I'm asking in the context of the last say, 400 years or so, since that's when Europe (and the US eventually) really started to take off.
In part I'm also asking, did imperialism give western nations a head start, or was it other factors such as economic freedom, trade, culture, etc.?
I think that Byzantine's point stands. Just because IQ tests are imperfect in measuring intelligence, it doesn't mean that they don't measure it at all. Designing the proper test is more of an art form than an exact science.
Spence: You ever kill anybody?
Sam: I hurt somebody's feelings once.
liberty student:I buy arguments about IQ more than blanket arguments about skin tone. Certainly the Japanese can keep pace with any caucasian group I have seen in IQ studies. You are definitely onto something with the culture argument IMO.
Going off Richard Lynn's tables here, Japanese are actually more intelligent than Germans and Italians, who are of course more intelligient than the other white groups.
Stephen Forde:Going off Richard Lynn's tables here, Japanese are actually more intelligent than Germans and Italians, who are of course more intelligient than the other white groups.
Yes, but can they "think like white people"?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Lilburne:There was no foreign incursion of empiricist thinkers; it was a gradual process.
We have a winner.
The Japanese are supposedly big time savers. That could go a long way.
Guns, Germs and Steel is written by someone that is actually quite biased against likely explanations. He is a staunch defender of tribal societies, for example. He refuses to believe that anything but geographic accident or statism can be an explanation.
laminustacitus: nirgrahamUK:slavery is good for the special interest slave owner and bad for the typical consumer (and the slave obviously) in any society. Its not bad for the typical consumer, slavery can support a large agricultural sector, most of Manchester's textile mills were supplied by slave-picked cotton, but it is bad for the average worker, and contributed to the social undoing of the Roman republic.
nirgrahamUK:slavery is good for the special interest slave owner and bad for the typical consumer (and the slave obviously) in any society.
Its not bad for the typical consumer, slavery can support a large agricultural sector, most of Manchester's textile mills were supplied by slave-picked cotton, but it is bad for the average worker, and contributed to the social undoing of the Roman republic.
You trying to add anti-economist to your resume?
Slavery decreases aggregate productivity, so it can't benefit consumers. Furthermore, slavery in the south existed because the cost of slave ownership was dispersed over the entire tax base. There was no need to "abolish" slavery, all that was needed was to stop subsidizing it.
JonBostwick: laminustacitus: nirgrahamUK:slavery is good for the special interest slave owner and bad for the typical consumer (and the slave obviously) in any society. Its not bad for the typical consumer, slavery can support a large agricultural sector, most of Manchester's textile mills were supplied by slave-picked cotton, but it is bad for the average worker, and contributed to the social undoing of the Roman republic. You trying to add anti-economist to your resume? Slavery decreases aggregate productivity, so it can't benefit consumers. Furthermore, slavery in the south existed because the cost of slave ownership was dispersed over the entire tax base.
Slavery decreases aggregate productivity, so it can't benefit consumers. Furthermore, slavery in the south existed because the cost of slave ownership was dispersed over the entire tax base.
The entire thesis that slavery reduces aggregate production in a pre-industrial society is flimsy at best, and slavery existed in the South because it was an economic boon for plantation-owners, and those who owned slaves; the problem of slave-catching, which I believe is what you address when you speak of the costs, only became a problem after the 1840s.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
This may sound odd, but I am leaning towards Lam.
I'm ready to become a slave owning monopolist.
Let's make some money.
laminustacitus:and slavery existed in the South because it was an economic boon for plantation-owners, and those who owned slaves;
At the expense of everyone else.
Next you're going to say Intectual monopolies are good for consumers since they are a boon for monopolists?
laminustacitus: the problem of slave-catching, which I believe is what you address when you speak of the costs, only became a problem after the 1840s.
There would have been no slavery in the 1840s if not the central state's repeated crushings of slave rebellions.
JonBostwick: laminustacitus:and slavery existed in the South because it was an economic boon for plantation-owners, and those who owned slaves; At the expense of everyone else.
You are changing the debate, before you were speaking of "aggregate productivity":
JonBostwick:Slavery decreases aggregate productivity, so it can't benefit consumers.
and yet now you no longer speak in terms of aggregates.
Obviously, slavery brings prosperity to slave-owners at the expense of slaves; but, in a pre-industrial society, it has brought an increase in net productivity.
JonBostwick: laminustacitus: the problem of slave-catching, which I believe is what you address when you speak of the costs, only became a problem after the 1840s. There would have been no slavery in the 1840s if not the central state's repeated crushings of slave rebellions.
You assume that the white planters would not have crushed the slave rebellions had the state not.
C'mon Lam, that post had to make you smile a little.
liberty student: C'mon Lam, that post had to make you smile a little.
We slavery-apologists have no time for humor.
laminustacitus:We slavery-apologists have no time for humor.
That's cute, and all. And Lam is entitled to his opinions. But how did someone whose political posts are fairly consistently statist and whose economic positions assert that slavery is net-beneficial become a mod on the Mises Institute forums? Why would he even want to be one?
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
Lilburne: laminustacitus:We slavery-apologists have no time for humor. That's cute, and all. And Lam is entitled to his opinions. But how did someone whose political posts are fairly consistently statist and whose economic positions assert that slavery is net-beneficial become a mod on the Mises Institute forums? Why would he even want to be one?
I seriously hope that comment is tongue-in-cheek.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap