Which Government System Is The Best For People's Wealth?

[XPlus]

If what system is running your country doesn't matter, what makes some countries wealthier?

Conquest and choice of allies matter more

 

[Drareg]

The differential in countries GDP you think invalidates an argument for IQ and capacity to acquire wealth, but you can't make that argument because of the other variables. The only way you could be disproving the argument would be if the statement was that IQ is the only factor in GDP. I'm not familiar with all SM's videos, but I doubt he made a comment equivalent to that from what I've seen.

If he has, could you point to it?

What are the problems with the book on IQ specifically?

To look at the effect of economic policy on wealth perhaps the best place to look would be mainland China Vs the SEZs. You will never get a comparison that is free of other variables however. They show pretty well that more economic freedom means more wealth when you limit the variables as much as possible.

Keep in mind this an intellentional strawman of sorts to knock down another strawman argument,essentially an "Intellectual "enforcement of views/perception,essentially BS with vocabulary and confirmation bias to fuel an inner rage against shadows.

It can invalidate it,higher IQ by their argument is more intelligence, more intelligent races if they existed should not end up in these positions where they have lowered income and such limits on their freedom accordingly.
In relation to the absolute monarchs and their questionable belief system from an outsiders paradigm who doesn't quite agree with chopping hands off for stealing and stoning women to death etc ,the problem here is they all believe the same book more or less therefore they are free in the sense they are allowed practice what the book says with a few differences in interpretation here and there.

In relation to the book he claims the GDP does not match the IQ scores as it's an issue with natural resources,then we ask the question as to why the higher intelligence areas have devised a mechanism for extracting more from their lands.
In relation to China the author claimed they had such low GDP because of communist regime,his hubris here is ignoring the obvious regimes in absolute monarchs,they will argue the semantics of communism and absolute monarchs if this is put to them I'm sure. He claims countries like North Korea and China will increase GDP by moving to more centrally planned economic systems(the west system) yet China's GDP is increasing while still essentially a dictatorship albeit more dynamic now,essentially a chameleon styled political system.
This is why I mentioned Ireland,lower IQ according to his study yet higher GDP than Australia a country with good resources,perhaps the author believes the Irish have alcohol as a natural resource or something cliched and racist to suite his agenda.
Many Irish will point here to the fact he is a british elite who are notorious for assumptions and bias toward the Irish,his book is littered with assumptions based on cliched british elite hubris. (This comment is not aimed at British people in general)
Peat mentions the issue with british academia and assumptions in one of his articles,it's evident with this book.
There is a vast criticism about this book and most of it's not reactionary,one of the better arguments refuting the books is pivotal misunderstanding he as in the book with the sample from the industrial middle classes.
It shows how stupidity leveraged from powerful positions can fuel more stupidity.

I'm not familiar with SM in depth,it was the videos some of his fans on here posted,I think one is in the brexit it thread on here. If he has the viewpoints in the 2-3 videos I seen from recently then I grasp his position and don't need to dig deeper,I'm more concerned with how he draws in young males and men in general to these viewpoints.

 

[Sucrates]

Keep in mind this an intellentional strawman of sorts to knock down another strawman argument,essentially an "Intellectual "enforcement of views/perception,essentially BS with vocabulary and confirmation bias to fuel an inner rage against shadows.

It can invalidate it,higher IQ by their argument is more intelligence, more intelligent races if they existed should not end up in these positions where they have lowered income and such limits on their freedom accordingly.
In relation to the absolute monarchs and their questionable belief system from an outsiders paradigm who doesn't quite agree with chopping hands off for stealing and stoning women to death etc ,the problem here is they all believe the same book more or less therefore they are free in the sense they are allowed practice what the book says with a few differences in interpretation here and there.

