Europe isn't rich because it's extracting resources from Africa. It's rich because it's populated by intelligent people with low time preference who gradually built up the wealth & capital over many generations.Originally Posted by Muddy
When it's no longer sufficiently populated by people like this, the accumulated capital will disappear with them.
Well yah it isn't the ONLY reason they rich. Like the US their wealth is mostly attributable to being early pioneers in the Industrial Revolution and obtaining a massive technological lead overs that still persist today. That doesn't subtract from the fact that much of their wealth came from colonial exploitation. While Europe today doesn't exert the same level of direct control over Africa as they used to, companies can still go into Africa and do pretty much whatever they want by bribing local officials.
Another thing that I forget mention regarding Europe is that they basically get a free lunch with military spending. The US doesn't. The only way we could possibly have Social Democracy in the US without going completely bankrupt would be to drastically downsize our military. We can't do that because that would mean that spooky socialism and other foreign threats would begin to proliferate and threaten the Western world order.
No, it's effectively the reason.
Sane property laws matter too, of course. The Industrial Revolution could've transpired in China first. The brain capital was there… but without individual property protections there's little reason to build & invest. So they didn't.
Also possible that the IR could've emerged in antiquity. We know the Greeks were using primitive steam technology and complex machines. But then the Roman Empire had an arresting effect on innovation (despite their tremendous practical achievements). Food for thought: http://adlows.com/2017/11/12/ancient...al-revolution/
In any event, the "colonialism made the West rich" argument is trivially easy to debunk. If anything colonization hurt the West by undercutting its own local development, and inadvertently helped the 3rd world by introducing technology and efficient institutions. And now we're on course for ecological ruin thanks to insatiable 3rd world growth—a big mistake in retrospect.
@Raver It's hard not to like you. lol So I'll be exiting this thread.
@Raver I take it that you're opposed to identity politics when the left-wing is accused of doing it; not to put words in your mouth, but people in your camp will typically express sentiments along the line that identity politics is divisive and racist. Yet the notion that a whole country should preserve the purity of its ethnic identity is inescapably a form of racist identity politics. Please explain why holding these two views at the same time isn't inconsistent and incoherent.
I think he just recognizes that ethnicity isn't race so much as culture combined with ancestry and sees that as a shortcut to stop disastrous policies like bringing tons of refugees who don't even want to be there into European countries haphazardly, or George Soros buying out Hungary. I think having official ethic policies is a horrific idea but ethnicity can be a good guideline (not hard rule) in many cases and Raver isn't a career politician or a bad person so I'm not going to start throwing stones at him. Also, if you just demonize anything vaguely conservative, you are a far-left extremist by definition, though that's not necessarily a problem depending on demographics. There are some people I wouldn't expect to have any conservative views because of their environment and who also aren't bad people like the antifa groups are.
In other words, he supports identity politics. RE. the demonization comment: not sure if that was directed at me, but I don't demonize "anything" that's even vaguely Conservative.
Last edited by xerx; 07-13-2019 at 02:16 AM.
It's more likely that these people are unaware of the reality of being an ethnic minority, for that they're an ethnic majority. Or ironically they don't notice any trouble for being blessed with living in a multi-ethnic or multicultural society.
The fact is that ethnic minorities exist in virtually any countries, and to say that there should be only one ethnicity within a country would be to deny their entire existence.
This whole thing seems more likely a case of "homogeneity envy" where they have fantasies that homogeneous societies are beautifully cohesive and conflict-free and everybody gets along in a beautiful utopia. Of course that isn't actually the case, and if that were so, then everybody would automatically agree with everything and there'd be no need for democracy or laws or the court or anything. The fact is that those artificial laws and institutions exist for the very purpose of resolving conflicts.
It's a simple fact that plurality is good for the society and progress. But conservative-minded people would rather foolishly sacrifice progress for apparent stability.
I'm not saying that unlimited immigration is the way to go, because that might destroy the culture. However gradual immigration is obviously the sane policy for any modern countries.
