#Indian gdp per capita | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mitigatedchaos · 1 month

Text

The Floating Causation of Vulgar Anti-Racism

Post for August 12, 2024 ~7,400 words, 36 minutes

-★-

The late 20th century and the early 21st century were an excellent time for 'catch-up' development in under-developed countries. For example, the GDP per capita of the People's Republic of China rose from $312 in 1980, to $12,720 in 2022, more than a 40x increase. This is despite the People's Republic being nominally communist, 92% Han Chinese, and one of the largest potential geopolitical rivals to the United States. This is not a one-off – exports from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to the United States rose from $50 million in 1994 to $114 billion in 2023.

While the ideologically liberal government of the United States did invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and placed strict limits on Iran, in practical terms, the United States was willing to direct hundreds of billions of dollars of demand, for everything from disposable gloves to rice cookers, to countries that were neither majority white nor, officially, capitalist, which allowed these countries to build up their industrial base.

Inside the United States, as of the early 2020s, Americans of Indian descent, Americans of Asian descent, and a number of other non-white groups are outperforming the median household income of white Americans. It's not uncommon to see an Indian-American as the CEO of a major US corporation, such as Microsoft's Satya Nadella, Google's Sundar Pichai, or IBM's Arvind Krishna. And while Americans of Nigerian descent aren't earning quite as much money as Sundar Pichai, they are doing better than the U.S. national average. [1]

The American economy is willing to award non-white Americans and non-white immigrants with average pay higher than that the average pay for white Americans, and American society is willing to award members of these same groups with highly prestigious positions – Google is one of the most famous American companies, and to be its CEO is highly prestigious indeed.

Why is it that vulgar anti-racists aren't content to leave well enough alone on negative racial messaging, and take advantage of this opportunity to focus on personal development, ingroup development, and national development? Why is it that they have a strange totalitarian bent, such as Ibram Kendi proposing to give veto power over all government policy to a body of unappointed race experts, which would de facto end democracy?

Last month, @max1461 wrote a post, attempting to find a balanced compromise between the social justice movement and its critics in the discourses on racism over the past 10 years. Perhaps this was intended to close the books and allow the participants to move to a saner footing going forward. Subsequently, Max flagged the post as unrebloggable in order to prevent it from being beat up like a piñata. Near the end of the initial chain, Max wrote:

I can’t stress enough that, for all the excesses of DEI seminars and modern anti-racist academia and whatnot, for however unhelpful or even regressive these things may often be, what they exist in response to is fundamentally a horror of an entirely different and incomparable scale; something unspeakably evil and destructive. And, after 200 years of such an evil world order, which only really began to melt in 1945, I think it would be incredibly naive to believe that all the wounds are now healed.

It would seem that for the most part, the wounds that Japan suffered from America in World War II have already healed. The country already went through reindustrialization, followed by a boom period (which startled Westerners), and then a subsequent crash and the 'lost decade' of the 1990s. The Japanese have a favorable view of the United States, as perhaps they should – Japan has prospered in the Post-WW2 international order, in which they can simply purchase whatever materials they need on global markets with no need to invade or occupy anyone.

Yet for others, the past lingers on.

Ibram Kendi is one of the most famous contemporary self-identified anti-racists, a New York Times bestselling author (his most famous book was titled "How to Be an Anti-Racist") who was not only platformed by major corporations such as Microsoft (in 2020, an advertisement on the login screen of Windows 10 computers linked to a search for "anti-racism books," with his at the top), but even received funding for his own anti-racism center (now under attack for its ineffectiveness).

At one time, Ibram Kendi thought that white people were aliens. A roommate talked him out of it, asking how it was that white people could have children with everyone else if that were the case. To his credit, Kendi did change his mind.

...but how could anyone have come up with Kendi's conclusion in the first place?

In school in the United States, children are taught that the Spanish conquered the Aztecs. It is true that Spanish military forces brought about the downfall of the Aztec Empire, but often people forget the details of what they learned in school, and often what they learn in school is itself a simplified story, designed to be told to children. Encyclopedia Britannica's summary of the Battle of Tenochtitlan largely agrees with the gist of Wikipedia's more detailed article on the Fall of Tenochtitlan, which is littered with instances of "[citation needed]."

Wikipedia, however, provides more numbers. In particular, Wikipedia's version provides one of the Internet's favorite parts of wiki battle articles, a listing of the balance of opposed forces (with citations):

There is a racist narrative of the conquest of the Americas in which the brave Spanish explorers overcame the savage, human-sacrificing hordes of the Aztecs. There is an inverted, anti-racist narrative of the conquest of the Americas in which the powerful, cruel Spanish showed up to oppress the weak, innocent Aztecs.

And then there is a third narrative - a narrative that politics happened. A number of tributary states had grievances with the Aztecs, and the small number of Spanish probably didn't seem like enough to conquer the whole territory from the perspective of the tributaries, but did seem powerful enough to rally around to fight the Aztecs and win.

Nobody comes out looking good in this third narrative. The Spanish brought about a brutal war with tens of thousands of casualties, and devastating disease followed their arrival. The Aztecs and tributaries combined failed to overcome a foreign invasion due to (relative to the foreigners being from another continent) local infighting. The Aztecs were awful enough that a number of tributaries sided with an army of foreigners against them.

Now, suppose that we delete the 200,000 native allies from the balance of forces above, but still record a victory for the Spanish. The effect of the native allies remains, but the cause of that effect disappears. This creates an effect without a cause – unattributed causation, which is disconnected from what came before, or what we might call, "floating causation."

Some might call overcoming a force of 80,000 with only 1,000 or so men a miracle. For those not so inclined, the 'floating' causation gets attributed to the Spanish soldiers – their equipment, their valor, their tactics, and their discipline. Each of a thousand Spanish infantrymen is now somehow worth 200 native warriors.

In this cartoon version of history, the Spanish are an unstoppable psychic warrior race. Their steadfast will in the face of danger and their unit cohesion are quite nearly inhuman, and their technological advantage is overwhelming. The natives have not merely made a political miscalculation similar to others of the pre-modern era, such as the decisions of states facing Genghis Khan, but are buffoons to the slaughter, incapable of putting up any real defense.

In this cartoon, the Spanish can go anywhere. They can do anything. And because of this, they are the only people with agency in the whole world.

They sound... like aliens.

Trying to rebalance this cartoon only leads to greater absurdities, such as the idea that only Europeans ever meaningfully engaged in conquest (contradicted by Genghis Khan), or that industrial technology and its resulting pollution are "European" in nature (China has been quite aggressive about industrializing), or that only "European" countries waged modern and industrialized wars of conquest (the Empire of Japan used guns, bombs, and tanks as part of its project to create the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere).

All three of the above counter-examples are from Asia, which is usually conspicuously absent from self-identified anti-racist thinking, but none of them are obscure.

-★-

It is my belief that floating causation is a source of distortions across the ideological spectrum.

Ideology is not independent from human beings. Manifestos, one might say, do not print themselves. From the other direction, it is not a piece of paper which murders somebody – it is a human being who pulls the trigger.

There is ideology, which is a system of related rules and beliefs, and there are adherents who adopt ideology, spread beliefs, and put ideological rules into practice.

An ideology can contain taboos which prohibit noticing or explaining the true cause of some outcome, separating the cause from its effect. Practitioners can then attribute that effect to a preferred ideological construct instead, making it seem much more powerful, and often dangerous, than it really is.

The Elephants

Imagine (as this example is entirely made-up) that there is some village in which elephants are considered sacred, but the elephants in the area have a habit of trampling crops in the night. To avoid loss of face, the damage to crops is attributed to "bandits" by an initial group of elders. The young children who do not know better are then taught this explanation. Later, after the death of the elders, the initial truth is lost. Anyone claiming to have seen elephants trampling the fields is denounced as choosing the vile bandits over the virtuous elephants. An outsider who did not realize what was happening might be quite impressed to hear that a bandit in the region ruined a dozen fields in a single night, and assume that the bandit has tremendous physical stamina.

But floating causation is not necessarily the result of an ideological taboo. Someone may be ignorant about the cause of an effect, unable to understand the process by which an effect came about, have powerful emotions about the topic which they are unwilling to confront or may not even be aware of, or may simply have poor judgment. An adherent may be drawn to an ideology for these reasons.

Continuing with our example, a fresh-off-the-boat colonial administrator arriving at the village might be unaware that elephants exist, or trample crops, and conclude that there were ongoing feuds driven by animosity among the villagers, with bandits as the cover-story. Alternatively, the new colonial administrator might love the elephants and hate the villagers, and be unwilling to consider the possibility that the elephants are trampling the crops, including cooking up rather elaborate rationalizations.

Ideology

Issues with not understanding a process are more likely to come up with things like economics – occasionally a worker will post a video to social media complaining that he is not paid the full value of the items he sells or creates, ignoring all the money that went into the construction of the facility, the work from other workers putting together the input materials, and so on.

Liberals in the late 00s and early 2010s had an interest in memetics, which concerns the replication and spread of ideas. (This field is where the term "Internet meme" comes from.) Then, as now, they had a tendency to treat people as too similar to each other, and some of them leaned towards the idea that any person could hold any ideology. Ideologies do (in my judgment) influence behavior – there are far fewer monarchists around these days, and far fewer monarchs with real power, for example – but how a set of beliefs is expressed depend on the emotions, motives, and temperament of the person who holds those beliefs.

So do people choose ideologies, or do ideologies choose people?

One way to view this matter is as a cycle. Someone's social environment is partly a matter of choice, and partly a matter of circumstance. The ideologies that show up in someone's environment are generally going to be ones that spread (as ideologies that don't attract new adherents will die out), but which ideology someone actually chooses and how they practice it will be influenced by what type of person they are.

Another way to view this matter is that emotions, motives, temperament, and beliefs are all things that make certain actions or thoughts either easier (and cheaper) or more difficult (and more expensive). A drug addict who believes in hard work and free market capitalism, but finds himself stealing to feed his habit, may find that the influence of his beliefs is not enough to overcome his addiction. (He is likely to feel miserable.) However, when a religious person is choosing what time of day, or day of the week, to worship, the explicit belief of their religion is likely to have a great deal of influence.

Yet another way to view this matter is to treat things like social relations, ideology, and temperament as interacting layers, and then propose that politics spans multiple layers.

Human Talent

I don't believe that all human beings are equally talented, and I don't believe that they all have identical temperaments. Therefore, one of my beliefs is what might be called the "human capital theory of movements." Ideologies consist of networks of related beliefs which can be used to interpret the world, to guide behavior, or to create arguments. But ideologies do not create beliefs or arguments themselves. Humans do.

When a movement has a lot of talented, virtuous people working for it, these people can create new arguments in order to win debates, and change parts of the ideology, the network of beliefs, to adapt the network to changes in conditions. Without talented people, the ideology of a movement will drift farther from environmental conditions, causing its responses to become more misaligned with conditions on the ground.

Talented people are also needed for the implementation of an ideology. An ideological book is just an inert text. No matter how complex it may be, it is fundamentally limited in its complexity. Applying that text in the environment, bridging the gap between what the text says and what that means in the reality of a specific situation, requires both intelligence and good judgment. Not every person is equally talented, and not every person is equally informed. If someone more talented and with better judgment is around, they can read the situation and come up with some simpler rules or orders for others to follow.

The less talented the adherents of a movement are, the lower the ability of the movement to adapt to conditions over both the short-term and the long-term.

A shift in the distribution of talent can precede other forms of political change. Ideologues may smile as the most disagreeable members are driven out of their movement, but at the same time, the lack of criticism will reduce the movement's ability to respond to change.

There are trade-offs. The use of floating causation may make an ideology less aligned with reality, but it may also be useful for the movement to stoke the emotions of their followers in order to drive action. (This emotional motivation bit is why every election in the United States is "the most important in your lifetime.")

-★-

Beliefs are not intelligence. Nonetheless, a person with a belief may act as though they are smarter (or even wiser) than they actually are. This is just the nature of knowledge (as cached intelligence, wisdom, and observation).

I developed the talent theory in the prior section by observing opposition to racism in the United States prior to 2014. In the United States between 2000 and 2014, there was substantial support for individualist "colorblindness," while at the same time, there was immense social pressure against overt white racial organizing.

Racial organizing takes time and effort. Because white Americans were not subject to racial discrimination, they could simply go out into the market and earn what their work was worth. For talented white Americans, the gains from white racial organizing would be marginal, so the penalties could easily overcome those gains. The less talented would have the most to gain due to the ability to reduce the amount of economic competition they would be up against, but they were also less able to organize. [2]

There was somewhere famous for white racial organizing in the US during this era: prisons.

Racial prison gangs have been particularly noted in the California prison system. Prison gangs offer inmates a credible threat of retaliation if the inmate is harmed, so every inmate has an incentive to join one, and the bigger the gang the better that threat of retaliation is, so every gang has an incentive to recruit. If you're a gang member and a new guy comes in and starts causing trouble, and you don't want to escalate (and thus risk extra charges for your guys or reduced privileges), what are you to do? You would prefer to negotiate with someone that has leverage on him. Race is very visible, even if inmates move around between prisons, so if all inmates get sorted into gangs by race, then someone is responsible for this guy, and by talking to the right people, you can make sure he knows it. (If the troublemaker still doesn't respond, and his own gang cut him loose, then you can punish him without fear of retaliation from other inmates.)

Different incentives produce different results.

Four Options

Glenn Loury is a black man, and an economist at Brown University. He views himself as an American and therefore an inheritor of human rights philosophy of the American founders and their English forebears. He has his own show on YouTube in which he regularly discusses matters with John McWhorter, another black man, who is a linguistics professor at Columbia University. (John strikes me as more liberal, and I heard that he was frightened of Donald Trump, a sentiment shared by many white American culturally liberal Democrats.) Both of these men are quite smart, and if you watch the show, you'll see them easily consider arguments from various perspectives and toss hypotheticals back and forth.

Neither of these men are vulgar anti-racists.

Roland Fryer is a black man, and is an economist at Harvard (although he was suspended for 2 years) who I have discussed previously. He thinks like an economist, and has conducted studies such as paying children to read books. In previous appearances, it seemed that he believes that education gaps can be closed through extremely rigorous selection of teachers and other methods.

Mr. Fryer does not appear to be a vulgar anti-racist.

These men are all relatively prominent voices. If you go looking for the sort of content they produce, they aren't that hard to find. And they're all smart. They might have disagreements with each other and with some of my readers, but smart people can disagree.

However, during the 2014-2022 era, when it was decided to push a black academic to prominence, political forces settled on Ibram Kendi instead. There must have been dozens of other candidates.

When I think about why that happened, I suspect that the answer is that while the first three men care about the interests of black Americans, all three of them are willing to say, "No." Although I doubt they would phrase it in exactly these terms, I suspect that all three understand human rights as rooted in high-order consequences, limits on information, and human bias.

If you proposed to John McWhorter that we should give veto power to a committee of unelected race experts, he would immediately recognize the problem with just that.

Why Vulgar Anti-Racism?

With all of that said, I believe we can think about vulgar anti-racism by means of comparison.

a. Economics

Loury and Fryer are both economists. They know about gains from trade, prices as a distributed form of economic planning, property rights as enabling investment, specialization of labor, economies of scale, and dozens of other things. They understand where wealth comes from.

The typical vulgar anti-racist that you will encounter on an Internet discussion board has little knowledge of economics, and tends to think of total production as fixed. From their perspective, if someone has more resources than another person, it has nothing to do with production, and is purely the result of hoarding.

The typical vulgar anti-racist also doesn't think in terms of entropy, the tendency of things to break down over time. They tend not to discount temporally-distant advantages. (If a well was built 400 years ago, they treat that advantage as retained today.) They tend to think of capital as fixed and not as something that is constantly being rebuilt and adjusted. They don't understand that the ability to create new capital is generally more important than the initial capital in the long-run.

Thinking about production is probably why we see Fryer focused on educational gains. His theory is likely that if the children have a good base of education, they'll be able to produce more, avoid losses, overcome entropy, and net accumulate wealth. If they don't have a good base of education, then they'll be less productive, and entropy will eat a higher percentage of their earnings, leading to reduced wealth.

If someone doesn't know economics, then the wealth of developed countries is "unexplained," and so are the motives of many people within developed countries.

b. History

I don't know about Fryer specifically, but Loury and McWhorter seem to have a good grasp of history.

A solid understanding of history leads to seeing actions as emerging from their historical contexts. This places a limit on the range of expected behavior.

For example, for most of history up until about the 1900s, the child mortality rate was about 50%. That example is relevant for feminism, as under such brutal conditions, we would expect any society that didn't push for women to have at least 4 children to die out. Gender-based oppression didn't occur for no reason, or because of pure male greed, but was influenced by material circumstances.

If we run this understanding backwards, it follows that 1700s or earlier gender norms would be unlikely to return without 1700s or earlier child mortality rates.

Likewise, some basic historical knowledge would reveal that wars of conquest have happened pretty much everywhere, so it's quite unlikely that Europeans are uniquely conquerors. You end up having to declare everything from feuding Chinese kingdoms, to the Māori, to chimpanzees, be "European" in order to fit the model.

The typical vulgar anti-racist's position is, implicitly, "Everyone lived together in peace and harmony, until one day, for no reason at all, the Europeans became possessed by the spirit of greed, and attacked."

If someone somehow doesn't know that war existed outside of Europe prior to 1492, then the wars of colonialism are "unexplained," and so are the motives of the people who fought them.

When vulgar anti-racists do research history, they generally focus on collecting racial grievances in order to build up a case that the group they favor are poor, oppressed, not responsible for anything bad their group has ever done, and are owed indefinite benefits for incalculable harms. They don't proceed from the idea of, "How does this work?" They don't, say, look at the tremendous economic success of South Korea, and ask, "Based on how South Korea obtained their wealth, how can our group achieve such riches?" (They don't even look at South Korea's birthrate and ask how they can avoid such a fate!)

Even before World War 2, Japan did look afar to ask how they could become rich. That kind of mentality is part of how they were able to become a developed country (who could threaten other people with tanks) in the first place.

Looking to Asia is useful for people making comparisons to figure out how things work, but is not useful for collecting racial grievances in order to build up racial claims to make demands. That's why vulgar anti-racists often don't know basic facts about Asian history, like that state testing to determine government positions was practiced in ancient China. [3]

c. Racial Attachment

Even during the individualist colorblindness of 2000-2014, there were still white Americans with some talent engaged in racial organizing. In general, these were people to whom race was very important, and thus who were out-of-step with the mainstream of white America.

It's my opinion that there is a natural range of tribalism among human beings. Sometimes, the rival tribe on the other side of the mountain just want to trade. Other times, they really are out to kill you. The trait doesn't disappear, because wars still happen, and even if they didn't happen, someone could just reinvent war and start it all back up again.

In my view, this tribalism trait isn't attached to race specifically. It can attach to religion. It can attach to sex. Some of the rhetoric from radical feminists sounds the same as rhetoric from hardcore ethnic nationalists – or at least it would, if we treated men as an ethnicity. In our modern environment in which race is highly legible due to intercontinental travel, for a lot of people, it gets attached to race.

Rather than assigning people a single number on a scale from "moral" to "immoral," it's probably better to think of people as having virtues and vices, strengths and weaknesses.

Some level of racial attachment itself is not inherently evil. Based on his research topics, for example, Roland Fryer seems interested in bringing about the success of people with a similar background to himself. His virtue (his interest in truth) and his strength (his intelligence) convert that attachment into something that's beneficial to society.