In relation to the book he claims the GDP does not match the IQ scores as it's an issue with natural resources,then we ask the question as to why the higher intelligence areas have devised a mechanism for extracting more from their lands.
In relation to China the author claimed they had such low GDP because of communist regime,his hubris here is ignoring the obvious regimes in absolute monarchs,they will argue the semantics of communism and absolute monarchs if this is put to them I'm sure. He claims countries like North Korea and China will increase GDP by moving to more centrally planned economic systems(the west system) yet China's GDP is increasing while still essentially a dictatorship albeit more dynamic now,essentially a chameleon styled political system.
This is why I mentioned Ireland,lower IQ according to his study yet higher GDP than Australia a country with good resources,perhaps the author believes the Irish have alcohol as a natural resource or something cliched and racist to suite his agenda.
Many Irish will point here to the fact he is a british elite who are notorious for assumptions and bias toward the Irish,his book is littered with assumptions based on cliched british elite hubris. (This comment is not aimed at British people in general)
Peat mentions the issue with british academia and assumptions in one of his articles,it's evident with this book.
There is a vast criticism about this book and most of it's not reactionary,one of the better arguments refuting the books is pivotal misunderstanding he as in the book with the sample from the industrial middle classes.
It shows how stupidity leveraged from powerful positions can fuel more stupidity.

I'm not familiar with SM in depth,it was the videos some of his fans on here posted,I think one is in the brexit it thread on here. If he has the viewpoints in the 2-3 videos I seen from recently then I grasp his position and don't need to dig deeper,I'm more concerned with how he draws in young males and men in general to these viewpoints.

If you're concerned, first go to the information, attempt to understand what is being said, find the specific problems, and then attempt to communicate those problems in comprehensible language. I have no idea what 90% of that post is about. I'm Irish, and I've been to England a number of times, the 8 point difference in average IQ from some of the tables online is no surprise to me. The difference with the Chinese mainland and the SEZs in regard to wealth is a pretty strong factor that centrally planned economies (Socialism) is the greatest engine of poverty ever devised, China is slowly coming out of poverty because they had to lower some of the marxist policies in order to avoid a "Ceausescu moment".

 

[Drareg]

If you're concerned, first go to the information, attempt to understand what is being said, find the specific problems, and then attempt to communicate those problems in comprehensible language. I have no idea what 90% of that post is about. I'm Irish, and I've been to England a number of times, the 8 point difference in average IQ from some of the tables online is no surprise to me. The difference with the Chinese mainland and the SEZs in regard to wealth is a pretty strong factor that centrally planned economies (Socialism) is the greatest engine of poverty ever devised, China is slowly coming out of poverty because they had to lower some of the marxist policies in order to avoid a "Ceausescu moment".

If you have no idea what 90% of my post is about you should take you own advice from your first sentence.

Your missing the point entirely.
By your logic then centrally planned economies socialism( this is again is political semantics here) increases IQ drastically but lowers income.
For example,more political semantics are using the terms ,lowering some of the Marxist policies to come out of poverty,what is it then now the system being used? Most People attempt to justify free markets with this,you can also justify a gradual movement toward anarchy.

In relation to your anecdote about the noticeable 8 point difference between Irish and English,you understand IQ does not tell us what intelligence is?
This is one of the poorest anecdotes I have heard,it's bordering on impossible for you to notice an 8 point IQ difference in those ranges in general society,your anecdote is fuelled by something else. Reasonable error in IQ scores should also be kept in mind here.
The Irish still have a higher GDP on top of this,4.5 million people.

Out of curiosity how would you describe the differences between Irish and Uk if we were to say for arguments sake IQ is relevant test of intelligence?

 

[Sucrates]

If you have no idea what 90% of my post is about you should take you own advice from your first sentence.

Your missing the point entirely.
By your logic then centrally planned economies socialism( this is again is political semantics here) increases IQ drastically but lowers income.

I have no idea how you came to that.

For example,more political semantics are using the terms ,lowering some of the Marxist policies to come out of poverty,what is it then now the system being used?
.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean? Are you asking for a definition of China's current political system?

In relation to your anecdote about the noticeable 8 point difference between Irish and English,you understand IQ does not tell us what intelligence is?

IQ is pretty well defined and can be tested. Intelligence means different things to different people, you can define it how you want and we could talk about that, but I think any definition devoid of a correlation to IQ might be pretty sketchy, how would you measure intelligence in your definition, because if there is no metric we're just talking about your likes and feelings about the world, it's a completely arbitrary and pointless exercise.

This is one of the poorest anecdotes I have heard,it's bordering on impossible for you to notice an 8 point IQ difference in those ranges in general society,your anecdote is fuelled by something else. Reasonable error in IQ scores should also be kept in mind here.
The Irish still have a higher GDP on top of this,4.5 million people.

