BBC BLOGS - Stephanomics
« Previous | Main | Next »

A bad day for small Europeans

Stephanie Flanders | 23:24 UK time, Friday, 25 September 2009

An update on my last post - the communique did contain that "high level aspiration" on IMF reform after all.

After a long battle by the US - the leaders agreed to use the 5% figure in relation to reform. But note the careful language: the leaders committed a shift in votes "of at least 5% from over-represented countries to over-represented countries".

So the big European countries aren't necessarily going to lose their permanent seats on the IMF Executive Board. In fact, I'd be amazed if they did.

Most officials I spoke to said the deal was unlikely to be struck by the January 2010 deadline: it's going to be a nightmare to agree.

But we can say right now that it will be a bad time to be small and European.

With just under 5% of votes, the likes of Britain can claim they are not really that over-represented at the Fund - and believe me they have chapter and verse on this for anyone who disagrees. Even though it's obvious that China should have more. It now has 3.6% of votes, for more than a billion people and the second largest economy in the world.

But Belgium has 2% of votes - for a population of 10 million. The Netherlands has 2.6%. The list goes on. It's hard to believe their share will survive the final cut.

Apparently Gordon Brown has a cunning plan that will fix all this and leave everyone happy. It will be interesting to see how that works out.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    The only cunning plan Brown could have to make everyone happy is to call an election. Caledonian Comment

  • Comment number 2.

    The lack of action following the "near death experience" of the world economy is mystifying. The only thing that has really happened is that we have agreed to keeping the taxpayer proping up the system.
    Maybe Michael Moore is right to state that world economics is all just a giant Ponzi scheme. If it is so, then it is going intergenerational in a big way!

  • Comment number 3.

    Something the BBC is not carrying: Medvedev's appearance at the university of Pittsburgh, where he said two highly significant things:

    China is "the biggest country." When someone prefaced a question with the all–too-common observation that "you are President of the largest country in the world," he replied: "that would be true if it were Mr Hu standing here." This is a very interesting detail -- and, of course, true.

    Respect is due to the people who, through it all, have grown to large, and so prosperous. No one can question it has been the result of a lot of intelligence, as well, and commitment to learning.

    The other thing Medvedev said that i think ought to be noted, and broadcast, is: "The meaning of life is in Love." The Russian is: "Именно в любви смысл жизни." This came in response to the question about "what is the most important thing in life?"

    It was of course, an excellent answer: the only possible answer. Many world leaders might have thought it, but how many would have had the courage & confidence to say it aloud?

    Russia, after decades of suffering and blunders and tragedy, has something to say to the world that may be all too familiar, a truism, sentimental even... and for all that vital, valid and necessary. It ought to be heard.

    The AP report analyzing the G20 refers to Russia as a "relative newcomer." Some Americans still imagine history began in 1776 -- and for some, it began with Elvis Presley, even later.

    The world has a huge history. A great deal of that essential history is in Europe and Asia.

    Help for Africa can only come through the efforts of African people to impose discipline, democracy and respect for the rights of every single human being, and human body, upon themselves. If PM Netanyahu was correct to observe that too many (most?) Muslims seek to impose 8th or 9th century values on 21st century humanity, then let us face the fact that many millions of Africans are seeking to carry on with even older, tribal customs & prejudices, next to which the 9th century seems advanced. i refer to the practices of cutting, scarification rites, body distortion ornaments (that are an assault on a person's health), witch hunts, child marriages and polygamy.

    It is one thing to respect ancestors, it is another to repeat their mistakes. We all want genocide and slavery and cannibalism and child rape and gang rape and mutilation of infants by child soldiers all to be consigned to the waste-heap of history. Chinese stopped smashing the feet of little girls with rocks so they could not escape from the older man who would be granted the right to own them and to rape them. Africans, too, need to come together and get serious about joining the 21st century.

    For that very reason, before we can cede a great deal of say over the Big Picture of economics and planning and world governance on the basis of population figures, or treasury size alone, we need to reaffirm the values that specifically Europe gave rise to –– above all the values of human rights, equal rights for women, protection for children & the frail, the supremacy of Individual Sovereignty.

