Assorted links

by  Tyler Cowen in

1. Do some of Baltimore’s homeless people feel safer in the woods?

2. My dialogue with Megan McArdle is rescheduled for this Wednesday at AEI.

3. In which way should we recognize Japanese kamikaze pilots?  And the new Murakami novel will be in English this August.

4.  “And there are no good guys in the Argentine story.”

5. The East-West divide in Ukraine politics may be overstated.  And why has political stability been lower than predicted (until very recent times perhaps)?

6. Greg Clark on how social mobility is slower than we think.

Comments

Doug

  Hide Replies

@6

LOL at the hysterically convoluted attempts of the NYT comment section to rationalize away Clark's overwhelming evidence of the genetic inheritance of economic success.

Alan

  Hide Replies

Sure, but never forget that economic success is the result of the skill, knowledge, work, perseverance and foresight of the successful. The relative importance of these factors versus genetic inheritance can be readily reckoned to suit the reckoner.

Alexei Sadeski

  Hide Replies

Huh?

Randall Parker

  Hide Replies

But the capacity to develop skills depends on genetic inheritance. The drive to persevere has large genetic components including elements in the brain and in the rest of the body (the total energy level a person can sustain). Foresight depends on intelligence.

You can suit the reckoner or you can study and use the evidence from psychometric research.

uffs

  Hide Replies

It's proven to be the genetic rather than the inheritance how?

uffs

  Hide Replies

http://s4.epi.org/files/2012/college_comp_by_income.png

http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/low-income-high-achieving-hoxby-avery

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8971.html

Data like this can't just be be dismissed because of some adopted kids.

Alexei Sadeski

  Hide Replies

It can.

Floccina

  Hide Replies

@uffs It is hard to imagine why that would be so.

Alexei Sadeski

  Hide Replies

It's called a "study".

dearieme

  Hide Replies

Clark: "… the compulsion to strive, the talent to prosper and the ability to overcome failure are strongly inherited … we know that genetics plays a surprisingly strong role. Alternative explanations … don’t hold up to scrutiny. Sailerist swine! He's a "noticer": burn him!

Steve Sailer

  Hide Replies

I think "Sailerite swine" is the proper nomenclature.

Joe Smith

  Hide Replies

@3 There is an irony in China complaining about Japan's rather short lived imperial adventure given China's border wars with Vietnam, Russia and India and ongoing attempts to assimilate Tibet, re-conquer Taiwan, dominate North Korea and seize the Paracel and Spratly Islands.

Rahul

  Hide Replies

Even today China actively has its eye on a chunk of India's North East.

Edward Burke

  Hide Replies

3(b): hurrah for H. Murakami, perhaps possibly maybe, but I'm more concerned that so much more Japanese fiction has never been translated into English, and much of what has been translated into English seems to have been poorly translated, by some accounts.

Japanese film remains far more available than Japanese literature. For years, the only Japanese novelist I've come across with any regularity is Shusaku Endo. Lamentably, only comparatively rarely have I come across any translations of Ryunosuke Akutagawa. I've never seen any translation of any work by Kafu Nagai. Bibliophile that I am, I've never even come across any edition of Lafcadio Hearn's tales. I was obliged to custom-order my fourth ed. of Paul Varley's JAPANESE CULTURE and G. B. Sansom's JAPAN: A SHORT CULTURAL HISTORY.

A curiously curious situation altogether . . . .

So Much for Subtlety

  Hide Replies

'Several camp people I talked to said they wouldn't relocate into one of the City's shelters because they were afraid of being assaulted or having belongings stolen.'

Homeless people are often angry and dangerous. Even the homeless don't want to live near them. Anyone surprised?

Max Factor

  Hide Replies

There are two main types of homeless folks. People with severe mental illness and people free from severe mental illness. The people free from mental illness live far from their families and survive by living in a car, office or variety of friends' houses. They tend to avoid the shelters because they are scary. You can read their stories @ Mother Jones or the Huffington Post. The homeless people with severe mental illness live in the shelters or on the streets.

