Tuesday assorted links


4. Pretty much the heart of the piece - 'Economists have long been aware that computers and electronics, a relatively small sector of manufacturing, has powered much of manufacturing’s growth in output over the past few decades. But until 2009, no one had connected this fact to the puzzling paradox of surging manufacturing output alongside dwindling employment. That’s when Susan Houseman and her colleagues first took a crack at it—and, in the process, discovered something funny going on with data.

“It was staggering—it was actually staggering—how much that subsector was contributing to growth.” An economist at the Upjohn Institute, an independent organization that researches employment, Houseman specializes in measuring globalization. She had been working with a team of Federal Reserve economists with access to more granular data than was publicly available, which allowed them to strip away the computers industry output from the rest of the data. That revealed just how the rest of manufacturing was doing—and it was much worse than what Houseman and her colleagues expected.

“It was staggering—it was actually staggering—how much that was contributing to growth in real [meaning, inflation-adjusted] manufacturing productivity and output,” says Houseman.

This was especially striking given that the two measures lay at the heart of the prevailing narrative that US manufacturing is growing healthily.'

4. Actually that explains why US GDP measures don't fit with direct benchmark comparisons of other economies over the long run: the use of "hedonics" that is adjustment of GDP for increase in product quality, is done much more consistently by the US's statistical offices than in other countries. Which means that comparatively US GDP growth is inflated relatively to other countries. To give an idea: in 1980 Brazil's GDP per cap was estimated at 29.3% of the US by the ICP 1980 round while West Germany's GDP was 87.8% of the US's. However, if you use the current 2011 ICP PPP comparisons (used currently by the Worldbank and IMF) and project GDP cap back to 1980, Brazil's GDP turns out to be about 35% of the US and West Germany's GDP is slightly above 100%. That means discrepancies in the order of 20-15%. For another example: http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/DEU/FRA/USA, shows Germany and France at about 100% and 95% of US cap GDP in 1996 respectively when the direct ICP PPP comparison made that year estimated their income levels at 80% and 75% of the US respectively.

And the funny thing is how that article does not use the term 'hedonics' once.

Basically, they argue that only the highest cost jobs added to manufacturing growth, and that the medium cost jobs were lost by buying imports from nations investing in high cost capital to produce stuff at lower costs for much lower profits to export to the US.

Automation in Japan was much higher than in the US. Japan, suffering a labor shortage built high cost highly automated factories in other Asian nations, because if they didn't Germans would build those factories because it had a labor shortage. Reunification helped reduce the labor shortage in Germany in the 90s, but that workforce was old in the 90s and older today.

The opposition to solar in the US in the 80s and 90s by conservatives led to US equipment makers building factories in Asia, paid by Asian capitalists, as well as in Germany, until Germans shifted to also building building factories in Asia, paid by Asian capitalists.

Apple prefers using Asian factories. A local company that built factories for solar in Germany and Asia invested in building a factory in the US to meet demand for Apple iPhones until Apple broke the contract in favor of an Asian supplier.

Note, GM tried to emulate Asian capitalists investing in factories in NUMI, but the profit was too low and cost as too high. Today, Elon Musk is building a much bigger factory in the NUMI facility, but the costs are extremely high. Elon Miusk is being attacked for building a factory in the US. Many on Wall Street prefer factories be built in Asia where capitalists will build factories at much lower profits, so Wall Street can profit from rents extracted on imports.

Of course, selling the imports I in the US requires lots of government deficits to replace the loss of wages in US consumer profits with tax cuts and rebates and welfare putting money in US consumer pockets.

Wal-Mart sales and profits would be significantly lower without SNAP putting money in Wal-Mart shopper pockets.

Economies are zero sum. My cost is your wages.

The title for 6 is likely a rip-off of the Dark Enlightenment from a few years ago.

Sarah Silverman is exhibit A of why women are not funny!

And your attitude is exhibit A of why incels don't get laid. Stop attacking half the species like they aren't humans just like you.

LOL. No.

LOL. When I saw the word "renegades," I immediately had a mental picture of a pencil-necked nerd sans pocket protector.

FYI women are human but not "just like" men. For instance, my wife would have been expelled from the gestapo for cruelty.

Sarah Silverman is funny but she’s also vulgar and I find that off putting. Your mileage will vary.

By the way, as in the case of men and gays, some women are funny and some are not. As a kid I loved Carole Burnett.

Carol Burnett has a new show on Netflix in the vein of Kids Say the Darndest Things.

She was kind of funny before she gave in to the hate. Hate is very off putting.

#6. Vox Day suggests that the Intellectual Dark Web is another version of the usual "controlled opposition."

#6: I get the appeal of the I.D.W. I share the belief that our institutional gatekeepers need to crack the gates open much more. I don’t, however, want to live in a culture where there are no gatekeepers at all.

In certain institutions, I would argue the cranks have actually become the gatekeepers.

In 2018 the hyper race-conscious progressives are the gatekeepers and colorblind classical liberals are the cranks. Really. That's where we are. The latter group need not be lumped in with the cranks if they stick to "business conservatism" and avoid the incendiary topics of race and gender, but the minute they don't they sound like Jordan Peterson.

I guess I'm a crank.

Jordan Peterson thinks transgender pronouns lead to mass genocide.

I believe it would be more accurate to say that Jordan Peterson believes that government-compelled speech can lead to mass genocide.

#6: Brave, renegade opinions such as women and brown people are inferior to white males, i.e. the mainstream opinion for the past few centuries?

Jesus life must be so easy when anyone that disagrees with your perspective is not just mistaken or has different value perferences but instead malicious cartoon characters with strawman opinions. That would be a pretty cool and relaxing comic book esque world.

But is it a Superman comic book or a Spiderman one? Do they still publish Donald Duck stories in America? When I was young they were all the rage. You can find more information about Disney comic books and characters at https://inducks.org .

So they don't think that woman and brown people are intellectually inferior to white males? And if not, isn't it their job to explain themselves better instead of running away to their own intellectual safe spaces crying about persecution?

Do you have any proof that Jordan Peterson or Ayaan Hirsi Ali actually think anything like that, or are you furiously pounding a strawman?

Well, the article does throw them into the same bucket as a bunch of alt-right personalities. I'm responding the general bucket, not the specific people who may or may not belong in it.

