Friday, September 26, 2014

Why are we so Rich?

Our wealth is nothing short of The Greatest Story Ever Told (<---greatest lecture ever told). We take for granted the wealth that our great-grandparents considered unimaginable luxury. But where did the wealth come from? How? Why? 

It is easy to say "technology," but the Greeks had an amazing grasp on mathematics, technology and material production. In fact:

"Hero also invented a device called an aeolipile...the aeolipile was, before anyone knew what to do with such a thing, a steam engine." 

You read that right, the Greeks invented a steam engine  (38:00), and that’s just the start. The discovery of the antikathera mechanism, a mechanical calendar, demonstrated that the Greeks not only had an intense theoretical understanding of mathmatics, but the ability to create a device that "shows a technological sophistication that was not seen again until clockwork mechanisms were introduced in the 14th century." 

If the Greeks could produce machines that were approximately 1,500 years more advanced than historians previously thought possible, why didn’t they invent cars, steam ships, or rockets to the moon? Why didn’t they have an Industrial Revolution? 

The answer is that "Alexandria wasn’t just a city of scientists and philosophers. It was a city of engineers" and while engineers, scientists, and philosophers might be able to produce amazing things, technology does not instantly convert itself into wealth for the ordinary person. 

So, if it wasn’t technology, why are we so rich? 

Historically, the Chinese had the ability to produce far more than all of Europe. 

Even as late as the 1800's the Chinese had such superior production capabilities that they "saw themselves as the Middle Kingdom and all other peoples as inferior barbarians." In fact, when the British Empire first made contact with the Chinese, "Any goods brought as gifts [mechanical clocks, cannons, etc] to the Chinese court were interpreted as tribute."

So, it’s obvious that the Chinese could produce goods at an unparalleled rate for most of human history, but this production did not lead to either an industrial revolution or the levels of wealth we see today. 

If output and production do not create wealth, why are we so rich? 

Similarly fantastic stories could be told about the Romans, the Arabs, and Native Americans, among many others. Amazing technology, Mathematics, and production are nothing new in human history, but none of it explains the Industrial Revolution. 

Wealth was created by accident.

The English monarchs often battled their barons for control and power. To a modern audience, it could seem a little like a TV drama:

"The existence of urban centers…was first and foremost the product of political weakness and the fact that kings found it useful to protect the independence of cities as a means of undercutting the great territorial lords who were their rivals...Thus sheltered, the cities evolved as independent communes that, through growing trade, developed their own resources independent of the manorial economy." -Francis Fukuyama, The Origins of Political Order

That’s right; wealth was allowed to grow because political power was too weak to stop it. Monarchs offered peasants freedom and rights in order to reduce the power that competing aristocrats could wield. The king didn’t know that freedom would create wealth, much less the Industrial Revolution, but this political decision was the first step in the process that would only become evident hundreds of years later when Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations.

However, many societies have had weak governments, but few ended up creating wealth. So, why are we so rich?

Deirdre Mcclosky argues that Western Europeans were one of the first cultures that finally saw "profit" as a respectable endeavor. In Greek, Roman, and Christian times, profits were seen as illegitimate and merchants were often demonized. 

"A Swiss traveler wrote about the same time that “in England commerce is not looked down upon as being derogatory, as it is in France and Germany. Here men of good family and even of rank may become merchants without losing caste.” He meant it literally: in France and Spain a nobleman caught engaging in commerce could be stripped of his rank."

“In Thebes,” wrote Aristotle with evident approval, “there used to be a law that one who had not abstained from the market for ten years could not share in office.”

Just about every society in history has diverted its resources to warriors, priests, rulers or philosophers. These occupations received a striking amount of attention because they were highly respected "And so the best minds went into war or politics or religion or bureaucracy or poetry. Some still do."  It wasn’t until people had both freedom and respect for merchants that society had the motivation, and ability, to seek profits and reinvest capital.

Why are we so rich?

"The Tide Came from a New Dignity and a New Liberty for the Ordinary Bourgeoisie and Its Innovations"



Friday, August 29, 2014

Megan Kelly Vs Thomas Sowell: White Privilege in the 21st Century




I'm sure you get messages all the time, but I hope you take the time to read this one.

This:

Is answered by this:

















I recently saw your conversation with Bill about white privilege. As a minority, I can safely say that it does not exist. Most of the examples you spoke about actually reflect the situation on the ground, and are not the result of an arbitrary system. Black and Hispanic people actually do commit more violent crime, and the unfortunate thing is that it is usually minorities who suffer most from soft on crime policies.

I think you have the correlation reversed for white flight. Neighborhoods get more violent, so successful people leave. Most families cant afford private school, and public school in the wrong neighborhood can be devastating for children and most parents are willing to pay a premium to avoid it by moving to areas with good schools.

This isnt racism, it's caring for your children.

Furthermore, the economic system is already giving Americans a fair shake. The vast majority of poor families would rise above the poverty line if they worked 40 hours a week. A single mother working 40 hours/week on minimum wage while supporting 2 children is above the poverty line. Most poor families are not working 40 hrs/week. This is why the poverty you mention is self-imposed. No one is stopping families from working 40 hrs/week, or from staying together so that one parent can work 40 hrs/week.

I grew up as a very poor minority in Texas, and I can tell you from my experience, as well as the empirical evidence, that there are not any barriers in the way of minorities. Growing up poor may be unfortunate, but this is a poverty that would have been considered upper-middle class even as late as 1975.

O'Reilly was right, but not only about Asians. Jews, Hispanics, the Polish, the Irish and Southerners, among many others, were all discriminated against, often very harshly. Each group was able to claw its way to the top with hard work and family. Until these changes are made, minorities will continue to lose ground.

Minorities are in no way disadvantaged and "White Privilege" gives people an external excuse for their failure when the true cause is poor life choices. Until people understand this, they will keep making bad life choices and the cycle will continue.

Im sure you have already read Thomas Sowell, but if not, you can find a lot of his ideas in a new book here:
http://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-Helping-Us-Liberals/dp/1594037256/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409336855&sr=1-1&keywords=please+stop+helping+us

Have a great day, keep up the good work.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Anti-Feminism = Feminism
A Letter


A confused and insightful TED:

Anne-Marie Slaughter accidentally hits the nail on the head -- men earn more $$$ because most women prefer successful men while a financially unsuccessful woman can still be a catch. This TED is, ironically, full of Warren Farrell talking points, but it is dressed up to sound feminist and politically correct….it is TED after all. Notice how she says “we need to re-socialize men” but then finds the motivation of male behavior in female expectations. According to her argument, it is women who need to be re-socialized to prefer stay-at home fathers. The conversation about feminism we had at Epoch is not just theoretical, it is occurring in coffee shops and dinner tables across the country; we are seeing a sea change at every level of society, with the Humanities as the final holdout.




Also, on a side note for Katie and Marta, notice how she says “guys are now obsessing over the stove” like it’s a sign of positive social change. The Last Psychiatrist points out on many occasions that cooking is an activity that is solitary, but still seems like you’re interacting with the family. He states that many men pick up this hobby as a passive-aggressive way of avoiding the significant-other they married. As it turns out, it seems like men aren’t happy with the current arrangement either. Bum deals all around.