Overall, ROK leans towards an anti-socialist, anti-globalist, and anti-egalitarian position. One can add pro-Western, although there is no consensus regarding the extent to which traditional culture is preferred over modern or vice versa.
As I see it, it is crucial to disentangle the constructive components from the destructive, whether traditional or not, and that includes protectionism contra free trade. Furthermore, it is of chief importance to update things to current circumstances, while hold on to almost perpetual principles if some have proven worthy and withstood the test of time.
These positions do not come from nowhere, based on caprice and sentiment, but are based on facts, logic and historical realities. However, a significant share of academics appear to distort reality rather than to explain – or at least selectively only describe certain parts of it, while ignoring that which does not fit into their ideological framework – but some have accurately managed to describe how things are constituted and connected.
The British, Budapest-born economist Péter Tamás Bauer (1915-2002) is one such figure, who throughout his active years swallowed the red pill and decided to explain economic and material realities beyond philantrophic positivity, wishful thinking, as well as irrational fears of the future.
In his work Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion (1981), many of his core ideas related to egalitarianism, economic freedom and growth, foreign aid and trade policies are discussed in depth. While some are partly outdated, many are true even now and I have focused on those that still conform to the real world. However, I have completed a few areas which have been developed since Bauer’s work was written, linked to for instance developmental and personality psychology, as well as economics.
1. Egalitarianism is based on false assumptions
The reason why egalitarianism is a bad societal point of departure is that is based on false assumptions. The ability to create wealth is largely related to aptitude and work ethic. Bauer understood this and stressed that these are some of the main factors which underlie economic success, whether on the individual or group level.
People differ in economic aptitude as they do in artistic, intellectual, musical and athletic abilities. In particular they differ in their ability to perceive and utilize economic opportunities. Readiness to take advantage of economic opportunities is of great significance in explaining economic differences in open societies.
Distinguished psychologists such as Arthur Jensen, not the least in his book The G Factor (1998), have shown that economic success strongly correlates with IQ, but traits such as conscientiousness and Machiavellianism are indeed also crucial factors with regard to taking advantage of opportunities.
Donald Trump is one example of how such an industrious and cunning person has managed to be a successful entrepreneur. Or Ingvar Kamprad, the Swede who founded IKEA, for that matter.
But the fact that many left-leaning liberals and globalists have equated equality with equity is problematic, according to Bauer. After all, due to the above-mentioned differences equal opportunities will often create unequal outcomes, materially and economically, but is it really unfair that some people will earn much more than other?
Decades after the publication of Bauer’s book, a discursive focus within the left has shifted from opportunities in relationship to equity, towards the notion that people born in poor countries tend to lack opportunities and therefore inevitably will suffer from unequity.
That is indeed a real obstacle for any universalist, but becomes quite misguiding when the left looks at the issue. Chinese people were not happy under pure Communist rule, and it was only until Deng Xiaoping’s reforms in the late 1970s and forward that things have improved for them. Ironically leftist social engineering has never been particularly successful in dealing with inequalities or creating better societies, as Bauer shows. Failed states such as Venezuela and North Korea can only be, at least in part, healed by means of stable economic policies such as market economy, enabled by a fairly uncorrupt ruling class.
With that said, one can ask if it is fair that ultra-wealthy American entrepreneurs, regardless of their merits, earn as much as they do. But let’s say a Scandinavian social democratic model is not an option if one tries to cure this either, since it is essentially anti-entrepreneurial, creates dysgenic welfare problems, and can even lead to more economic inequalities due to a new imported lower class.
2. The big daddy government treats people like children
Another important aspect that Bauer discusses is that the managerial state, or whatever one prefers to call it, treats adults like children. Bauer finds a striking resemblance between post-taxation income and pocket money:
Old age, ill-health, the bringing-up of children and interruption of earnings, these are contingencies of life to be paid for out of one’s income, and for which adults can be expected to provide by saving or insurance. In many Western countries provision for these contingencies has come to be taken over largely by the state. Because the provision cannot be adjusted to the widely differing circumstances of individuals and families, it is apt to be both expensive and unsatisfactory. Such provision is necessarily financed by taxation. As a result many people’s post-tax income becomes like pocket money which is not required for major necessities and hazards of life because these are paid for by taxes largely levied on themselves. This redistribution of responsibilities implied in the operation of the welfare state means the reduction of the status of adults to that of children.