Ethnic homogeneity is actually good for innovation: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...1.2015.1130785
Lol. What the fuck is wrong with letting people live among who they want to live with? It's as if you're determined to impose diversity on people who never wanted or asked for it.I'm not saying that unlimited immigration is the way to go, because that might destroy the culture. However gradual immigration is obviously the sane policy for any modern countries.
Freedom of association implies freedom to exclude.
Then don't associate with them. Nobody's holding your ass to the fire. People who might find you loathsome don't turn it into a federal case.
To be honest with you guys, I really don't want to debate immigration in this thread, I think we did more than enough of it in the last thread and I've gotten sick of it. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this as we'll likely never reach a consensus.
However, to answer the question @xerxe asked, I'm not going to deny that identity politics is happening on the right just like it is on the left and I'm going to leave it at that.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Sounds like an admission that you support identity politics.
I think populism from the left and right is fine as they are both useful in different ways. I understand that populism from the left and right have underlying identity politics tied into it. I support populism from both the left and the right, but not identity politics specifically even though identity politics is intertwined with populism at times. If populism was less about identity politics and more about unifying against wealthy business interests then it would be a lot more effective IMO.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
You have been supporting the preservation of homogeneity defined around ethnic `identity`. Why isn't that a form of identity politics..?
Supporting one or a few aspects of identity politics is not the same thing as supporting every single aspect of identity politics. I can support identity politics within the right by saying homogeneity for Europe, Asia and Africa. I can also support identity politics within the left by saying minorities deserve equal rights to everyone else. However, I can reject identity politics on the right if it means minorities should be treated as second class citizens. I can also reject identity politics on the left if it means minorities should be given special treatment superseding that of the majority. This isn't a black and white issue like you are trying to paint it as because it has a lot of nuances and grey in it.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
You say that you reject identity politics from the left because it gives racial minorities special treatment. Paradoxically, the right-wing identity politics you support gives racial majorities special treatment. What's the deal?
An example of giving racial majorities special treatment is racial segregation like what happened in the US in the past. Controlling immigration on who you let in at your country is not an example of special treatment because they live outside of your country and are not citizens. Once they legally move into the country then they will be given the same treatment as everyone else living in that country.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Which still means giving a highly privileged status to a dominant majority; a status many members of the majority don't want and, to be treated like special snowflakes, would find personally condescending.
That's not what most Europeans believe:
Source: https://www.politico.eu/article/euro...ration-survey/More than half of Europeans want fewer immigrants to move to their country, according to a new survey published Monday.
Fifty-one percent of those surveyed from 10 EU countries — Greece, Hungary, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Poland, France, the Netherlands, the U.K. and Spain — said fewer or no immigrants should be allowed to move to their country, compared to a worldwide average of 45 percent, Pew Research Center found.
Thirty-five percent of European respondents said they wanted about the same number of immigrants to come to their countries, while 10 percent said their countries should allow more immigrants.
Large majorities in Greece (82 percent), Hungary (72 percent), Italy (71 percent) and Germany (58 percent) said fewer immigrants or no immigrants at all should be allowed to move to their countries. The number of people who supported less migration was less than half in France (41 percent), the Netherlands (39 percent), the U.K. (37 percent) and Spain (30 percent).
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s/#more-309372
It looks like we're back to debating immigration, lol. Anyways, it's clear that a lot of people around the world have center right views on immigration and think we need to cut down on it.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
They'll grow up and deal with their childish fears when their economies become noncompetitive due to aging populations. If you want a vision of how this is going to play out, look no further than Japan, a highly xenophobic country forced to deal with an aging workforce by importing vast amounts of migrant labour.That's not what most Europeans believe:
The main concern I have with the economic argument is that when automation rears its ugly head, which it likely will happen some time in this century. Wouldn't immigrants become no longer necessary? Heck, even a good chunk of the native population will become obsolete as well once automation comes in. A declining population due to low birth rates would become more of a boon at that point. As for Japan, I think only time will tell of their repercussions of not allowing many immigrants will do. It will be an interesting contrast to see how Japan, a 1st world homogeneous ethno-state does economically compared to most of Western Europe that is seeking to become more multicultural in the long term.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
It's jumping the gun to assume that automation is around the corner. For one thing, we're quickly reaching the limits of transistor miniaturization, meaning that traditional CPUs aren't going to get faster. Short of some breakthrough in new methods of computation (quantum, optical, etc..), many tasks will still be difficult or expensive to automate.