Out of curiosity how would you describe the differences between Irish and Uk if we were to say for arguments sake IQ is relevant test of intelligence?

Ireland has a higher GDP because IQ is not the only factor, there are many other factors involved. As I said you would need to prove that somebody said IQ is the only factor for your point to be useful, which you haven't attempted to do, you're winning an argument that you made up yourself by the looks of things. You can judge IQ and intelligence reasonably well by talking to people, short of some extremity of intellectual capacities affecting communication.

 

[Drareg]

I have no idea how you came to that.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean? Are you asking for a definition of China's current political system?


IQ is pretty well defined and can be tested. Intelligence means different things to different people, you can define it how you want and we could talk about that, but I think any definition devoid of a correlation to IQ might be pretty sketchy, how would you measure intelligence in your definition, because if there is no metric we're just talking about your likes and feelings about the world, it's a completely arbitrary and pointless exercise.



Ireland has a higher GDP because IQ is not the only factor, there are many other factors involved. As I said you would need to prove that somebody said IQ is the only factor for your point to be useful, which you haven't attempted to do, you're winning an argument that you made up yourself by the looks of things. You can judge IQ and intelligence reasonably well by talking to people, short of some extremity of intellectual capacities affecting communication.

The first 2 attempts you have at refuting my points don't refute anything,you don't get what I say so I will move on for the arguments sake.

IQ is well defined and can be tested? it's defined by what/who? a select few defined as intelligent superior people,intelligent as their culture defined them as intelligent people ,the designers of IQ tests that is,testing their definitions of intelligence is called an IQ test. So it's there way and your intelligent or you get the label William Blake got and labelled insane or stupid.
The above is Essentially the elite and ruling classes defining intelligence.
If you are tired form sleep deprivation you wil score less in IQ tests,if you dont eat for an extended period you are also likely to score less in IQ tests,all of these effect metabolic energy.
Energy then correlates better with intelligence level than selected pieces by the establishment and calling it IQ.

IQ is not the only factor in higher Irish GDP but real intelligence would be,money earned in the current system however is a poor gauge of intelligence.

You can't judge IQ reasonable well by brief interactions with people particularly when your projecting your own culture/paradigm onto them in particular the cliched British establishments paradigm for defining intelligence.
If you could describe an interaction you feel you regularly encounter in Ireland you feel is different to the UK that signals lower IQ in the Irish?

 

[Drareg]

It's not a perfect correlation, but the European and East Asian countries have much higher GDPs than African, South Asian and South American ones. The lowest IQs are supposedly African bushmen, and central Africa is by far the poorest place in the world. If you're going to be using those data for an argument...

Yes exactly,it's all over the place.
Arguably the invasion of Africa by Europeans ,Leopold et al left the place in chaos.
Why would he even apply an IQ test to African bushmen? It's the equivalent of asking a group of financial elites to survive in the bush for several weeks,give them no preparation or prior notice just remove them from wallstreet and drop them right in there.

 

[Sucrates]

The first 2 attempts you have at refuting my points don't refute anything,you don't get what I say so I will move on for the arguments sake.

IQ is well defined and can be tested? it's defined by what/who? a select few defined as intelligent superior people,intelligent as their culture defined them as intelligent people ,the designers of IQ tests that is,testing their definitions of intelligence is called an IQ test. So it's there way and your intelligent or you get the label William Blake got and labelled insane or stupid.
The above is Essentially the elite and ruling classes defining intelligence.
If you are tired form sleep deprivation you wil score less in IQ tests,if you dont eat for an extended period you are also likely to score less in IQ tests,all of these effect metabolic energy.
Energy then correlates better with intelligence level than selected pieces by the establishment and calling it IQ.

IQ is not the only factor in higher Irish GDP but real intelligence would be,money earned in the current system however is a poor gauge of intelligence.

You can't judge IQ reasonable well by brief interactions with people particularly when your projecting your own culture/paradigm onto them in particular the cliched British establishments paradigm for defining intelligence.
If you could describe an interaction you feel you regularly encounter in Ireland you feel is different to the UK that signals lower IQ in the Irish?

You're claiming that IQ is a biased/false metric for intelligence, but you haven't defined intelligence, or described how it should be measured. If it's "cultural" then it's arbitrary. Getting into interactions I've had will not serve to prove anything and it wasn't intended to.