Since people differ in aptitudes they likewise do so regarding the ability to make proper decisions, but if the state “deprives” them of welfare they are forced to take responsibility and act like adults.
It is not always an easy balance and some will be treated unfair in ways that are not results of individual shortcomings, but if one also considers the fact that taxes are high whereas the actual quality of social security does not match the tax rate, then it is reasonable to significantly decrease the size of the welfare state.
3. The fear of population growth has historically been misguided
Bauer stresses, with examples both from the West and parts of Asia, that population growth has been a misguided fear. In fact, many nations have prospered in conjunction with population growth. The Malthusian trap of having too many mouths to feed and too many bodies to shelter, has been solved by improved agrarian and industrial techniques, communications and science. It is in fact sparsely populated nations that have suffered the most, predominantly due to poor communications and ineffective storage facilities.
With that said, living conditions for the largest share of people in places such as Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia and Brazil are pretty bad and food shortages are or could be a real obstacle for them. Especially if one takes the nexus between wealth and IQ into account. If modern development is a part of the equation, these problems may escalate. Therefore family planning, somewhat akin to that of China, might be a good thing in some national contexts. If the state could create incentives for the small share of educated people to have more children, while simultaneously creating incentives for the lower classes to have fewer children, it could be beneficial for these countries in their entireties.
Additionally, Bauer does neglect the well-being of animals, such as that unimpeded extreme anthropocentrism have lead to the extinction of animal species in the aftermath of economic development. It is likely that this trend will continue until improved techniques eventually enable less environmentally damaging patterns of growth.
As for unemployment I think it is difficult to even make tentative suggestions about the future, but robots which partly or largely replace a human workforce are of course part of the equation.
4. Aid to the third world is largely based on false assumptions
Another significant topic which Bauer addresses is aid to the third world, and much like equality the notion is based on false assumptions. When wishful thinking economists and do good-ists make plans for the third world, it is based on extrapolating models which imply that as long as the rich nations give a certain share of their total GDP each year, then poor countries will prosper.
The problem is that extrapolations have to be based on reality, and each step fulfilled outside of the philanthropic matrix. Infrastructure has to actually be developed, bridges have to be built, violence has to be dealt with and so on, and that have far from happened in most Sub-Saharan African nations.
Instead many first-world nations have sponsored what the Ghanaian economist George Ayittey refers to as black neo-colonialism, i.e. cleptocratic African leaders who rather fill their own pockets than building their post-colonial nations. For instance, my home country, Sweden, has supported dictatorships such as Uganda.
5. The West has made the rest of the world prosperous rather than the opposite
One of the most absurd notions from the left, including academics, is that the Western world is rich at the expense of various developing countries. Things are not black or white and there is some empirical support for Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems theory, but Bauer, Michael Chisholm, Niall Ferguson, Charles Murray among others have shown that overall that is indeed not the case.
In fact, one just need to know of some basic contemporary East Asian history to realize that countries such as South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan are wealthy largely due to the West, the United States in particular, rather than the opposite.
While the work of Bauer may seem dated, he has given us many thought-provoking conclusions about how we can deal with our modern problems.
Read More: 3 Lessons From Political Economist Alberto Alesina
90 thoughts on “5 Important Insights From Red Pilled British Economist Peter Bauer”
Poverty is caused by tyranny and war. You want to see people prosper, get out of the way and let them.
It would also help in just letting the dregs fall by the wayside instead of trying to prop them up. Some people make such bad decisions they can’t be saved no matter what we try to do (i.e. American ghettos).
