Theodorism

Recent government lending requirements, showcased TransProg bigotry and stupidity marching hand in hand.  Not an example of an alleged racial inferiority.

All of this is so wrong, I dont know where to begin.  You must have been watching Fox News again.
When I have an hour or so to spare, I will refute your baseless and fallacious arguments.

The regulators told Beverly Hills bank that they had to substantially lower their lending standards, which implies that requiring Mexicans to meet white male standards is racism and discrimination.

The regulators told Beverly Hills bank that they had to substantially lower their lending standards, which implies that requiring Mexicans to meet white male standards is racism and discrimination.

Yes, but which white male standards? White male standards of honesty and integrity, or white male standards of income and assets?

If my point is not clear: only the former would support a theory of racial inferiority, not the latter. The latter might still be economic idiocy, however well-intentioned, but it refers to the situation of minorities, not their intrinsic personalities.

The regulators told Beverly Hills bank that they had to substantially lower their lending standards, which implies that requiring Mexicans to meet white male standards is racism and discrimination.

Yes, but which white male standards? White male standards of honesty and integrity, or white male standards of income and assets?

If my point is not clear: only the former would support a theory of racial inferiority,

A lower asset to income ratio does support a theory of racial inferiority.

Doesn't pass the smell test.  A person's compilation of finical assets and or compliance to social norms, determines their genetic value?

I grew up in the 50's - 70's.  My mother was a single parent when "good" people do not get a divorce.  We lived on the family farm.  A lot of love but little money.  According to the "good" people of the time, my brothers and I would never amount to anything but white trash.  We smile and are polite to the "good" people.  We've been, gone and done.  Our achievements improved the lives of those around us.  The "good" people stayed secure in their own little world, kings and queens of their little pond.

Superior genetic material?  Or people who are who they are.  warts and all.

Doesn't pass the smell test.  A person's compilation of finical assets and or compliance to social norms, determines their genetic value?

A person's ability to postpone gratification, is a good measure of their adaption to a world of artifacts and agriculture.  A chimp like lifestyle, running naked through the jungle with a pointy stick, does not require the capacity to postpone gratification and think about the future.

The races with smaller cranial capacity, also have less ability to postpone gratification, consistent with the same selective forces affecting the evolution of both.

Doesn't pass the smell test.  A person's compilation of finical assets and or compliance to social norms, determines their genetic value?

A person's ability to postpone gratification, is a good measure of their adaption to a world of artifacts and agriculture.  A chimp like lifestyle, running naked through the jungle with a pointy stick, does not require the capacity to postpone gratification and think about the future.

The races with smaller cranial capacity, also have less ability to postpone gratification, consistent with the same selective forces affecting the evolution of both.

Wow, that explains a lot!  I had never pictured Wall Streeters and CEO's as running naked through the streets with pointy sticks because of their inability to delay personal gratification!

Wow, you've just shown me that the richer you are, the more genetically inferior you are.

As always, there are exceptions.  I suspect that there is an evolutionary force at here: A person goes through several stages in life, poor but genetically superior, less poor but less superior, successful (or rich) but genetically neutral, and then you either become less rich but once again genetically superior or you become richer and more genetically inferior until you reach the point of de-evolution into simple primate.

Well, I thought that minorities had lower asset to income ratios largely because any neighborhood with minorities in it has the property values go through the cellar... although that is partly due to the bad behavior of some minority group members, but it isn't directly because of a lack of ability to delay gratification. Mind you, what point is there in delaying gratification when you're likely to be shot by a stray bullet in a gunfight between police and drug dealers?

But while I believe in the inherent equality of all men and women, and that the evidence shows that the genetic capabilities of all races are as close to equal as we can determine... I also admit other things. Allowing more immigrants into a country depresses the labor market. Having multiple ethnic groups and religions and languages in a country often creates strife, leading to a need for bigger and more authoritarian governments to keep the peace.

So, while I abhor racism, I think that diversity has its costs, and letting it increase is asking for trouble. The trouble is, of course, that a policy of keeping immigrants out is inhumane to those equal people stuck in less-advantaged countries.

Accepting governments and borders as legitimate, I see admitting immigrants as an act of charity, not as respecting any right, and so I favor putting ourselves first while being as generous as we can genuinely afford. In general, though, the Libertarian and AnCap position is that borders aren't legitimate.

Which means that AnCap seems to lead to exactly the same result that greedy Big Business seems to be working for with globalism and their drive for "competitiveness": ordinary working people like me get to compete on a level playing field with the poor people of China. How can that possibly be likely to improve our lot?

Maybe this is a bogeyman, but I want to assure you this is something people will think of for themselves without me raising it, and so it's something that AnCap advocates will really have to address in order not to scare everyone away.

Well, I thought that minorities had lower asset to income ratios largely because any neighborhood with minorities in it has the property values go through the cellar

This should not be an obstacle to minorities buying property.  If protected minorities are less able to put 20% down, it is because they are less future oriented - therefore inferior.

And, in fact, during the boom the reverse happened, with the presence of Hispanics dramatically boosting housing prices, which subsequently collapsed, while lily white neighborhoods such as Pacifica did not rise much, nor fall much.