If the severely mentally ill were moved to hospitals (instead of jails and the streets) then the "normal" homeless population could live in the shelters. Of course there is a lot of NIMBY-ism involved with shelters. The most cost effective shelters are large ones that provide many services under one roof. But nobody wants to live next to a large homeless shelter. So there is a shortage of nice homeless shelters for the non mentally ill.

NYC has 24,000 homeless children. There are more than 1 million homeless school kids in the USA.

So Much for Subtlety

  Hide Replies

You mean there are three types of homeless people. The two you mention - and the mentally ill have to be pretty mentally ill before they don't want to avoid other mentally ill homeless people - and those that are not homeless.

When someone says that there are a million homeless children, what they mean is that there is some unknown number of homeless children and a large number of children who are not homeless by any sane definition of homeless, but are by the new definition they just made up to inflate the numbers. That usually means there are a million children who are "vulnerable". That is, they have a roof over their heads, but there is some unknown risk they might lose it.

Rahul

  Hide Replies

"Mentally ill" are not they only types to be wary of in a shelter. There's also a chunk of chronic alcoholics & druggies to beware of. This type tends to be violent & often steals to maintain their addiction. Then there's the-just-released-from-jail types or serial offenders. They again tend to be often unsavory characters.

Sadly, even 20% of the bad sort can make life hell for the other 80%, to the point where some avoid shelters like the plague.

Floccina

  Hide Replies

One of my pet peeves is that psychology is the most popular major in the USA today but the graduates degrees are practically useless because though they have a degree they are not allowed to prescribe drugs. Perhaps we could help a few of these people on the cheap if all psychology grads could prescribe drugs.

So Much for Subtlety

  Hide Replies

That Ukrainian article is mind bogglingly, what is the right word, poorly thought out.

As well as a good insight into the SWPL mindset of Foreign Policy.

Lviv is pro-Western; it supports Ukrainian independence; it has consistently voted against Viktor Yanukovych and his Party of Regions; it speaks Ukrainian and promotes Ukrainian culture, while being multilingual, multicultural, and remarkably diverse; and it rejects the Soviet past.

I bet they play football too. So, OK, we get it. Lviv is the Greenwich Village of Eastern Europe.

In contrast, Luhansk and Donetsk are more pro-Russian; they have doubts about Ukrainian independence; they support Yanukovych and the Party of Regions (and when they voice their discontent, they often vote for the Stalinist Communist Party); they speak Russian and favor Russian culture; they are monolingual, monocultural, and homogeneous; and they embrace the Soviet past.

Sounds like Peoria. Except for that Soviet past thing. Given how many of the West's Chattering Classes embraced that.

His main point seems to be that just because Ukraine does not have a clear dividing line with all Russians on one side and all Ukrainians on the other, and because it does not have a clear dividing line between regions that voted 100% for Weird Al and regions that voted 100% against him, Ukraine is not divided.

And yet it is. Down ethnic lines. With the East being largely Russian and opposed to Ukrainian independence.

The Other Jim

  Hide Replies

The author is also weirdly obsessed over many Ukranians being bilingual. So there can't possibly be any east-west divide here! Everybody will "happily" talk to each other!

Now excuse them while they get back to washing the blood off the streets.

leftistconservative

  Hide Replies

" Greg Clark on how social mobility is slower than we think. "

That should probably be worded as " Greg Clark on how social mobility is slower than the corporate media tries to make us think so that we will be more confident in buying consumer goods and services so that the corporations that support the media via ad purchases will earn more revenue, which in turn gives more funding to the media via more ad buys."

Just a big coincidence, though...

Fred

  Hide Replies

Ukraine - the $5 billion that Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland stated, at the washington press club Dec/2013, that the US had spent on Ukrainian opposition groups sure bought a lot of 'divide'. Why that is in the US interest is another question. Russia's response is not:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russia-pledges-to-fight-for-crimea-if-ukraine-splits/495034.html

Larry

  Hide Replies

The FP article asserts that most everyone in Lviv speaks both Russian and Ukrainian. I was there not too long ago and asked several people in Russian if they knew where a certain coffee house was located. No one appeared to understand that simple question in Russian. I don't speak any Ukrainian. I never have that problem in Kiev.

Ray Lopez

  Hide Replies

@#6- I don't believe some of the evidence. G. Clark references to the Swedish study, which was well known but then makes the claim the USA and other countries are the same. I'd like to see the evidence examined more closely. Also see the blub below, which seems to contradict the authors. For the Greek case, "Papadopolos" is a common last name. There might be some data mining here. It might be a case of some outliers showing the author's thesis rather than a refutation of the maxim: "from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations".

Further, what is "status"? Clark: We used two indicators of social status: the American Medical Association’s directory of physicians and registries of licensed attorneys, along with their dates of registration, in 25 states, covering 74 percent of the population. Hence not wealth but being a doctor or lawyer is the variable tracked. Hence he forgets to mention the Greeks, which next to the Russian and Jews are #1 in the USA for wealth. For example I'm in the 1% and I'm not even exceptional in the Greek community.

Clark:

But to be clear, we found no evidence that certain racial groups innately did better than others. Very high-status groups in America include Ashkenazi Jews, Egyptian Copts, Iranian Muslims, Indian Hindus and Christians, and West Africans. The descendants of French Canadian settlers don’t suffer racial discrimination, but their upward mobility, like that of blacks, has been slow.

Chen (a common Chinese surname) is of higher status than Churchill. [this is absurd, and data mining, as Chen is common while Churchill has done very well historically, but coming from such a high initial starting point may have fallen, from winner at Waterloo and Prime Minister of the UK to whatever the kids are now--Ray] Appiah (a Ghanaian surname) is higher than Olson (or Olsen), a common white surname of average status. Very little information about status can be surmised by the most common American surnames — the top five are Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown and Jones, which all originated in England — because they are held by a mix of whites and blacks.

iolanthe

  Hide Replies

"Waterloo"? That was the Duke of Wellington or Wellesly if you want the family name. Churchill was Blenheim.

Alexei Sadeski

  Hide Replies

>G. Clark references to the Swedish study, which was well known but then makes the claim the USA and other countries are the same. I’d like to see the evidence examined more closely.

Give me a break.

JWatts

  Hide Replies

I fail to see why you object so strenuously to Ray Lopez's point?

Randall Parker

  Hide Replies

Clark has a whole book and covers other countries too. You could read the book if you want to read the full evidence.

Keith

  Hide Replies

I read Gregory Clark's book, and it was interesting to see a non-biologist basically prove that genes are inherited without thinking that way at all. It is like watching someone try to reinvent swimming without taking a class.

A person's chance of success in life is heavily dependent on IQ and IQ is heavily dependent on genes. He is just tracking gene frequency over time which makes him a population geneticist. He should collaborate with biologists studying coloration in moth populations or breeding behavior in whales to see how the data match up.

wiki

  Hide Replies

Clark is essential because the mainstream doesn't want to acknowledge that any learning from moths or whales or chimps has a large relationship to social success among humans.

Keith

  Hide Replies

Another thought I had after reading Clark's posting is that he misses some points that disprove his case because he doesn't connect the dots. When he talks about a person's success in life deviating more from their adoptive parents as a person gets older but then doesn't seem to realize that many of those studies were done with parents and children who were of different races he undercuts his other point that the success in the US doesn't seem to correlate with race. The adoption studies support racial differences in IQ. How could success be influenced by IQ and Races differ when it comes to average IQ yet success in the US not correlate with race?

IQ follows a standard normal curve and you would expect outliers from the top end of the curve to do well when in a heterogenous population. These are people that are intelligent and ambitious enough to leave their home countries after all. The only way to consider racial differences would be to compare those outliers to people of their own race and then compare all of those standard normal curves to each other. If differences exist you would expect there to be differences among the curves that are statistically significant. I don't know much about this field of study but I don't think Clark explains this well.

Ray Lopez

  Hide Replies

Race (no such thing but let's use the colloquial term) is not a proxy for IQ but disease burden is, which can vary by "race" depending on diet and environment, see this article: http://www.economist.com/node/16510958

Keith

  Hide Replies

Disease burden is regional. How do you explain patterns that appear when a group is taken out of their region? For instance all but one person to run the 100 meters under 10 seconds is West African or descended from West Africans. Some who have done this have never set foot in West Africa but have West African DNA. How do explain that?

