Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: arun gera who wrote (2453)	11/26/2005 9:14:03 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 218658

Arun, as with most things, single variable answers are usually wrong, and correlation is not necessarily involved with causation. There is no doubt that extraordinary luck aside, it is impossible to be wealthy if one is inordinately stupid. A chimpanzee could inherit a fortune, but they will not remain wealthy for long if they manage that fortune. Not many chimps inherit fortunes. Nearly everyone has to produce and trade their way to wealth. A country with a small smart fraction is not going to do well, as shown by the evidence in Griffe's Smart Fraction Theory. You can inspect the results of reality in many, many, many countries. Countries with disenfranchised low IQ people, as in slavery, might do well, I can imagine, as the unintelligent wouldn't be able to vote for wealth redistribution to themselves. Maybe there's something to be said for colonization - it's a bit like my childhood bomb club = I put up the money and my older brother put up the brains and we both do very well, though of course the managers of QUALCOMM [the colonizers] do much better than me and that's okay by me. <Japan, Germany, and China's success had one thing in common. > China is still poor. Japan and Germany had in common being defeated by USA/allies and leaving their militaristic MADness behind. I think your trading opportunities theory is only a small part of the story. There's no "mysterious" smart gene. Genes aren't mysterious. If you think intelligence isn't genetic, try training an infant chimp to be a scientist. Intelligence is just another bunch of genes and probably not very many at that [such as half a dozen for really swanky intelligence when overlaid on the normal pretty-bright genome]. Of course the resulting infant has to avoid toxins and be given the right nutrient brew and have the right social and experiential circumstances to do what they are capable of as adults, as do unintelligent infants. People often confuse the need for good development conditions with the need for a good design as they seek single-solution answers [they have trouble holding more than one idea in their heads at once]. Both are needed. And, of course, a bright infant brought up in rural bush-pig land will not be able to be wealthy, compared with the same DNA brought up in a wealthy country. With the right language, with good DNA, good upbringing and access to wealthy markets, [a multi-variable answer] a person has a better chance of wealth than having only one of those vaiables right. I'm not surprised you favour the "access to the powerful" way to wealth [as the explanation for it]. Most people are stuck in the dominance hierarchy tribal alpha-male territorial kleptocratic found-wealth society mindset and think "that's how it works" and that they have to get a piece of the action. In fact, it does work that way to a great extent with electorates voting to steal some 60% of GDP for redistribution to themselves and their mates. Wealthy countries steal less and respect private property more. Private property includes individuals. <3. Jews in Europe. They were a successful community in Europe and brought their memes to USA and Israel. > More importantly, they took their genes, before Adolf got to them. Mqurice