Sorry, i confused you for a thinking person. As you were.

You deserve a better response than MOFOs.

But looking at "the bucket" and reacting to the _worst_ elements in it, is a low trick far below your usual standards. Because *of course* there will be putrid crazies in any group defined by being outsiders. Heck even among insiders, you'll find of communists and other unsavoury types.

If someone wants to taint the likes of Peterson and Ali without having to understand or argue about their points they can just associate them with the worst of the alt-right and then rely on people like you to agree that "yes, the bucket does stink".

“Inferior” is a loaded word. The first commenter uses it as a general descriptor which would be utterly meaningless. Even if the people in “the bucket” think that available evidence points to different distributions of something like “g” among different populations, that hardly implies “inferiority” in some absolute sense. Also, isn’t the take that man and women have nearly indistinguishable mean iq, but with different standard deviation. Is that inferior? Why does it even matter?

I fail in this instance to see why Hazel deserve a better response. She basically confessed -- showed is more accurate -- that she didn't read the piece in question, though her eyes might have scanned the pages, and rushed to condemn thinkers whose insights conflict with her priors.

The context of the initial two comments in the thread, to which I was replying, is that the subject under discussion is the views on racial and gender inequality held by at least some of the people discussed in the article. Do I need to dissect the bucket and identify which people don't belong in it before responding to the notion that thinking black people are mentally inferior is "just a difference of values"?

Yea, that was almost word for word the position of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Luckily we have you, brave internet blowhard, to call her out for her racism and sexism.

There’s no such group, socially constructed or otherwise as “brown people.” Anybody uses that phrase immediately announces that they are interested in carving reality at it’s joints.

Its sounds to me you are denying the fact that some people have skin that is brown in color. You either needs your eyes checked or head examined.

Lumping “Brown” people together makes about as much sense as lumping together people who have an odd number of hairs on their head.

2. The weird thing for me was the switcheroo. When automation and outsourcing were discussed in the 2000s, the people talking were presumed to be left and speaking for workers, and the people defending market outcomes were right and speaking for capital. Then, somehow, right-populists could come riding in saying "no one is talking about jobs!"

I guess that allows the right to worry about globalization without adopting any left-wing beliefs.

Build the wall, call China unfair rather than a low labor cost market, etc.

The 90s were high cost to pay lots of workers. Mandates requiring electronic fillings, for example, required paying lots of workers to build "factories" processing data. Y2K reporting requirement by the Federal governmentband SEC drove replacing and modernizing data processing "factories".

But the mandate to switch from analog to digital TV set in the 90s, could have driven building new TV factories in the US. But the cost of buildings factories in the US was considered too costly, and unprofitable, so the Bush and GOP waited until Asia built unprofitable TV factories in Asia before pushing, reluctantly, the switch to DTV.

The DTV technology was designed to complement high def computer displays, driving a return to the US of computer factories. That was the 90s industrial policy.

The 00s GOP industrial policy was slashing costs and jacking up profits.

(I was in one of the side rooms "when it happened" in the 90s, and booted out in 2001 to cut costs, and then watched the industry go to Asia. Note, all the new industry built in Asia has low profits, but struggle with high labor costs from labor shortages, building factories in lower labor cost with lots of labor countries. But Asians increasingly build the factories, not the US. We don't know how.)

6. I agree that the branding is awful. A truly dark web is not visible to random readers with web browsers, following public links. It's nonstandard services on invisible-to-the-rest-of-us servers. You need special apps (or at least proxies) to see the darkweb.

But I guess if you call unpopular views "dark" it is edgy, or something.

"Let me tell you how Identity politics are tearing us apart!.
Also, let me explain to you the natural and essential natures of men and women's identities."


Therein lies the essential contradiction.

What contradiction?

It's not a contradiction in the slightest to point out that there exist differences between groups, and that one ought not exercise political power for the purpose of advancing the agenda tied to one's group identity -- it's the denial of group differences that implies that identity politics is legitimate in the first place.

> it's the denial of group differences that implies that identity politics is legitimate in the first place.

Eck? Can you unpack that a little.

I thought it was rather clear, but the logic Emik is probably following is that if you deny group differences, then theoretically there should be no differences in average outcomes of many varieties between groups. To the extent that differences do exist, then, they can only be due to oppression or exploitation of one group by another group. In a society which holds egalitarianism, equality, and the democratic process as values, then, groups with worse, or even simply different, outcomes, will mobilize based on those group identities to redress the hypothesized oppression and the disparities which flow from it.

For example, if you accept that women naturally prefer professions with more social and emotional interaction than men do, it would not be an issue or a surprise should they be overrepresented amongst therapists. However, if you don't accept such a difference in natural predispositions, you could only conclude that some variety of oppression or social pressure was driving women into that field, or men away from it, and would seek to equalize it on the basis of fairness.

What Anonymous says is reasonable, but Erik actually went further.

"it's the denial of group differences that implies that identity politics is legitimate in the first place."

*That* denies that reaction to any authentic discrimination could have any role in "identity politics."

Or as illustration, denies that BLM could have anything to do with excessive force.

Or denies that Trayvon could possibly be the victim, that Zimmerman (in the news for threatening violence again!) could possibly be the thug.

The poster summarized my thinking really well, probably better than I could have.

Honestly I was thinking mostly about the 'bad kind' of identity politics. You're absolutely right to push back on that -- there are certainly historic examples of identity politics, like women's suffrage movements, that were absolutely legitimate. It's not unreasonable that some modern movements could similarly advocate for positive change.

With respect to the policing issues specifically, I'm sympathetic to the argument that the outcome of policing tends to be unreasonably, counter productively, and unnecessarily bad for black communities. I still think it's challenging to identify true, honest, racism as the root cause.

I think that BLM are doing an absolutely terrible job of advancing a criminal justice reform agenda because their rhetoric is often objectionable, wrong, or simply unnecessarily divisive. Maybe the issue is that people, in and out of BLM, don't genuinely care enough beyond seeming (signaling) to care. I don't know. Just a passing thought.

Generally, I'm pretty bearish on arguments that rely on pervasive invisible or unconscious racism because the idea that unconscious bias can be manifested in concrete discrimination is not supported. I'd prefer it if you could positively identify the racism so that it could be addressed. The chetty stuff has made me re-think this, but I'm hoping that some neater answers come out as people chew on it, because witch hunting for people's (or one's own) secretly held bias is just not going to work.

