002012-07-23T08:32:40.080-07:00"South East Asian economies like Indonesia al...<i>"South East Asian economies like Indonesia also had such high prospects before the Asian crisis of 1997. People there thought it would go on forever, but it also all came down spectacularly"</i><br /><br />That is because a significant factor in the East Asian boom in the 1990s was nothing but short term speculative capital inflows ("hot money") driving real and financial asset market bubbles: this is just Hyman Minsky's FIH all over again.<br /><br /><i>"So it seems that high growth rates are rarely sustainable in the long run."</i><br /><br />Japan? South Korea? Taiwan? China?<br /><br />I reject that idea that it will be "impossible to achieve economic equality between nations".<br /><br />For one: who on earth knows what human technology will be like in 40 or 50 years?<br /><br />While I am not one of these technology cultists like followers of Ray Kurzweil (with his "singularity" forecasts: <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity), nevertheless I think technology will probably overcome a good many development problems this century.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-79962499432055355552012-07-23T08:25:24.928-07:002012-07-23T08:25:24.928-07:00"Of all the developing countries in the world...<i>"Of all the developing countries in the world, how many have industrial growth rates high enough to bring them out of poverty?"</i><br /><br />Prateek: East Asia and now China.<br /><br />Are you going to tell me that the millions of people in China and Japan are an insignificant minority?<br /><br />In general, I recommend Ha Joon Chang on development economics.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-1142782750075410862012-07-23T08:22:50.604-07:002012-07-23T08:22:50.604-07:00And another point: the OECD average PISA score (20...And another point: the OECD average PISA score (2011) is 492 (OECD Economic Surveys: United Kingdom 2011, p. 108).<br /><br />Some quick research shows the best schools in Qatar have exceeded that average:<br /><br />http://qatarskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/qatar-and-pisa-test.html<br /><br />Yet the overall average for Qatar is still well below the OECD average:<br /><br />556 600 575 Shanghai (highest results of all participants)<br />536 541 554 Finland<br />520 529 539 Japan<br />524 527 529 Canada<br />500 487 502 United States<br />493 496 501 OCED average<br />494 492 514 UK<br />464 445 454 Turkey<br />431 421 438 UAE<br />425 419 416 Mexico (lowest scoring OECD country)<br />414 404 422 Malaysia<br />413 381 402 Columbia<br />402 371 383 Indonesia<br /><b>372 368 379 Qatar</b><br /><br />http://qatarskeptic.blogspot.com/2012/01/pisa-2009-update-results-from-india-uae.html<br /><br />The UAE has a higher score not too far from the OECD average, and well above Qatar, yet I am assuming that genetically these people must be similar. Some simplistic genetic explanation of the IQ differences doesn't work. Clearly there are other factors involved explaining the difference: probably education deficits, poor teaching or curriculum issues.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-73247843705189386182012-07-23T08:18:40.304-07:002012-07-23T08:18:40.304-07:00"Why should Qatar's GDP and per capita GD...<i>"Why should Qatar's GDP and per capita GDP have an impact on it's citizens' average IQ? "</i><br /><br />You have got it the wrong way around: Lynn and Vanhanen argue IQ drives per capita GDP.<br /><br />It is "bizarre" because Qatar has the highest real per capita GDP on earth:<br /><br />1 Qatar 102,943 2011<br />2 Luxembourg 80,119 2011<br />3 Singapore 59,711 2011<br />4 Norway 53,471 2011<br />5 Brunei 49,384 2011<br />— Hong Kong 49,137 2011<br />6 United States 48,387 2011<br />7 United Arab Emirates 48,158 2011<br />8 Switzerland 43,370 2011<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita<br /><br />Does an average IQ of 78 not blatantly contradict Lynn and Vanhanen's own central thesis?<br /><br />Of course it does: already it has to be admitted that lucrative resource endowments like energy can make your nation rich, despite IQ levels.<br /><br />I say it is "questionable" because, as you say, "Qatar's sample does have problems: it's small, outdated, and is drawn from 12 year olds rather than adults."Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-168350799181041022012-07-23T07:38:41.646-07:002012-07-23T07:38:41.646-07:00"To my mind, one of most bizarre and question..."To my mind, one of most bizarre and questionable findings of the book was that Qatar (a country with a high GDP and per capita GDP) only had an average IQ of 78."<br /><br />Why should Qatar's GDP and per capita GDP have an impact on it's citizens' average IQ? <br /><br />Qatar's sample does have problems: it's small, outdated, and is drawn from 12 year olds rather than adults. However, given Qatar's poor performance on the PISA, the IQ estimate seems plausible.<br /><br />http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/files/2010/annex-pisa-2010.pdf<br /><br />PISA isn't an exact proxy for IQ, but the two are highly correlated: http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/10/international-student-assessments.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-52978398206093611932012-07-22T23:39:09.852-07:002012-07-22T23:39:09.852-07:00Oh, and while we are on this topic, the Republic o...Oh, and while we are on this topic, the Republic of India has recently encountered a slowdown in its growth rates, falling below 5% annualized in some months.<br /><br />I had thought South Asia's economic misery would slowly come to an end with time if people's incomes here kept growing at extraordinary rates. But these extraordinary rates were not meant to last.<br /><br />South East Asian economies like Indonesia also had such high prospects before the Asian crisis of 1997. People there thought it would go on forever, but it also all came down spectacularly.<br /><br />So it seems that high growth rates are rarely sustainable in the long run.<br /><br />In which case, Lynn's claim that "the world is divided into rich and poor countries", that "it will be impossible to achieve economic equality between nations", and that it is "impossible to equalize economic conditions in different parts of the world" - all these seem to hold true.<br /><br />But not for the reasons they claim, of course.Prateekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15287835907015065883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-19948279647268172382012-07-22T20:16:25.646-07:002012-07-22T20:16:25.646-07:00Ignoring the IQ angle completely, let's focus ...Ignoring the IQ angle completely, let's focus on the message that the world is divided into wealthy regions and poor regions, and that this divide seems almost permanent.<br /><br />Of all the developing countries in the world, how many have industrial growth rates high enough to bring them out of poverty? Truthfully speaking, a **minority**. Jamaica's economy has grown by only 25% since 1990, for example.<br /><br />Using Ruchir Sharma's Breakout Nations as a source, here are some basic findings.<br /><br />1) Only 1/3rd of all developing countries have EVER in their history grown at a rate of 5% p.a. or more.<br /><br />2) Out of all the developing economies that ever grew by more than 5% p.a., only 3/4ths of them have continuously kept up the pace for two decades.<br /><br />3) Out of all the developing economies that grew by more than 5% p.a. for two decades, only 2/5ths have continuously kept the pace for three decades.<br /><br />Taking the cumulative numbers, and only one-tenth of the developing economies grow by more than 5% for three decades. This rate is only enough to quadruple the national income across 30 years. And if the population grows by 2% p.a., it is only enough to double the per capita income.<br /><br />In other words, if Congo's PCI is to go from $400 to $800 in 30 years, it has only a 10% chance of achieving just that measly figure.<br /><br />Therefore, when we look at economic success stories - Brazil, South Korea, Russia, Japan, and especially Angola - we find that they are a part of a rare 10% minority that have ever succeeded.<br /><br />It is quite obvious. To expand jobs and incomes, you need investment. To get that investment, you need a lot of savings. And to get those savings, you need jobs and incomes. This is not a mystery.<br /><br />Much of the poor world is likely to remain poor. What better proof than the fact that several ex-Soviet republics lost 25-50% of their GDP upon the end of Soviet rule, as Russian investment ceased to enter such depressed rural regions? There was not enough domestic capital in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan,.etc to sustain the standard of living that the Soviets brought them.Prateekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15287835907015065883noreply@blogger.com