Damn. Yes. Just yes. I really wish we’d stop short circuiting evolution.
yeah, well your great grandmother was a lungfish lolz
I think we should put them in a maze and make them fight to the death on live tv.
Or an island like battle royale
The Runningman/Hunger games part 3
Love it already 🙂
I think the overpopulation problem you hear about now is a result of this. The people that would normally just die off, are living longer and reproducing like bacteria because people seem to have evolved this retarded “save people from themselves” mentality.
Indeed and the supposed prosperity of the West is mostly thanks to tyranny and war. The first world standard of living in the West is impossible without grabbing from third world countries.
Bauer went to Cambridge; he went to the London School of Economics; he was a close friend of Margaret Thatcher’s; he was a member of the Mont Pelerin Society (an international organization of economists, including at least eight Nobel Prize winners); he won the Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty (named for Milton Friedman) from the Cato Institute (a Washington D.C. think tank, formerly known as the Charles Koch Foundation)…and he’s a red pill guy? Okay, if you say so.
So a “red-pill” man can’t be educated, work in government, or be awarded the highest honor in the world?
Well, we can be educated. That much is certain.
He sure as hell shouldn’t work in government. That’s for parasites and the incompetent. Any man worth his salt gets paid voluntarily for the services he performs instead of working an organization funded by violent theft.
Red pill is about understanding the world, academic or not, based on science or not. To give African cleptocracies money is a prime example of blue pill thinking and acting.
One of the most absurd notions from the left, including academics, is that the Western world is rich at the expense of various developing countries.
Sounds like the same base reasoning that results in programs like Affirmative Action and concepts like White Privilege. Wealth is viewed as a zero sum game. Instead of merely ensuring access to opportunity, the successful need to be actively repressed.
Speaking of repressing prosperity, Happy May Day, everyone.
Looking forward to enjoying the stupidity of west coast cities and maybe a few fires a little later on tonight. Marches in Seattle just started. Paris is still rioting a bit. The explosions in Toronto appear to be unrelated.
The news here doesn’t even mention this Leftist agitator union holiday. It’s foreign. Heh.
The Western world which is majority white (for now) has a much higher IQ level which has enabled us to build civilisation and as a result create wealth and prosperity for those within it. But the left will try to frame it as white privilege to make people feel guilty and hand over their hard earned cash.
You have to have a certain amount of intelligence yourself to recognize that other people have good ideas, and to understand how to use them. Many East Asian nations have high IQ’s, and they developed by borrowing ideas from Western nations and adapting them to work with their local conditions.
“Bauer’s experiences in Malaya (now West Malaysia) in the late 1940s and in West Africa influenced his views on the importance of individual effort by small landowners and traders in moving from subsistence to a higher standard of living.”
Why the Japanese sprinted past China. They are shameless about adopting foreign technologies if they work. The Chinese were too proud to use gweilo magic for too long.
A fun example of Japanese thinking…
American beer companies were founded by Germans. Mexican beer companies were founded by Germans. Chinese beer companies were founded by Germans.
The Japanese sent their people to Germany to learn from the best. So, Japanese beer companies were founded by the Japanese.
Mao also massacred millions of folks. A nation that murders its own takes a long while to recover.
Fair point but I was thinking way before that.
Credit the Americans for influencing and propelling the Japanese production and manufacturing philosophy forward post second world war as well. Walter Shewhart, Edward Deming etc.
And the end result is this …
The Japan Brewery first began marketing Kirin Beer in 1888. The Kirin Brewery Company was established as a separate legal entity in February 1907, purchasing the assets of the Japan Brewery and expanding the business in an era of growing consumer demand. Kirin Brewery built on the traditions of the Japan Brewery retaining the use of malted grains and hops imported from Germany and employing German brewers to oversee production. An exclusive partnership with Meidi-ya proved highly successful in the marketing of Kirin’s beers both in Japan and overseas
Well shit you ruined my story.
It is true about Sapporo beer though, German trained native.
