site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   1369 thread views

Transnational Thursday for August 8, 2024

Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Thinking about working hours vs. GDP/cap, for example in this graph. It seems that poor countries aren't poor because of any lack of work. If anything, people in poor countries work much more. However, their productivity is low in comparison to richer countries. How can poor countries improve their productivity? Is it as simple as introducing technology and organizational systems from the West, or is there more to it?

Is it as complicated and impractical as introducing technology and organizational systems from the West, or is there hope?

Fixed that for you. Deirdre McCloskey has a trilogy on why the industrial revolution happened in the West rather than elsewhere.

I've only read the reviews but have got that impression that in her telling it is all about subtle stuff, like Bourgeois Dignity. There are lots of other theories, but it seems very common to admit that things came together in a way we don't understand and which only transfer to other countries, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, now China, for other reasons that we don't understand, and with their own distinctive twists, which also will not transfer.

Since you're largely stuck with the human capital and natural resources you have the only thing you have control over is improving your institutions and create enough stability that people dare to invest.

How can poor countries improve their productivity?

Are you new to this forum? DNA IQ.

Are you new to this forum?

I am.

DNA IQ.

Assuming that this is the dominant variable (I'm unsure of that), how would interventions look like? AFAIK eugenics interventions did more harm than good in the past. What would you have, tax breaks for high-IQ couples to have more kids?

AFAIK eugenics interventions did more harm than good in the past.

Like, the countries than had these interventions are now suffering from inbreeding, deficit of creativity and economic stagnation?

What would you have, tax breaks for high-IQ couples to have more kids?

Yes, and that too.

But foremost is having wish to do that.

Stop subsidizing loss of high IQ people to emigration. Put them in contracts to stay. Stop subsidizing useless degrees, especially female ones. Subsidize sperm freezing (probably highest ROI thing ever) and EVF.

There's many successful men who became fathers at >50 yrs. But their old sperm accumulates mutations. If they used frozen when it was new...

Even if partially true it would not be entire answer. And would be among harder to change so is not a good answer to this question anyway.

Because the question is not factual. It's a "does this dress make me look fat" type of question. The good answer is what they want to hear.

It not like increasing IQ by a mere 15-20 points (not 100) is a difficult problem like terraforming Mars. Just the wish is not here.

Because the question is not factual. It's a "does this dress make me look fat" type of question. The good answer is what they want to hear.

nope

discussing how to tackle say corruption and overregulation can be interesting and fruitful discussion

rather than racist uninformed dismissal

Even if you tweak hard race definition to match current wealth of various areas it would completely fail how and why some areas got much richer within last decades (for example no matter how much you try you will NOT explain East Europe purely by "DNA IQ")

Let's not make strawmen and r-word accusations. Nobody claimed IQ is single causal variable, just the most significant one. East Europe poverty relative to West Europe is mainly due to having planned economy and communists in past. Having communism (IQ denying ideology) lowers your country prosperity for future decades.

Nobody claimed IQ is single causal variable

Are you sure? Seems to me that https://www.themotte.org/post/1116/transnational-thursday-for-august-8-2024/239006?context=8#context did this

Having communism (IQ denying ideology) lowers your country prosperity for future decades.

"IQ denying ideology" not sure has this problem existed there at all, and it was not actual source of problems

and r-word accusations

"Are you new to this forum? DNA IQ." seems quite clear "racism is right", at least I see no real difference

Are you sure? Seems to me that https://www.themotte.org/post/1116/transnational-thursday-for-august-8-2024/239006?context=8#context did this

Well unlike you, u dominicq was able to understand that correctly: https://www.themotte.org/post/1116/transnational-thursday-for-august-8-2024/239108?context=8#context

at least I see no real difference

if you come here to sneer rather than to learn...

That sounds like a pretty difficult problem, at least practically speaking.

While it's a popular view here, it's hardly a consensus. Particularly on a country-scale.