Honestly I'm just trying to figure stuff out :P

Thanks for checking my overreach there

"unconscious bias can be manifested in concrete discrimination is not supported"

You should research studies where identical resumes that are sent out, some with white sounding names vs some with black sounding names are responded to differently. Here's one example http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

There is also evidence that many in the medical field treat blacks different than whites in the realm of pain management because of unconscious bias. You get morphine and they get T3's is pretty "concrete" wouldn't you say? http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048546%20

I have seen the "black-sounding names" study before, and have never found it very persuasive. What about those names, exactly, makes them "black-sounding"? How do the researchers know that those names are rejected because they "sound black"? Might those names alternatively indicate an impoverished and low-class background, the same way "Mistee" or "Jasper" might indicate that the person is a poor, rural white person? Or something else we just haven't considered? Are there disparities in effects for "white" male vs. "black" male names and "white" female names vs. "black" female names? For a study that is cited so heavily, it has a lot of problems and limitations, beyond even those which its authors discuss in the study.

The latter study is a field study and is not worth much, as the authors admit themselves: "Because this study was not an experiment, however, it is not clear whether this bias was the result of patient race, physician characteristics, and/or characteristics of the patient-physician interaction. Social psychological research provides relevant but inconclusive experimental evidence for our thesis." Even in these sentences, there are loaded assumptions, as the authors use "bias" as a synonym for "disparity", when they are emphatically not the same thing. Conflating the two assumes the conclusion that disparities are the result of "unconscious bias".

On reread, I can see that the latter study was an attempted experiment. However, it only dealt with perceptions of experienced pain in others using computerized faces, and even concluded by suggesting that "status" was more important than "race". It did not demonstrate actual follow-through in disparities for medical treatment; the study which suggested that is the one referenced above, which was a field study.

Indeed. We need to look reality squarely in the face and recognize our differences AND how they relate to each other. Probably most importantly we need to recognize that men and women are not two groups competing for power over each other in a zero sum game, but are necessary complements toward achieving each other’s good. Also we need to learn that relations between people in general don’t have to about power.

That there exist population level differences between men and women isn't the only fact that defines the way these people think. At best it's a litmus test, since it's quite mainstream to claim (usually by enthymeme) that there exist no differences in aptitude or fitness between groups of people, which is simply false.

And fundamentally, acknowledging differences between groups undermines the basis of identity politics in the first place.

"it's quite mainstream to claim (usually by enthymeme) that there exist no differences in aptitude or fitness between groups of people"

I think that is probably false, but it is also a place to move from polling to science. For instance, science finds differences between male and female brains, with this important caveat:

"Despite the study’s consistent sex-linked patterns, the researchers also found considerable overlap between men and women in brain volume and cortical thickness, just as you might find in height. In other words, just by looking at the brain scan, or height, of someone plucked at random from the study, researchers would be hard pressed to say whether it came from a man or woman. That suggests both sexes’ brains are far more similar than they are different."

People who want to be dark, edgy, ignore the caveat.


Yeah, but the shape of your brain doesn't determine a whole lot about your behavior, personality, cognitive ability. To me, that is not a caveat, it's more like a non-sequitur.

I think "structure" as measured by modern imaging is much more than shape, but sure.

We see huge ranges in behavior among men and women all around us, some with more overlap than others.

They list Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson. The get more listeners in a single podcast than MSNBC or cnn gets in a week. Not to mention they are hard dark or innovative technologically, they are are hardly radicals. Some heterodox opinions here and there, but only compared to the horrific boring cable news echo chamber or New York times opinion pages.

I am mostly down on them for abuse of the term.

"Dude. Is your web even dark?"

#6. What is being described here is the successor to mainstream media. Those wedded to the old channels of communication don't even see it, but a guy like Joe Rogan has mind-boggling reach.

If you want to hear supporters of Bernie, Hillary, Trump, and #NeverTrump GOPers talking in a civilized way to one another, give it a try.

"If you want to hear supporters of [...] talking in a civilized way to one another . . ."

I do not. It's gone far past that.

6. In case dear readers aren't paying close attention, provocateurs are sometimes just mild-mannered academics seeking a little attention. Forgive them for they know not what they do.

7. Viewpoint of coverage of Koch influence of Mercatus and GMU?

Tyler would like to be part of that idw group.

But instead he opted for academic career safety and stays silent about any boundary breaking ideas that he might get (except for making the occasional Straussian parenthetical in this blog.

This is true. But to his credit he's got a thick enough skin to allow people on his blog to constantly point this out. He could be banning them.

This is true in part, I think. Tyler says a lot of things that are not politically correct by current very strict standards, and that many other academics couldn't say without being fired (I am pretty sure that, while being a tenured professor and soon the head of my department, I would be fired if I publicly said half what he said). He benefits from a rather special position at GMU which is a rather special university, and of course he also benefits from the personal success of his blog, columns, and books. It is even possible that this greater freedom allow him to say all that he thinks, that he has no less PC ideas that he wouldn't dare to express... But I doubt it. At some point there was Tyrone for expressing Tyler's more controversial ideas, but he seems to have disappeared. (And perhaps Tyler comments on his own blog under a pseudonym to express more radical ideas. Perhaps Tyler = SMFS)

#6. Bunch of snowflakes with an overdeveloped persecution complex.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Most of these folks were kicked out of the kitchen. Now they are making a better kitchen, and everyone's invited.

You can't "kick anyone out" of the internet. And I assure you that the kitchen their are building will be just as inhospitable to the people THEY don't like. i.e. big bad meanie SJWs, Black Lives Matter supporters. People who don't think that black people are intellectually inferior. In their corners of the internet, they are just as bad, if not worse, than the worst self-righteous progressive SJWs.

I speak from personal experience. I mean, I've got my own trolls following me around because I dare to be a libertarian who rejects racism and white identity politics.

That's not what I said. I used to think you were pretty smart.


Hazel, watch the video of the students at Evergreen confronting the supposedly white supremacist professor Weinstein because of his audacity in questioning whether changing the Day of Absence was a wise choice. Watch it and tell me who has the persecution complex, exactly. You twit.