 

[Kyle M]

Conquest and choice of allies matter more

Does the system not affect those things? In particular I think of Europe when it first started conquering large parts of the world, it was the first continent to experiment with the market and private property, creating orders of magnitude higher wealth that was (unfortunately) used in large part for colonization.

 

[Kyle M]

Yes exactly,it's all over the place.
Arguably the invasion of Africa by Europeans ,Leopold et al left the place in chaos.
Why would he even apply an IQ test to African bushmen? It's the equivalent of asking a group of financial elites to survive in the bush for several weeks,give them no preparation or prior notice just remove them from wallstreet and drop them right in there.

I agree that the IQ test is not perfectly objective, but that analogy is far too extreme. The correct analogy to putting financial elites in the African bush would be to put African bushmen at the head of financial firms, not giving them an IQ test. An IQ test is much closer to objective, many orders of magnitude closer to objective than an entirely alien situation.
A much stronger correlation with wealth is seen when looking at the institutions of private property and the extent to which the state respects property rights, and markets. Sweden actually ranks higher in the property rights categories (Heritage Foundation Freedom Index) than the United States.

Here are the top several nations, you can see that the richest nations by most measures (GDP per capita, median incomes, capital investment) are at or near the top. Also, nations geographically, ethnically, and otherwise culturally similar that rank high in the Freedom Index are almost always wealthier than their less free counterparts. Obvious examples are South vs. North Korea, but Hong Kong and Singapore have much higher median incomes than China, even though China is much larger and more powerful as a nation. Australia and New Zealand, but not any other South Pacific nations, have a more European style liberal democracy with property rights, and are the only South Pacific nations that have significant wealth. Switzerland has long been the laissez-faire capital of Europe, with the hardest currency, war neutrality, and a nearly decentralized form of government where Cantons fight amongst themselves rather than a central capital controlling the whole nation. They have more of a Republic than USA does in practical terms. Think of the poorest countries, and then try to find them on that list. If you find even a couple that will be an accomplishment. Of course, sometimes measurements like GDP don't count for much, since it's a government statistic and they compute it all wonky, but the reality on the ground can be seen just searching around YouTube, and I would challenge anyone to live in a nation at the bottom of this list rather than near the top.

P.S. - Another thing to keep in mind is that the wealth of today was made by the actions of yesterday. I made this point before about Sweden, which used to be higher in the international wealth rankings in the 1970s than now, and it had laissez-faire from the middle of the 19th century until then. Sweden, with it's democratic socialist policies, has been falling in the international rankings of wealth, but is still high in both wealth and freedom compared to many other nations because it started at such a high point. This is an example of the adage that the way to create a little bit of wealth with socialism is to start with a lot of wealth. Similarly, if the United States has the cumbersome regulatory apparatus, huge debt and generally statist system it has now back when it was achieving its world status in wealth, that would have never happened. If Bernie Sanders, for example, ran the nation from 1860 on, we would be more like Russia than like we are now.

 

[WestCoaster]

Use this for an example, suppose 1 person, no 1 family owned or controlled all wealth in the world, and this family resided in the U.S. This family picks and chooses exactly what, where, and how, their money is used in other respective countries. Some people say that wealth can't be magically created, but what if it can? If this powerful family owns all the money, whose to stop them from printing more? Sure we can argue you need gold to back it up, but again, who is anyone to question them when that family owns everything? People choose 'this' wealth system because they choose to abide by it, but that doesn't mean this powerful family needs to abide by their own system.

Switching gears, suppose now it's multiple wealthy families that control all the wealth on the planet (some now may think this really isn't far off the mark, which if you start digging, isn't untrue). These families pick and choose what happens by their own agenda. Whether it's funneling money into "x" industry, placing particular people in high places (government), or simply just creating stars for the masses to follow (think kardashian), either way, they control the deck of cards.

So if you want to look at this as to what style of government is most beneficial to both the countries wealth and the individual's wealth, the answer is, it doesn't matter. The government is created by the group of family's hand for their own agenda, simple as that. As quickly as a country's GDP can rise, it can fall just as quick. As quickly as you see the GDP numbers flash upon the screen, just as quick they can be fabricated and changed.