    (Individual Sovereignty does not include adults deciding for a young child that "sex reassignment surgery" is "probably a good thing" based on their understanding of that young child. That is an insufferably patronizing approach, an extreme form of genital mutilation -- such decisions can only be made by informed adults after a great deal of reflection, and strictly on their own behalf. The suggestion that "it's easier before puberty" is on a par with those who advocate paedophilia because children are compliant, or imagine a child of 11 or 12 "can enjoy sex.")

    So don't just abdicate your privileged positions as heirs to the European Invention -- that great European Dream of a Just, Kind, Civilised world order -- don't forswear it yet (or ever), gentlemen or ladies of European culture (whatever your origins or DNA mix). As President Obama recently said in a really good speech (on health care) at another university gathering in Maryland: "One voice can change a room."

    "Fire 'em up! Ready to go!" That was the mantra he used, citing an older lady who once helped him. Most effective. So don't feel outnumbered.

    It's just one Big university now, and that's how we ought to proceed.

  • Comment number 4.

    Would someone at the BBC kindly post the entire text of the G20 Pittsburgh communique as a single file? Reuters has it in bits, which makes it impossible to get the right sense for the coherent order of it. Please provide a link or someway of accessing this milestone accord. Thank you!

  • Comment number 5.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 6.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 7.

    I expect the small europeans to put in a complaint about the BBC being sizest

  • Comment number 8.

    Just more smoke and mirrors. They can't agree on what the cake actually is. So slicing it up 'fairly' is just impossible.

    Perhaps the days of the nation state are not over after all. It appears to be the only unit in which some form of consensus can be reached. Let's look to ourselves.

  • Comment number 9.

    #8 "Let's look to ourselves."

    You might as well say, lets defend the interests of our slave master against the interests of other slave masters.

    The end result will be one lot of slaves marching off to slaughter another lot of slaves.

    Far better for the slaves to turn on their masters.

  • Comment number 10.

    the leaders committed a shift in votes "of at least 5% from over-represented countries to over-represented countries"

    Would the world be better off if undemocratic countries like China had a larger say, in proportion to it's larger population?

    This is exactly the same problem as found at the UN. It's a worthy project as a 'talking shop' but the UN does not have any real moral legitimacy to pass resolutions. Why should undemocratic countries that deny votes to their own citizens be allowed a vote themselves?

    If countries wish to participate on the World Stage, they need to demonstrate that their own governments are democratically elected. Governments should be accountable to the people, and elections must be properly conducted (unlike Iran, Afghanistan etc)

    It isn't acceptable that unelected governments should have any 'votes' at all.

  • Comment number 11.

    #10 duvinrouge,

    Well to some degree you are right. There will always be those who control power - be that financial or political. The question of enslavement is rally one for yourself to answer. If you feel that you are a slave then a slave you will be.

    Personally, I would prefer a balance between capitalism and socialism. Both expressions have to be tempered by each other if we are to develop a truly civilised society. Therefore both expressions and their limits have to be defined in today's terms. Hence, references to either Warren Buffett or Rosa Luxemburg are probably quite unhelpful.

    If the 'slaves' turn on their masters will not an element within the slave ranks become the new masters and therefore enslave those around them? That seems self-defeating. Whilst the French model of social democracy is not the complete answer it does have elements that could appear beneficial for the UK economy and culture.

    Whilst the G8/20 appear to believe that the international financial problems will be solved by tighter regulation they have not even started to look at the systems themselves that facilitated this disaster. Tighter regulation is only as good as it is drafted and will quickly be 'interprited' by both states and individuals. The 'bubble' will re-appear in another guise. However, on a nation state basis we have more power to enact changes that will be beneficial to our future wellbeing. Far better to be in charge of your own destiny than to rely upon say IMF enforcement of policies that are socially/culturally unacceptable.


  • Comment number 12.