I can't speak for Hazel but I think she'd agree that both sides' wackos have that in common, the persecution complex and strident outrage over stupid stuff.

The accusation she made was that Bret Weinstein was one of these wackos, and this is false. Hence the 'twit' comment.

Oh for sure the victim complex of the right is a perfect mirror image of campus victim culture.

Every time I hear someone whine about being called a racist, I'm reminded of the safe space with coloring books outside Wendy McElroy's talk about rape culture.

Hazel's reputation has steadily fallen to moron level throughout this comment section.

So still above yours then.

ooooh, you hate racism and white supremacy. you must be a very, very moral person. how about you stop acting like virtue signaling SJW cuck? #maga2020 #dagoyknow

Normally i enjoy your comments, but wow is this horrible. First you declare that these people must be snowflakes because they, what, exactly? Dont just sit quietly and lose their jobs for speaking their minds? Dont just pipe down when others demand they do? Then you follow it up with "oh, well im sure they will be totally as horrible as the people they oppose because i said so and i know because trolls or something"?

Seriously, what the fuck?

Which one of the people cited in the article has lost their job because of their opinions?

I've been a (relative) conservative in liberal circles, and a (relative) liberal in conservative circles (more recently), and YES, they are just as bad. At least the liberals aren't blatantly racist though, so I'd rather hang out with them. And they have better drugs.

How about Bret Weinstein? Although he's obviously a white supremacist lol.


No, he isn't, but some people are. And those people are putting on a big theatrical production about how persecuted they are so we should all be nicer to them and treat their arguments with kid gloves. As in, let them go around saying racist shit without getting called racists.

"No, he isn't, but some people are." Im having trouble even parodying this.

How about shorter Hazel Meade:

They arent racist, but they should shut up because they are racist

In this instance, "racism" is just a stand-in for whatever position it is that they are claiming is being persecuted. It's a tactic:
1. Advance controversial position A.
2. Wait for outraged responses mixed with legitimate criticisms.
3. Claim that you're being persecuted.
4. Use claims of persecution to avoid addressing legitimate criticisms.
5. Repeat.

"In this instance, "racism" is just a stand-in for whatever position it is that they are claiming is being persecuted."

Racist as a stand in for anything I disagree with. Normally they aren't so open about it.

Do you not understand metaphor?

Rogan has the *best* drugs...

As i recall, Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to leave the Dutch parliament at least in part due to her opposition to islam, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying both had to leave their jobs due to their opposition to "Day of Absence"

And is that really your reply, that one part of my comment isnt 100% true?

My point is, most of these people are in fact profiting mightily off of their "persecuted" stances. And not only are they profiting from it, they are using their claims of persecution to shield themselves from criticism. Well, not all of them, the article casts a wide net. But there's a distinct trend these days people with certain unpopular opinions using this persecution act to protect themselves from legitimate criticism.

"My point is, most of these people are in fact profiting mightily off of their "persecuted" stances."

Of course they are, whats wrong with that? I mean, what is your point? You started out blathering about how they should "stay out of the kitchen if they cant take the heat" as if they should just shut up and take it when others silence them. Then, when BD continued your analogy by stating that they are in essence starting their own intellectual movement you simply declared, wtihout any real proof that they would surely be just as bad as those they decried. And now its "how dare they take advantage of their situation"? Again, were they supposed to simply sit there and take it? Oh, and of course, we cant forget you flinging accusations of racisism, again, sans proof other than, someone somewhere on the alt-right is a racist, so these people must be racist to cause reasons. Seriously, your thought process is a mess today.

They're not being silenced! If they were being silenced, they wouldn't be making YouTube videos that millions of people are watching.
They are using this woe-is-me act to pose as a persecuted renegade so they can get more YouTube hits.

So, just to be clear here, when Theo Van Gogh was murdered, there was no reason to think that was an attempt to silence Ayaan Hirsi Ali? When the SPLC put her on their hate watch list, that was just totally OK, and not in any way persecution? or is that just a "woe-is-me act"

Calling someone a racist is JUST LIKE MURDER!

Lotsa goal-post shiftin' here.

So she has a different opinion from you and that makes her a wrongthinker? Seriously this is why Trump got elected.

I remember when Vox did that article about IQ and genes. Even they presented evidence that the black population had a lower IQ than whites. They only differed with the Murrays of the world in that they thought that difference wasn't explained by genes. So it seems that even the intellectual mainstream says that blacks are intellectually inferior.

IQ is the new phrenology, the mysterious woo that soothes white people's anxieties.

Because it shows that Asians are our intellectual overlords?

Because these guys trade on the lay mythology of IQ as being the essential measure of a person's capabilities like it is RAM or horsepower.
As if IQ is like medicloreans from Star Wars or some medieval aether.

IQ strongly predicts economic success.

Now we don't think that the rich are more worthy than the poor (or don't admit it), so why are we so sensitive in admitting that there are meaningful cognitive differences, on average, between races?

The problem is that the only acceptable empirical facts on these topics are those that do not support racist views. This is a categorical error. Facts are not racist.

No, it really doesn't.
Not on an individual level, and not on a national level.
Moreover, there isn't any plausible explanation for why we should even think so.
Successful outcomes rely on many factors other than analytical problem solving ability.
Running a business for example requires a keen sense of social skill anti network and resolve personal relationships. This doesn't show up on IQ tests.
Being a successful tradesperson, performer, musician or athlete requires tremendous muscle memory. Again, not something correlated to IQ scores.
IQ is one single metric, not the whole person.

There's plenty of evidence that it does on an individual and national level. I'll dig it up when its not so late.

"IQ is one single metric, not the whole person." This is like someone a first grade teacher would say. No shit. We all know this, but it's still a very useful predictive measure and should not be dismissed just because of some strawman fear that people are not capable of parsing the difference between IQ and other human attributes.

Predictive of what?
My ability to play the cello? To get a date?
Useful for what?
To decide who gets the corner office?

Maybe it predicts how dense you are to arguments that conflict with your preconceived opinions. Just read the book and you'd be caught up with the rest of us.... (The Bell Curve)

Have you ever interacted personally with some of these low IQ people? They can barely make a sandwich without an instruction manual. You ever wonder why we have stickers on plastic bins warning people not to suffocate their baby in there? It's because of low IQ people.