I know comments are going to fly like "what your saying is we or the government has no control, and we have no voice" My answer: Exactly, and if you want proof, all you need to do is look it up yourself.

 

[Drareg]

You're claiming that IQ is a biased/false metric for intelligence, but you haven't defined intelligence, or described how it should be measured. If it's "cultural" then it's arbitrary. Getting into interactions I've had will not serve to prove anything and it wasn't intended to.

I'm not claiming IQ is a false metric,it clearly is relative to intelligence,look at how it's contradicted regularly. You can't test partial intelligence call it IQ and then claim its tests overall intelligence,it tests intelligence relative to the IQ test.
have a read of this and then look into the studies he cites, it paints a fascinating picture.

I don't know if you read this article by its worth time and also what he cites ,I agree with his definitions of intelligence. Pattern recognition is far more than what is given in an IQ test,music is not in an IQ test or sound In general for example. Intelligence and metabolism

 

[Drareg]

Use this for an example, suppose 1 person, no 1 family owned or controlled all wealth in the world, and this family resided in the U.S. This family picks and chooses exactly what, where, and how, their money is used in other respective countries. Some people say that wealth can't be magically created, but what if it can? If this powerful family owns all the money, whose to stop them from printing more? Sure we can argue you need gold to back it up, but again, who is anyone to question them when that family owns everything? People choose 'this' wealth system because they choose to abide by it, but that doesn't mean this powerful family needs to abide by their own system.

Switching gears, suppose now it's multiple wealthy families that control all the wealth on the planet (some now may think this really isn't far off the mark, which if you start digging, isn't untrue). These families pick and choose what happens by their own agenda. Whether it's funneling money into "x" industry, placing particular people in high places (government), or simply just creating stars for the masses to follow (think kardashian), either way, they control the deck of cards.

So if you want to look at this as to what style of government is most beneficial to both the countries wealth and the individual's wealth, the answer is, it doesn't matter. The government is created by the group of family's hand for their own agenda, simple as that. As quickly as a country's GDP can rise, it can fall just as quick. As quickly as you see the GDP numbers flash upon the screen, just as quick they can be fabricated and changed.

I know comments are going to fly like "what your saying is we or the government has no control, and we have no voice" My answer: Exactly, and if you want proof, all you need to do is look it up yourself.

If they had total control revolutions wouldn't happen,it's mutual consent in some areas and the cliched manafactured consent being the bigger issue.
They also will put you in jail when you are part of a minority that disagrees.
If only it was as simple as you put it....

 

[yerrag]

If they had total control revolutions wouldn't happen,it's mutual consent in some areas and the cliched manafactured consent being the bigger issue.
They also will put you in jail when you are part of a minority that disagrees.
If only it was as simple as you put it....

I agree. No rich family can hold control. Otherwise, you would still see Caesar's heirs lording it all over Europe, and the Ottoman Empire would never have held sway over large swathes of Europe.

But I don't view high IQ as being major determinant of a country's wealth either. It would be a critical component, but it would come as a natural result of good nurturing of citizens in a country that has its priorities in the right places. Although I'm not a very studied student of history, I can however point to the Confucian ethic and system, which enabled China in the past to create an empire of vast wealth and culture.

Under the Confucian system, government officials have to take a series of tests to be promoted to higher position of government service. For one to be a government official, one has to be a scholar. And since Confucian tradition is steeped is a body of ethics, it is natural for the government official to appreciate humanities and liberal arts. There is a code of conduct that they adhere to. With government officials groomed in such fashion, government official who take office and perform their duties will do so with a common set of moral standards.

Needless to say, that government will be run well, and the country will progress. The example set by government officials will flow down to the people. Young people will be inspired to emulate such role models. This would create a pool of future leaders to continue the outstanding work left behind by their predecessors.

That was the past, yet vestiges of Confucian tradition live on in current society in varying degrees. I have no doubt this helped make Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and even Thailand more successful. In contrast, I look at my country, the Philippines, and I see hopelessness. This is a matter of shared cultural attitudes. Let me explain.

When I went to Thailand, I used their Mass Rapid Transit, which is a commuter train on an elevated platform. People did not need to be told by a cop to fall in line by the entrance to the train. They just knew the meaning of orderliness, and they respected the people who were ahead of them. Perhaps it's also because its natural for them to practice one Confucian epithet, which is somewhat like Jesus' Golden Rule : "Do unto others what you want done unto you."