They have high IQ like us, without creativity that comes from, I’m thinking, high T that we have, but they don’t. We’re the “best of all breeds” when it comes to discovery and science.
Mike Chang high on Kratom would beg to differ. Haha 😀
Anybody on pure Kratom would beg to differ – and square off in a cage match with Jesus, Buddha, Chuck Norris and Mohamed single handedly!
Give them 10 more years.
The word you are thinking about is “humility” not intelligence. But since they both have similar effects, confusion is understandable.
1. Perfect egalitarianism is impossible to achieve. However, this does not mean that wealth-based inequality should be allowed to grow unchecked. Too much wealth-based inequality is a major factor in the collapse of civilizations.
2. True, but big daddy government is controlled by the even bigger mega corporations. Thus, the root of the problem lies in the fact the big corporations have too much wealth and power.
3. Reality is not infinite. The idea that the human population can keep growing without serious negative consequences to humanity itself is foolish.
4. This one is true. Aid to the 3rd world does not address the root problems.
5. The rest of the world joined the West’s (now America’s) monopoly because they did not have much of a choose. Most of the world’s finite physical capital and resources are now concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy Westerners, most of whom are Americans. It is more accurate to say the America managed to “out-exploit” the rest of the world. However, the rest of the world is realizing that leaving all physical capital in America’s hands is no longer such a good idea. Once the American dollar loses its reserve status and the petrodollar system collapses completely, America’s place in the economic food-chain will disappear.
I wonder if communists wrote similar articles during the 1980s. I bet that they though communism would last forever when it was just about to end forever. Capitalism is now in the same position. When a system is about to collapse, “thinkers” come out of the woodwork to vigorously defend it. The fact is, however, that capitalism is about to join communism in history’s trash can.
Point three is going to eventually be the cause of war between those who agree woth you and those who do not.
Ultimately the choice boils down to this. If you believe point 3, then you will ne forced to murder or sterilize large portions of the population. That constantly puts you at odds with must of humanity, because even if you succeed in wiping out 80% of the planet, the population will eventually grow such until its necessary to repeat the process.
Therefore it will ne necessary to engage in constant deception so as to ensure your group is part of the 20%. As the conditions for environmental success are murder and deception, you will become a society of murderers and liars.
The other choice (2) is to believe in God and that He is capable of providing ex-nihilo if He wishes (2a), alternatively that it doesnt matter of He does, but that His commands regarding procreation and integrity are sacrosanct even if it means our destruction (2b).
I propose that any group of people that believe #2b will be nearly unstoppable as they will be engaged in a constant state of growth, will act with benevolence and integrity to its members, thus fostering cooperation and hinest assessment, plus will be fatalistic regarding results, ie you will not be able to intimidate them.
Also, since I happen to beloeve in God, I think they will have His favor.
Still doesn’t change the fact reality is finite. Of course, you are right that this will cause conflict down the road.
Also, the whole point of religion is to make people realize that this material world is finite and that endless growth is not possible in this world. Saying that people will win out over reality because they “have God’s favor” is completely nonsensical.
God defines reality in most religious thinking, as shown in example 2a. In their minds, God is administrating the whole system and will keep the population levels where they need to be.
Still does not change my point that one of the main purposes of religion is to make people realize that the world and they themselves are finite and to live accordingly.
Of course, there are belief systems that do not adhere to the finite material reality, but they are more akin to crazy cults. People who argue from such a perspective are more like nutty cultists than devout religious followers.
Close, it was not meant to be a logical statement, it was a statement of defiance. I did not want to be too fair to you as I see our disagreement being something that requires me to take an aggressive stance against you.
I dont completely agree with your statement regarding the purpose of religion. But it is clearly a different take than I have heard before. It sounds like you are saying that the purpose os to teach Man that he is a limited being and must work with that knowledge to establish both a framework of behavior and to work woth others inside that framework. For now, I can agree that this is part of the ultimate purpose of religion, as that is the necessity behind every ordered system. If we werent limited we would not need to constrain ourselves with any system or group.