High levels of racial attachment fly much closer to the wire. A highly racially attached individual might do good work in other domains, but there's a risk that they'll end up routing too much of their sense of self-worth through their race, and become obsessed with guarding their race's self-perceived reputation. For such a person, any information deemed unflattering to the group may be interpreted as an attack on himself (or herself).

The Mayo Clinic (a network of hospitals in the United States) describes narcissism as:

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence, they are not sure of their self-worth and are easily upset by the slightest criticism.

A number of users on Twitter (now known as X.com) began using the term "ethnic narcissism" to describe this sort of disordered thinking when done on behalf of a racial or ethnic group rather than oneself specifically.

2019 and 2020 were banner years for platforming this sort of behavior, with the nation's leading newspaper arguing, in its own words, that we should make the suffering of a particular racial group the core narrative of American history, that everyone should define their identities around:

The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.

Obsession with self-perceived ethnic reputation is part of what leads to the "rebalancing the cartoon" behavior I discussed earlier:

How does someone end up so ignorant that they don't know that Genghis Khan existed? By being the kind of person that doesn't want to know that Genghis Khan existed. They don't look it up. If you tell them, they either forget or they take a conflict theorist approach and think that it's some sort of trick.

Unfortunately, while a fairly accurate description of the behavior at issue, the term "ethnic narcissism" can also be used as an attack by ethnic narcissists themselves, as well as people engaged in ethnic conflict. This makes it of limited utility in practice.

The Mysterious Anglo

Option #1: In general, the right wing would consider the vulgar anti-racists to be liars working to selfishly advance their own personal interests and those of their preferred groups. Left-wingers would tend to take a negative view of this, as they believe that right-wingers are unjustly dismissive in order to 'protect the unearned and unquestioned advantages of the privileged.'

In this version, vulgar anti-racists won't drop the issue and hit the GDP gym because they're bullies who think the particular groups they dislike are easy targets. The appropriate response is to become a harder target by systematically defunding any institution that supports them, putting them on the same footing as conventional racial supremacists in the US.

I tend to agree that many of the vulgar anti-racists are just being selfish. There is a question of just how consciously aware of it they are, however.

Option #2: A left-wing view would be that the vulgar anti-racists are "good people, just a bit misguided." Right-wingers tend to take a negative view of this, because if a right-winger published a book titled "Black Fragility" that was as circular in its reasoning as the "White Fragility" of Robin DiAngelo appeared to be, he would be hounded as a racist.

In this version, vulgar anti-racists just need patient guidance to put their empathy back on the right track.

I tend to believe that a good chunk of the vulgar anti-racists are just low-tier progressives who get their opinions socially. If the social consensus changes among progressives, they'll forget ever fretting about "microaggressions." Arguing with them individually mostly won't work, though, because it doesn't override their social consensus, and it won't make them think harder about the issues.

Many left-wingers would disagree with me on this assessment.

Option #3: A more centrist view would be that vulgar anti-racists are a mix of people with excessively high racial attachment, enthusiastic people who are underinformed, and people who serve their niche of the information and political economy, and that this isn't that different from the lower quality wings of other left and right political movements (look how bad "degrowth" is, for example), except that race feels much more core to people's identities (it's certainly not easy to change one's race), so it evokes more powerful emotions. A centrist would likely say that there are more academically and philosophically serious opponents of racism out there, but because the things they say are more serious, they're less controversial, so they get less coverage. ("You wouldn't expect a textbook in the Sunday paper.")

A person with this perspective would say that the appropriate course of action is mostly just to wait for it to blow over.

I would disagree. If vulgar anti-racism is taught in schools for a generation, it would create an expectation that racial blame is the default course of action. This would create a situation which is much more favorable for racial conflict, so it should be shut down now to prevent that from happening.

However, I feel that this does not adequately explain the totalitarian bent. What about other values society might have? What about trade-offs? [4] I would like to throw a fourth possibility into the ring.

Option #4: Life inside the vulgar anti-racist worldview is anxiety-inducing and subtly terrifying.

I don't fully endorse this view, because I think that vulgar anti-racism is a coalition of multiple groups (see the previous three options).

However, while I learned from school that racism and ethnic conflict are extremely dangerous in general (e.g. they can boil over and result in mass murder), the susceptibility of vulgar anti-racists to, "It's impossible to be racist to white people," which is very obviously racist, strongly implies that what they learned was, "Jews good; Germans bad" – basically just a list of which groups are acceptable, and which groups aren't. [5]

I reverse-engineered a sophisticated moral worldview, and when I was young, I assumed that everyone else had done so, too. And for a little while, society approximated that view closely enough for that misconception to kind-of work.

I think that a significant number of people in the vulgar anti-racist coalition don't understand white people.

In terms of anxiety, a number of them seem to think that Europeans and their descendants think about race as much as the vulgar anti-racists do – that they are silently passing judgment, or saying nasty things when others are not listening.

I've been around middle-class and above white Americans my entire life. I've seen some kids make stupid racist jokes, and I can imagine bullying targeting race if it looks like an axis of vulnerability, but in general, among themselves, they don't talk about race much at all.

A skeptic reading this may say that that's just anecdotal. However, according to surveys, "white conservatives" have about the same "racial/ethnic" "ingroup favorability" as either "hispanic moderates" or "asians." "White liberals" were the only group on the chart to have a "pro-outgroup bias."

If we interpret these ingroup favorability measures as racism (which is a stretch, because a favorability measure is not itself a discriminatory policy), then white conservatives have a "normal" (as in typical of most groups) amount of racism. White liberals (probably in the sense that the label "liberal" is used for the entire left in the US) are the only ones who loop around into what might be called "anti-racism." (Razib Khan has his doubts about the stability of this arrangement of anti-racism as opposed to non-racism.)

A vulgar anti-racist doesn't know this, and doesn't want to know this.

Now, for the "subtly terrifying" part. If someone accepts, for instance, that the British were sincere in sending warships to intercept slave traders, then there are all sorts of explanations that they can come up with for that behavior, such as it being a natural result of industrialization, or maybe a result of rising literacy, or motivated by Christianity in combination with previous political developments in England, and so on.

From Wikipedia, here's a map of the British Empire, a map of the Spanish Empire, and a map of the Portuguese Empire. While from the perspective of Europeans at the time, the European states were in competition with each other, if taken together as a group, they were closer to achieving true world conquest than anyone else in history. (Sure, the Mongol Empire was huge, but they didn't make it over to the Americas.)

If someone believes that the Europeans turned off the slave trade for some sincere or enduring reason, then the 1700s are unlikely to come back. If someone believes that the Europeans turned off the 1700s for no reason, or for a secret reason, then one day, they could just... turn the 1700s back on.

And maybe that thought isn't entirely conscious. Maybe it just sits quietly, at the back of the mind.

And they get stuck, much like people who are still focused on "overpopulation" as birthrates plummet in industrialized countries throughout the world.

-★-

Whether they consciously intend to or not, vulgar anti-racists leverage social taboos to make it difficult to argue for one group's innocence without making another, generally more vulnerable, group, look worse. People don't want to be mean and say mean things about a vulnerable group. Vulgar anti-racists exploit this. (This kind of behavior is immoral, but I'm not sure how much vulgar anti-racists consciously understand that.)

Online Tactics

I've developed tactics to argue with them in online space, but I haven't tried them out in in-person institutional spaces where they have institutional influence (power).

In general, you cannot argue with vulgar anti-racists grievance-for-grievance. Building up an ammunition depot of racial or ethnic grievances on behalf of "overperforming" groups won't work – vulgar anti-racists will dismiss you as irrationally motivated by racial hatred and dismiss your entire collection, and normal people will also think it's weird (even though they still don't think many racial or ethnic minorities collecting grievances is weird). [6]

A better approach is to pick one or two grievances to shut down the idea that the group you're defending are "invulnerable." Morally, you shouldn't have to point to, say, children or minors being mass victimized, because it should be obvious that people of any race can be victimized. But that's just the world we live in.

Collect examples of institutional policy, such as by governments, corporations, or universities, that is racially discriminatory against the group you're defending, in order to show that the intent of vulgar anti-racists is racial discrimination. Use center-left, mainstream sources to prevent dismissals. The goal is not to show major harms; most Democrats who are not social justice critical will initially attempt to deny that racial discrimination is a goal of vulgar anti-racism.

(If necessary, it can be emphasized that not wanting to be racially discriminated against is a normal thing to want.)

Vulgar anti-racists will try to shut you down by reciting their list of grievances. Memorizing racial grievances is something that they are strong at. Redirect the conversation to where they are weak: demand that they show whatever policy it is that they want will actually improve things and permanently close racial outcome gaps.

If you find someone who has memorized a list of successful academic or nutrition interventions, you've likely found a philosophical liberal. In my experience, almost no vulgar anti-racist has any even modestly-successful intervention memorized. If they propose an intervention, demand evidence that it will work.

It's possible that they could propose something scientific, but science is undergoing a replication crisis, and 'race scholars' have come under fire for scientific misconduct. If a vulgar anti-racist does come up with something, the next step is to get a binding commitment to close the racial claims against their target group.

If their political leaders will not agree, in writing, with binding mechanisms (and punishments with teeth if they don't follow through), to close out the racial claims against their target groups, conditional on some social intervention going into effect, then they don't believe that the intervention will work.

A working intervention is win-win. Outcomes improve, and the odds of conflict (over this particular issue) decrease.

IRL Tactics

X user CantonaCorona must live somewhere very different from me, because I never hear vulgar anti-racism from people in real life. His advice?

100%. I can’t even tell you the number of times I’ve been in a friendly/polite mutual friend gathering, and someone who knows 10% of the room will add “gawd, white people, gross” etc.

The issue is they are also the person lacking social skills to see the room gets uncomfortable

In 2023ish I started responding by asking them very honest seeming questions and leading them into saying really crazy stuff.