Anonymous

  Hide Replies

It's also a little surprising that disease burden so consistently wipes out the brain's potential but has little effect on athleticism. I would have expected the reverse.

So Much for Subtlety

  Hide Replies

Race exists. It is a scientific reality. To the point that Oprah Winfrey can go get tested and some charlatan can tell her where her ancestors came from in Africa.

Disease burden is an interesting issue. Because the disease burden on places like Singapore and China is high. Stomach problems are extremely common in East Asian countries due to the practice of, essentially, eating raw sewage with their vegetables. Singapore still gets dengue.

The problem is spotting cause and effect. Singapore is rich and highly organized. Thus it does something about most diseases. China is poor but almost as organized. So it does a lot to a lot of diseases. In both cases that ability is recent - but the disease burden is long standing. There has been no change in culture as such. Just in politics.

And, of course, as Keith points out, no relatives of those low IQ people from Ghana do well on IQ tests. Not if they live in low-disease environments like Sweden or Oregon or Britain. Not one. Anywhere. Having African origin is everywhere associated with dysfunction on many levels.

It is doing a good impression of being genetic.

TWIF

  Hide Replies

RL,

If you are interested in science, you might want to take a look at "Race: the current consensus" (http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/01/race-current-consensus.php). The author (Razib Kahn) references a couple of well known studies. See "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/) and "Metric on the space of genomes and the scientific basis for race" (http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html). Typical story about Risch's work.

"STANFORD - Checking a box next to a racial/ethnic category gives several pieces of information about people - the continent where their ancestors were born, the possible color of their skin and perhaps something about their risk of different diseases. But a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine finds that the checked box also says something about a person's genetic background.

This work comes on the heels of several contradictory studies about the genetic basis of race. Some found that race is a social construct with no genetic basis while others suggested that clear genetic differences exist between people of different races.

What makes the current study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, more conclusive is its size. The study is by far the largest, consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. Of these, only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study. That's an error rate of 0.14 percent."

What makes this result so stunning is not that a computer was able to divided people into 5 races, but the computer results matched self-identification 99.86% of the time.

Bottom line. Race has a strong genetic basis. The human population is divided into a small number of groups whose members are more closely related to each other, than to any individual in any other group. The groups can be divided into subgroups as well. What it means is unclear, a point emphasized by Hsu, Risch, and Kahn.

Ray Lopez

  Hide Replies

@TWIF - your blog cite was unpersuasive. As the overlapping Venn diagrams show, there's a lot of overlap in 'race' to make the distinction meaningless. For example, I speak Greek and have a Greek passport, and have Spanish, Jewish and Russian roots, and was born in the USA. What race am I? Likewise the fact that certain people having a certain phenotype checked a box and it was found to correlate well with a genetic profile means nothing more than: "a bunch of black people checked a box and lo and behold they were found to fall into the 'black' Venn diagram--but with such overlap with the other two major 'races' that the distinction is largely meaningless (since they all could have checked the 'white' box and found that 99.9% of their DNA overlaps with the whites, except for stuff like markers for sickle cell and other 'African' markers)'. The whole concept of race is noise, but I agree it should be studied, though likely it will be misused by racists who hate integration.

@Keith--you are a racist. At one time it was thought blacks could not swim due to heavy bones but that's been disproved. How do you explain that? Go hang out with Steve Sailor.

TWIF

  Hide Replies

RL,

Let me try to point out the errors in your analysis. The first is the fallacy of composition. In other words, the existence of intermediate forms disproves the reality of polar forms. Stated in such terms, claiming that race doesn't exist, because individuals of intermediate race exist, is clearly wrong, yet commonplace. However, let me use a set of examples to make this point.

Hopefully, no one would deny the existence of age, or that a 4 year old is a child and a 40 year old is an adult. In other words, everyone accepts (because it’s true) that the child / adult dichotomy is valid. However, using the "nonexistence of biological race" as a model, we can't distinguish between children and adults. Why? Because there is no obvious dividing line. Does an 17 year old magically become an "adult" at midnight on his/her birthday? Should we wait 3 more years? Clearly there is a universally recognized transition between being a child, and being an adult, with no "lines in the sand". Since a society of laws, requires lines, we create them (you can vote at 18 and drink at 21). However, no one is foolish enough to believe that either people magically become adults at a specific age, or that child vs. adult is meaningless.