"Predictive of what?" Here is an article from Vox (which I figure you might trust): https://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11723182/iq-test-intelligence. It's predictive of almost everything. Is it the most important factor? Maybe not, but it sure ain't nothin'. (It might also be predictive of the propensity to use google before making an assertion.)

Also, Garret Jones wrote a whole book (The Hive Mind) on how national averages of IQ are predictive of national economic performance.

See, a truly scientific theory explains the past evidence, and predict future events.
How did various nations rise and fall in performance? Did they grow stupider, then smarter, then stupider again?
Why is China overtaking America now?
What is the mechanism that confines IQ to national borders?
If a high IQ person moves to a low IQ nation, does he get stupider, or does everyone else get smarter? How does this work?

Medieval alchemy had a better grasp of things.

I can't do all the research for you, but here's the gist. High IQ people tend to having lower discount rates and longer time horizons (i.e. they're good at delayed gratification). If you are thinking about how trade develops, a population of people who have lower discount rates makes it easier to cooperate (see any research on repeated games). Does this explain all of economic growth? No. But your claim was "there isn't any plausible explanation for why we should even think" that IQ predicts success at an individual or national level. That is a claim with no merit. If you're interested in how IQ might have affected the Industrial Revolution, read Clark's A Farewell to Alms (hint: it has to do with higher fertility of higher IQ people). Also, your statement "Successful outcomes rely on many factors other than analytical problem solving ability" while true, is beside the point. No one is claiming IQ is singularly causative of success, but (as the papers linked in the above article suggest) IQ is more predictive of life outcomes than personality.

So I've answered your questions on correlating IQ with life outcomes and how changes in IQ at the national level affect economic growth over time with respected academic research. If you have any other metric whose correlation with IQ want adjudicated, please do a simple google search first and either link articles or provide references (or maybe you would just rather stick with alchemy).

And given your comment about muscle memory and IQ, I think you'd be interested to learn that IQ is highly correlated with reaction time. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5608941/ and its references. And before you ask me to explain why (even though you could read the short paper), it's mostly about the brain's processing speed.

>How did various nations rise and fall in performance? Did they grow stupider, then smarter, then stupider again? Why is China overtaking America now?

Actually IQ closely tracks historical achievements, The Chinese were historically the most technologically advanced with 105 average IQ, followed by the Europeans at 100 IQ

The Subsaharan Africans never really moved beyond the early iron age and they are estimated to be around 65-75

Obviously IQ is not the only factor, China's fall from grace was from centuries of poor governance and poor economic institutions

North Korea is dirt poor, but North Korea is clearly different from countries like Somalia that have similar income levels. While both countries are dirt poor, North Korea has many highly educated scientists and engineers, they build and maintain their own tanks and ballistic missiles and the country has very low crime.

>What is the mechanism that confines IQ to national borders?

There isn't, as you can see Japan and korea has the same IQ as China's 105

what confines IQ is race, and races having a tendency to marry members of their own race

>If a high IQ person moves to a low IQ nation, does he get stupider, or does everyone else get smarter? How does this work?

IQ is a rough measure of raw brain power, people with high IQ's tend to go to better schools and get brainier jobs

A person doesn't get smarter or dumber by moving to a poor country.

What is the mechanism that confines IQ to national borders?
If a high IQ person moves to a low IQ nation, does he get stupider, or does everyone else get smarter? How does this work?

Yea because it's a hit with white supremacists that Jews and East Asians outperform everyone else by a large margain.

Then again what you post wasn't an argument. Just an unfalisible ideological prior impervious to evidence.

Ironic how Asians are now suddenly totes cool and the right sort of people when less than a century ago the very first immigration law passed was the Chinese Exclusion Act, on the grounds that they were low, untrustworthy and the undesirable Yellow Peril.
I predict that a century from now we will be hearing about the natural superiority of the Arab and African peoples.

The Chinese exclusion act was passed on the grounds that there were hundreds of millions of poor Chinese and it was actually easier for them to get to California than it was for most Americans to get to California. And parts of California are really, really, nice, so maybe we should try to preserve it for ourselves and our posterity.

No it wasn't the Chinese exclusion act was passed because of labor unions

Companies were firing union members and replacing them with Chinese willing to work for a quarter of what a white demanded.

If it was about preserving California for whites they would have banned other races, the Chinese were targeted specifically because of their willingness to work for low wages in horrible conditions

A lot of cartoon straw-men being built today.

That is not as cute as you think it is.

The disadvantaged may not really be intellectually inferior. Even worse, denying disadvantage may exacerbate and prolong the problem.

It may or may not be, the problem was that Vox presented the issue as if Sam Harris was duped by pseudoscience bullshit, all while quietly admitting that everything that was said on this podcast was actually within the mainstream of science. Ezra Klein seemed positively shocked that Harris might object to being called a racist dupe based on nothing at all.

Oh, *that* Vox article. I glanced but didn't read. It seemed too gossipy.

Sam Harris does exactly what I'm talking about in the debate with Ezra Klein. He continually hides behind this "don't persecute me, I'm not a racist" facade to avoid actually debating the science. Any time Ezra Klein brings about a point about how his science fact isn't really facts and tries to have a discussion about those facts he keeps changing the subject back to how everyone out to get him, calling him a racist. He neatly avoids having to debate the merits of the claim that black people are intellectually inferior by repeatedly scurrying back to the position that he's not *really* supporting that stance just supporting Murray's right to support than stance. He's being a slipperly little weasel advancing a racist position while pretending he's not doing it and then claiming he's being persecuted when he gets called on it.

Except that 1) His (Harris) facts really where science facts. Even the Vox article that tried to malign Harris did so while quietly admitting that everything he said was within the science mainstream. 2) Harris stated from the beginning that he wasnt terribly interested in race and IQ, he only interviewed Murray *because* Murray was being so vigorously maligned. Why should he be expected to debate the science of race and IQ with Ezra Klein, who knows even less about the subject than Harris does when that wasnt his point in the first place? and 3) show me where he actually "advances a racist position" My read of it was that he was in fact, from the start supporting Murray's right to take a stance.