Takes a lot of finesse to not sound like a schizo, but if you can pretend to be genuinely curious it works wonders and someone else will call them out

It does, indeed, take a lot of finesse, even online. Because vulgar anti-racists are exploiting taboos, they have a huge terrain advantage in most encounters due to normal people not wanting to touch reputationally-damaging information. Successfully navigating the situation without sounding "schizo," and without sounding cruel, is difficult.

The advantage of the tactics discussed above are that you don't have to attack the reputation of the vulnerable group that vulgar anti-racists are using to justify their own bad behavior. It isn't surprising that, like a successful hostage rescue, it requires being more careful than the hostage-takers.

"Corrective" racial discrimination that does not permanently close racial outcome gaps is not actually a correction, it's just extra harm for no reason, and the motives of people who support it are suspect.

Demobilization

While the online tactics I've discussed above are reasonably effective for an online debate or argument format (and vulgar anti-racists are increasingly retreating to protected contexts where they don't have to engage in open debate), the long-term goal needs to be demobilization. Ethnic conflict interferes with stability and good government.

There are some supporters that don't recognize the logical errors in their positioning, but they can sense, "Wait, this guy isn't like the others," and flee rather than risk being split off from the social approval of their group.

I propose the fear theory for the potential to develop new angles. If the real motivation is fear, then addressing most of the intermediate arguments won't work, as the intermediate arguments are just products of the fear.

Reportedly, black musician Daryl Davis demobilized many Klansmen just by befriending them. [7] I suspect that most vulgar anti-racists already know a number of white people personally, so that tactic probably won't work here.

I have not conducted field experiments (either online or offline) on using the fear theory during encounters, so I can't provide solid information on its tactical use, yet.

-★★★-

[1] Stylistically, I have chosen to capitalize nationality while not capitalizing racial groups. On a quick reading, the tables provided by Wikipedia don't appear to disaggregate between first-generation immigrants, who have foreign nationality of origin and American citizenship, and second-generation immigrants who only have American nationality. All three CEOs listed were born in India.

[2] The ability to buy off competing talent is one of the reasons for the endurance of capitalism. Capitalist systems tend to be extremely productive. They can offer wages from increased productivity that are higher than the wages that other systems offer from rents.

[3] This is one of the reasons I got into writing about politics. It became common to find people whose professed opinions implied they'd never even heard of Genghis Khan, and at that point, I figured the bar was set pretty low.

[4] Positions on migration appear related, but I'll touch on that in another essay.

[5] One reason it wasn't obvious that people were just making an acceptable targets list at the time was that quite a few people from all over the world have a tendency to get wacky about Jewish people specifically, so putting antisemitism off-limits looked like it was backed by more sophisticated reasoning than it actually was. Obviously, people shouldn't hate Jewish people. The problem with the acceptable targets list approach is that it's fragile – since the list is based on social approval rather than deeper philosophical principles, it can end up being "readjusted" later.

[6] I also suspect that continuing to constantly expose yourself to the worst behavior of other groups may be corrosive. Watching a video where a man is shot on some other street, in some other city, may give you a jolt of adrenaline while you sit helplessly in your chair. Reading about atrocities may make you feel helpless and doomed.

[7] This behavior is morally praiseworthy, not morally obligatory.

#politics #criticism of social justice #idpol #epistemic blues #sj critical #flagpost

52 notes · View notes

mapsontheweb · 3 months

Photo

Indian state's GDP Per Capita in US dollars(2024)

#maps #india #gdp per capita #2024

46 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 years

Text

India has been a rare bright spot in the global economy, enjoying an estimated 7 percent growth rate this year, even as much of the rest of the world is struggling with energy and financial crises. But the country is also thought of as a disappointment for failing to keep up with the dynamism of China, its fellow presumptive future world power. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office promising to change that reputation—but his record is mixed.

Why has India failed to keep pace with China in recent decades? Why did the country never become a manufacturing powerhouse? And what kind of economic policymaker has Modi proved to be?

Those are some of the questions that came up in my conversation this week with FP columnist Adam Tooze on the podcast we co-host, Ones and Tooze. What follows is a transcript of the interview, edited for clarity and length. For the entire conversation, subscribe to Ones and Tooze on your preferred podcast app.

Cameron Abadi: It has become something of a cliche to pair China and India when discussing the future of the world economy—the future world powers in the East. But there is also a sense that India’s economy has never quite taken off the way China’s did, especially between 1980 and 2010. What has held it back? Is it democracy in India as opposed to China’s political system?

Adam Tooze: I was literally sitting in my hotel room this afternoon thinking, why does anyone focus on any other question? It is very dramatic. Why did these two giant countries—each of them has about a sixth of the world’s population—diverge to the extent that they have? It’s important to say that no country, no economy, has ever grown the way the Chinese have. So to compare the Indians to China is rather unfair to the Indians. But you can only go so far with the apologetics because the results are spectacularly different. And this is not a matter of abstract numbers. This is a matter of people’s livelihoods. The extreme poverty which still haunts very substantial parts of the Indian population—there really is no counterpart in China anymore.

But the numbers are very impressive. So, in the 1960s, life expectancy in China, in India, was kind of level. And then in the period of the Cultural Revolution, when we think of China as going through absolutely massive and destructive upheaval, the life expectancy surges.

And by the early 1980s, when the World Bank first gets access to China, what they see in China is a poor country, still low GDP per capita, not much higher than India’s, but poised for growth because China, by the early 1980s, had universal elementary education enrollment and life expectancy numbers and health provision more like those of a lower-income advanced economy—so, comparable to, say, the provision in Italy by the early 1980s. It’s a really remarkable contrast. And when you talk to Indian specialists, they come back to this point again and again: It’s something to do with state capacity, something to do with infrastructural capacity.

And so, in a really weird way, in a way that’s really taken me aback several times with centrist policy people, not leftists, they converge on this question of how much difference did it make that India did not have a genuine social revolution at the moment of independence from Britain. And that the nationalist movement, for all of the popular mobilization that Gandhi and his cohorts made possible, always shied away from unleashing the full force of a popular revolution that would have genuinely upheaved the social structure and transformed it, that might have challenged the caste system in a direct way. None of that happened. So instead, India transitions out of colonial rule, which was so oppressive in many ways and unproductive in many ways into independence but without that radical transformation. And I think if you’re looking for deep answers to this question, you end up in places like that. And what that explains then is this lack of infrastructural capacity and ultimately then things like the lack of investment, which is just lower in India; the lack of spending on education, which is lower than in China; the lack of spending on health, which is lower than in China.

CA: To jump to the present: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been in office for a while, and he has promised a kind of ideological transformation of the country in general—but he also ran on an ambitious platform to remake the Indian economy. How is his record? What kind of policymaker has he been, and has he kept his promises?

AT: Modi is a figure of legend at this point. He’s an absolutely remarkable politician. He is undoubtedly the figurehead of a Hindu-nationalist politics that is intolerably majoritarian, which is explosive because of the very large Muslim population in the country. And liberal academics who are critical of Modi’s BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] feel the pressures of the regime as a result. And the people talk about it as a regime. And if you spend much time in Delhi, it feels like that, right? So the poster of the prime minister is all over the place. There are stadiums named after the living prime minister. There is something of a personality cult around Modi. It’s quite striking.

I think there are three sides of his policy. There are the complex high-level reforms which the government has pushed through—for instance, opening the markets up to foreign investment in various ways, trying to pass free market reforms so as to enable more buying and selling of lands and deregulating labor. So, this is a kind of almost neo-neoliberal development agenda.

And then there is the reality of BJP, Modi-ist crony capitalism, essentially with a series of networks that link the prime minister to key Indian business interests. And it’s a way of doing politics, a way of doing business. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan functions in a similar way. Russian President Vladimir Putin functions in a similar way. You could say, after all, that American political parties do, too.

But the most impressive thing that you see going on in India over the last 20 years, but really accelerated under Modi, is the creation of a nation in real time. Because India is so massive and so hugely diverse, and it’s a federal state, and the federal units of India are the size of Mexico, you know, they’re gigantic, huge populations. And these are bolted together in this fragile federal structure. But in the last 10 to 15 years, what Delhi has begun to do is to roll out a truly comprehensive set of national programs which tie ordinary Indians, hundreds of millions of peasants, into a national ID system, the national financial system, the national cellphone system. Then you compile those three things together. They’ve got this highly advanced electronic ID system, linked to people’s cellphones, which is 1.2 billion cellphone licenses in India—practically everyone has access to one. And all of a sudden, you’ve got the mechanism for delivering welfare payments to literally everybody in India at the flick of a switch. And I’ve met the bureaucrats who do this, and it’s an incredibly impressive electronically based welfare system. And then you’ve also got a campaign for clean water, a campaign for indoor toilets and national electrification. And that’s what really gives Modi and the BJP the heft.

CA: It also raises the question of whether those who are not Hindu are getting left behind in some way. I don’t know if that’s legible in the data either.

AT: It’s not just legible in the data. It’s eerie for a European to take a taxi, you know, take a tuk-tuk ride around Delhi, and your truck driver will literally point out where Muslims live. And he’ll point to what to my eyes looks like an overcrowded ghetto, buildings piled six, seven, eight stories high. Everyone in this town knows where the lines of segregation are drawn, and the Muslims live in those sectors because it’s increasingly difficult for them to get rental accommodation in the city. Landlords will not let to people with Muslim family names.

CA: So, to look at the composition of the economy a bit more specifically, where does manufacturing fit in into the scheme of things for India’s economy? Did India miss the boat when it comes to manufacturing, or did it end up just jumping straight to services?