Sex (not the act) provides another example. A certain portion of children (1 in 100?) are born with ambiguous physical sexual identifies and represent intermediate forms. Does that mean that physical sexual identify has no meaning? That boys and girls don't exist? Men and women? Certainly this would be an important piece of new information for the pornography industry.

Climate provides another useful case. If you started in Point Barrow Alaska (on the Arctic Ocean) and walked to Key West Florida, you would observe a considerable variation in climate. You might define Point Barrow's climate as polar desert and Key West's climate as a tropical savannah. That's entirely true but where exactly does the polar desert end, and the tropical savannah begin? Clearly there is no dividing line and numerous intermediate climates exist. Does that mean that we can't recognize that Point Barrow and Key West are actually different? If you don't believe this, please take up scuba diving off Point Barrow without a dry suit.

IQ provides another useful case. Nobody really denies that some people are smarter than others. People with an IQ of 140 are more intelligent than individuals with IQ's of 60. However, most people (98-99%) don't test at or above 140, or at or below 60. They lie somewhere in between, with 100 being the commonly stated average. Does the prevalence of individuals with IQ's of 100 disprove the existence of intelligence / IQ?

Last let's consider sexual preference. Clearly differences in sexual preference exist. Some people prefer their own sex and some people prefer the opposite sex. It is also true, that a certain fraction of the population is bisexual. Does the existence of bisexuality refute the existence of sexual preference?

As you can see, the existence of intermediate forms only substantiates the reality, and meaning of polar forms. Essentially no one challenges this logic, except when the topic is race. However, that doesn't change the facts on the ground.

The five examples given above can actually be divided into two quite different groups. Human age, climate, and IQ are gradients, with a relatively smooth continuum between the polar forms. Indeed, in the case of IQ (and perhaps climate) intermediate forms constitute the preponderance of the population. Conversely, physical sexual identity and sexual preference aren't really continuums at all. Most individuals are clustered tightly at one of the poles, with only small populations in-between.

As you can see from the above examples, race would have biological meaning even if it was mostly a gradient. However, that turns out not to be the case. Unlike IQ, age, and climate most individuals are clustered at one pole or another. In this respect, race is much more like physical sexual identity and sexual preference.

Take a look at "Why race as a biological construct matters" (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/05/why-race-as-a-biological-construct-matters/). The entire article is worth reading, but the last sentence of the first paragraph makes a nice summary.

"So I am not entirely ignorant of Ta-Nehisi’s bailiwick, but, I think it would be prudent for the hoarders of old texts to become a touch more familiar with the crisp formalities of the natural sciences."

Razib discusses the PCA plot of black-white racial identity at some length. The bottom line is that clustering is the dominant characteristic of the population in question with virtually no overlap (indeed, in this study none at all).

Of course, Razib isn't the only person with data showing that biological race is much more defined by clustering than continuums. See “Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/) and “Metric on the space of genomes and the scientific basis for race” (http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html). The Stephen Hsu article has a graph showing that clustering, rather than a continuum, is the predominant characteristic of the human genome.

You don't appear to understand the significance of the Risch study. If race was a social construct, or if the target population wasn't tightly clustered into certain groups, then there is no way a computer could have been 99.86% right. If race was just a social construct, then the self-identified races of each individual, would have been randomly related to their genes. If the target population was defined by gradients, rather than clusters, then large numbers of individuals would have picked a race different than the one chosen by the computer. To state this directly, if the concept of race was "noise", rather than biology, then a 99.86% accurate result would have been impossible.

A related point (that you may not know) is that the genetic studies aren't based on skin color and/or sickle cell. Indeed, they aren't based on any observable characteristics of the target populations. They are based on either then entire human genome (Hsu and others) or a smaller number of gene variants (hundreds to thousands). In no case are they specifically based on genes that give rise to observable racial differences. Just by themselves these results show that race is far more than 'skin deep'. How much more is unclear. However, the existence of systematic racial variation is not in doubt.

