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

[Drareg]

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.

The overall thread is examples of complexity more than anything,I think your angle has a level of merit but it's still simplifies it too much based on the complexity of differing contexts at individual levels.
The hormones are messenger signalling to the body to act out,this acting out might not be good if desired actions can't be acted upon.

 

[Kyle M]

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.

I don't follow you.

The case for the SDR will be the same as the case for the USD standard in Bretton Woods. Actually it will be more like the case for the petro-dollar standard made by Nixon in '71, which is to say no case will be made the elites will just say it is so. The Federal Reserve, like any other real issue, has never been seriously discussed by the media and is therefore unknown to the average citizen. Who gave a ***t (other than Ron Paul, who decided to run for Congress because of it) when Nixon closed the gold window? That's all this will be, saying that nations have to trade in SDRs, or hold a certain % of reservers in SDRs, or however it ends up being.

The real question for me is what to do when technology tries to get around the tender law system. Bitcoin and Tor are already under attack for "drugs" and connections to "terrorism." Whenever something is connected to terrorism by the regime, you can be sure it's a direct threat to them.

I'm comfortable admitting that Donald Trump is not enough of a sociopath to do what will need to be done to establish the new global currency hegemony, and that Hillary Clinton is MORE THAN enough of a sociopath to do so.

 

[Drareg]

I don't follow you.

The case for the SDR will be the same as the case for the USD standard in Bretton Woods. Actually it will be more like the case for the petro-dollar standard made by Nixon in '71, which is to say no case will be made the elites will just say it is so. The Federal Reserve, like any other real issue, has never been seriously discussed by the media and is therefore unknown to the average citizen. Who gave a ***t (other than Ron Paul, who decided to run for Congress because of it) when Nixon closed the gold window? That's all this will be, saying that nations have to trade in SDRs, or hold a certain % of reservers in SDRs, or however it ends up being.

The real question for me is what to do when technology tries to get around the tender law system. Bitcoin and Tor are already under attack for "drugs" and connections to "terrorism." Whenever something is connected to terrorism by the regime, you can be sure it's a direct threat to them.

I'm comfortable admitting that Donald Trump is not enough of a sociopath to do what will need to be done to establish the new global currency hegemony, and that Hillary Clinton is MORE THAN enough of a sociopath to do so.

The fed is getting bailout by the IMF essentially ? They are bust but will continue with the bailout? Bailout is adoption of SDR.
Christ gold prices will go haywire if the fed need a bailout!

Trump probably won't do it and will start ww3.

 

[Kyle M]

The fed is getting bailout by the IMF essentially ? They are bust but will continue with the bailout? Bailout is adoption of SDR.
Christ gold prices will go haywire if the fed need a bailout!

The FED will try to bailout the US bond market, which they won't be able to do without tanking the USD. USD, and the rest of the currencies of the world since they mostly peg to USD, will have to be bailed out by SDRs. Gold, as measured against most currencies, will be much higher by hook or by crook in the medium term future.

Trump probably won't do it and will start ww3.

You have a profound misunderstanding of early 20th century style progressive/nationalist populism, which is what Trump and his supporters are for. The last thing they look to in a crisis is a war, the globalist/Woodrow Wilson/make the world safe for democracy in our image... people, like Hillary Clinton, have war as the first thing they go to in a crisis.

Trump is William Jennings Bryan, Hillary Clinton is Woodrow Wilson, and an escalation in Syria, Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East up to and including a hot war with Russia is WWI. The choice could not be more clear and more diametrically opposed, America first, or global banking interests first, the former leading to withdrawal of US forces from the world stage and redirecting funds to domestic issues, the later being a doubling down of expansionist policing the world military policies to shore up the resources (mostly oil) that keep the system solvent, as well as the military spending needed to do so that lines the pockets of arms manufacturers and banking underwriters.

 

[Kyle M]

A critique of GDP measurement by my favorite living economist, Robert Murphy: Robert P. Murphy, Pitfalls in GDP Accounting | Library of Economics and Liberty

 

[Drareg]

The FED will try to bailout the US bond market, which they won't be able to do without tanking the USD. USD, and the rest of the currencies of the world since they mostly peg to USD, will have to be bailed out by SDRs. Gold, as measured against most currencies, will be much higher by hook or by crook in the medium term future.



You have a profound misunderstanding of early 20th century style progressive/nationalist populism, which is what Trump and his supporters are for. The last thing they look to in a crisis is a war, the globalist/Woodrow Wilson/make the world safe for democracy in our image... people, like Hillary Clinton, have war as the first thing they go to in a crisis.

Trump is William Jennings Bryan, Hillary Clinton is Woodrow Wilson, and an escalation in Syria, Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East up to and including a hot war with Russia is WWI. The choice could not be more clear and more diametrically opposed, America first, or global banking interests first, the former leading to withdrawal of US forces from the world stage and redirecting funds to domestic issues, the later being a doubling down of expansionist policing the world military policies to shore up the resources (mostly oil) that keep the system solvent, as well as the military spending needed to do so that lines the pockets of arms manufacturers and banking underwriters.

Trump doesn't have to start it is more my point.

 

[Kyle M]

Trump doesn't have to start it is more my point.

War will only happen if the US continues to push the envelope on the current system. If they fall back, there is absolutely no incentive for anyone to fight anyone. The only tensions post WWII were the hegemonic USSR and USA forces bumping against each other. Islamic terrorism was literally created by the CIA, funded and trained, as first a weapon against the USSR and then as a means to keep the warfare state going since it was hard to continue to justify military spending after the USSR collapsed.

Russia is absolutely no threat to anyone, except for their nuclear weapons. Their GDP is the size of Italy's. All they have is a strong military, and most of that is the nukes. If we weren't breaking our word by pushing NATO up to their border NATO's Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow? - SPIEGEL ONLINE, and placing missile defense shields all around them, there would be no cause for conflict. The reason we are doing those things is to bring them to heel so we can continue to expand control of the Middle East.

The same thing is happening in the South China Sea. Why should we have warships there? How would Americans feel is a foreign navy decided it would be better for them to control traffic in the Gulf of Mexico? It's all global hegemony, and the only incentive for that is the elite interests that make a ton of money from it. China and Russia would much prefer to just trade with us, and Americans don't understand how belligerent their government is being to those nations. Imagine if Russia had a missile defense shield all along the Mexican and Canadian borders, in the Caribbean etc. all there to shoot down missiles that we would send.

 

[Drareg]

War will only happen if the US continues to push the envelope on the current system. If they fall back, there is absolutely no incentive for anyone to fight anyone. The only tensions post WWII were the hegemonic USSR and USA forces bumping against each other. Islamic terrorism was literally created by the CIA, funded and trained, as first a weapon against the USSR and then as a means to keep the warfare state going since it was hard to continue to justify military spending after the USSR collapsed.

Russia is absolutely no threat to anyone, except for their nuclear weapons. Their GDP is the size of Italy's. All they have is a strong military, and most of that is the nukes. If we weren't breaking out word by pushing NATO up to their border, and placing missile defense shields all around them, there would be no cause for conflict. The reason we are doing those things is to bring them to heel so we can continue to expand control of the Middle East.

The same thing is happening in the South China Sea. Why should we have warships there? How would Americans feel is a foreign navy decided it would be better for them to control traffic in the Gulf of Mexico? It's all global hegemony, and the only incentive for that is the elite interests that make a ton of money from it. China and Russia would much prefer to just trade with us, and Americans don't understand how belligerent their government is being to those nations. Imagine if Russia had a missile defense shield all along the Mexican and Canadian borders, in the Caribbean etc. all there to shoot down missiles that we would send.

The IMF could give them SDR backhanders,it's rumoured SDR's have been given to some already,big business wil get SDR's also.
North Korea have nukes also,it makes sense to use nukes these days,drones,boots on the ground is too expensive.
The war will be pointless and the world will see through the BS,financial war is more subtle,hack the American markets and cause carnage etc
Either way it's going to be very difficult period for America.

 

[Kyle M]

Oh yeah SDRs have been issued, but only a few billion USD I think so far. That's why it was a big deal when the RNB got in the basket.