AT: This is a crucial question when you do the India-China comparison. So, the bulk of labor, when we start the comparison in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s, is in agriculture. And China has a head start there in terms of use of fertilizer and investment, everything else. But then the really big difference that opens up between the two economies is that China, from the ’80s onwards, begins to develop as a key hub for global manufacturing, with investment by Western companies, by Japanese, South Korean, Taiwanese companies. They all go into China and make it the big factory of the world. And because China does it, it occupies the space that India could have been. And India misses the opportunity, as globalization really begins in earnest in its modern form in the 1990s, to be in that space. India, at that point, is coming out of its financial crisis of 1991, it is liberalizing rapidly, but the sector which workers went into, overwhelmingly migrant male workers, was construction. So, as the city population of India has boomed, all of the extra population really in the last decades has ended up agglomerated in the cities. And as in China, that has required a huge construction process. It doesn’t quite get the headlines the way Chinese urbanization does. But this has been a massive source of employment for rural-to-urban migrants in India.

The real contrast that hurts, and people don’t really enjoy it when you bring it up, is Bangladesh. As China has developed, it’s no longer a low-cost manufacturing hub. And so the question really is, who moved into the slots beneath? Vietnam is one country which has very effectively moved into that space. And Bangladesh has. Bangladesh now is a world leader in textiles and in garment production in particular. The question is really nagging as to why that didn’t happen in India. And the answers seem to do with regulation, that it was just easier to build bigger businesses, to employ labor, particularly female labor, in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is overwhelmingly Muslim. Muslim women work much more outside the home, in India as well, than Hindu women do. But in Bangladesh, the mobilization of female labor has been much easier.

CA: I wanted to finish by asking about the remarkable number of CEOs of major international companies that are run by Indians and Indian immigrants. What exactly accounts for that success at corporate leadership? And is it telling in some way that these CEOs tend not to be the founders of the companies that they’re leading and that these companies are often not in India themselves?

AT: Yeah, so by one list I found online, it was Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Twitter, IBM, Chanel, Bata, and the list goes on. It’s an incredible list. It has certain obvious common denominators—tech features very prominently there. All told, apparently 60 of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies are of Indian origin. So, first of all, you think, wow, that’s a lot. And then you think, well, how many Indians are there? And one-sixth of humanity is Indian. So, you know, that’s broadly one-sixth of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies. So, I mean, wake up, smell the coffee. This is the world, right? Another 60 ought to be Chinese, and then the rest will be the rest. I mean, so there are just a lot of Indians, and their education system at the elite level is absolutely competitive with anywhere in the world. Perhaps not the universities in India itself, but they have a pipeline of people who then make it into the absolutely top tier of the Western universities, which are the entry tickets to those kinds of jobs. And so, yes, I don’t think we should be surprised.

4 notes · View notes

loadsofplaces · 2 years

Text

Guyana

General Information Guyana is a country in South America. Inhabited by Native peoples such as the Arawak or Carib for over 2.000 years, it was spotted by Columbus in 1498 and settled by the Netherlands starting from around 1580. In 1796, Britain took over, though the Netherlands only formally ceded control in 1814. In 1831, British Guiana was founded, in 1966, Guyana gained independence. Today, the largest ethnic group in Guyana are Guyanese of South Asian descent, constituting around 40% of the 740.000 inhabitants. This is mainly due to Britain having brought a lot of Indians to Guyana to work on the plantations in the 19th century following the abolishment of slavery. About 30% of inhabitants are Black, about 20% Mixed, around 10% Indigenous. Dominant religions are Christianity and Hinduism. Guyana is the only country in South America using English as its official language. The capital is Georgetown.

The Land of many Waters The name Guyana means “Land of many Waters”. There are over 300 waterfalls in the country, perhaps most notably the Kaieteur Falls, with a length of 251 meters the world’s largest single drop waterfall.

~ Anastasia

Economy The economy of Guyana is one of the fastest growing in the world with a gross domestic product growth of 19.9% in 2021. In 2016, Guyana had a per capita gross domestic product of $8,300 and an average GDP growth of 4.2% over the previous decade. Guyana's economy was transformed in 2015 with the discovery of an offshore oil field in the country’s waters about 120 miles from Georgetown. Crude oil production started in 2019.

~ Damian

Sources: https://www.britannica.com/place/Guyana/People https://www.factsinstitute.com/countries/facts-about-guyana/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Guyanahttps://thefactfile.org/guyana-facts/ https://theculturetrip.com/south-america/guyana/articles/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-guyana/

#Guyana #Georgetown #Economy #waterfalls

6 notes · View notes

ebelal56-blog · 2 months

Video

youtube

Indian Economy vs. Chinese Economy! (Which is better?)

The comparison between the Indian and Chinese economies is a complex and multifaceted analysis that delves into various key indicators and factors. Looking at the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), China emerges as a powerhouse with a nominal GDP of approximately $17.7 trillion in 2023, compared to India's $3.5 trillion. However, when considering Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), China's GDP stands at around $27.3 trillion, while India's is approximately $11.7 trillion. Despite China's larger GDP, India has shown consistent growth rates of 6-7% annually, slightly outpacing China's 5-6% growth. In terms of economic structure, China's economy is dominated by the tertiary sector (services), accounting for around 54% of GDP, followed by the secondary sector (industry) at 39%, and the primary sector (agriculture) at 7%. On the other hand, India's economy is more service-oriented, with the tertiary sector contributing 58% to GDP, followed by the primary sector at 17% and the secondary sector at 25%. Population-wise, China and India are neck and neck, with approximately 1.41 billion and 1.42 billion people, respectively. However, China has a higher urbanization rate of around 61%, compared to India's 34%. This urban-rural divide plays a significant role in shaping the economic landscape of both countries. When it comes to trade and investment, China is a global leader, with exports totaling around $3.5 trillion and imports at $2.7 trillion in 2023. The country also attracts significant Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), with net inflows of around $163 billion in 2022. In contrast, India's exports and imports stand at approximately $670 billion and $750 billion, respectively, with FDI net inflows of around $83 billion in 2022. Development indicators paint a picture of contrasting realities between the two nations. China boasts a higher Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.761, ranking 85th globally, with a per capita income of around $12,000 and a poverty rate below 1%. In comparison, India's HDI is lower at 0.645, ranking 132nd, with a per capita income of around $2,500 and a higher poverty rate, particularly in rural areas. Technological and infrastructure development also showcase disparities between China and India. China leads in high-tech industries such as AI, 5G, and green technologies, with advanced infrastructure including high-speed rail, modern highways, and extensive urban development. India, on the other hand, is making strides in software and IT services but lags behind in terms of high-speed rail, urban infrastructure, and logistics. Both countries face unique challenges that shape their economic trajectories. China is grappling with the need for economic rebalancing from investment-led growth to consumption-led growth, an aging population leading to potential labor shortages, and significant environmental issues such as pollution and degradation. India, on the other hand, struggles with high levels of informal employment and underemployment, a deficit in infrastructure that requires substantial improvements, and pervasive economic and social inequality. In summary, while China's economy is currently larger and more developed in various aspects, India's growth potential is evident, driven by its youthful population and expanding service sector. China's infrastructure and technological advancements outshine India's, but the latter has strengths in software and IT services. Both countries face challenges that must be addressed to ensure sustainable growth and development in the future.

#youtube

0 notes

xnewsinfo · 3 months

Link

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Occasion (BJP) campaigned on India's appreciable financial enlargement within the run-up to the nation's current nationwide elections. Since Modi got here to energy in 2014, GDP per capita has risen from about $5,000 to greater than $7,500. India's GDP progress reached 8.4 per cent within the monetary yr ending March, making it by far the quickest rising main economic system. On the similar time, the economic system is producing a lot much less spectacular knowledge, together with a excessive unemployment charge, which rose to eight.1 p.c in April from 7.4 p.c in March. It's this statistic, together with excessive inflation, that has been touted as a key motive for the weaker-than-expected efficiency of the BJP, which gained 240 seats, properly under its earlier determine of 303 and in need of the 273 wanted. to type a authorities on his personal. Whereas Modi has shaped a authorities with the assistance of his Nationwide Democratic Alliance companions, his reliance on smaller events modifications the equation for a pacesetter who gained absolute majorities throughout his earlier two phrases as prime minister. “That is going to be actually uncommon for Prime Minister Modi,” Vina Nadjibulla, vice-president of analysis and technique on the Asia Pacific Basis of Canada, instructed Al Jazeera. "That was partly why the markets reacted the way in which they did," Nadjibulla added, referring to the sharp drop in Indian shares following the election consequence. Nadjibulla stated traders are involved that Modi will be unable to push by means of the reforms wanted to handle issues similar to excessive unemployment. Regardless of robust general financial progress, virtually half of India's inhabitants continues to be employed within the comparatively unproductive agricultural sector, a proportion that elevated throughout Modi's second time period, from 42.5 p.c in 2018-19 to 45 .8 p.c in 2022-23, in keeping with a report by Oxford Economics. report. Younger individuals, particularly, endure from lack of employment: in 2022-23, the youth unemployment charge was roughly 10 occasions increased than the grownup charge, in keeping with the report. It's "ironic" that India's sturdy progress underneath Modi's authorities "has come at the price of the financial stability of the decrease courses," Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute on the Wilson Heart, instructed Al Jazeera. . In its third time period, the Modi authorities should discover a method to assist the poorest Indians in a method that goes past constructing infrastructure, Kugelman stated. "Total, it will likely be a really formidable financial agenda," he stated. Manufacturing vs. service work A lot has been fabricated from India's drive to spice up manufacturing, create jobs and appeal to international manufacturers searching for to determine different provide chains within the face of commerce tensions between the US and China. Nonetheless, India's “Make in India” marketing campaign has achieved little to create jobs for the massive section of the inhabitants nonetheless employed in agriculture. India needs to create a producing energy to create jobs [File: Amit Dave/Reuters] One motive for that is that the federal government has largely targeted on selling increased value-added however much less labor-intensive sectors, similar to electronics, Alexandra Hermann, senior economist at Oxford Economics, instructed Al Jazeera, including that this in all probability would not change. One other oft-cited motive is the shortage of “huge bang” reforms in land and labor requirements, specialists say, which are essential to generate the sort of main funding wanted to really develop manufacturing. Whereas the Modi authorities has did not make important progress on this space – regardless of having giant majorities in parliament – specialists say its coalition companions might now assist pave the way in which for a few of these measures, as jobs will profit all voters. Coalition companions might additionally assist the Modi authorities make some progress on its to date failed land and labor reform efforts, which have been highlighted as a essential step to draw extra manufacturing funding. "There should be some coordination with the state governments... and the coalition companions are regional events that may have numerous affect in some elements of the nation and that's the place a coalition authorities might be very helpful for Modi and the BJP," Kugelman . saying. For now, quite than counting on manufacturing, India's progress story has been largely pushed by providers, which specialists say will solely have the ability to proceed in the long run and create sustainable and inclusive progress if ranges enhance. of human capital. "Elevating human capital ranges broadly might be essential to creating inclusive and sustainable progress within the medium and long run," Hermann stated. “Though India is house to a number of the greatest know-how and administration universities that prepare international enterprise leaders, it's the high quality of main and secondary training that also leaves the Indian inhabitants, on common, comparatively unskilled. [But in its manifesto] the BJP did not decide to the upper spending goal,” Kugelman stated. Kugelman agreed. "A number of the quickest rising sectors are providers, however the workforce is just not geared up for these jobs and there's a full mismatch," he stated. India's workforce is just not geared up with expertise for the service sector [File: Bhumika Saraswati/AP Photo] 'Situations for personal funding' In the end, nonetheless, GDP progress and job creation are pushed primarily by non-public funding, stated Ajay Shah, a Mumbai-based economist. Personal funding has not fared properly in India since 2009 or 2011, relying on which measure is used, so “the organizing precept of financial coverage must be to create circumstances for personal funding,” Shah instructed Al Jazeera. A part of the explanation for the shortage of success on this space has been extreme central planning of financial coverage, Shah stated. “This,” he stated, “creates political threat. Authorities forces behave in unpredictable and personalised methods. This creates dangers for people.” Shah expressed hope that the incoming coalition might be higher positioned to handle these points. "There are extra checks and balances," he stated.