Part of the irony of this debate, is that the opponents of race as a biological construct, almost invariably view sexual preference as a biological and genetic phenomena. Somehow it’s OK to attribute sexual preference to biology (which is certainly true to a large degree), but race can't possibly exist, in spite of the large body of genetic data to support it.

Stephen Hsu has a closing statement that basically sums up the debate on the biological existence of race.

"I think it's especially important to be epistemologically careful in thinking about these matters, because of our difficult history with race. I would much rather live in a world where H1 is true and H2 false. But my preference alone does not make it so. (I would also much rather live in a universe created by a loving God, and in which I and my children have eternal souls; not a cruel Darwinian universe in which our species arose merely by chance. But my preference does not make it so."

ho

  Hide Replies

"As the overlapping Venn diagrams show, there’s a lot of overlap in ‘race’ to make the distinction meaningless. For example, I speak Greek and have a Greek passport, and have Spanish, Jewish and Russian roots, and was born in the USA. What race am I?"

You're a moronic cockroach. (in all seriousness, it isn't suprising that you're a Jew. Nobody else could write such pabulum)

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if people are literally, mentally retarded to make statements like that. Never mind the fact that blacks look almost like from a different species and differ in a whole list of things. Race doesn't exist and is meaningless! Never mind the fact that affirmative action still exists and blacks are hardwired to care more about blacks (same thing with most other races but gentile whites) race doesn't exist and is "meaningless".

Please do us a favor and kill yourself you despicable little maggot.

ho

  Hide Replies

I'm actually baffled how someone could be so fucking retarded. I'm sorry.

So because there are a minority of people who are both black and white, black and white cannot possibly exist. Lol.

Steve Sailer shits bigger than you.

Ted M

  Hide Replies

I agree that the Ukraine article was very weak. Its primary evidence for the East not being as pro-Russian as you might think is....that parts of the East speak Ukrainian.

This would perhaps be more remarkable in a country not called Ukraine.

John S.

  Hide Replies

Can you imagine what a national tragedy these crude structures would be if a Republican were in the White House right now?

Ed

  Hide Replies

The NY Times commentators come across as hysterical witch burners in their disagreement with Clark's article. Why are they so threatened by the idea that some factors determining an individual's success are genetic?

TWIF

  Hide Replies

Ed,

"Why are they so threatened by the idea that some factors determining an individual’s success are genetic?"

Why indeed? Presumably because the reality of genetic inheritance of talent is too deeply threatening to the status quo. More specifically (assuming Clark is right)

1. We can't fix the schools. The kids failing in our schools will be failing for a long time to come. Education as a societal panacea is a false god that can't solve inequality, racial disparities, social problems, etc.

2. If we are going to provide a better life to the bottom half, it is going have to be via something other education. None of the choices (income redistribution, trade restrictions, class based quotas, etc.) are pretty to the NYT readership.

3. Racial and ethnic disparities in America won't go away anytime soon.

4. Unskilled immigration is a disaster because the immigrants and their children won't be competitive for the foreseeable future.

5. The current elite (NYT readers) didn't earn their position in society. They simply inherited it.

Let's cut to the chase here. Clark is saying "you inherited your position in society and all of your ideas about fixing society won't work".

Why wouldn't they be upset?

JWatts

  Hide Replies

"6. Greg Clark on how social mobility is slower than we think. "

They should have analyzed Russia. I bet they'd show a significantly quicker return to mean in Russia over the last 100 year period. ;)

blert

  Hide Replies

"(Variations on the names of the unfortunate Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of “Hamlet” are on the list.)" G. Clark.

That these names were considered Swedish is irony in the extreme.

1) Shakespeare is slaming real people from his own personal financial life with this subplot.

2) Under his real name: the 17th Earl of Oxford, Shakespeare had borrowed significant monies from:

Guildencrantz and Rosenstern! (as against Rosencrantz and Guildenstern)

[In the modern era this flopping is the source of an entire genre of take-offs, parodies. Those now living realize that the names in Hamlet have been toyed with, too.]

3) Both of these gentlemen were flaming loan sharks and their victims were exclusively of the nobility.