    It seems to me that representation on the IMF should be directly related to how much each country donated to the fund. Only donors should control where their money goes and under what conditions. Donees could be allowed to make their voices heard and their views taken into consideration but in the end, what it really boils down to is that this is a charity.

    "But we can say right now that it will be a bad time to be small and European."

    It has always been bad to be a small European country. The big fish tend to gobble up the small fry. But big is relative. What exactly does big mean? Some Europeans want to be "BIG." Having failed in wars of conquest in for over a millenium in the past, they have decided to band together in the European disUnion. But what does it really add up to? Can two hundred horses harnessed together outrace a car with a 200 horsepower engine? Not a chance. Whether individually or together they cannot run more than 40 mph and will soon tire at that and need to rest while the car can easily go over 100mph and won't have to stop or even slow down until the fuel runs out and then just long enough to refuel. 27 small fry together may look like one superpower....until you take a closer look and then they just look like 27 small fry huddled in a tight space held together by a net.

  • Comment number 13.

    I wouldn't like to have to act as King Solomon on this one, perhaps allocating half a representative to some countries.

    However, if some of the smaller economies allied themselves to another country or countries with similar financial interests, they could share a representative.

    No doubt the G20 gravy train will find a much better solution. All countries will have at least 1 representative. USA might have 100 representatives and China umpteen more than that.
    Now that leads to much jollier and expensive party doesn't it ?

  • Comment number 14.

    #12 Marcus

    You really should add a punch line at the start of your posts. I woul suggest ALWAYS GOOD FOR A LAUGH would be appropriate.

    You haven't woken-up yet. The USA is no longer a big country. The American Dream is dead. You have proprtionally more disadvantaged people than any European country. You have more homeless than any European country. Your infra-structure is collapsing. Your health care system is inefficient and costly. More US children go to bed hungry than do in Europe. How many of your States are now officially in deficit? Nobody wants your US$s - why is that?

    As for your car reference. Have you actually looked at the performance of US car makers?

    Perhaps you really should change your name to MYOPICAurelius11

  • Comment number 15.

    May be votes should go by how much the various countries have spent to stop the crisis? Or the fraction of GPD they spent to stop the crisis? Or how poor they are? Or make the voting inversely proportional to wealth per person?

    Or they could just elect one person to be president and let him or her decide everything! That could be GB's cunning plan.

  • Comment number 16.

    WHY ISN'T IT ALL MORE OBVIOUS?

    Europe's population is numerically akin to Africa demographically (in numbers), i.e about 700m, but indigenous Europe's shrinking, and not just in cognitive ability and economic power, hence all the immigration. The Balkanization of Britain into EU NUTS (6m demographically) i.e the NE, NW, SE, SW, London, M, (unified eventually) Ireland, Scotland and Wales, is the least of its worries. In the end, the EU must amalgamate into one economic/cultural state with 100+ NUTS (states?) in order to compete with the SCO/BRIC now that the UN is no longer just 'the allies' with onlookers.

    What everyone should be focusing upon economiclaly, I suggest, is the quite dramatic population decline across Europe. I take it everyone reading this is now aware of this, and not just lost in their own very local (independent) points of view? This catastrophic demographic decline is positively skewed (a deceptive technical term) too. It is fastest amongst the brightest, and 'education, education, education', paradoxiclaly accelerates the process.

    Can everyone here see how that perniciously works? Contrary to what many might think (if they believe that education is a panacea), all our glorious post WWII 'anti-racism' just helped to bring this about, although, having said that, this is no endorsement of racism per se.

    Anyone puzzled about this will really have to think about it in order to better appreciate how the Liberal-Demoracies have brought about their own downfall post WWII.

  • Comment number 17.

    #16 'Can everyone here see how that perniciously works?'

    I can!

    Keep posting....more and more people are waking up to the lies that we are fed every day by the PARTY POLITICO'S...every day.

    I had to laugh at BBC news tonight when they quoted Gecko Brown as claiming that the Tories will just let free market anarchy rule if they are voted in!