0 notes

commercialnoidas · 4 months

Text

Will real estate market crash in 2024?

Is The Price of Indian Real Estate Inflated?

We will assess the Indian real estate market in this piece and determine whether a crash in the Indian real estate market is likely.

This commercial noida blog will address all of your inquiries about the collapse of the real estate market, including: • Will there be a real estate collapse in 2024? • Is There a Bubble in the Indian Real Estate Market? Will you be able to tell whether or not the real estate market is going to implode after reading this blog? What state is Indian real estate in at the moment? The Indian real estate sector is now experiencing tremendous growth. The markets for both residential and commercial real estate have grown, and prices are rising quickly.

Economic estimates predict that between 2020 and 2030, the Indian real estate market would expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 18.7%.

By 2030, it is anticipated to reach $1 trillion.

When discussing the Indian residential real estate market, Google users frequently pose the following queries:

Will the market for real estate decline again?

Will the cost of real estate in India decline?

These Google search searches reveal the level of market insecurity among investors.

Don't worry, though; residential real estate is expanding gradually and sustainably.

According to a survey conducted by Economic Times, there will be a 10-15% increase in residential real estate transactions in 2024.

The Statista analysis predicts that commercial real estate will expand at a yearly rate 11.19 percent.

Let's now assess how long this real estate boom will endure.

Will 2024 See a Real Estate Market Crash? The collapse of the real estate market is a topic of much discussion on social media and television.

All around you, you can hear individuals and some so-called experts refer to the current boom in India as a bubble and predict that it won't last.

That isn't the whole story, though.

First off, builders and brokers have neither created or driven this real estate boom.

Let's take a quick look at the actual causes of this surge in Indian real estate.

• The population of India is expanding dramatically. • An abrupt increase in the quantity of businesses. • An increase in people's income. • The digitalization of property

• Support from the government for the development of infrastructure

India's GDP and per capita income are rising along with the country's population.

India's growing housing need has made many eager to invest in real estate.

Businesses require additional room to accommodate people due to the expanding population.

The cost of rent is rising quickly.

Let's examine every aspect of the real estate boom and the reasons it is sustainable.

What factors contribute to the rise in real estate? The population of India has increased to 150 crores as a result of the growing demand for residential real estate, including homes, apartments, and land.

People prefer to acquire larger homes in order to be protected in the event that a pandemic of that nature occurs again, which has led to an upsurge in demand for larger homes following Corona.

For full blog visit commercialnoida blogs and If you want to invest in the Noida real estate market, contact us at commercialnoida or 7053707070.

#will real estate market crash in 2024 #will real estate market go back down #is real estate market going to crash in 2024 #is real estate market going to down #will real estate prices go down in india #noida real estate future #noida real estate news

0 notes

wotrorg · 5 months

Text

Best Ngo In Madhya Pradesh: How Can We Improve the Present Healthcare System in India?

Low government funding on healthcare is the main cause of the majority of the issues that Indian healthcare is now facing. Let's quickly assess our current positions by comparing:

India spends less on public health per person than it does on private hospitals, with a per capita expenditure of Rs 1,815, which is about the same as a single consultation at several of the best private hospitals in the nation. That works out to be Rs 150 a month or Rs 5 a day. India has one of the lowest public health expenditure rates in the world, at 2.1 percent of GDP—lower than other low-income nations that spend a sizable portion of their GDP on healthcare. One of the reasons people in India seek care from the private sector or NGO in Madhya Pradesh is the low level of public health spending in the country. According to National Health Estimates (2018-19), India is ranked 66th out of 189 counties in terms of out-of-pocket (OOP) health spending.

Numerous studies show that these expenses cause millions of Indians to fall below the poverty level each year.

Let's now examine the common issues facing our current healthcare system:

1. Unbalanced Distribution of Health Facilities: India is one of the most popular countries for medical tourism, which suggests that some of our hospitals can offer top-notch care at comparatively lower costs. However, we also have hospitals that are understaffed, lack modern infrastructure, have insufficient supplies of medications, and might not even be able to give a patient a bed or an ambulance. For instance, only around 30% of hospitals, hospital beds, and physicians are found in rural India, but accounting for 75% of the country's overall population. Just consider how much more work this puts on the physicians and rural health institutions!

2. Manpower Shortage: There is a dearth of medical personnel, including technicians, nurses, physicians, and other professionals. In India, there were 4 million fewer nurses and 2 million fewer physicians in 2015. It’s no secret that a lot of talented nurses relocate abroad in search of more income. The super specialists we now have are either employed overseas or are concentrated in Tier 1 cities, so we desperately need more of them.

In many hospitals, there is a scarcity of medical personnel and technicians, which exacerbates other issues including inadequate equipment maintenance and restricted diagnostic services. The country's ability to build better medical facilities is restricted by a lack of labour and the reluctance of the workforce to work in smaller cities and villages, which results in a lopsided distribution.

3. Bad Infrastructure: Twenty percent of India's primary healthcare system is provided by public health institutions or by Best NGO In Madhya Pradesh: How can we improve the Present Healthcare System in India?. Most secondary and tertiary care facilities are owned and operated by the private sector. Doctors, nurses, and other staff members are few at a typical government hospital. Because they serve a sizable population in the vicinity, these hospitals are frequently overcrowded. Because they have too many patients, they do not have enough beds. These facilities are unclean and unsanitary, they lack security, patient care is appalling, there may frequently be a scarcity of supplies and medications, staff members may be dishonest and want to take bribes from patients, and they may even be without essential utilities like fuel, power, and water. If their ambulances break down or get corrupted, patients could have to take care of themselves.

4. Low Health Insurance Penetration: People are compelled to seek care at private medical institutions or by ngo in madhya pradesh when public health systems fail. Private healthcare institutions run on a profit. They use the limited supply to boost their own pricing because there is an obvious disparity between supply and demand. This implies that compared to government hospitals, medical care may be significantly more expensive at private hospitals. Nevertheless, because 75% of people in our country lack health insurance, they must pay for their own medical care. Many people find healthcare to be costly as a result of this circumstance.

5. Low-quality Control: Do you recall the holes in the supply chain? As a result, private actors may now benefit from the healthcare industry. Obtaining an accreditation is not mandatory for a small new participant. Individuals are also not concerned about, nor aware of, quality parameters. They visit any inexpensive place. Small, for-profit clinics, hospitals, diagnostic centres, and imaging facilities began to spring up all over the place, with no oversight from the government. There is no minimal standard that they must meet. And yet, since they are reasonably priced, they thrive. Less than 1% of hospitals and diagnostic labs were accredited by NABH or NABL as of 2014.

Therefore, the following goals may be accomplished by the government if it increases spending on public healthcare:

1. Greater pay would entice knowledgeable medical professionals and labourers to remain in India

2. More pay and better living circumstances in smaller towns and villages will make it possible for physicians to practise there.

3. Greater funding will allow public hospitals to purchase supplies and medications, have a steady supply of water and energy, maintain a clean and safe environment, and keep equipment and ambulances in good working order so they are ready for use when needed.

4. More financing would assist create new colleges in more areas or boost the number of seats now available for medical, nursing, and technical training centres. In order to meet the enormous demands of our population, this would result in a greater number of competent medical workers.

5. More public health facilities can be established to prevent overcrowding in specific centres with more financing and simple access to competent labour. Beds, medications, and appropriate care may be given to patients when their numbers are under control.

6. The government may serve the underprivileged for free through the public health system or ngo in Madhya Pradesh if it receives additional cash. Apart from free medical care, the government can also give the impoverished health insurance so they can receive care at private institutions.

In order to provide the most for a given investment, the government would also need to innovate in order to improve the efficiency of public healthcare. Automation of various procedures would reduce the possibility of human mistake and speed up healthcare operations thanks to technology.