This is exactly how we got here in the first place, people like you just cant resist tarring anyone who disagrees with you with the racism brush. You seem unable to even contemplate that Harris, a man of science, might choose to defend Murray simply for science's sake. Oh now, he must be a closet racist because to do otherwise might open you up to the possibility that you are wrong. That you arent really the "reality based community" or the "party of science", so better to shout them all down then to actually engage them at all.

They're science facts, not theories! But I'm not going to debate them because that isn't the point! Just admit that they are facts so we can get on with talking about how mean you are being for calling me a racist! I don't want to debate facts! I want to talk about how persecuted I am!

Yes how dare he want to talk about the thing he was talking about from the start. He aught to have just shut up about that and talk about something that he and Klein have no special knowledge of in the first place.

not to mention, there was little scientific disagreement to begin with. Ezra consistently avoided addressing Harris's points. Ezra would wait for his turn to speak and then rephrase the same talking points over and over.

If you are claiming that you are being persecuted for bringing up "facts" you damn well better be ready to defend those "facts". Instead, Harris repeatedly, in essence says "why are you all attacking me? I'm only bringing up some facts that I don't want to have questioned in any meaningful way."

Ezra wasn't arguing the facts. He just lectured Harris on why he shouldn't be talking about such things.

Sorry Murray isn't a scientist. Poli sci like all social science is not science. That makes your idea that Sam is defending science a pile of goose dung, as my grandpa would say in my neck of the woods.

I am familiar with the Sam/Ezra controversy and that's not my take. If Ezra wanted to debate the actual science, he should have brought an actual scientist on his show. Neither Sam nor Ezra are experts in this field, so them debating the underlying science would be a waste of everyone's time. Also it doesn't seem to me that their disagreement was over the science itself. Both acknowledged that there is an IQ difference between races. The only disagreement seems to be as to the source of the difference, whether it is entirely environmental or some combination of environmental and genetic differences.

Ok, this is a good reply.
It depends on whether you mean IQ as a stand-in for "intelligence" or IQ as "test scores on an IQ test".
Test score records are facts, but those facts can be put in a socioeconomic context. It's not a "fact" that blacks have lower intelligence, just that they have lower test scores on IQ tests. And Ezra Klein keeps trying to make that point and bring up the historical context that might lead to lower scores and Harris keeps refusing to address that. Klein is essentially saying "look you (and Murray) keep bringing up these test scores like they were the definitive word on intelligence, but they're not, and here's why"
Further, Klein is actually trying to explain WHY people are reacting negatively to Harris, because asserting this point about test scores without context does imply that they are definitive measure of intelligence, and asserting that everything Murray says is just science facts really *is* taking a position on the subject, whether he admits it or not, because Murray doesn't just say "here's a bunch of test scores, who the heck knows why they are what they are", he advances the theory that blacks are of lower intelligence. If you're going to say "Why is everyone persecuting Murray? he's just saying facts.", you have to defend the truth of the proposition that Murray's position is factual not theoretic. You are taking a stance on the subject matter.

IQ does not equal intelligence: This was explicitly acknowledged and discussed in the Harris / Murray podcast.

Historical context that might lead to lower scores: this too was explicitly addressed in the Harris / Murray podcast.

"I speak from personal experience. I mean, I've got my own trolls following me around because I dare to be a libertarian who rejects racism and white identity politics."

And you call others snowflakes. Lol

+1. Yeah, the "us cuckservative white guys have it so hard" routine is so 2016. But ... but we're the most oppressed!. Puhlease, I rather take a long and furious dump after eating spicy Mexican than see these losers try to win the oppression olympics.

OT- Trump pulls out of Iran deal. First major blunder of his administration.

The Israelis are preparing for the Iranian rocket fire from Lebanon. The liberals will blame Trump even though firing rockets at civilians is a war crime.

Wait a second. Pre-Trump you were mister balanced budgets. You were gridlock, but gridlock for austerity. Now you have given him a free pass on the last tax and spending bill?

There were some good things in the tax bill, and the impact on the deficit was like a zit on an elephant's ass. I would not have expected anything better from Hillary.

The trade war is risky but it might come out ok. But this, I see nothing but downside here. Hillary would not have done this, even if she likes a good war as well as your average neocon.

The tax bill added about $144B per year to the deficit. That's a big zit.

Hillary would not have been able to get anything passed due to that gridlock you so crave (me too by the way).

Forgot the link: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/tax-bill-2017/card/1512190969

Pretended to crave. Mood affiliation, or simple peer group tribalism. Take your pick.

Heh. You just typed the equivalent of the guy out of bullets throwing his gun.

Thoughts on Iran? I predict the MSM, which loves war as much as the neocons, will now talk about Trump maturing.

Not a chance. The MSM hates Trump and loves Obama, and this was specifically another instance of Trump kicking sand on Obama. It seems like Trump's main goal is to overturn as much of Obama's legacy as he can, regardless of whether it was good or bad policy. The MSM will be all over Trump for this too.

That was a different anonymous talking about Iran, by the way.

I just view it all as potential tragedy. Trump and Bolton won't listen to us. Roulette spin.

Between FY 2015 and FY 2016, the deficit increased $148 billion. Organically. During a recovery. With unemployment careening down to 4%. And a couple years before the Medicare tsunami really starts to bite. Your $144 billion is higher than what I have seen for the tax baill (more like $100 billion, but that's a comparative quibble.)

The FY 2017 deficit was $665 billion.


We won't see a broad-based tax increase, we won't cut spending, and tax increases on the rich won't cut it (as Megan points out).

Which leaves the printing press as the obvious end game here.

That's funny. You have to know it is false.

If Hillary were president the Republicans would be fighting deficits tooth and nail, as they did with Obama, in much more dire circumstances.

There would have been your gridlock and austerity.


"The national debt is currently higher than at any time in history outside of World War II and the years immediately after, and it is rising unsustainably. Moreover, recent tax and spending legislation have made a bad situation even worse."

"Our projections show that under current law, trillion-dollar deficits will return permanently by next year and debt will exceed the size of the economy within a decade. Under potentially more realistic policy assumptions, the country will be facing a $2.4 trillion deficit and debt of 113 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2028. These projections show a fiscal situation that is clearly unsustainable."


You make my point. Without the tax bill, the 2028 deficit would only be a partly $2.3 trillion or so.