    This, on his return from Pitsburgh...where NO Glass-Steagall type legislation has been implemented to separate casino investment banks from plain vanilla retail banks....plus no ban banker bonus's either.
    I just wonder which bank Brown will work for once he loses office. The compliant are well rewarded, after their tenures in office (ala one T. Bliar)

    Hate Labour, Tories and Liberals etc.....they're all the same...vote outside the box!

    Watch-out for the next bubble!

  • Comment number 18.

    Postscript (#16) "all our glorious post WWII 'anti-racism' just helped to bring this about, although, having said that, this is no endorsement of racism per se."

    It was after WWII that the full impact of post WWI women's suffrage and the universal franchise began to take effect and erode the nuclear family and change the balance of the economy towards the Service Sector. WWII lost the UK its empire. Look at the group tail pattern here and explain to yourself why professional services are inefficient and in decline, not to mention our no longer producing anything. This is a group and numbers issue, not individual matter. There are always low frequency individual exceptions. Which group is otherwise renowned for this? Which group is this pattern more like. Which group is least like this, and has the highest criminogenic risk to boot?

    "Anyone puzzled about this will really have to think about it in order to better appreciate how the Liberal-Democracies have brought about their own downfall post WWII."

    Another destructive leveller is ICT. The externalization of our intelligence via programing/IT has fooled some into thinking that individual, human, prowess in decision-making can be neglected. The problem is that higher human intelligence is valuable precisely because it's mobile and programmable according to context/demand. This is not true of modern automation and computerisation which is still, in the real world, highly limited by application specific software.

    This last point is harder to grasp, but IT professionals will grasp it.

    BankSlickerminustheR (#17) Did Brown use the term anarchism verbatim?

    What's really needed to make it all clearer, is further independent explication from many others, each within their own field of work, I suggest.

    PS. Anyone watching the last episode of 'The Last Nazis' on Sunday should have been outraged at the obvious spin/propaganda/emotional hyperbole, sombre music etc. Anyone watching it should pay close attention to the credits at the end..

  • Comment number 19.

    #16,#18. JadedJean

    On the irrelevance and angerous nature of JJ's philosophy:-

    On the second line of #16 you write "indigenous Europe's shrinking", you then do on to blame in #18 "the full impact of post WWI women's suffrage".

    In the first instance you declare that things are worse (and given that this is an economics forum - this may be about economics) because the native European population is shrinking and in the second you blame the reduction in the subjugation of half of the population for part if not all of the ills (as defined by you) of the modern World.

    I object to, and refute, these lines of argument on ethical and moral grounds as well as factual and economic grounds. May I examine the opposite of your contentions for a moment. Let us suppose we have no immigration into Europe, which is a reasonable projection from your (racist) arguments. I cite US Steel (on economic grounds only) and ask was it not its founder that said the trouble with 'immigrants is that they learn too quickly'? (In this case that there were being exploited and could demand higher wages.)

    On the second argument you are saying that women should be the property of men and have no free will, vote or ability to control their own lives. This is clearly absurd and is not worthy of any further condemnation and is even more absurd when you consider the outrage at the milder laws just passed by the Afghan government and the international outrage that this caused.

    It seems to me that you wish to go back to a primitive dark ages (or even pre biblical) World of (mainly) male domination and a (supposed) zero immigration - this is an internal crisis for you and your positions are clearly at odds with the enlightenment let alone life and the reality of the twenty-first century.

    I add, that would it not be more productive to think about the World as it more nearly is, and look at more realistic change rather than live in some mythical nirvana?

  • Comment number 20.

    No 9 "Far better for the slaves to turn on their masters."

    Having turned on their masters, who then will be the new masters ?? Remember the lessons of Animal Farm !!

  • Comment number 21.

    Re 11.52, 26 September.
    If it is, indeed, true that the Israeli PM claimed that moslem values were 8th or 9th century, his maths are in need of serious revision. They are actually living in the first half of the 15th century.

  • Comment number 22.