We have a similar transit system, except for the people not lining up but swarming into the entrance. No one gets mad at those who jump ahead of the line (there would be none in the end), as everyone is already a creature of learned helplessness. This is sad. This kind of helplessness is pervasive in Philippine society. And I am also guilty of having learned helplessness. Remember the saying "Learn to walk before you learn to run?" So true. We can't compete with our Confucian-thinking neighbors. There's simply no way unless we have a common shared attitude of concern for the common good.

 

[Drareg]

I agree that the IQ test is not perfectly objective, but that analogy is far too extreme. The correct analogy to putting financial elites in the African bush would be to put African bushmen at the head of financial firms, not giving them an IQ test. An IQ test is much closer to objective, many orders of magnitude closer to objective than an entirely alien situation.
A much stronger correlation with wealth is seen when looking at the institutions of private property and the extent to which the state respects property rights, and markets. Sweden actually ranks higher in the property rights categories (Heritage Foundation Freedom Index) than the United States.
View attachment 3797
View attachment 3798
Here are the top several nations, you can see that the richest nations by most measures (GDP per capita, median incomes, capital investment) are at or near the top. Also, nations geographically, ethnically, and otherwise culturally similar that rank high in the Freedom Index are almost always wealthier than their less free counterparts. Obvious examples are South vs. North Korea, but Hong Kong and Singapore have much higher median incomes than China, even though China is much larger and more powerful as a nation. Australia and New Zealand, but not any other South Pacific nations, have a more European style liberal democracy with property rights, and are the only South Pacific nations that have significant wealth. Switzerland has long been the laissez-faire capital of Europe, with the hardest currency, war neutrality, and a nearly decentralized form of government where Cantons fight amongst themselves rather than a central capital controlling the whole nation. They have more of a Republic than USA does in practical terms. Think of the poorest countries, and then try to find them on that list. If you find even a couple that will be an accomplishment. Of course, sometimes measurements like GDP don't count for much, since it's a government statistic and they compute it all wonky, but the reality on the ground can be seen just searching around YouTube, and I would challenge anyone to live in a nation at the bottom of this list rather than near the top.
View attachment 3799

P.S. - Another thing to keep in mind is that the wealth of today was made by the actions of yesterday. I made this point before about Sweden, which used to be higher in the international wealth rankings in the 1970s than now, and it had laissez-faire from the middle of the 19th century until then. Sweden, with it's democratic socialist policies, has been falling in the international rankings of wealth, but is still high in both wealth and freedom compared to many other nations because it started at such a high point. This is an example of the adage that the way to create a little bit of wealth with socialism is to start with a lot of wealth. Similarly, if the United States has the cumbersome regulatory apparatus, huge debt and generally statist system it has now back when it was achieving its world status in wealth, that would have never happened. If Bernie Sanders, for example, ran the nation from 1860 on, we would be more like Russia than like we are now.

The point is the bushmen get put into a paradigm defined by someone else.
The current financial groups do require a certain aspect of intelligence to run it,like word magic(making up terms for politely stealing and general lies)
Same when the financial guys get out in the bush,the bushmen have a culture and paradigm for running their lives in the bush,interpreting the patterns they see and acting accordingly,now the financial elite can be argued to be more intelligent because they have been watching bear grylls and can survive however this is access to information,the same would apply for the bushmen if they could read zero hedge,investopedia,mises,cantilon etc

I have lived in Switzelrand and it is well organised country,if a canton goes broke its says broke until they solve the issue themselves.Direct democracy,it works well,the argument is it doesn't work for big countries,I believe it would if you could keep advertising and public relations balanced,populists movements grow faster now because of social media,celebrities with millions of followers on social media hanging on every word is very dangerous.
To think Switzerland was inspired by the American system and where America is headed now.

Australia and New Zealand are part of the commonwealth which helps quality of life,I'm not sure where they would be if they didn't have that,for example Australia are turning there back on Chinese investment the last 2-3 years. New Zealand may be more open to China,the kiwis are also farming better,the Aussies seem to have little interest in using the environment for farming.
Australia is a facinating country to observe going forward,it's housing bubble and its 20 year economic boom is about over and they are telling China go away after years of taking Chinese money for their minerals.