In a way I agree with your statement on reality. That is, observable reality is finite. However, it is clear to me that what we observe itself indicates something non-finite, and that observed reality is an illusion in that it hides thus non-finite source behind what we observe as reality.
My larger point is the problem of idealistic behavior. You are intelligent, you seem to have ideals, to whatever limited contact Ive had with you you seem to have integrity. However your realization of limited resources will eventually require you work with the same people we both hate and despise. My observation to you is that there is no way out of that as long as you believe in a finite based reality. Even a fatalistic adherence to idealism, ie “fuck it, if we die we die, but we will die honorably”, will not be enough to overcome the harsh logic of limited resources. You will not even be able to honestly rebuke the same r-selected savages who currently rule us, as you would be required to do the same as them in their place.
I am showing you that the current model of reality that you employ of limited resources, is incompativle with the idealism that allows a man to be honest. For now, it cna be put off, we are not yet at the stage of no return. “No return” being defined as the stage where enough common people realize this issue and decide to either join the 20% in killing off the other 80%, or decide to just kill off the 20% and trust in God for the result.
And there is another problem with my view, if it becomes demonstrated that I am right, then it will be shattering blow to the ego. How much pride or self importance can any of us have if we are 100% aware thst none of our material endeavors are necessary?
“My observation to you is that there is no way out of that as long as you believe in a finite based reality.”
Well I guess it depends on what you mean by “reality.” Religions do not believe in only a material world precisely because the material world is finite and limited. Thus, there is “another world” where the limitations of this world do not apply. Now, I cannot say whether “another world” actually exists or not. However, what is clear is that there is no way out in a purely material sense. The overpopulation problem will lead to much strife in the future. No amount of delusions is going to change that.
If death is a natural part of life, then killing means acting as a catalyst to arrive at the final energy state faster.
Nor myrder necessarry, just stop subsidizing welfare “families”.
“If you believe point 3, then you will ne forced to murder or sterilize large portions of the population.”
No, just give them very good access to birth control.
And what are you going to do against those who want to have large families, and whose children choose to have large families?
Nothing. Those people are a very small minority.
In the long run this just isn’t a problem. Most kids who grow up in ultra religious households and secular societies become way more secular when they get older. If what you seem to think is a problem actually were one, then the whole US would be catholic.
Ingvar Kamprad is one of my heroes because the Swedish government basically extorted his company into giving away a portion of its income to some charity.
So he created a “scholarship” for furniture design…that never seems to find a qualified applicant. He has basically said I would rather bury it in the ground than give my riches to you bastards. And in such a way that they haven’t really found a way to get at him over it. He’s technically complying.
Your story shows that the real problem in society is dishonesty.
Its proper to compel a man to pay something to the general good in which he lives. The word for this is “taxes”. We can also regulate how a man conducts his affairs again for the general good and for the sake of order.
But whne a society becomes dishonest, the taxes become too high and the regulations become a tool to keep “undesirables” from competing.
‘Its proper to compel a man to pay something to the general good in which he lives’ I disagree.
Its proper to compel a man to pay for something to the degree he uses it, requests it by consent, and benefits. Otherwise it is just the rationalization of theft
I cant argue with you, as I recognize the importance of the ideal you are reaching for.
However, at the same time, I cannot fault a community that chooses to ignore that. There is a place for hypocrisy. You are one of those people that a sane community protects and encourages even if we do the opposite of what you say.
All government is kleptocracy.
Oh God….please spare us “Muh Greater Good” justification for theft.
So sick of people using this retarded commie greater good bullshit as a rationalization for stealing.
It’s not retarded. It’s highly ironic that the “big gubermen” states that all you people hate generate vastly more GDP than all the the small government states.
“its proper to compel a man to pay something to the general good in which he lives. ”
Good lord, what culture do you come from?
What ham-handed, semi-educated dunce decides to defend wealth distribution (distributive justice, if you prefer) on the basis of something that sounds like it came from Yoda?