IQ-income is more relevant between countries than between individuals in a country (assuming monoracial). Because luck evens out and zero-sum games even out. A high IQ person in average IQ country might have low income because he's low on social ladder relative to his countrymen. This doesn't work between countries. A whole country cannot be low on social ladder, it's a zero-sum game.

A whole country, however, might have bad government/have bad relations/bad resources etc. (btw, high corruption in a country also decreases IQ-income correlation for individuals in that country)

My understanding of the whole genetics vs. IQ thing is that there is indeed a strong correlation, but not that it's the only factor. You seem to be saying this yourself in another comment.

There's been just a few too many countries that went from top dog to basketcase, and vice-versa, for me to go full IQ-gene-reductionist.

There's been just a few too many countries that went from top dog to basketcase, and vice-versa, for me to go full IQ-gene-reductionist.

like... which examples? You not being clear of differentiaing two associations, genetic IQ vs phenotypic IQ and phenotypic IQ vs GDP per capita, doesn't help.

If there's a high IQ population under different policies (e.g. China) then it might get richer or poorer, this doesn't not simply low IQ population might do something to outcompete high IQ pop under normal government.

Argentina went from nearly US tier rich to. It's still very rich to median person.

One important element to consider are large corporations that already occupy a market. If your Amazon or similar have a monopoly on a developing country's industry, that country can't really build its own industry in the same niche. At least not without very savvy government influence, as can be seen in Norway's hydroelectric power production. If you want to learn more about this fascinating topic, here's a pretty good summary.

TL;DR: Foreign corporations could build and operate dams on Norwegian territory but they had to use a significant percentage of Norwegian workers as part of their workforce and they would only own those dams for 60-80 years. Thus Norway got both the eventual ownership of the dams and a skilled workforce who knew how to operate them.

These are the kinds of clever tactics it would take to truly catch up to western GDP per capita. So you'd need competent leaders, a loyal population with homogeneous culture and belief in its leadership and even then, it'd still take many decades for any kind of noticeable progress to be made.

Natural resources are another obvious advantage but they can either be a boon or a curse. You have countries like Oman where a brilliant dictator guided his nation into modern times but you also have countless examples of oil wealth leading to corruption and a slow descent into poverty and misery for the citizens.

Thus Norway got both the eventual ownership of the dams and a skilled workforce who knew how to operate them.

If a low IQ country tried to copy this policy, most likely it'd have been unsuccessful and people said '$countryname$ tried too hard with its protectionism, protectionism bad

but you also have countless examples of oil wealth leading to corruption and a slow descent into poverty and misery for the citizens.

Resources are never a curse. These examples almost certainly would have been even worse without oil, just not as notable ones.

Saudi Arabia apparently did something similar with their foreign-investment oil company, although they bought it out rather than force a contractual handover.

Instead, the Sauds executed a patient, and most importantly, amicable assertion of power over Aramco, which did not become fully owned by Saudis until 1974. At the very start of Aramco, the company was entirely owned and operated by Americans aside from menial labor. However, the Saudi government inserted a clause into their contract with the corporation requiring the American oil men to train Saudi citizens for management and engineering jobs. The Americans held up their end of the bargain, and over time, more and more Saudis took over management and technical positions. This steadily increased the bargaining power of the Saudi government, which periodically renegotiated its contract with the Americans over decades to get a greater share of the profits in exchange for more oil exploration or diplomatic concessions.

In 1973 and 1974, the Saudi government authorized two big final buy-outs of Aramco. The prices were not disclosed publicly, but the consensus is that the American oil companies were well-compensated, and that’s after they had made enormous profits for 30 years. This left the oil companies on good terms with the Saudis who were happy to employ them as consultants and specialists. Today, 80% of Aramco’s employees are Saudi, as well as all executives, though surprisingly not all board members.

(From https://mattlakeman.org/2022/11/22/notes-on-saudi-arabia/)

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats