Where have America's Defenders Gone?
- 10-21-2006, 10:06 PM
guns germs and steel.... that was recommended to me once.... i read it cover to cover and absolutely love it for reasons i wasnt suppose to love it for. its an incredibly amusing and "view confirming" book IMO here was my great book review on it....
"Survival of the fittest" has never been more clearly explained to me than in this book.
"only Americans can be so stupid as to confuse poisionous mushrooms with safe ones." (144)
the author claims that he is not trying to make a bias book.....BAH! not bias my ass!
"Were those naive villagers [New Guineans] collecting every type of seed plant that they found, bringing it home, poisioning themselves on most of the species,and nourishing themselves from only a few species? no they were not that silly." (145)
the author likes to use many statements like the one above, based on nothing but his own thoughts and conclusions. i bet they did eat posionous mushrooms mr. diamond (author) and learned throught trial and error....
africa had NO domesticatable animals but europe had alot of animals, this gave the people an unfair chance at evolving. (fig9.2 page 162)
you cant be serious, africa has an abundance of animals and in the book he claims that no animals were able to be domesticated.....what about the zebra? couldnt they have been used as a horse????but no heres why according to mr. diamond:
He seems to be forgetting that wild animals are domesticatible, they are domesticated over time!
"zebras are virtually impossible to lasso with a rope...because of their unfailing ability to ....duck their head out of the way." (172)
the more and more i read the book, the more i was convinced that africa, new guinea, etc..and all those other places COULD have been in a better place than they are in now. OMG...i still can believe he used the excuse that africans couldnt use zebras as horses becasue they could not catch them becase a zebra ducks its head out of the way when being lassoed is rediculous!!!!! dont u think horses do the same!!!!!!!
"why were all new guineans and native australiansin a.d. 1800 still using stone tools likke the ones discarded thousands of years ago in eurasia and most of africa, even though some of the world's richest copper and iron deposits are in new guinea and australia respectively? all those facts explainwhy so many laypeople assume that eurasians are superior to other peoples in inventiveness and intelligence"(241)
according to that statement, i proudly call myselfe a LAYPERSON!lololol. it doesnt surprise me that the people who chose to use stones instead of the resources of the copper and iron that they had ARE not where america and other powerful countries are today.......
i could go on and on but that would mean i would be writing my own book on this. i learned so much from this book..lol the author is so smart but can not see his own information that he put together.....so sad.
to sum the book up though , in my opinion of course:
Mr. Diamond gives no credit to eurasian intellgence but says that the sole reason they are where they are is because they got the best plants and animals.
a wealth of information, but biasly written . i could write so much more about the other factoids that i learned but then this would take forever! lastly....i read it all and felt no shame on my "western heritage"...lol, im not even western, but if i was i wouldnt be ashamed
- 10-22-2006, 12:01 AMBoard Sponsor
- 5'10" 215 lbs.
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Rep Power
Wow, I don't think I have ever seen two individuals in the same place so seriously affirm Social Darwinism or try to back up racist ideals w/ medical legitimacy.
And kwyck? Changing your post to make it seem 'edgier' or like you got the best of me? I expect more out of you that is incredibly ****ing weak. Seriously dude.
Anyway, I cannot BELIEVE you actually mentioned the 'Bell Curve' as a legitimate piece of science. I am wholeheartedly ashamed that Rushton (a major contributor to that book) ever taught at a Canadian institution. He was threatened with prosecution of hate crimes, and even the Prime Minister of Ontario had called for him to be fired at one point.
Onto the book (ripping this piece of crap should be fun).The 'Bell Curve' has so many holes in it I am not sure where to start. Someone who is so adept at 'history and biology' (as you had in your original post, before you changed it) should know it operates on regurgitated Social Darwinism, and is rejected by most Anthropologists. The book's complete failure as a scientific work stems from its premise that the two obscure concepts like 'race' and 'intelligence' can be measured and meaningfully correlated in terms of causal connections. 'Race' is not a biological entity with any real existence, there are so many differences on what constitutes 'race', and so many conflicting estimates as to how many races exist the entire concept should be abandoned. Similarly the concept that 'intelligence' can be reasonably quantified by a number is dubious. Furthermore, Hernstein and Murray completely ignore the social and political construction of intelligence. Ironically on the topic of not being able to quantify 'intelligence' the authors show little of it as they completey confuse causation and correlation (i.e., many black people score lower on IQ test it must be because they are black, although, there is no evidence as to why that would be so). They misuse statistics, and their political objectives and affiliations need to be seriously considered when talking about this book as a legitimate work. They rely heavily on material from Mankind Quaterly and other publications from that journal, which has been widely criticized as white supremacist and for disseminating psuedo-scientific racial material. It is also widely disregarded by the scientific community as a journal of merit. Not to mention they share some key funding in such groups as the Pioneer Fund, started by a US textile tycoon with Nazi Sympathies and an interest in eugenics. As a whole the book has been rejected and shown to be highly misleading and flawed/
Honestly Kwyck, I lost alot of respect for you in mentioning this book. Do they teach this garbage to you as legitimate science down there?? As someone who obviously prides himself on the knowledge of human physiology w/ a key interest in politics/history I am still in awe that you would put your name behind such an explicitly racist book with almost NO LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC BACKING...Just wow...
To Mrs.Gimpy, I am not sure where your relevant arguments are so I will leave that alone.
- 10-22-2006, 12:09 AMBoard Sponsor
- 5'10" 215 lbs.
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Rep Power
Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
Man, I am sorry for writing so much about this or seeming like a **** I just cannot believe I am really in contact with people who give this kind of garbage real thought. These concepts are so laughable I am just flabbergasted.
10-22-2006, 10:36 AM
my "relevant arguments" was just pertaining to the recommendation of one of the most laughable books i've ever read in my life. its just that anyone who "whole-hearted swallows " up all of any information (especially of that book) should always really analyze it and not take its words for gold. you had recommended that book to try to educate us as to why the europeans are unfairly ahead in the world do to ....luck? the book actually explains (though its purpose was just the opposite) why the europeans got to where they were and it was the facct that some were alittle more ingenious than others and that africa had all of the means to be the europe of today but never took advantage of all of its resources.Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
10-22-2006, 12:16 PM
No, it doesn't. If it did, then the labor is being equally exploitative by expecting the capitalist to front money to make sure the labor is paid regularly even though the production process is oriented towards the future. But bottom line is there can be no exploitation in a voluntary relationship. If the laborers were willing to cut their own spending perhaps they could save up the necessary resources to engage in a lengthy production process. They could guarantee their own living. But since the prefer to take a discount they 'appropriate' the capitalist's resources, 'exploiting' his ability to save and thus subsidize the production process. How horrible of them.Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
By the way, what decade are you stuck in? Was your economics teacher really old? There is no real distinction in reality between capitalists, laborers, landowners, and entrepreneurs in modern economics. Most people at various times fill more than one role at the same time. So I guess we're all exploiting one another.
Actually the definition of money is the most sellable commodity. That's how it becomes money, or a general medium of exchange... Labor is not always sellable because it is too specialized.As well, Money is not the most sellable commodity, living labour (which is also really the only commodity capable of creating new value) is the most sellable commodity.
Which ignores the fact that the capitalist fronted the resources to make the production process possible to begin with. It is agreed he is given ownership of the final product. Otherwise he would not front the resources to pay the labor to engage in the production process. What's the capitalist/entrepreneur supposed to do, save up all these resources, front them on a risky production process and then just do a quick fade when it's completed and let everyone else make money on the activity but him? Rubbish.In order for this system to continue a Capitalist most appropriate the surplus value created by living labour. This is in stark contrast to the ultimate imperative of minimizing living labour for capital gain, it is by all means a self-defeating system.
Mullet, your posts are almost word for word rhetoric from Marxist tracts.Here is to your egalitarian view of Capitalism, I can only hope at some point you will join me in reality. This 'benefit for everybody' attitude you seem keen on relating is a purely formal lipservice to the all at once exploitave and egalitarian ideals of capitalism.
Well since the majority of the world is engaged in some type of mercantilism or outright socialism, blaming our current problems of capitalism is a bit odd. Oh yeah, I forgot. Capitalism is whatever you want it to be so you can blame your problems on it... Specifically to the US though the fall in living standards despite increased productivity was predicted by capitalist economists like Freidrick Hayek, Ludwig Von Mise, Gottfried Von Harberler and Murray Rothbard. It's a natural side effect of continual inflation that monetarist and keynsian economists have been promoting for some time, and most certainly not capitalist as its cause is government mismanagement of the monetary system. Those same capitalist economists predicted the Great Depression, and were right. Those same capitalist economists predicted the stagflation of the 60s and 70s, and were right. And those same capitalist economists predicted the end of Clinton's internet bubble, and were right.Though Capitalists like yourself like to pay mention to equality in Capitalism, but its inherent imperatives contradict these values. Why else would production be higher today than at any other point in history yet the social standards of the VAST majority of the world are either stagnating or falling? Because of an economic construction based on the appropriation of surplus labour value, that contradicts itself with "labour-saving" technology and therefore lowers the overall social profit over time.
Pedistol or not, arrogance or not, bottom line is you are wrong. Go to any school of economics besides Marx 101 and you'd learn that. There are distinct differences between the types of systems you are describing and lumping under capitalism. Incidentally even modern marxists don't take your approach, the stuff you're spouting about capitalists appropriating surplus wealth went out of style in the fifties.Well, you are right bro. If you ever decide to come off your pedistol I welcome you to grace me with your enlightening knowledge.
I notice you ignored every point I made. We can't improve their situation, only they can. And the best way to accomplish that end is to leave them the hell alone. You cannot escape the political necessities that giving aid requires engagement and thus support of the regimes which are perpetuating the conditions making aid necessary. There is no way to help those people unless they are willing and able to help themselves. Were they willing and able, they wouldn't need our help. That's why aid turns into a subsidization of their misery. And while you may consider it Darwinist, I simply don't think surrendering to the continuous call to "do something!" about this or that problem is wise. We make enemies, subsidize misery, and sew the seeds for more and worse problems for us and those we supposedly want to help. There is no way to give aid without hurting those we want to help and ourselves.And you are assuming an overly generous benevolence to them. Until the social conditions they live in are some how improved then the same cycle will undoubtedly perpetuate itself.
Are you that arrogant/ignorant to assume that of me? I will let you continue in this thinking.
There are so many other factors to why Europe was the catalyst to the Industrial Revolution. I suggest you read Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Social Darwinism anybody? As I have come to be taught, such ideals as you aptly put them are "a PC way of being racist". I am sorry but I cannot ignore a situation in which we are a fundamental cause of because you label them to be 'incompetent'. Should you be the one to label who should suffer and who should not CDB? You obviously consider your opinion to be divine in the way you present it.
10-23-2006, 07:29 AM
Capitalism as a "conceptual theory" provides the worker a "fair wage" to compensate him for his labor. This is an operating cost. It is the price of doing buisness. The "capitalist owner" accepts this price with an understanding of it directly leads to a profitable outcome. When the concept of capitalism becomes the real practice of mercantilism, the real human elements of avarice(greed) and ignorance(lack of information) become tools for exploiting the worker. The worker can enter an agreement to be compensatd at a certain rate without any knowlege of the actual value of his labor to the owner. The owner can use this knowledge to maximize his profits without any further compensation to the worker. This practice oonflicts with the concept of a "fair wage".Originally Posted by CDB
However, the international buisness world is governed by the Law of Commerce, which is based on Maritime Law in respect to mercantile trade. The concept of "exploitation" does not exist in the Law of Commerce. A worker is a "tool" and as such garners no claim to "profit sharing" with the owner. This disparity came to a head about 100 years ago when "labor unions" started to form to protect the workers from exploitation by the owners. When you examine that part of history there is much revolt by the working class. The owners realized that they would have to compensate the workers with "additional benifits" to appease the workers demands for "equity". Some of these benifits include health care, credit unions and profit sharing. All of these benifits affect the bottom line of the owner, but are still part of the price of doing buisness. The loss of profit to the owner from these accrued benifits are neccassary to prevent worker revolt, which would become even more costly to the owners bottom line.
The real concern for the worker is when the practice of "corporatism" leads to the same people(owners) controlling the work place, the bank and the food and goods market. When the ownership becomes centralized the human element of greed can exploit the worker further when scarcity is manipulated to create dependence on the owners for the very survival of the worker. Total control is total power and total power can lead to total corruption. So, the workers must alway stay informed about the owners ultimate goals to ensure this dose not happen in pratical applications. There is an old Roman adage to the effect"...let him that can be deceived, be deceived"
10-23-2006, 08:50 AM
Indeed he can. However over time this arrangement is impossible to maintain because the profits from production are apparent. And they don't have to be apparent to the workers, just to the competition. That's why worker's wages over time tend towards their actual MRP. Say some greedy, unethical, horrible man hires people to work for 2.50 USD an hour when their actual MRP is around 10.00 USD an hour. This creates an opportunity for another entrepreneur to outcompete him. Instead of paying his workers MRP-7.50 USD, he pays them MRP-7.00 USD. This process over time continues until the price of labor, like all other prices, pretty much reflects its actual value to people. As a capitalist it becomes clear over time that you profit more by paying people their actual MRP. What's more, if you invest and increase their productivity you end up making even more money even though their real wages increase because of the additional productivity. It's the incentive for profit that over time makes it impossible to pay people less than they're worth.Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
If it were otherwise, why had wages risen at all before unions, OSHA, the department of labor, etc? If businesses/capitalists were so empowered to pay people whatever measley wage they wanted to, why didn't they? Why did wages rise 75% during the first Industrial Revolution, and then again by 50% (DiLorenzo) during the second IR when supposedly these businesses could simply just keep their workers' wages the same? Why was there a differential between skilled and unskilled labor when businesses could simply force them to accept the same bs low wage? Evidence doesn't bear out your theory.
If they live in a vacuum then yes. But that's the difference between theory and the real world process of capitalism. You can't keep paying people less than they're worth because it creates an opportunity for someone else to make more money than you by attracting more labor and having it be more productive because you're paying each laborer more. Additionally there is no such thing as a 'fair' wage. Fair is normative. There is no fair wage except what two people agree upon voluntarily. Anything else is just someone's subjective judgement of fair. The only objective measure of value is what someone is willing to pay/accept voluntarily for a product or service.The owner can use this knowledge to maximize his profits without any further compensation to the worker. This practice oonflicts with the concept of a "fair wage".
Forgotten Facts of American Labor HistoryHowever, the international buisness world is governed by the Law of Commerce, which is based on Maritime Law in respect to mercantile trade. The concept of "exploitation" does not exist in the Law of Commerce. A worker is a "tool" and as such garners no claim to "profit sharing" with the owner. This disparity came to a head about 100 years ago when "labor unions" started to form to protect the workers from exploitation by the owners. When you examine that part of history there is much revolt by the working class. The owners realized that they would have to compensate the workers with "additional benifits" to appease the workers demands for "equity". Some of these benifits include health care, credit unions and profit sharing. All of these benifits affect the bottom line of the owner, but are still part of the price of doing buisness. The loss of profit to the owner from these accrued benifits are neccassary to prevent worker revolt, which would become even more costly to the owners bottom line.
Unfortunately this has nothing to do with the market but government interference in the market. Such centralization as you refer to is impossible to achieve on an open market without government help as the work of Armentano, DiLorenzo, Stigler and Brosen pretty much have proved over the last 20/30 years.The real concern for the worker is when the practice of "corporatism" leads to the same people(owners) controlling the work place, the bank and the food and goods market. When the ownership becomes centralized the human element of greed can exploit the worker further when scarcity is manipulated to create dependence on the owners for the very survival of the worker.
10-23-2006, 07:41 PM
I agree that the key to workers rights and continued opportunities are directly related to the "openess" of the market place. I believe that "fairness" is negotiated by the parties involved in any agreement labor or civil. Even in an open market the uninformed and under skilled are always at a disadvantage.
10-24-2006, 09:10 AM
You're missing the point. Everyone is uninformed. Imperfect information is the nature of the market. Those who are best at predicting actual outcomes in practice will become richer and get more money. Were that not the case the market would never advance. Even were all outcomes known such as in the "evenly rotating economy" the capitalist still takes a hit because he is the one who has to save a ton of money/resources to front for others to begin production. That's why he earns a rate of return on the final product and workers take a wage discount so they can get paid now without curtailing their living instead of getting paid at the end of the process and/or cutting back on their own living standard to add resources to the production process. The existence of the capitalist at the begining of a production process infers a higher productivity and level of frugality on his part in the past.Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
When you add in the entrepreneurial factor, risk and uncertainty, the capitalist/entrepreneur is not only fronting the resources so production can begin at all, he's taking a massive risk because he doesn't know the outcome. Capitalist-Entrepreneurs are the ones taking the most risk despite the uncertainty, therefore they get the most profit. When you look at the histories of the most successful people you don't just see the successes, but massive failures too. The risk has to come with the reward, otherwise there's no point and we'd all still be in caves.
10-24-2006, 10:04 AM
Originally Posted by CDB
This assumes 2 things that I can see, right off the bat:
1) That jobs at other companies are available to the worker
2) That the worker is informed abotu those jobs and what they pay
That isn't always true. Additionally, in many countries that do not have anti-trust laws, companies get together and set flat wages to maximise all their profits. So they are all paying the same dirt wage that can't even feed a single human. Then they go and hire anyone willing to work there. When these capitalists built their factories they usually build it over previous farmland or some other area that used to provide a natural source of food. So now the peoplee of the region are starving and whereas before they lived without need of money now they have to because the corps took their food away. So their only answer is to go work in the factories and die slowly from starvation.
10-24-2006, 11:54 AM
Yes it does assume that and rightfully so. There is no real world situation where one employer exists, minus government intervention in the granting of that priviledge. All current supposed examples of monopsony are areas with heavy government intervention or artifacts of the application of perfect competition theory (Block and Barnett, Austrian Critique of NeoClassical Monopsony Theory).Originally Posted by Nullifidian
He doesn't need to be informed because the process doesn't happen in isolation.2) That the worker is informed abotu those jobs and what they pay
Companies don't, companies and the government do.That isn't always true. Additionally, in many countries that do not have anti-trust laws, companies get together and set flat wages to maximise all their profits. So they are all paying the same dirt wage that can't even feed a single human.
If they owned the land then the corporations must have paid them what they thought was a fair price for it, at which point one has to ask what the problem is. If they didn't own the land they don't have a right to say how it is used. If they did own the land and didn't want to sell but the government forced the situation upon them, it is not the company that's to blame but the government.Then they go and hire anyone willing to work there. When these capitalists built their factories they usually build it over previous farmland or some other area that used to provide a natural source of food. So now the peoplee of the region are starving and whereas before they lived without need of money now they have to because the corps took their food away. So their only answer is to go work in the factories and die slowly from starvation.
Real world examples of these so called market failures where monopoly or monopsony exist are examples of socialism or mercantilism (or time limited examples of capitalism). I wouldn't defend either one of the first two systems. When the government gets involved and grants a monopoly, you are no longer dealing with capitalism. When the government gets involved and grants a monopsony, you are no longer dealing with capitalism. In both cases you're dealing with extreme government interventions in the market, both of which are in complete contradiction with free market capitalism. It makes no sense at the point to blame capitalism or the market for the distortions caused by the government intervention. That corporations like and take advantage of these interventions to line their own pockets is a reality. However without government enablement of one sort or another they couldn't do such things. Ergo the operative 'bad guy' is the government, not the market or the corporations.
10-24-2006, 08:31 PM
Point taken!... How about a scenario where the worker is a commisioned salesman? The salesman's risk is the same as the owner, in terms of no pay for his efforts until the sale. The worker has deferreed his initial pay with the risk of never being compensated for his efforts, meanwhile the owner risks nothing beyond the operating cost of his buisness, which he would incure with or without the salesman. The salesman's commission is a post profit percentage of a value(the sale) that would not exist without the salesman's efforts. The salesman brings a market to the owner, which would not exist without the salesman. The owners hedges his bet by employing the efforts of multiple salemen, each with the same commision based deal. The probability of a sale for the owner is increased with each additional salesman hired. However, each salesman's risk is increased with each additional salesman hired due to market saturation. This scenario creates a greater probability of reward for the owner, who is taking the lower risk, while decreasing the probability of reward for the salesman who is taking the greater risk. What further increases the risk imbalance is that, the more skilled salesman will have a greater probabiltiy of receiving a reward for his risk. The skill level of the salesman does not effect the risk for the owner, just the other salesman. This system works by creating a "loser", the salesmen who essentially "works for free" when there is no sale. Of course, the salesman ideally, is aware of this "high risk" before he agrees to work for the owner. However in this scenario the higher risk does not assume the higher reward.Originally Posted by CDB
10-24-2006, 09:14 PM
No, man. I'm talking about countries where governments are virtually non-existant. Where the government has no power over the people except what resources they give them or don't.Originally Posted by CDB
There are a lot of countries who have governments FAR less powerful than the corporations that set up shop there. These corporations then have their own enforcement in whatever area they've set up in.
10-25-2006, 08:16 AM
Break at this point because that's where you're wrong. Opportunity costs are always in play and those costs are high in sales positions. Take this from somone who has had crappy salemen work for him in the past and pretty much permanently lost a shot at certain clients because of their performance. Opportunity costs.Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
10-25-2006, 08:32 AM
Government enablement can take the form of direct intervention, indirect intervention, or lack of intervention when it's appropriate, such as in such instances you describe. I assume we both accept the fact that governments will exist, and that it is the proper role of the government in any one area to protect the rights of all its citizens, correct? If so, neglecting the enforcement of the rights of some to enhance the wealth of another is a form of government enablement. It is technically impossible for a government to be far less powerfull than a corporation because no corporation can have the legal monopoly on the use of force. If it does gain that monopoly through some means it is no longer a business, it is the government. Corporations like private citizens can try to use force to compell one another, but it is and should be illegal to do so, and the only way they get away with it is if the government intervenes directly, passing special 'laws' to make such action 'legal,' or by turning blind eye to violations that exist.Originally Posted by Nullifidian
I would not say that individuals in government are not vulnerable to selling out some of their citizens to line their own pockets. That much is a given and is blatantly obvious. Legislators will pass laws giving some people special privileges, some cops are willing to turn a blind eye to some violence if they're adequately bribed, judges are also beholden to special interests for various reasons. And people in all three branches of the US government may be ideologically swayed one way or another to favor one group of citizens over another. However it is still the government which is the operative 'bad guy.' Corporations can only beg for favoritism, offer bribes as they will in whatever forms, lobby for their interests, etc. It's still only the government who can grant those favors. It's still only the government who is in charge of the army and the police and the courts and the legislature. No corporation can pick your pocket or do much of anything to you against your will without government help, anymore than any private citizen can.
What I'm getting at is that it's not that I don't share your dissatisfaction, or even Mullet's, with a lot of how our current system is set up, nationally and globally. I simply think you have chosen the wrong place for blame to fall.
10-25-2006, 08:16 PM
Originally Posted by CDB
CDB, legality is completely irrelevant in a land where might makes right and a large corporation has more might than that county's government.
10-26-2006, 12:11 AM
- 5'10" lbs.
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Rep Power
Oh boy, you just wasted about 3000000 words.Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
You need to read what I wrote, word for word. Its clear as day. I said the guy is a hypocrite because he starts out trashing the idea of IQ differences among races and then proclaims the New Guinean's more intelligent than us european westerners. Don't you see the hypocrisy there?
I haven't read "The Bell Curve" and haven't endorsed it.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
Now, about one of the issues discussed in the bell curve. I haven't read it, so I can't say anything about the book in particular, but, the part of the book that you find so offensive, and the part you thought that I was endorsing (while I obviously wasn't), I can't say I agree or disagree.
Having a pretty good background in genetics and biology and the kinds of genetic differences that can develop between isolated populations over time, I cannot say that differences between IQ and race don't exist. However, I cannot say they do either. But, overall, it doesn't even matter because it is definite that if they even do exist they do not exist to the degree that would be significant enough to produce any considerable differences in potential. So, its a moot point and I really don't care much and is an issue that shouldn't be investigated, and hasn't been to any great extent, for obvious reasons--people are hysterical.
Oh, and BTW, I do'nt know which post you're talking about where you said I was intentionally editing posts to make myself seem as if I had a witty edge on you? I can tell you, if I edited something, that wasn't the reason for it. It would have been because I thought they were a poor choice of words or because I found something to be factually innacurate. I don't have small-peepee issue to the degree that I need to be an uber-leet-forum-master-debater
10-26-2006, 01:27 AM
- 5'10" 215 lbs.
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Rep Power
Well I suppose based on your previous statements and beliefs I made an ASSumption which was apparently incorrect.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
I will say one thing though, that it is incredibly easy to prove there are no racial differences in IQ. In order to even believe that one could empirically seek to prove even the most minute difference one must presuppose that each of those terms can be defined completely independently of social and cultural constructions, which would be the basis for any genetic condition. As I said before even the term 'race' haphazzardly lumps biological, cultural, and social terms with no medical backing whatsoever. How many races exist? 3, 30, 3000? Is there an American race? What about a Canadian one? Any perception of both ones own 'race' and any alternate 'races' are nothing more than social constructions. The earth's population is so interbred that any distinction among 'races' is made upon superficial physical characteristics and that distinction in and of itself contradicts any genetic basis.
Conversely, the same logic applies for intelligence. The only real quantifiable measure of intelligence, IMO, would be the capacity to do certain tasks (communication, logic, spacial recognition, etc.,) completely independent of application. B/c the application of our shared capacity is once again completely dependent on cultural and social factors, which once again are mutually exclusive from any genetic conditions.
Anyway, no "small peepee" issues here bro. Projecting maybe?
10-26-2006, 07:32 AM
OPPORTUNIY(risk) equals REWARD( knowledge, profit, more opportunity)Originally Posted by CDB
I was not trying to refute that fact. My point was that capitalism does not systematically reward the greatest risk taker with the greatest reward. However the system can punish the person who makes the greater mistakes. The "crappiness" of the salesman is relative to the specific skill of selling.(with all due respect) Ultimately, the "decision" to hire the crappy salesman is the greater mistake, so it brings the greater punishment(loss of opportunituy)
10-26-2006, 08:08 AM
There is no land where might does not make right, especially if you conflate right with legal, which for the purposes of this discussion we can. Our government gets its authority from the threat of force just like every other government. That they are not as blatant about it as most doesn't change that basic fact. Actively resist the enforcement of even the most minor law and you will be shot eventually as your resistance escalates.Originally Posted by Nullifidian
10-26-2006, 08:21 AM
It makes no claim to do so. 'Rewards' go to those who are right about their risks more often than not in ways that matter to others.Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
And who has made the greater loss there, the manager or the salesman? They've both lost time, they've both lost opportunities. The 'profits' the manager loses through opportunity costs are by your own admission bigger than those lost by the salesman; he stands to earn more, therefore his opportunity costs are greater. I don't see the negative of the situation. Those who try and predict the most efficient way to use resources and are right get rewarded at all levels, those who fail get punished at all levels. Seems rational and equitable to me, though the latter judgement is unnecessary in my view.However the system can punish the person who makes the greater mistakes. The "crappiness" of the salesman is relative to the specific skill of selling.(with all due respect) Ultimately, the "decision" to hire the crappy salesman is the greater mistake, so it brings the greater punishment(loss of opportunituy)
Edit: With regard to market effects on employees and supposed monopsony, I can tell you from direct experience after years in human resources, recruiting, sourcing, hiring and firing people that companies who low-ball people rarely get the hires they want. I have a couple of clients who routinely try this because they think they're hot **** and people should be happy to work for them. The Job Orders go unfilled until their central HR gives up and hands them off directly to local managers whose first action is usually to raise the cap on the salary, at which point the position is filled within a couple weeks. And this happens with high tech and low tech JOs in all markets. When they don't raise the cap they lower the job's expectations and experience/knowledge requirements. I can understand some cynicism but I've seen this process play out in various markets under various economic conditions for all types of employers and employees and it's always the same: you low-ball people, they go elsewhere. The companies who routinely try and low-ball people also have higher employee turnover in my experience, an added cost for not paying someone what they're worth.
Last edited by CDB; 10-26-2006 at 08:38 AM.
10-26-2006, 06:30 PM
- 5'10" lbs.
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Rep Power
Yeah, I agree it is. But, the people who interpret those results won't always agree. If differences were observed, they'd easily be brushed aside due to "socioeconomic differences" and then when those factors were removed it would be "cultural differences" then when those factors were removed it would be "poor science" and repeat.Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
Race isn't really used with any sincerity anymore by scientists, they prefer the term clade. So, you're right in that regard. In fact, taxonomy altogether is ridiculous, and hardly a "science". It is completely subjective. By the same logic behind the classification of certain sub-species of animals, I could make a damn good case that humans (a few hundred years back) could have been classified as different sub-species of homo sapien (wouldn't apply anymore). Now, this also means absolutely ZERO because I could also use that argument and say because humans are classified in this way, that species of animal should be classified different, etc. Then I could also say I disagree entirely with the classifications, much like is going on right now with birds. Traditionally avians and reptiles are separate classes, however, one (of the many, and the most prominent of the) debates raging right now among taxonomists is whether or not avians and reptiles should be separated into different classes. Hell, one of the major "requirements" for a species to be a different species is their ability to breed with each other. Now, by "ability" I don't mean can they have offspring? I mean, can they reproduce or are they separated by physiological, physical, or geographic obstructions that would prevent that? You could have two IDENTICAL animals separated by an ocean, capable of producing offspring, but incapable of doing so naturally and theyll be considered different species simply because of the ocean barrier.In order to even believe that one could empirically seek to prove even the most minute difference one must presuppose that each of those terms can be defined completely independently of social and cultural constructions, which would be the basis for any genetic condition. As I said before even the term 'race' haphazzardly lumps biological, cultural, and social terms with no medical backing whatsoever.
A few hundred years ago? Well, quite a few. Soon? no real discernable races will be prevalent in most of the free world.How many races exist? 3, 30, 3000?
We're outbred, not interbred Hicks are interbred. lol. If you continue to interbreed you'll have the same genes being recycled and all kinds of "funny" things happen. Just wanted to clarify to the wordsmith.Is there an American race? What about a Canadian one? Any perception of both ones own 'race' and any alternate 'races' are nothing more than social constructions. The earth's population is so interbred that any distinction among 'races' is made upon superficial physical characteristics and that distinction in and of itself contradicts any genetic basis.
Intelligence differences among races (or clades) will never be investigated in the future, and for good reason. The determining factors of what is quantifiable and what is not will differ from person to person, and change from agenda to agenda. Scientists want to be excluded from politics often, and you'll never get a good scientist looking into this subject.Conversely, the same logic applies for intelligence. The only real quantifiable measure of intelligence, IMO, would be the capacity to do certain tasks (communication, logic, spacial recognition, etc.,) completely independent of application.
Man, you're too much I wasn't referencing you, bud. I was trying to ease over the tension.Anyway, no "small peepee" issues here bro. Projecting maybe?
Anyway, I'm done here. I never meant for this to take off in that direction. I'll be careful where I use the word "Bell Curve" in public (now I need to read the book, hahaa...). This isn't one of those issues worth even discussing the "possibilities" because there is so much emotion and ideology involved that, independent of (hypothetically) the results of incredibly good science and the best arguments, there is no chance you can get everyone to agree, or even disagree politely.
10-26-2006, 06:33 PM
- 5'10" 215 lbs.
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Rep Power
Agreed with most of it, so lets drop it and eat cakeOriginally Posted by kwyckemynd00
10-26-2006, 06:34 PM
- 5'10" 215 lbs.
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Rep Power
And yeah, outbred..lol..I shouldn't type at 3am anymore
10-27-2006, 05:03 AM
Anyone familiar with the "Taco Bell" curve?
It plots on a standard x/y axix how many times the "refried" beans are actually re-fried. truely enlightening.
Inbreeding is fine for dogs and horses(400?) with their high counts of chromosones, but not so much for humans(23) you can only shuffle the deck so many times.
Similar Forum Threads
- By SurfDan5 in forum SupplementsReplies: 16Last Post: 06-05-2009, 02:55 PM
- By Amirz in forum AnabolicsReplies: 9Last Post: 04-03-2009, 03:13 PM
- By David Dunn in forum General ChatReplies: 3Last Post: 11-15-2007, 09:51 AM
- By BigTom in forum 35 and OlderReplies: 3Last Post: 06-15-2007, 08:09 AM
- By windwords7 in forum SupplementsReplies: 28Last Post: 05-23-2003, 08:07 AM