But while I believe in the inherent equality of all men and women, and that the evidence shows that the genetic capabilities of all races are as close to equal as we can determine

The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found ... White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

Trans race adoptees have one standard deviation difference, same as people who have not been adopted.  So the most drastic change in environment possible makes no difference.   Though parents approved for adoption produce an environment that raises IQ above average, white parents approved for adoption raise black IQ no more and no less than black parents approved for adoption raise white IQ.

Which means that AnCap seems to lead to exactly the same result that greedy Big Business seems to be working for with globalism and their drive for "competitiveness": ordinary working people like me get to compete on a level playing field with the poor people of China. How can that possibly be likely to improve our lot?

When China moved towards the free market system, the poor people of China rapidly started getting richer.   How rich you are depends on the value of what you produce, not on what other people are kept from producing.

When China moved towards the free market system, the poor people of China rapidly started getting richer.   How rich you are depends on the value of what you produce, not on what other people are kept from producing.

Would that it were so marvelously simple!

The value of what I produce does not depend only on my abilities and my willingness to put in effort.

A person is more productive when he has tools to work with, and raw materials to work on.

And the value of what I produce does not depend only on its utility, either. It also depends on what others are willing to pay for it.

This is why the United States and Canada enjoyed full employment up to about 1968, and continue to enjoy relative prosperity. A relatively small population living among great resources of farmland, forests, and minerals, as well as having factories and offices using the world's most advanced technology.

India has had the free-enterprise system for quite a while, and has been richer than China. But it's still poorer than North America. Of course, their free-enterprise system is imperfect, but their fundamentals are not sound.

So the problems after 1968 have two obvious causes:

Liberalized rules on imports have given low-wage countries access to the North American market. This reduces the price paid for things like radios, television sets, and automobiles, thus decreasing their monetary value to such an extent that people could no longer afford food and housing at American prices where they to be employed producing them.

Liberalized immigration has meant that more workers are competing for the opportunity to work serving the existing market and using the existing raw materials and the existing factories.

And the problem is now feeding on itself. The bad economy since 1968 has resulted in fewer young men having solid careers and being able to start families. So now the country finds itself with a large aging population from the baby boom, and not enough young people to pay taxes to support them in their old age - leading to a perceived need to allow more immigrants in.

Note that if the older people had saved for their retirement, but what they saved was paper money, not gold, then one still needs a large productive economy of working younger people for that paper money to continue to have value. Of course, "paper money, not gold" may imply that it's still taxation in disguise.

When China moved towards the free market system, the poor people of China rapidly started getting richer.   How rich you are depends on the value of what you produce, not on what other people are kept from producing.

Would that it were so marvelously simple!

The value of what I produce does not depend only on my abilities and my willingness to put in effort.

A person is more productive when he has tools to work with, and raw materials to work on.

The value of tools and raw materials is typically low.  My home computer is more powerful than the computer an employer typically gives me, and my home office is way nicer than the office the employer gives me, if the cheapskate gives me an office at all (cubicle more likely)

Thus, the majority of value added goes to employees, not the employer.  Profits are typically a few percent of the wage bill.  

If you work through an agency, it looks like a large part of value goes to the agency, but this reflects taxes and the cost of interfacing with the government - hiring people to do actual work requires hiring more people to deal with labyrinthine red tape, so employers are willing to pay a lot more when the agency deals with that red tape.  When they hire you through an agency, they are hiring you to do the work, and also paying someone else to take some of the heat of dealing with the state.

The very large discrepancy between agency fees and your wages is primarily a measure of regulatory burden on employers.  When the regulatory burden rises, as it recently did, wages have to fall, or prices to rise, or else unemployment rises, as it is rising now.  

And the value of what I produce does not depend only on its utility, either. It also depends on what others are willing to pay for it.

Marginal utility - read "economics in one lesson".  Diamonds really do provide more utility than water, because people have all the water they need, but do not have all the diamonds they need.

This is why the United States and Canada enjoyed full employment up to about 1968, and continue to enjoy relative prosperity. A relatively small population living among great resources of farmland, forests, and minerals, as well as having factories and offices using the world's most advanced technology.

Then why is Singapore more prosperous than the USA?  Singapore has nothing but a large sandbank.  At least Hong Kong has rocks.

Singapore has the freest  trade in the world, and the least resources in the world, and Singapore's GDP per capita is $62,100 (2010 est.) while US GDP per capita is $47,200 (2010 est.)

India has had the free-enterprise system for quite a while,

India has only had free enterprise since 1988, the same time as most of the post soviet nations.

The Indian castes differ racially from each other.  The more Dravidian the caste, the lower its IQ.  The Indian lower castes, the great majority of the population, have substantially lower IQ.  The upper castes have near white IQ (the upper castes being racially aryan (mostly near white) and racially Brahmin (mostly near oriental), and mixtures thereof.  When companies import Indian engineers, which is a large portion of Indians in the US, they import the very smartest ones, which are much smarter than the average white - but they are not as smart as the average white engineer.  The racial inferiority of the great majority of the Indian population limits what India can accomplish.  Thus India will always be poorer than the typical post Soviet nation.

So the problems after 1968 have two obvious causes:

Liberalized rules on imports have given low-wage countries access to the North American market. This reduces the price paid for things like radios, television sets, and automobiles, thus decreasing their monetary value to such an extent that people could no longer afford food and housing at American prices where they to be employed producing them.

1968 was not famous for liberalizing imports.  It was famous for the great society, for the massive movement leftwards.