"Legislation passed since June 2017 will add roughly $2.4 trillion to the baseline debt through 2028; continuing various expiring policies will add another $3.6 trillion to the debt."

What kind of real fiscal conservative throws an extra to trillion dollars in debt into the street?

Sounds like the "this is fine" meme strikes again.

To be fair, Anonymous, you can't be a strident deficit hawk like you are posting here and also looking for "incremental improvements, with achievable funding." as you posted in the prior thread.

Actually I can, and while being long term consistent.

Way back, when I learned of Keynesianism, and counter-cyclical fiscal policy, it made sense to me. It is where I have been ever since. Over the long term spending should approximate receipts, but you should spend a bit more and tax a bit less in recession. The opposite in expansion.

So of course I hate this deficit stimulus during expansion. I always have.

On whether some x or y service should be added to government spending, it should be incremental to that backdrop.

Maybe it is because the imagery of Genesis 41 made such a big impact on me as a child.

I think you are wrong about the GOP fighting Hillary.

Boehner "fought" Obama, and they both made a miscalculation and got Sequester. Both sides HATED that.

I give Obama and Boehner credit, still, but within one or two years both parties were working overtime to find a way out of sequester.

This is when I realized the GOP wasn't serious, the Dems are never really serious (though credit to Obama for doing sequester even for a bit) and the final nail in the coffin?

2016...when you realize the Dems wanted to expand social security, and trump merely promised to not touch it.

This is the popular bipartisan position.

We're not going to see fiscal sanity until the money runs out.

The GOP wouldn't be fighting Hillary because of fiscal sanity, they would be fighting her because that's their reason for being. Remember how hard they fought every little thing Obama did? That times 10. Obama had a Dem Congress for a while. Hillary with a fully Rep Congress? Forget it. Scalia's seat would STILL not be filled. No legislation would pass, at all. The most complete gridlock in US history.

Re: ‘First major blunder of his administration.’ I suspect it’s the art of the deal. My favorite quote on the deal came from Alan Deshowitz, that the Obama/Kerry team was ‘playing checkers with the people who invented chess. ‘

Its too bad Trump can't even think one move ahead. Trump puts up a tariff, China sticks it to some red states, and now Trump wants Congress to bail out Big Ag. It turns out playing 6D chess doesn't work if the game is Chinese chess.

Wrong. Having competent people leave is a big one. Resorting to boobs like Giuliani as counsel is proof that no one can work with the orange one.

5. "Brand vehemently disagrees with me, but I’d say that, more recently, the computer has also failed as a source of true community. "

Facebook uber profits is not computer based community.

The Well was not for profit.

But joining "the community" was not free, just as joining any community has a cost or price.

Joining the Facebook community requires becoming a product for sale for other people's profit.

Not sure who wrote it, but the best advice I try to remember is

But the tools you need, not the tools you want to need.

-- Whole Earth Catalog

1# I'm not surprised, according with https://www.freedominthe50states.org/land Idaho is not bad but is not that good too on Land Regulation. The other places cited like Nevada, neither. When this start come to Indiana or Texas I will be more surprised. If Texas still able to avoid NIMBYism they will run the country.

4# Seems like people thought that because trade is a positive sun thing, so it is a Pareto improvement too -- there's no loser. Probably this show how complacent people was about, Tyler book is right.

But I think that very little could be done about. Reagan was not really a "free trader" (Clinton was much more, see NAFTA) and Japan win against American manufactures. China was just 20 times bigger. Protectionism only would work in American market, being less competitive American Manufactures would be abet to sell to Americans, but the exports would still be lower, cause China would still eating it. In fact, this could made the others exports sectors less competitive too. The jobs would still be lost.

Brazil is a good example, the protectionism here was REALLY high and we still lose a lot of manufactures jobs. Fortunately, a lot of agricultural and oil jobs was created cause China as well, but less productive than with free trade to import Machine Capital. The only way I see that something could be done was like what the Germans and the Suiss did = a lot of vocational education to the unproductive workers be more productive. The Czechs are learning this.

5# The "dark" was a joke, so seems ok to me.

We lost those jobs because American-backed governments from 1990 to 2002 lowered the tariffs dramatically. Meanwhile, American, Japanese and European greedy lobbies block Brazilian agricultural exports. Brazil's sugar and biofuel are much more cost-effective than the foreign alternatives, yet malefactors of great wealth bribe politicians!!

We should have kept the tariffs in place and invested more in infrastructure and technology. Giving up the nuclear program in the early 90's and recognizing Red China in 70's were mistakes, too. Industry's share of GDP has collapsed and now a Chinese-backed agricultural lobby is interested in undermining our industry. If it were up to me, they would be the first ones to the wall.

The tariffs become (a little) lower cause the hyperinflation. You know, we increase our taxes from 21% to 36% of the GDP to pay to all new "rights" of the new constitution - this while living in the middle of a hyperinflation! I always ask me how we was able to avoid put a Hitler in the power like the Germans in 1920~30. Probably, the increase of taxes alone made our manufacturing productivity be low.

In any case, the tariffs was not that low, still one of the biggest of the world. In some sectors become even more high. In fact, in some places lower tariffs helped: Embraer was almost bankrupt in 90's. Collor (and Alagoas) save the day with the privatization and lower the tax of capital machines that Embraer put in the.

If China did that thank god for them. Made us look to the best that we have. Our agriculture productive is really big, in the 1970 we imported food and now we are the third biggest exporter - besides living in a tropical climate, which means that the agrotech that works in temperate climates (Europe, USA and China) does not work very well in Tropical climates - only Africa know how bad it can be. We should put everything we have to increase our agriculture productivity even more. Manufacturing seems better because is easy to import and reverse engineering, but is also much a more competitive environment, cause anyone can do that. Trying to compete with China is a losing game, is like trying to compete with Amazon.com. The Indians was smart in trying to exports productive services, and not manufactured things with low profit margins.