    COGNITIVE BLINDNESS

    John_from_hendon (#19) "I object to, and refute, these lines of argument on ethical and moral grounds as well as factual and economic grounds."

    You may well object but you do not refute. That's a fact. You do not no what you are arguing with. That is arrogant. You object to learning in fact.

    "May I examine the opposite of your contentions for a moment. Let us suppose we have no immigration into Europe, which is a reasonable projection from your (racist) arguments. I cite US Steel (on economic grounds only) and ask was it not its founder that said the trouble with 'immigrants is that they learn too quickly'? (In this case that there were being exploited and could demand higher wages.)"

    This assertion is clearly refuted by the empirical facts which I have now posted here many times - and not just from ETS (the largest educational testing organisation in the world), it's also born out by out own government's data, as well as the OECD PISA data. Why doesn't any of this register with you? It is truly quite bizarre. Please answer this, but only after you have looked at the empirical evidence. See this to start - please begin with the video. Then, once you have grasped this, please see our own Leitch Review from HM Treasury in 2006, and then the dismal failure of the LSC on adult literacy/numeracy programmes. Why is all of this evdience not sinking in? The ETS NAEP data, the Leitch Review on skills, the OECD PISA data, all the academic professional literature I keep referencing. It is as if you are talking to some Cartesian screen in your head rather than the objective, real world evidence. This is most alarming, but sadly explanatory.

    Take this on board: You are wrong. Big-time.

    "On the second argument you are saying that women should be the property of men and have no free will, vote or ability to control their own lives. This is clearly absurd and is not worthy of any further condemnation and is even more absurd when you consider the outrage at the milder laws just passed by the Afghan government and the international outrage that this caused."

    I have said no such thing. You have said this, you simply translate what you read into some nonsense and then assert I have written it. Why? It suggest you can not read without fabrication. I have said that there are twice the number of males with IQs of 120 as there are women. This is a function of the more conservative range of scores for females as well as the small mean difference of 5 points in 'g'. This is a statistical point about distributions. Secondly, female sand males choose differnet subjects in higher educastion. females more arts subjests, males more science subjects. It si a drmatic differnece when looked at over all. Thirdly, higher education of brighter females reduces their fertility rate by delaying motherhood relative to less educable females. This skews the population dysgenically. This is a fact. It also contributes to the below replacement level overall national TFR. On the basis of the last analysed completed fertility cohort, 1/3 fermale graduates remained childless.

    "It seems to me that you wish to go back to a primitive dark ages (or even pre biblical) World of (mainly) male domination and a (supposed) zero immigration - this is an internal crisis for you and your positions are clearly at odds with the enlightenment let alone life and the reality of the twenty-first century."

    How thigs seem to you are hardly the point except as an indication of what you need to learn surely? Which part of the asssertion that Europe as a whole is headed towards extinction i.e biological unfitness, do yuou not grasp? With a TFR of 1.1 a population halves in 30 years, and with a TFR of 1.3 it halves in two generations (i.e. 60 years, it is hard to see because of lengevity). This has devaststing consequences economically. Eastern Europe, and much of Europe in general, has TFRs in the 1.1-1.3 range! You clearly do not understand what I am posting, nor its implications. Germany tried to deal with this in the 1930s and look how it was treated. That was political. Look at how you behave here. That is how it is allowed to happen, if not encouraged. You are contributing to this through omission.

    "I add, that would it not be more productive to think about the World as it more nearly is, and look at more realistic change rather than live in some mythical nirvana?"

    That is precisely my advice to you, but you are not listening. I am telling you the facts and you are arguing with them. How rational is this behaviour of yours?

    Food for thought?

  • Comment number 23.

    18 JJ

    But we all know they were not The Last Nazis, don't we JJ?

  • Comment number 24.

    ishkandar (#20) Animal Farm was written by a Trotskyite/Aanrchist. He went to Spain to fight with the POUM/CNT! Orwell was a subversive, and anti-Statist, You have been had. You have helped pull down your own welfare state.

  • Comment number 25.