There’s something called social contract theory. In fact, there are several theories of government that provide a basis for wealth redistribution. Not being able to cite one (and instead farting around with something out of a comic book) is a sign that you need to read more books and write less code. I would go get ‘political philosophy for dummies’ or something like that.
You are assuming I am saying one thing, when I mean another. Had we lived in sane rational times, you would have understood what I meant. Unfortunately we live in insane times when sane concepts are twisted to endorse mass theft.
So I will elaborate. Roads are necessary for the public good. Even if you do not use roads, as of now I am asserting that the public has a right to compel individual members to take from their earning to pay for those roads.
Now I can be wrong. I can definitely hear an argument to the contrary saying that such roads should be paid via tolls and not compel innocent hikers to contribute to that which they do not use.
If you still think that I am insane for holding such a position, then all I can say is that I admire your idealism and will cease arguing against you, because I love such a concept, and would rather lose an argument against you then even attempt to win it.
Liberalism as it exists today would have never come to fruition if women never got the vote. It’s women that need big daddy government. They’re the ones that are incapable of independence.
We have the power to change this. By being a strong manly presence around your woman, you can make her reject government and instead have her look up to you. She will adopt your views in an instant.
By taking back control of women, we take back the whole West. We will have a righteous society only if we take responsibility for the views of the women in our lives.
Truer words were never spoken.
What did the cannibal, who was out on a dinner date with his girlfriend, say to the waiter? “Separate Czechs, please.”
Two blondes are standing on opposite sides of a lake. The first blonde yells, “How do I get to the other side of the lake?” The other blonde yells back, “You already ARE on the opposite side of the lake.”
That’s all I got for now… (Hiss! Boo! Get outta here!)
Okay…I got one more. Two cannibals are eating a clown. One of them says to the other, “Does this taste funny to you?” (Oooh…okay I’m done now.)
Hahaha! That was great!
What do you call a male leper in a hot tub? Stew.
The funniest part is most people in the West don’t know, where Czech Republic is.
One of the biggest misconceptions regarding intelligence is that one genius is smarter than 100 average men. Its actually the reverse, the collective knowledge and awareness of 100 men allows them to do more than that lne genius.
As an examole look at processor chips. One very fast and powerful chip wil on average have less computing power than 100 average chips working together, which is why coprocessing is such a big thing in the field.
A genius, because of his unique perspective can offer new avenues of thought or new insights into the human condition. But he cannot do the same work as 100 men. Its the difference between a sharp knife and a sleegehammer. The knife blade focuses all its pressure on a very small area snd thus cuts thru even tho it uses less pressure, the sledgehammer is spread out more.
Enough analogies. The point is, more people means more connections, more perspectives, more hands working on the task, which means more gets done. A robot is a tool to enhance work, not a replacement. Its like saying I dont need five men to dig the ground because one man with a shovel can do the same work as five men working with their hands. Its a fallacy, becsuse the five men can all be provided with shovels and now do the work of twenty five men.
The fallacy with your fallacy is that you’ve raised everybody without a shovel by giving them all a shovel. The point of a man with a shovel doing more than 5 without is that, hey, they don’t have shovels.
Otherwise, yeah, agree.
Intelligence is NOT cumulative.
If there are 10 chimps in a cage, each with an IQ of 60 and it takes an IQ of 85 to open to the lock on the cage, they won’t be getting out even though their collective intelligence is 600.
exactly, IQ isn’t something that accumulates, it normalizes.
muh malcolm gladwell, muh wisdom of crowds
malcolm gladwell looks like a dirty used Q-tip
One genius is worth more than 100,000 average men.
Average men create nothing.
worth more in what way?
Just this morning doing some food shopping I walked past one of those stands in the centre where it had a sign saying “Every child deserves a chance.” The main poster had an image of a white girl but as I got closer the table had a much smaller image of a black boy. I thought to myself it was a bait and switch tactic. You think that most of your money goes to white kids but in reality most of it would get siphoned off to third world shitholes.