 

[XPlus]

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.

I get what you mean. My reference to the word system was more specifically targeted towards the idea of "democracy vs. totalitarianism" and "socialist vs. capitalist". Take for example US and Saudi Arabia and US vs. Russia, I don't see much difference in the way these countries are run.
You'll find rich and poor in these countries. You'll find the slaves who work 8 or more hours a day. Exactly the same patriotism, racism and intolerance. Same grumpy people who b**** and complain and also the nice people who are civil and dynamic enough to work with the rest.
No matter what you call your system, you end up with the same problems: corruption, injustice, unemployment, nepotism, greed, war, poverty, racism, social intolerance. It's embedded in the human nature, just like a kitten acts like a cat as it grows up with zero guidance.

In today's world, there's the US that is in control of much of the world's economy. US and some of its allies enjoy better living standards than other countries. Similarly, there was the British and their allies at some point in time. Some European countries enjoyed the benefits of conquest at some point in time when there was less monopoly on power. There was the Russian empire, ottoman, etc.

 

[Kyle M]

In today's world, there's the US that is in control of much of the world's economy. US and some of its allies enjoy better living standards than other countries. Similarly, there was the British and their allies at some point in time. Some European countries enjoyed the benefits of conquest at some point in time when there was less monopoly on power. There was the Russian empire, ottoman, etc.

The US gained a higher standard of living than the rest of the world well before it started its imperial hegemony post-WWII. In fact, I would say the standard of living of poorer Americans went up fastest in the laissez-faire, non-interventionist period. If conquest was the key to living standard, why wasn't Russia, the Ottoman Empire, etc. ever as rich as the West? What about Switzerland, which never indulged in imperial ambitions? Seems like you have a binary look at wealth whereby you get rich by taking wealth from others, rather than producing technology and market efficiencies through the decentralized distribution of knowledge ala Hayek. The latter fits the actual world we live in much more accurately than the former.

 

[sladerunner69]

The data shows that "white people" are only the 13th richest racial group. East asians and indians are the highest, yet we never hear about their supposed "priveledge"

 

[XPlus]

The US gained a higher standard of living than the rest of the world well before it started its imperial hegemony post-WWII. In fact, I would say the standard of living of poorer Americans went up fastest in the laissez-faire, non-interventionist period.

Based on colonisation. What was not possible at home pre-colonisation turned into opportunity with the conquest of new land. Much of that initial accumulation of wealth also required the utilisation of slaves. It was key to the pre-WWII standard of living and its long-lasting effect can even be seen today.

Nowadays, the current standard of living is maintained through imperial hegemony. Regardless of efficiency over time, it's difficult to maintain the same standard of living from within the US itself with respect to population growth. External intervention had to happen, if not for the well-being of the American people, then for the well being of the American elites.

If conquest was the key to living standard, why wasn't Russia, the Ottoman Empire, etc. ever as rich as the West?

The centres of these empires must have been rich relative to the living standard of their time. Just like the centres of today's Western countries are rich.

What about Switzerland, which never indulged in imperial ambitions?

Switzerland's position on the map and its political affiliation couldn't have prevented it from being rich. It's rich mainly because it's in for the ride. It isn't affiliated with North Korea and isn't in the middle east. It officially claims that it's neutral but it isn't of the size to even have the choice (no disrespect intended). Any wealth they acquired that is above the average can be attributed to their level of their social orginsation, natural resources and population variables.

Seems like you have a binary look at wealth whereby you get rich by taking wealth from others,...

I try to avoid talking within absolutes but you seem to choose to interpret my words in black and white

.... rather than producing technology and market efficiencies through the decentralized distribution of knowledge ala Hayek. The latter fits the actual world we live in much more accurately than the former.

This fits more the idea of a perfect world. It doesn't exist.
Technology and market "efficiencies" exist but it's more like gambling and a monopoly over power. Whether you're a winner depends on which side of the derivative you take - which side of the superpowers you take. The rest is cats' play.