    Well, they've all talked the talk !! Now, it's time to walk the walk !! Or as some American was supposed to have said, " In God, we trust. All others pay cash !!"

    China and Brazil have both put cash money on IMF's table. When are the others going to put proportionally equivalent cash on IMF's table ?? Promissory notes and "funny money" not acceptable, thank you !!

    Even tiny Singapore, with 0.4% of the votes, had plonked $2 billion on the table - http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2009/pr09302.htm

    What will Britain, with 4.94% of the votes, put in ?? Or the US, with 17.09% of the votes ??

    For more info on IMF's (current??) quota and voting rights - http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm

  • Comment number 26.

    No 4 I don't know if this is what you want but here's a site that might interest you - http://www.imf.org/external/news/default.aspx

    Hope this helps !!

  • Comment number 27.

    If we look at the foreign currency reserves of the world just before the crash only 8% of the total was held in combiation by the U.K, U.S and Eurozone countries. The simple fact is the West has run out of money. For the momet the east is playing it cool because it does not want to devalue its holdings in both dollars and U.S debt. But the fact is they hold the cash and sooner or later they will state their terms. Everyone else will have to fall in line or face the sidelining of the IMF.

  • Comment number 28.

    "A bad day for small Europeans"

    Historically, it's been mostly bad days for small Europeans !! Most of the time the Bigger Europeans have asked each other, "Whose turn is it to invade that little bit near us ??"

    A quick run through history will explain why all small Europeans, without fail, have defensive mentalities !! Aside for short periods of time, everyone seemed to have taken turns invading Poland !! Even the Mongols had their turn !!

    The Low Countries are probably the most fought-over soil in Western Europe !! The French and Germans took turns invading it after the Vikings, Brits and Spaniards had theirs !! Most of Eastern Europe had similar checkered histories too, aside from the few hundred years when they were ruled by the Mongols of the Golden Horde !!

    All in all, a bad day is rather the norm for small Europeans !! :-)

  • Comment number 29.

    No 19 "Let us suppose we have no immigration into Europe, which is a reasonable projection from your (racist) arguments."

    If there were no immigration, much of it will still belong to the Aurochs, Megaceros and Woolly Mammoths, with a handful of Cave Lions just for fun !! :-)

  • Comment number 30.

    #22. JadedJean wrote:

    Long rubbish and as usual says what he/she says is 'fact' whilst what others say is .opinion' - What arrogant tosh as usual.

    My objection to JJ is moral and ethical.

    The usual garbage of so called support for the racist and in this case gender repressive rubbish is spouted ad nauseam - JJ, repeating it will never make it acceptable or correct.

    Oh and by the way I will never listen to a racist and gender repressive. It is beyond the pail to include arguments that relate to economics (no matter how tenuously) that are based on gender or racial bigotry which you declare to be facts.

  • Comment number 31.

    24 JJ

    George Orwell was not a Trotskyite and he was certainly not an anarchist. POUM was a socialist party close in description to the Independent Labour Party, now sadly no longer with us, which existed prior to the Bolshelvik putsch in 1917 and so belonged to an earlier more human version of socialism. Indeed it was the ILP who helped Orwell join the POUM militia.

    Orwell's relationship with the CNT is best described as comradely. His main connection with CNT was through a British anarchist of Italian extraction. This person, whose name escapes me at the moment, was largely responsible for getting Orwell and his wife out of Spain after the suppression of POUM by the Comintern.

    When Orwell had written Animal Farm he offered the anarchist movement through this man the world publishing and film rights to Animal Farm. This kind offer was declined as the anarchist in question saw Animal Farm as a child's book. He obviously did not recognise a good business proposition which largely undermines all your ranting about anarchist bankers.

    I hope I have been able to fill you in on some relevant detail.

  • Comment number 32.

    stanilic (#23) "But we all know they were not The Last Nazis, don't we JJ?"