Even with some form of automation and an aging workforce, it might still be cheaper for firms to find labour overseas. They wouldn't even have to go far since a large reservoir of cheap African labour is right around the corner. That labour can stay and spend its earnings in Africa, or it can migrate to Europe and pay taxes.
The problem is thinking that more people is somehow bad. The more people the better, because that means more creativity to solve more problems. Automation isn't creative.
Most developed countries don't have enough birth rates to sustain the population, so without immigrants they have no choice but to decline to a slow death.
Incentivizing the native population to have children is impossible because the corporations who want cheap labor told me so. ( `ε´ )
human flesh tastes like pork
Automation will be an issue though regardless if it happens sooner or later, it's just a matter of when rather than if and when that happens, immigrants and natives will be competing for the remaining jobs left and it won't be pretty. So, why bring in a lot of immigrants that are beneficial to the country at the moment, but will be a burden in the future? It just seems short-sighted to me to be honest, to be so fixated on solving current problems without taking into consideration the future problems that can arise as a consequence of trying to solve present problems.
Quantity /= quality. Bringing in more people is going to be both good and bad. Sure, some of them will be intelligent, talented and hard working people and will help move the country further, but most of them will just be ordinary people and that's fine and there will also be a minority of immigrants that will cause trouble and problems. The majority of immigrants are not going to be innovating solutions for future problems, only the minority and the same applies to the native population as well of course. I do think immigration is one way to fix declining birth rates, but another way is giving subsidies to larger families like some European countries and Hungary have done. I'm not saying that you have to specifically do one or the other, but there are two possible solutions to low birth rates, not just one.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/have...-for-life.html
https://www.vox.com/2016/5/23/114406...hild-allowance
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I'm not convinced that the job losses caused by automation are going to be as dramatic as your scenario suggests; from what I've seen and read, economists are divided or unclear about the possible effects.
As for current problems, solving these isn't optional. The biggest current burden is the continued retirement of old people and the consequent growth of the welfare system, which the millennial generation is going to have shoulder. You bring up the fact that immigrants are here to get freebies; the case, however, is quite the opposite: immigrants pay contributions to taxes that the welfare state needs to function.
Last edited by xerx; 07-14-2019 at 08:26 PM. Reason: added a space
Maybe it won't be as dramatic that most immigrants and natives become obsolete and jobless and start competing with eachother for a scarcity of jobs, but I think it is clear automation will have an impact on the job market and it is not as far in the future as you think.
At the very least, we should minimize immigration right now with the goal to maintain populations at the same level in most 1st world nations with the exception of a few because of the threat of automation instead of continuously striving for population growth.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/aut...jobs-7-charts/
As for legal immigrants paying taxes, that may be true, but only of the legal ones that actually work. Legal immigrants that don't work or even worse illegal immigrants do nothing to contribute to the welfare state.
Last edited by Raver; 07-13-2019 at 08:51 PM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
The world is in the midst of ecological catastrophe with unprecedented rates of extinction and loss of nature. The last thing it needs is more people.
90 IQ migrants aren't either.Automation isn't creative.
It's natural for population levels to decline. We've effectively reached our Malthusian limits in the developed world. Stop huffing the fallacy of endless growth.Most developed countries don't have enough birth rates to sustain the population, so without immigrants they have no choice but to decline to a slow death.
If you think that people are problem-creators and not problem-solvers, then yes. Fortunately people are problem-solvers.
IQ has nothing to do with creativity. It has to do with the right culture.
Uh... the whole point was that Malthus was wrong. Population growth will be offset by innovation and creativity, in this case innovation of food production and agriculture. However what I'm talking about is sustaining the current population, not necessarily population growth. With the declining population, younger generations will have to take the burden of taking care of the aging population, and there's simply going to be not enough young people and the whole system is going to collapse.