4) They were famous in their day. So the flip-flop name game was transparent to all in earshot. [And it still is.]

5) The Queen (Elizabeth I) ultimately had to pay off the pair to clear her boy's debts. He had been raised by the Queen herself, and was deemed to be of the Royal Household, adopted by the childless queen. His biological parents had left him an orphan when but young. His estate -- Oxford -- is probably known to you.

6) His library still stands -- and his notations and such for his writings are all over his books.

7) The Queen ejected both loan sharks out of England on three days notice on pain of death. You will note the similarity to the end of these characters in Shakespeare's play.

8) To stop her favorite subject from overspending and indebtedness, the Queen initiated an annuity for the Earl. IIRC, it was set at an astonishing 1,000 pounds Sterling per annum.

9) The Earl continued to use his personal life experiences in his plays. One of note: in Hamlet he tells of Hamlet talking his way out of captivity by way of convincing the pirates that the Monarch would send his entire Royal Navy to hunt them down if he were harmed. Fluent in French, Latin and more, Shakespeare performed this actual feat in his own life. If it had not happened, it would've never been incorporated into his play.

IIRC both of these lenders hailed from Venice. This is why the issue of lending comes up again in the Merchant of Venice.

10) The Queen forbad any more borrowing by the Earl, and made it generally known to the (Jewish) lending community that anyone lending funds to him would be ipso facto deemed a criminal. Looking upon the departure of the two biggest players on short notice sealed the deal. The Earl had a 'FICO score of minus 1.

11) The Earl got in hot water with the Queen over his dueling. This is reflected in Romeo and Juliet. In it the Prince forbids sword play. The actual offender was Shakespeare / the Earl, himself. He'd already killed a few noblemen with insults and swordplay.

In sum, those were not, are not, Swedish surnames; not by a long shot.

Do Google their true names and see just how many living Ashkenazi Jews live on with just such surnames.

Lastly, it's one thing to lend money... it's a totally different manner when you're lending it at loan shark rates... to solid credits ... and in size. Modern man would be shocked at the interest rates that (Jewish) lenders were charging the nobility back then. Some allusion to these rates was in "Rob Roy." The villainous Montrose was blithely charging 20% for a secured loan that only ran for a partial year! 20% in a world where the economy grew at 1% per annum -- at best.

The vast bulk of (Jewish) lending was to monarchs at war. Not surprisingly, they charged steep rates. What is glossed over is that they were charging interest at such rates that even the King of Spain was behind the eight-ball. The funds advanced permitted that king to continue to make war on the rest of Europe -- and to enslave the New World. What a bunch of swell fellows! And to think, that very Spanish house had been, and continued to be, the absolute bane of European Jewry at every turn.

"Known in Spanish as "Philip the Prudent" (Felipe el Prudente), [A term of caustic sarcasim that Wiki is unable to comprehend. Ed.] his empire included territories on every continent then known to Europeans, including his namesake Philippine Islands. During his reign, Spain reached the height of its influence and power. The expression "The empire on which the sun never sets" was coined during Philip's time to reflect the extent of his possessions.

During Philip's reign there were separate state bankruptcies in 1557, 1560, 1575, and 1596. [Actually more than seven defaults. Entire fleets went missing. So the king came up short. Ed.] This was partly the cause for the declaration of independence which created the Dutch Republic in 1581. A devout Catholic, Philip is also known for organizing a huge naval expedition against Protestant England in 1588, known usually as the Spanish Armada, which was unsuccessful, partly due to storms and grave logistical problems." Wiki

He is known in financial circles even to this day as the king of defaulters. He was able to do so while pulling monies beyond comphrension. He ended up giving his wealth away to his (Jewish) bankers. That's how foolish he was. Hence the sarcastic sobriquet!

This liquidity launched the European Renaissance -- but up around the Rhine and the Thames!

nike air max 95

  Hide Replies

Liu was one of the 31 migrant workers elected to the National People's Congress last year. She is a foot masseuse in southeast China's Xiamen City. A native of south China's Anhui Province, Liu was a school dropout at the age of 14 and worked to support the schooling of her siblings.

Comments for this post are closed