    Seemingly not. There was Socialist in One Country USSR (our commrades in arms in WWII), then the PRC, then the DPRK, then Vietnam, now 'Burma', Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, in fact, the SCO and probably BRIC (see who's waiting in the SCO wings too). Then there are all those Latin American states. At one time, there was even Old Labour, replaced by Trotskitye/Neocon New Labour alas. National Socialism is just central planning, the welfare state, natinally.

    How about a bit of honest analysis with a few rational responses to the facts which you and others here keep glossing over?

    I see your verbal behavour as a classic behavioural trademark.

    Less emotional appeals to the lower of spatial cognitive ability please.
    That just hastens our economic decline. Hopefully not your agenda?

  • Comment number 33.

    #20

    Orwell was never a Stalinist, he was a socialist.
    Animal farm portrays Stalinist Russia.
    He was still very much a revolutionary, despite his work being used in an anti-revolutionary way.

    Perhaps you are familiar with his 'Homage to Catalonia'?
    It's description of Barcelona in May 1936 (I think) are quite inspiring.

  • Comment number 34.

    John_from_Hendon (#30) "My objection to JJ is moral and ethical."

    Nothing to do with the empirical facts then?

    OK, Good. We can all now safely ignore you as irrational. Anyone who does not is as irrational as you.

  • Comment number 35.

    18 Jadedjean

    You say "The problem is that higher human intelligence is valuable precisely because it's mobile and programmable according to context/demand. This is not true of modern automation and computerisation which is still, in the real world, highly limited by application specific software."

    I'm not sure that "programmable" intelligence sits comfortably with your assertion that intelligence is inherited - who is doing the programming and why bother if (as you repeatedly assert) it can't be improved through teaching and learning?

    More importantly, I suggest that computing power will NEVER match up to the efficiency of the human brain in the latter's ability, over a lifetime, to actively ignore or forget (and all on the timescale(s) deemed most appropriate to the context) almost 100% of the information presented to it.

  • Comment number 36.

    A division that allocates % based on national population at a time when we need to incentivise lowering global population... brilliant. Who thought that one up?

    You don't need to be much of an economist to know that 5,000 people divided by 5 loaves and 5 fishes don't go, so unless you believe in miracles on a daily basis you'd better get on board with birth control.

    How about one country, one vote?

    It's what we use at the individual level, although it has it's critics - system that gives Aristotle the same say over who governs as it gives to the village idiot will always be flawed to some degree. That aside, it is seen as "the worst system of government except for all the others".

  • Comment number 37.

    DEAR SNOWBALL

    stanilic (#30) "I hope I have been able to fill you in on some relevant detail."

    Do you think you may just be missing something?

    Stalin considered the ILP Trotskite. Maybe I'm telling you something in these blogs that you have not grasped? Maybe my analysis overall is sound?

    Here are a couple of links on how high stakes poliical/psychological games are being played with most Gentile (and even many assimilated Jewish?) Europeans serving as 'piggies in the middle'?

  • Comment number 38.

    32 JJ

    The slogan was `Socialism in One Country'. It was actually an admission of defeat by the Comintern as every revolution they had tried to execute had failed. The only exception was dear old Chairman Mao who always had trouble with the Comintern and developed his own way of dealing with them.

    In China it is `Socialism with Chinese characteristics' of which you can make what you will. Given that China does not have a welfare state in any practical sense rather undermines your conceptualisation of National Socialism.

    So that I might appreciate your put down more exactly could you define your term `the lower of spatial cognitive ability'in simple English?

  • Comment number 39.

    ThorntonHeathen (#35) "I'm not sure that "programmable" intelligence sits comfortably with your assertion that intelligence is inherited - who is doing the programming and why bother if (as you repeatedly assert) it can't be improved through teaching and learning?"