This could only be true assuming more people with the necessary intelligence to contend with civilizational problems of ever increasing complexity. Which will not be the case for us on this present trajectory, as Meisenberg explains:
On the contrary, this is easy to ascertain: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682183/IQ has nothing to do with creativity. It has to do with the right culture.
"For the most advanced indicator of creativity, namely creative achievement, intelligence remains relevant even at the highest ability range."
Malthus was not wrong (only deferred). This is a conceit of pollyannas living in the afterglow of the Industrial Revolution.Uh... the whole point was that Malthus was wrong.
Again, there are realistic limits to growth. And at a normative level, one should question whether continued population growth is desirable. Especially when depopulation would solve a bevy of contemporary problems…Population growth will be offset by innovation and creativity, in this case innovation of food production and agriculture.
There are three other options out of this quandary:However what I'm talking about is sustaining the current population, not necessarily population growth. With the declining population, younger generations will have to take the burden of taking care of the aging population, and there's simply going to be not enough young people and the whole system is going to collapse.
–Automation continues to augment labor productivity such that fewer workers are required
–Advances in longevity medicine to expand functional lifespan and keep older people working
–Euthanize old folks
It isn't trivially easy to debunk that colonialism made the West rich. If you make everyone else poor, that's the same as making yourself rich. However, that's not how you're supposed to make yourself rich, and that'll hurt you too since there's less you can get from everyone else in exchange for your wealth.
This is turning into such a pissing contest. No one here knows enough about what other people know about to actually debate it. It's like watching people trying to play football, but the teams are in two different fields.
Examples abound of colonization by non-Western powers that didn't result in exponential enrichment. The Ottomans are a good one.
Well, no shit. And colonizing powers harm themselves over the longer-term by making their own people worse off.However, that's not how you're supposed to make yourself rich, and that'll hurt you too since there's less you can get from everyone else in exchange for your wealth.
The entire point is to flesh out what people know (or what it is they think they know).This is turning into such a pissing contest. No one here knows enough about what other people know about to actually debate it.
They didn't colonize the whole world like the British.
If you can somehow make the incisive case that colonization-at-scale was essential for catalyzing the Industrial Revolution, go ahead. Some historians have tried already.
Here's a case: the Industrial Revolution was started by people. If you feel like you have unlimited resources from your colonies and trading partners, but no resources in your home land, your home land makes new things out of them. If you get whatever tea they give you, you make overly-strong Turkish tea and drink it just for the caffeine. If you can get all the tea you want, you add bergamot from Italy and sugar from the West Indies and make Earl Grey. The Industrial Revolution happened because the British had all the resources in the world and needed them to become something British in order to keep trading. If all you're doing is shuffling tea to the West Indies and sugar to China, you're not going to be able to keep up an empire. Making tea is not a huge industrial enterprise but the creative aspect seems more obvious to me since it's something everyone's seen. Not everyone has seen cotton spun and things like that you read about in history textbooks, but the rule is just the same thing. If all you're doing is facilitating Egyptians trading cotton to Tibet in exchange for yak wool, you're not going to have an empire.
I'd much rather deport the racist bottom feeders rather than the Muslim woman who volunteers at my local soup kitchen.
This thread has outworn its use. The real problem isn't left vs. right in any meaningful sense, even if antifa being bad is a worthwhile observation.
Right wingers always like to fixate and draw attention to the weakest links on the left as a way to bring people to their side. They try to paint censorship and gun control as things the left inherently wants to push forward, when those are in no way inherent to being a left winger. While there are a good amount of fanatics on the left who do support gun control and censoring anything they deem as fascist, there are also plenty are the right who would love to censor and completely ostracize communist, socialist and union members. That in fact already happened in late 1940s and early 1950s when conservatives and the rich want all out in attacking the people that made the New Deal possible, and now they want to do it again but go even further this time.
For the last time. Liberalism != left.
@Muddy.
This thread has fireworks.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"