Technologies such as telemedicine have the potential to expand the accessibility of public healthcare, while EMR and big data analytics may offer governments, regulators, physicians, and other stakeholders crucial information to address disease outbreaks and enhance public health. Once more, technology costs money.

Government laws pertaining to healthcare would also need to be tightened in addition to financing. Stricter quality control standards along with an effective monitoring system would make sure quacks and phoney physicians don't practise. Additionally, that even the tiniest medical facility—let's say a lab—offers reasonably priced services with a minimum guaranteed quality.

Price restriction will also be enforced by regulations to safeguard patients.

To ensure that the majority of the population can afford and receive high-quality healthcare, the government must first fortify the public healthcare system before enacting harsher laws and price controls. Because in the absence of a robust public health system, the private sector or ngo in Madhya Pradesh would be forced to shoulder the whole population's burden and would not be able to do so profitably.

So How Does the Government Increase Its Spending?

To begin with, the budget need to include additional money for healthcare.

2) When it comes to funding allocation and programme implementation to fortify and enhance healthcare, the federal and state governments ought to coordinate. A number of well-meaning state and federal health programmes have encountered obstacles due to inconsistent or reduced financing from the federal government, placing further strain on the involved state governments.

3) Make the financing system better. Cash flow needs to be sufficient and consistent. In order to link funding to completed achievements, projects must be well defined and goal-oriented. In order to eradicate or significantly lessen corruption, the funding process should be open and the needless layers of red tape and bureaucracy should be cut.

4) Public-private partnerships, in which the private sector manages and executes the project while the government supplies the funding, can assist in achieving #3. Ultimately, the private sector outperforms the public sector in terms of project management, procedures, best practices, and quality assurance.

5) The government shouldn't depend on the idea of corporate social responsibility (CSR) to promote private investment and involvement in healthcare improvement as it isn't viable nor lucrative for the private player. Rather, in order to ensure sustainability and stimulate private involvement in important healthcare fields, the government should offer tax breaks and other incentives.

In the end, health insurance and new financing methods: the government should expand health insurance coverage, implement co-payments and health savings accounts, and make sure that all residents have access to the highest calibre of healthcare by ngo in Madhya Pradesh like WOTR.

There are other additional ways to enhance healthcare, such as:

1. Promoting domestic innovation and medical device production 2. Increasing funding for medical research

3. Enhancing technical, medical, and nursing education and upskilling the workforce currently in place

4. International cooperation: However, before we can do this, the government must prioritise financing for healthcare and fixing the essential infrastructure.

#ngoinMadhyaPradesh #Wotr #Ngo

0 notes

firstwatercapital · 6 months

Text

This is India’s decade; we focus on the mid-caps, says Arun Chulani of First Water Capital Fund

Indian market is poised for gains in the long term and industries and businesses that will benefit from the ‘China + 1’ initiative, as well as the ‘Minus China’ movement, are the focus of Arun Chulani, Investment Advisor, First Water Capital Fund. In an interview with MintGenie, he talked about his view on the market.

Edited excerpts:

What is your view on the current market trajectory? For how long this rangebound move of the market may continue?

As a value investor, I think it is futile to try and predict the market’s short-term movements. It is far better to look at long-term themes and build conviction around a company’s intrinsic value.

Can the inflow of foreign flow sustain considering the strong gains in the dollar index and the rate hikes?

Again, to second guess what foreign investors might do and whether they will pull out their funds is of course important but while we may give credence to it, we prefer to focus on value. Of course, Uncle Sam wants some of his money back and conventional thinking might suggest that higher rates will allow some investors to better price risk and re-allocate to “perceived” more risk-free assets, which in turn might lead to outflows.

Are you positive about the domestic theme? What pockets are you bullish on?

Yes, most definitely. We are very hopeful that this is India’s decade. Much has been written about it in the press and there are multiple pockets that we would like to focus on. We are keen on industries and businesses that will benefit from the ‘China + 1’ initiative as well as the ‘Minus China’ movement. The latter are industries in which China itself is reducing its capacity – areas such as steel, chemicals, etc., as it looks to both reduce its pollution and upscale the products it focuses on. We are also keen on flexible packaging which is a relatively cheap proxy for the much fan-fared FMCG sector.

Can the mid and smallcaps outperform benchmarks? Please explain your views.

We very much focus on the mid-caps, and we believe that it is here that one can find value and companies that can create alpha. Of course on the flip side, you have to sometimes deal with opaque information and illiquidity. But with some luck and effort, one occasionally finds a diamond in the rough.

Is there more steam left in the auto stocks? What are the major challenges that the sector is still facing?

Autos are certainly an exciting space to be in, but I find them generally pricey. There is good scope for the sector but of course, there will always be risks due to high fuel prices, high input prices, and improvements in public sector transportation amongst other things.

The number of Demat accounts crossing 10 crores is a proud landmark. What factors have facilitated the rise of retail investors? Because of this, do you think the clout of FII will decrease in the Indian market?

We hope that this increase is due to a combination of factors. Ease of access, digitization, lower broker fees, and general education of making your money work. The market is one of the places where anyone with excess capital can invest and not only become an owner of some of India’s best companies but also benefit from India’s hopeful wealth creation. Of course, as the domestic investor becomes more disciplined and the GDP per capita grows, it will be more attractive for the FII.

The views expressed are the authors own. Please consult your financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

To know more information visit us on:

#best equity funds in india #business #hedgefunds #india

0 notes

landofopp · 6 months

Text

BDB is Business Strategy consulting firm India.

BDB India Private Limited is a leading global business strategy consulting and market research company in India. Since 1989, BDB has been providing clients with solutions to expand their businesses in the Indian and international marketplace. We are an ISO certified company. BDB is Business Strategy consulting firm India.

India’s Real GDP and Real Per Capita GDP from 2023-2030

Despite the fact that India’s economy is still in a good place due to its momentum, resilience, favourable demographics, and rising productivity (1), this decade’s growth is most likely to average less than 6% annually. Through 2023 to 2030, India’s real GDP and real per capita growth rates will continue to exceed those of the rest of the world.

India appears promising since it has the capacity to absorb significant investments. These investors want to restrict or cut future investments in China. India is eager to develop logistics and go through a digital transformation. The gross domestic product per capita might rise from $2,500 to $5,000 in six to seven years, with an expected annual growth rate of over 6%.

Read More…https://bdbipl.com/index.php/indian-economy-and-industry-trends/.

#consumer goods market research in india

0 notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 6 months

Text

youtube

“We are where we are because our culture is special” Konstantin Kisin LIVE in Melbourne

Before I say anything else, it's such a pleasure to be in Australia. It's my first time here. I didn't really know what to expect. I was actually on the flight over. This Australian guy recognized me, he came over, we started chatting, he found out I was doing a few talks and he said, oh mate, watch out we've got a big problem, political correctness in Australia. I didn't know what to think. So, I get to my hotel, I check in, lady gives me the card says, this is your card for your room and if you want to have breakfast tomorrow, go to the two fat Indians. I was like, this is my kind of place. Wouldn't happen in the UK. We don't use the word "fat" anymore, we say "people of girth."

Now, thank you all for coming out. As Scott said it's so lovely to see so many young people here, many of you under 50. So, thank you for coming. All six of you. It's a pleasure to see you. I'm not going to speak for very long, I'm really keen to get to your questions in the Q&A that we're going to do with Glenn in a minute.

But the thing I wanted to talk to you about tonight, just to set the tone of our discussion really, is something that I'm constantly talking about now, and Scott mentioned the title of my book "An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West," is the West.

What is the West? How do we define it, how do we think about it? And the reason I think about it is, as he mentioned, I was born in the Soviet Union and grew up in that country, in that society, and then in early '90s - mid 90s - I moved to England. And by the way, those of you who've seen my ARC speech, you'll remember I mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. And somebody later claimed online that I was comparing myself to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. This is ridiculous, of course, there's no comparison. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn spent most of his life in a prison camp where he endured terrible conditions, punishments and brutal beatings and a starvation diet. I went to an English boarding school. That's where the similarities end.

But what is the West? I think it's very important to think about this and particularly here in Australia, because you're a Western country in the middle of Asia. And it strikes me that if you were to conduct an experiment to prove that Western civilization is special in some way, you would do what the British did here. You'd find a barren continent on the other side of the world full of venomous creatures. You'd collect a few thousand of your least law-abiding citizens, let's put it diplomatically, right. You'd ship them over, you'd leave them there for a couple of centuries, you let them crack on with it, and then you'd come back and have a look. Right? And what would you see? What would you see? Well, you'd see a society that, broadly speaking, is thriving.

What do I mean by thriving? Well, there's different ways to look at it. We could talk about GDP per capita or some kind of boring poll numbers. When I think about it, I think about the fact that, how many Australians are taking their children, climbing into rickety boats and braving shark infested waters in search of a better life? And yet, thousands of people are doing the exact opposite to come here. That's what I mean by thriving. Nowm it seems to me that that West experiment requires some kind of explanation. We know that it's not random. Millions of people are streaming through the southern border of the United States, dealing with Mexican cartels and putting themselves and their children in danger to go to the United States. Tens of thousands of people are getting onto boats and crossing the English Channel, which again is a perilous journey. And so on? Why is this happening? It seems to me that this requires some kind of explanation. This is not an accident. This is not an accident at all. But we seem to not really understand that anymore.

And I think about it like this. If I was to wake you up in the middle of the night and put a gun to your head and ask you why is this happening? Why is the West attracting people to come here? And we've got to a point in our culture where quite a lot of people would rather die in that situation than admit the truth. Which is our societies are better. I don't mean superior. I just mean they're better at producing in the things that human beings seem to want. Right?

Now, what are they? What are the things? Well, if you watch too many Hollywood movies, you say, freedom and democracy! Okay, well, why are they good? Why is freedom good? Why is democracy good?

That's the silence I'm talking about. It's the silence in all of our heads because we no longer are able to articulate the reason that our civilization is successful as it is. And I think this is a big problem. A big, big problem. The West has become -- I talked about this in my book -- it's a little bit like a cargo cult. Most of you probably in this neck of the woods know what one is, but I'll explain anyway.