Nonsense. Deflation put Hitler in power, not inflation. Any decent history book will tell you that.
The Collor and FHC Administrations dismantled the economic portections the military regime established and introduced the same radical American-backed liberalization policies that broke Menem's Argentina and Salina's Mexico. By the early 00's Brazil was broken, heavily indebted to the IMF, the economy was sluggish at best and unemployment rates were unprecedently high. Crime skyrocket. Those plagues from Egypt opened the way for the unprecedent victory of a left wing coalition in 2002.
In the last thirty years, Brazil went from one of the most industrialized countries in history, making computers, cars, tanks, ships and all that to a semicolony selling grass and rocks to Red China!! Famous South Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang pointed out that Brazil has suffered one of the fastest and most dramatic de-industrialized processes ever registered in History. Interest rates are among the highest in the world. We are being treated by banks like Americans treat Blacks.
Back to the coffee-and-milk policies with local oligarches selling commodities to rich countries. Even land! As Representative and presidential candidate Bolsonaro remarked, why should totalitarian Red China control Brazil's agricultural land? Will they take care of our interests better than we do? Big business are profiting on our backs! They do not have to pay taxes like everyone else. Their pals at Congress systematically allow them to evade taxation.

re#2 - I've argued about errors like this with various people, including Alex, before.

There's a worse problem in computers - from say the 1980's until say 2005, every year or two really did bring a real improvement. But in, say, the last 13 years, most users only perceive real improvements once every several years, if at all. This is a normal thing given the maturing of the technology.

But it will make the accounting *worse*, because measures of "brute quality" like memory size or total operations per second continue to march along at Moore's Law pace, while user perceived quality mostly does not.

For mature products, it would probably be better to measure output in marketable units (laptops sold, phones sold) assuming past some level quality is immaterial. As markets for products mature (cars, phones, etc.) the quality improvements are slower, but also of less value to life satisfaction, and so it would make more sense to count units unadjusted for any particular metric of "quality".

By THOSE sorts of metrics, has US output in much of anything other than electronics grown much in the last several decades? And is the rest of the world much better off?

This wrong in a few ways. First, there was a dramatic improvement in computers from 1977 when a few Apple IIs were sold to the Amiga with a separate graphics card and true multitasking in 1985, so this didn't start in mid 1980s. Moore's Law as well as MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second) have increased exponentially through 2017.

This is not a mature technology as seen by the ability for people to carry around computers in their pockets from 2007 and the quality of these computer that you can carry in your pockets have significantly improved through 2018.

There was no worthwhile machine translation in 2005 but a few years later the quality was excellent for Spanish, French andd German with Japanese and Chinese into English now quite advanced. Speech recognition was bad in 2005 and computers could not have supported Youtube in 2004.

If consumers don't see an improvement in quality then why don't they hang on to their computer until it breaks? Most don't do that.

Oh, virtual reality didn't work well on personal computers/game machines until 2014 and those will keep improving. Most people wouldn't say that virtual reality systems are a mature technology. OK, except for Tyler..

If you haven't read Stewart Brand's "How Buildings Learn", it's a fun read.


Thank you! It looks engaging & lovely.

Apropos of simply a good turn, I am reading the abridged D'Arcy Thompson,On Growth and Form at the moment. It is also a lovely fancy. I hearkened to it at the 40 story/60 story office building post.

4 is deeply flawed because the price of computers has been falling rapidly over the last few decades, as have the prices of many other manufactured items. Therefore, if you don’t adjust for falling prices as the article suggests, then our manufacturing output would be even higher, not lower.

Boise. What i dont understand about critics of nimbys is they adhere to only one edge of the libertarian sword.

Property owners have a right to do what they want with their property, we are told.

Much less attention is given to one’s right not to have neighbors impact your property and the quiet enjoyment thereof.

Clearly in many cases the individual and surely collective impact of the changes are material to existing property owners

People are not entitled to ruin my property.

I agree. I am sad when I see a beautiful house having its neighborhood defaced by ugly ones -- even when I am not the owner of that house. Not In Thy BackYard.

This is a ok argument to small quiet towns. To New York City, you already live in the hell, so shut up or go to Idaho.

Henry George proved that the libertarian sword in land its much more weak than in capital or labor. People edge the only side that can cut, the other is a argument for taxes.

It would have been nice had the piece feature non-PC thinkers like Glenn Loury or John McWhorter, and not just whites. This omission, whether intention or not, paints the PC backlash as entirely white, which likely undercuts it for readers.

Of course anyone even slightly to the right of the NYT will be painted in its pages as "dark" -- and get a load of those ominous photos! But at least that piece was worth blowing one of my NYT freebies, unlike the irrelevant David Brooks tediously turning Brand into Bland. I notice the lack of comments inspired by that article.

If Bari Weiss and Jordan Peterson count as cutting edge thinkers, the West is doomed. Joe Rogan on the other hand is truly a man of all seasons.

1. I refuse to be a NISEBY or a YISEBY. Calling someone a catchy acronym seems to be a poor way of persuading them to build more housing in their neighborhood.

2. Sarah Silverman is brash and I love it. She would have fit in at the Algonquin round table. Watch your elbows!

5. A wise piece by David using his platform to spread generosity instead of controversy.

6. Most of my news comes from a variety of websites, podcasts, and scrolling Twitter feeds for interesting articles. I haven't watched cable news for a decade.

In every business cycle, manufacturing plunges in recession but rebounds fast in recovery to attain a new record high. Except this time. Manufacturing production ex high tech (this is published by the Fed) has grown since 2009 but remains below its 2007 peak, even with nine years of recovery. Never such a poor recovery.

Looking at industry detail, there are only four manufacturing industries which can be described as having recovered in terms of production (as opposed to employment): high-tech, vehicles, oil refining, and processed food.

Apparel production has utterly collapsed to a record low, down 83% over a 20-year period. That is not because Americans are nudists now. It is because of offshoring of production. Same with textiles, paper, printing, furniture, and to a lesser extent, electrical equipment/ appliances. It has long been obvious that a downtrend in production in the face of rising final demand must be explained by international trade. Automation just makes the job losses all that more severe.

I also think it is a mistake to separate international trade entirely from technological advance. Advancing technology has reduced the costs of international trade and so created more of it.

A final shout-out to Michael Jensen. His paper, 'The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems,' from the Journal of Finance, (July, 1993) -- and available at his website --
anticipated all that is going on. The end of the Cold War and the reform in China and India added billions to the global labor force without adding much capital. The result was inevitable exit from high-cost producers, including US manufacturers. I cannot think of a single economist who made such an accurate forecast about the new era. The profession still ignores what he said.

Comments for this post are closed