http://blog.jim.com/economics/mestizos-and-national-wealth.html
Mestizos and National Wealth
Conservatives are fleeing the evil witch and horrible heretic Jason Richwine.
Richwine pointed out what everyone knows, but no one can say: That mestizos are genetically low intelligence, and that importing a low intelligence underclass will cost Americans a lot of money, and that this underclass, even if, unlike blacks, they really want to assimilate, can never assimilate, and will forever resent their failure to assimilate, forever blaming it on racism.
Richwine’s estimates were, however, very much on the low side. He only considered the costs of a genetically low IQ underclass that sucks up welfare and fails to pay taxes. He ignored Smart Fraction Theory.
Smart Fraction Theory is that nation’s per capita GDP is determined by the population fraction with IQ greater than or equal to some threshold IQ. Consistent with the data of Lynn and Vanhanen, that threshold IQ is somewhere around 108, a bit less than the minimum that used to be required for what used to be a bachelor’s degree. This gives a remarkably good fit to variations in wealth between countries. Average IQ influences average per capita wealth much more strongly than individual IQ influences individual wealth. Richwine only considered the extent to which average IQ influences individual wealth.
Smart people create the modern economy, perhaps directly by operating businesses, perhaps culturally, by creating a society of trust and cooperation, perhaps politically, by resisting self destructive economic policies. Most likely by some combination of all three. Smart people create an environment that allows less smart people to make a decent living. Thus intelligence has a large positive externality, and stupidity, similarly a large negative externality.
A person of average IQ is not the average IQ of your friends. If you are a typical reader of this blog, you would perceive him as remarkably stupid. Consider that man in a backward African economy. Likely his best option is to scratch the ground with a digging stick, grow yams, and hunt rats and small animals (the larger animals already having been killed). He produces very little, and is accordingly very poor. The same man in Singapore is highly productive because smart wealthy people provide him with highly sophisticated equipment, and tell him what to do with that equipment. Modern living standards are a gift by the rich to the poor and a gift by the smart to the stupid.
If you have ten percent more low IQ people, then the amount of modern economy you have is diluted by ten percent, for the modern economy is, to a good approximation, smart people cooperating with each other, and the rest are in large part just leeching on wealth created by others. Thus on average every average and below person that enters the United States costs the existing residents fifty thousand dollars a year, as does every child spawned by the innumerable short fat pregnant single mestizo woman that clog up every emergency ward in California, except for the Stanford emergency ward. Richwine considers only the part of this loss that comes in the form of government expenditures.
The ethno nationalists in Dark Enlightenment hope to restore geographic white nations, on new, much shrunken borders. This seems as impractical as unscrambling an omelet, and leaves the big problem of the white underclass created by welfare and the collapse of the family. My proposed solution is an end to universal suffrage – whether by literacy tests and property tests, or by abandoning democracy altogether for some other system, any other system, and the reintroduction of segregation and small apartheid. We put a sign over the black section in the school cafeteria that says “black section” so that no one gets confused. And we also need male only areas.
Of course not all stupid people are black, and not all black people are stupid, and similarly for criminals. When considering which people need to be kept away from civilized people, we should profile. Race and culture should be one factor, an important factor, but one, as in Rhodesia, capable of being outweighed by other factors. The Rhodesian slogan was “Equal rights for all civilized men” – which they carried out to very good effect, and to the benefit of everyone, including, indeed particularly, the benefit of uncivilized men, who benefited from firm supervision, who benefit from firm supervision by their superiors more than anyone. Compare Rhodesia under white rule, with Zimbabwe.
We should employ a full Bayesian approach: Fatherlessness, employment, literacy, credit rating, criminal history, and property should weigh in various profiles applied for various purposes, as well as race and culture. A major effect and intent of these profiles should be unmix the omelet on the micro scale, to keep uncivilized men of all races away from civilized men of all races. We need ghettos, not only because there are blacks and mestizos, but because there are too many stupid whites, and too many whites that have been raised feral by single mums. And if someone who belongs in the ghetto is found where he should not be, he is asked for a justification for being where he is. If no adequate justification, gets in trouble.
Comment: Again, this Classical Liberal/Conservative piece falls short of the Disparate Impact doctrine, as well as the John F. Tard effect, people with “wrong” opinions are more likely to run afoul of the System, and will need welfare and good prison conditions more than people with the “right” views. Fatherlessness also doesn’t explain the behavior of Muslims. It seems bourgeois democracy needs an optimum level of patriarchy to function. And of course, the Radical Left tries to thwart this. But will the alternative to bourgeois democracy be more congenial to the agenda of the Radical Left? I fear it will not.
oogenhand 