During World War II, the Americans and the Japanese used many small islands in the Pacific to station troops to have munitions dumps, to station their supplies, etc. And what happened was the local tribes that lived there were fairly primitive technologically. They benefited massively from the fact that they were able to get access to Western medicine, Western food, Western supplies, clothing, etc. And their quality of life improved dramatically. And then the war ended, and the Americans and the Japanese packed up and went home. And the western food and the western supplies and the western clothes ended or started running out. So, what did the native tribes that lived on these islands do? Well, they saw what the Americans had been doing and the Japanese, so they started imitating. They made headphones out of coconuts. They made radio towers out of bamboo. They created fake landing strips and marched up and down with fake rifles made out of bamboo.

And this is increasingly what we do in the West with our own values. We say these words, freedom, democracy, but we have no idea what they mean anymore. We can't explain to our children why they should value those things, because we don't think about them, because we've been trained not to.

So, what do I mean, exactly? Let me try and articulate it in a simple way. People don't come to our countries and risk their lives for freedom and democracy. Very, very few people do. The reason people come is our society is very, very good at creating the things that all human beings want: safety, prosperity and the ability to choose your gender.

Now, why are our societies so good at creating safety and prosperity? I asked Jordan Peterson this once at dinner. I said to him, what is Western civilization? And Jordan did what Jordan always does, he launched into a 20-minute monologue where you have no idea what he's talking about... for the first 18 minutes, right. And then at about the 19-minute mark, it all makes sense. And this is what he said. He said, there are chimp troops, and in a chimp troop there two primary strategies for how an alpha male can control that troop.

The first is, you're the biggest and the most powerful and the strongest and you will dominate through force and power and brutality anyone who challenges your authority. And this is an effective strategy, but only in the short term. Only as long as you are the strongest, only as long as you are the most powerful. The moment you take your eye off the ball, you get injured, you're a little bit weaker, you're a little bit older, you meet with a very brutal end because another chimp or another couple of chimps will come in and they will tear your head off, right?

There's another strategy, and it's the reason that actually most alpha male chimps are often the smallest in the troop. And the reason is, that they are able to build coalitions by grooming the other members -- in a good way. And exchanging things, they build coalitions. And the first principle of Western civilization that has made us as successful as we are, what we call democracy, what we really mean is government by consent. The idea that the individual matters enough that when he's governed by others, It Is by consent. And this is very different, as you're probably well aware, to many other societies around the world.

Now this doesn't just apply to government. I'm not just talking about politics. This matters at every level of our societies. Our armies fight better because the soldier on the ground is able to feed information up the chain of command. In almost every aspect of our society, that freedom of the individual and the fact that the individual matters, creates better results and better outcomes,

Think about this. I mean, Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine because no one can tell him the truth anymore. He was told that Ukraine would fold in three days, the Ukrainians would welcome them with bread and salt. That's not what happened, and while the war is not necessarily going that well for Ukraine, probably not going that well for either side, Vladimir Putin did not expect it to go like this. And the casualties and losses he's taken are completely unexpected. Why is that? Because in our system, our leaders are kept firmly on the ground. Their egos are kept in check and we do not create these power vacuums where one person controls everything. And we're not able to speak truth to power at all.

This ideal of consensual leadership matters in everything. It's the reason there's never been a Chernobyl-level nuclear disaster in the West. Because the kinds of human errors that were made in that disaster could never -- not never -- but they're much, much less likely in our societies because of the fact that the voice of the individual matters.

Which is where we come to the second pillar of our civilization, which is freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of research. You know, it's so funny that people call me right-wing because I said freedom of speech matters. I kind of thought that was a universal position in the West, but I've discovered that that is now how it's coded. And the reason I think freedom of speech matters is that you cannot think without speaking. You have to speak to think. And when you speak, you will very often find out that what you think is utter crap. Because other people will tell you. This is Twitter in a nutshell, right? And it's this sharpening of idea against idea that is the reason that the Western societies have produced scientists and researchers and thinkers who've been able to ask and answer questions that you could not even raise in other societies. This is the bedrock of our success. The technological superiority that our societies have enjoyed through the ages are impossible to explain in any other way.

Think about this, and please understand I'm saying this in a morally neutral manner, it's just an example of that gap. Hernán Cortés arrived in Central America with a few hundred conquistadors, and because of his technological advantage, he was able to conquer an empire of five to six million Aztecs in a matter of years. That is the kind of superiority that we enjoy because of the way that we think freely, comparatively freely, because we are comparatively free from the dogma of religious control, authoritarian control, government control and social restriction, too, and cultural restriction.

So, these things have a very real and practical consequences. Did you see, by the way, how many of you have seen the Oppenheimer movie? Quite a lot of you. If you haven't seen it, it's a movie about the Manhattan Project, the way that the nuclear bomb was made. And if you weren't paying too much attention, you wouldn't have noticed that it being a Hollywood movie they sort of talk about, oh you know, reds under the bed, red scare, McCarthyism getting out of hand, and everybody was getting hounded for being communist. And right at the end, they just slip in the fact that actually it was Communists in America that gave Stalin the nuclear bomb, right.

And why is that interesting to me? Well, the first Russian nuclear bomb was called RDS1, and RDS stands for "Rossija dellajet sama," "Russia does it by itself." Which is ironic, given that it was almost entirely stolen from the Americans. The second greatest superpower in the world at that time could not produce it by itself. It had to steal it. That is the level of technological and scientific superiority that we in the West enjoy.

Now, please understand I'm not even remotely suggesting that the West has some kind of monopoly on genius and Innovation and creativity. It's not the case, of course. People have great ideas everywhere. The Chinese invented gunpowder. But every single development in the history of firearms since, pretty much, from the musket to the cruise missile, has been made here in the West. Now, why is that? The reason is that we have an incentive structure in the West that encourages people to pursue innovation in a way that is completely impossible anywhere else.

Now what do I mean by that? Well, again, it's a word that we no longer understand the meaning of: capitalism. But what capitalism really means is, private property and the rule of law. And it's amazing to me, the extent to which people do not understand in the West how rare these things are. There is no private property in Russia. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was the richest man in Russia. And then he gave some money to an opposition party, and he was no longer the richest man in Russia. He spent 10 years in a penal camp instead. In the penal, prison system, right. Because he gave money to the opposition party.

I don't know who the richest man in Australia is, but I don't imagine if he gave money to the opposition party that would be the case with him. It's the same in China. Or, someone thinks maybe will happen, I don't know, things are getting out of hand here. The same thing is true in China. Jack Ma makes some comments about banking regulation, of all controversial things, and disappears the next day and all sorts of trouble. Bao Fan, this is a billionaire in China again, no one quite knows what he did but disappeared for a year, turned up a few weeks ago after a year of being completely unheard of, and miraculously resigned from all his positions.

Private property and the rule of law are rare and unique. Now, why does this matter? Well, if you don't get to keep the things that you create then the incentive is not to innovate, the incentive is to comply. The reason we innovate in the West as much as we do is we get to keep the benefits of our creations. And it's an incentive structure that means that we are of service to our fellow citizens. In the Soviet Union, where I grew up, or in Russia today the way you get ahead is not by providing or creating things that are of value to other people, it's by doing things that -- and it's not just, by the way, Communist societies or Russia today, it's corrupt regimes everywhere -- the way you get ahead is not by looking after the needs of your fellow citizens, creating things that they want to buy or they want to consume. You get ahead by pandering to the corrupt regime that's in charge. Or to the clique of people that service the corrupt regime that is in charge.

Capitalism is a way of aligning our incentives to create things that are of real value to our fellow citizens. And that is why we have the innovation that we have. This system drives our prosperity, and prosperity drives our strength and the stability that we've had.

Now, government by consent, freedom of expression and freedom more generally and capitalism, I put it to you ladies and gentlemen, that all three of these pillars of our civilization are under threat today. Not only from the outside, but also from the inside. We'll talk more with Glenn about it in the Q&A, but we've got a real problem with democracy for reasons that we can get into later.

Our young people are not being brought up to understand why capitalism is the system that has produced the amazing things that we have. And freedom of expression, I think we all know is being eroded. Why is this happening? Well, my view is, and I think this is well documented at this point, that we have two or three generations of people in our societies now who have not been taught the things that we've just discussed. Instead, they've been taught to hate their own societies. They've been taught to hate the values of their own civilization. Iit is no surprise, therefore, that we're heading in the direction that we're heading.

This is what Orwell talked about when he said that, he who controls the past controls the future. If we do not understand our past and where we come from, we will not get to a bright future that we want. And when you dare to bring this up, you know, people keep saying, oh you're so brave. I'm not brave, I'm just saying some very, very obvious things that everybody knows, that's it, right.

But when you bring this up, I think what people mean is, people say, oh that these are culture war talking points. As if a society's culture doesn't matter. We are where we are because our culture is special. We are where we are because our culture is unique. And so, the real message that I have for you tonight, and I hope that we get to talk more about this is, our culture is very, very important, and if people are going to call me a culture warrior ,well that's fine. Because I think it's worth fighting for.

Thank you very much.

The people who want to "destroy capitalism" also Tweet from their current-generation smartphone that they want free stuff produced by the same system they want to destroy, and don't think they sound like morons. The people who call the West evil and corrupt with the confidence of a Gender Studies bozo have never lived anywhere else, have no idea, and don't think everyone can tell. The people who claim to want to tear down their comfortable, safe, Western country are the same ones who object to immigration restrictions and can't see how braindead they are.

This self-hatred isn't humility, it's performative sadomasochism.

#Konstantin Kisin #western civilization #western civilisation #western culture #innovation #capitalism #freedom #security #prosperity #war on the west #freedom of speech #free speech #authoritarianism #religion is a mental illness

3 notes · View notes