It's incredible that Ireland are 8th on this list when you consider what they are paying to bail out banks,rogue tax haven like Switzerland.

 

[Kyle M]

The point is the bushmen get put into a paradigm defined by someone else.

An IQ test requires less knowledge in addition to innate intelligence than either survival in the wild or survival running a financial institution.

The current financial groups do require a certain aspect of intelligence to run it,like word magic(making up terms for politely stealing and general lies)

That's a blanket statement, finance is the institution that allows for capital accumulation. It's only when the state gets involved that it becomes stealing, without central banking, legal tender laws, laws protecting banks from runs, etc., banks could no more steal than a guy who writes checks to himself.

 

[Drareg]

An IQ test requires less knowledge in addition to innate intelligence than either survival in the wild or survival running a financial institution.



That's a blanket statement, finance is the institution that allows for capital accumulation. It's only when the state gets involved that it becomes stealing, without central banking, legal tender laws, laws protecting banks from runs, etc., banks could no more steal than a guy who writes checks to himself.

Not blanket more sarcasm. What we are headed for next with said system is not going to be comfortable in particular America possibly UK.
The lines between the revolving door of state and financial world are non existent.
The next big steal is locking you out of your bank account. Trumps rallying call as president will be increased "protection"form the corrupt financial institutions.

 

[Kyle M]

Not blanket more sarcasm. What we are headed for next with said system is not going to be comfortable in particular America possibly UK.
The lines between the revolving door of state and financial world are non existent.
The next big steal is locking you out of your bank account. Trumps rallying call as president will be increased "protection"form the corrupt financial institutions.

I can mostly agree with that, there is going to be a bail in one way or another in the US. It may not be Crete style though, but rather a freeze on bank accounts where ATMs can only take out $300 a day or something like that, while the currency is thoroughly devalued in a new world reserve currency system, most likely consisting of World Bank SDRs. Americans will still do better than most in that deal, however, as we have 8,000 tons of gold. Germany has gold, Russia is getting gold, as is China. Everyone else will get soaked as their currency is pegged to the SDR lower than it's currently pegged to the USD.

Trump is an alternative to this, as he isn't part of the central banking/banking sector conspiracy. He would make this pitch to voters if they could understand it, but his calculation was that they will understand building a wall and making new trade deals.

 

[Constatine]

Note that I only quickly read through this conversation and I did not read the provided study and so my statement is solely on whether IQ is related to the economic success of an individual or nation: There is much discussion on whether IQ is an accurate illustration of intelligence so let's just assume that we have a perfect system to determine intelligence. So if one is undeniably intelligent would it contribute to economic success? Well yes but less than one would assume. A more important factor of economic success is androgen based function (risk taking behavior, calmness, adrenalin function, focus, etc), dopamine based function (attention span, being entertained with one's work, drive, etc), and other such systems that are not often associated with intelligence. Thus a society with higher androgen levels and better dopamine function will perform better than a society with less of said factors as long as their intelligence is comparable.

 

[Drareg]

I can mostly agree with that, there is going to be a bail in one way or another in the US. It may not be Crete style though, but rather a freeze on bank accounts where ATMs can only take out $300 a day or something like that, while the currency is thoroughly devalued in a new world reserve currency system, most likely consisting of World Bank SDRs. Americans will still do better than most in that deal, however, as we have 8,000 tons of gold. Germany has gold, Russia is getting gold, as is China. Everyone else will get soaked as their currency is pegged to the SDR lower than it's currently pegged to the USD.

Trump is an alternative to this, as he isn't part of the central banking/banking sector conspiracy. He would make this pitch to voters if they could understand it, but his calculation was that they will understand building a wall and making new trade deals.

Yes Clinton will be on board with the SDR ,trump will have no choice from a realistic standpoint,his megalomania however in a period of rapid inflation is a scary prospect,however the public have to buy into the SDR's which I think they will after a few riots ,reminds me of a certain German guy in the 40's and how he acquired power based off the backs of financial Humiliation of the German public.
The angle they take for the SDR public approval is to blame the fed for the collapse right? And the president dispands the fed and is a hero,puts trumps angle in a different light if that's the case,both candidates are on the same page.