The girl manning the stand was young, good figure with jet black hair in a ponytail. Her forearms were covered in tattoos and she was too busy staring at her phone to notice anyone walking by. She was most likely a student or unemployed as most of those who do that type of thing are. As I walked past I thought of engaging her to get a number or perhaps trolling her to let her know she was collecting money for an anti-white ‘charity’. But I wanted to get home and make myself a tuna sandwich and then hit the gym.
Lol the Malthusian insight was probably outdated 3 decades before Bauer
But people and governments continue to worry (or still don’t get economic history, partly due to post-Marxist academics). In a way the Malthusian trap is constant, in that sense that one always has to find out how to obtain food resorces. “Technological determinism” can be a perilous notion if one takes things for granted.
The way to avoid the Maluthusian trap is to have men create better technology and more infrastructure to support a growing population. But our welfare society doesn’t reward men that do these activities. Instead, we are punished with income taxes and forced to pay non-producers. Women have been trained by feminism to treat producer men as worker bees and non-producers as sperm donors. So the trap has been set.
It doesn’t need to be “avoided”, being that we now have birth control, people who cannot feed kids simply wont have them. Because of this, we now have a fertility rate below 2.0 children per women. Anyways, your evaluation is wrong. If you create a valuable piece of farming tech, you are going to be way richer than someone who lives off welfare, this is why we continue to be in our greatest period of technological growth in human history.
Slightly off topic, but if someone is freaked out about global warming, Shouldn’t they be fanatical about stopping all immigration from poor countries to rich. It is without a doubt true that Americans have the highest carbon footprint. If they become Americans, they’ll have a carbon footprint many times larger. So why they hell aren’t they on board with Trump and closing the borders?
except the third world nations do far more total damage to the environment. If you are starving, you really don’t care if your goat heard is stepping on an endangered mushroom.
That’ll cause their hamster-wheels to simultaneously spontaneously combust and their nutty pseudoscientific religion to cave in on its asshole. They wouldn’t sell themselves out like that, those cunning motherfuckers.
Donald Trump is a member of the lucky sperm club who made plenty of bad investments resulting in bankruptcy. He might have done just as well if he put his inheritance in a passbook account! Better if Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or any of the 19th Century “robber barons” were used as examples. But a lot of alt.righties are RoK fans so the Donald had to get his props.
“Donald Trump is one example of how such an industrious and cunning person has managed to be a successful entrepreneur.”
Yeah, bullshit. I have no problem with Trump, but Trump was born wealthy, and his wealth hasn’t increased much proportional to economic growth.
It’s true that I mentioned him for being famous these days to say the least and often discussed at ROK, but the fact that he was born wealthy does not mean that he cannot be a good entrepreneur with industrious skills. He has them, although not being successful all the time, far from it. Same thing with Stefan Persson (H&M), which has increased the company’s wealh manifold throughout his years. But the typical from nothing-entrepreneur he is not, Trump.
He doesn’t even have particularly good skills. His company didn’t really outpace the growth of the economy.
#4 really hits the mark. States will not improve (from foreign aid) unless they themselves take initiative to be great. South Korea went from being one of the poorest countries in the world to being one of the richest in time frame of decade, most Africa on the other hand continue to fail to achieve any sort of meaningful growth.
I’d like to take issue with large populations. I am not sure where you live but in America there are most certainly areas of the country that are way too crowded, notably large cities such as NYC, SF, LA, etc. Living in such close proximity to people is, in my opinion, unnatural and frankly undesirable.
Throughout human history I do not think we have ever successfully lived in close proximity to one another for a long period of time that did not result in disease and/or war that results in death. I understand modern medicine and our police state will prevent things like that from happening but that does not take away the fact that whenever humans have lived in close proximity to one another for too long something happens to cull the population. Ultimately, I do not think large, dense populations are natural to humans.
Maybe he failed to study the “glorious” impact of British rule on the Indian economy. I disagree with the last point.