 

[sladerunner69]

This is an interesting study in particular when applied to the logic of Stefan molyneaux and his heritability intelligence theory being different amongst racist.
He keeps using studies that Asians and whites make have the highest incomes,I'm thinking its America society he gets these stats from,he uses all these arguments for society will be better with anarchy and no central government.
His argument and logic are deeply flawed,his overall goal is to manipulate People and use them for his own means.
The following study is also flawed but nevertheless just as plausible to use when engaging any molyneaux "fan".


https://howmuch.net/

GDP for Republics

The map above shows the GDP per capita of countries with the republic form of government in red, including the United States. Among countries with this form of government, Singapore has the highest GDP per capita at $85.2k. Singapore is known for being hub of wealth management in the Asian region.

Switzerland has the second largest GDP per capita for republics at $60.5k followed by the United States in third at $55.8k. As can be seen from the map, there is a cluster of countries in Europe that have relatively high GDPs per capita. After Switzerland, both Ireland and Austria have the second and third highest GDPs per capita respectively in the region for republics.


Constitutional Monarchies

The map shows the GDP per capita size in green for those countries with constitutional monarchies. Luxembourg has the highest GDP per capita in the group at $101.9k, the second highest in the world. The small European nation is an economic power fueled by a business-friendly government with low taxation rates. A well-educated population combined with a low unemployment rate, as well as the country’s small size, help make Luxembourg’s economy one of the strongest in the world.

Kuwait has the second largest GDP per capita among constitutional monarchies at $71.3k. The Middle Eastern country has significant oil resources as well as a large presence in the financial industry. Norway has the third highest GDP per capita in the group at $61.5k. The Nordic country similarly has large oil resources which have been invested in the country’s pension fund. The Government Pension Fund of Norway was valued at $837 billion as of May, 2016.


Absolute Monarchies

Finally, the map shows the GDPs per capita of countries with absolute monarchies in blue. The country of Qatar has the highest GDP per capita in the world at $143.8k. The small Middle Eastern nation has the third largest reserves of oil and natural gas and has also grown to be a financial hub in the region. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is in second among absolute monarchies with a GDP of $70.2k. As seen from the map, the highest concentration of absolute monarchies is in the Middle East.

Oh the lols humans!!!

I feel you are ignoring the obvious takeaway from this data, which is the question of why the past generation of americans let these middle eastern monarchies- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran etc- why we gave them autonomy in oil production. This was perhaps the worst foreign policy decision in all of history. We gave an antiquated culture, full of death and opression and religious zealoutism, vast money and resources. The resulting nations of Iran, kuwait, saudi arabia, are all the product of giving primitive peoples a technological/monetary boost too fast and too soon. We have only ourselves to blame for it, assuming that with money and technology they would naturally become free and democratic. The british made the same mistake in India, and because of the technological and infrastructural innovatons that the British Colonialists gave primitive India, they became seriously overpopulated and rampant with disease, illness, crime-ridden cities, etc.

 

[Drareg]

I feel you are ignoring the obvious takeaway from this data, which is the question of why the past generation of americans let these middle eastern monarchies- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran etc- why we gave them autonomy in oil production. This was perhaps the worst foreign policy decision in all of history. We gave an antiquated culture, full of death and opression and religious zealoutism, vast money and resources. The resulting nations of Iran, kuwait, saudi arabia, are all the product of giving primitive peoples a technological/monetary boost too fast and too soon. We have only ourselves to blame for it, assuming that with money and technology they would naturally become free and democratic. The british made the same mistake in India, and because of the technological and infrastructural innovatons that the British Colonialists gave primitive India, they became seriously overpopulated and rampant with disease, illness, crime-ridden cities, etc.

Neither India or the Arab countries were primitive,the Arab world was the centre of world eduction and science before the west.
India has a religion which is possibly the closest thing to the functionings of reality.
These peoples and their history are far from primitive,the British done their best to make every nation they invaded seem primitive via propaganda,anything their blind arrogance didn't agree with they labelled primitive.
If anything the British were primitive as its a bloodbath wherever they went in history.

The irony is the oil money created more Babaric monarchies in the east,they would be better off without it.

Freedom and democracy in one sentence is highly unusual,they really are ambiguous and semantic in these times.