    Cognitive ability is almost entirely down to genetic expression (that which is not is just blows to the body after genetic expression doe sits thing). Think of this as down to human RAM or hard disk storage capacity (neurones and transmitter chemistry, 'transporters/receptors' are genetically expressed. A Turing Machine is essentially what's at the heart of all computers, and is just a means of processing (and switching between a sequence of logical steps very quickly. It is all 'mechanical'. Programmability in humans is what Behaviour Analysts mean by shapiig behaviour, or operants by reinforcment. behaviours are emitted and operate upon environment and are changed in their frequency as a function of their outcome. This is called reinforcement. There's an awful lot of detailed work for you to catch up on. I suggest you begin with Skinner, Herrnstein, Rachlin etc as I have suggested. This is dry, empirical lab work. The laws are invariant across species. Begin with hyperbolic discounting and diversity (genetic differences in cognitive ability) to better appreciate what I have been explaining).

  • Comment number 40.

    37 JJ

    How Stalin defined other political movements was scarcely objective, was it? Having been forced into a policy of `Socialism in One Country' he had to call all other socialist parties as Trotskyite and then kill Trotsky. Can't you see the psychological angle in this approach?

    Why is it, JJ, when anyone puts pressure on you we get treated to your hang-up over Jewish people? That wouldn't be anything to do with your love of National Socialism, Stalin and the funny little bloke Charlie Chaplin took the mickie out of would it?

    Never mind: its all a conspiracy, isn't it?

  • Comment number 41.

    duvinrouge (#33) "Orwell was never a Stalinist"

    he was a Trotskyite/anarchist. See New Labour today for similar types, (or see the Conservatives or Lib-Dems, theyt'r eall basically the same).


    "he was a socialist. Like New Labour is socialist! They are international socialists, which make sthem effectively free-market globalitss if you think about it (little or no regulations). It's a con. You can seee this by the G8 vs G20 argument. Se Japan.

    "Animal farm portrays Stalinist Russia."

    Through the syes of a Trotskyite aka anarchist! Thee people are anti-state. They are anti NHS, anti state education, anti-state everything as that gets in the way of their free-market anarchism, i.e people's choice in supermarkets etc.

    Wake up.

  • Comment number 42.

    stanilic (#38) "The slogan was `Socialism in One Country'. It was actually an admission of defeat by the Comintern as every revolution they had tried to execute had failed."

    No, Stalin closed down the COMINTERN as part of expelling the old anarchists/Trotskyites etc. You need to listen to what I am telling you.

    "So that I might appreciate your put down more exactly could you define your term `the lower of spatial cognitive ability'in simple English?"

    You need to learn some of the science I am teaching here. The words require you to learn something new. Science creates new terms to describe what is discovered. The words later find their way into simple English. They are not in the basic dictionary to start with for what should be an obvious reason.

    To make a complex issue simple, the two major sub-scales of intelligence which together comprise 'g', are a) verbal intelligence and b) spatial inteligenece. Males are better at spatial than verbal generally, and females the reverse. It appears to be a brain gender thing, but it is physically based. Some males have more feminized brains and vice versa. Some groups are more prone to this than others too. I have covered this elsewhere. My main point in this blog is in the first post.

  • Comment number 43.

    Postscript (#42) That so many verbally able people don't grasp this, and will also aggressively argue against the facts, is perhaps the more important point to grasp in this context. It is this cognitive blind-spot (scotoma) itself which is interesting I suggest as it makes doing anything about the problems which are affecting us all in the Liberal-Democracies (East and West) so difficult.

  • Comment number 44.

    #34. JadedJean wrote:

    "John_from_Hendon (#30) "My objection to JJ is moral and ethical.""

    But your facts aren't! Your empiricism isn't! And your rationality isn't!

    You appear not to understand that there are no value free judgements!

    If being driven by moral and ethical standards is irrational to you then I am please to be called irrational by you.

  • Comment number 45.

    #18

    Erratum to my #17

    Maybe I might have slightly misquoted Gordon Brown.

    It was in his interview with Andrew Marr yesterday...what he actually said was...

    '...You can't go back to the Tory stuff about free markets deciding everything.'

    He actually says this approx half way through the interview.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/8277422.stm

    Just who does this clown think he's kidding?

    I'm convinced he makes this stuff up as he goes along!...and that he actually believes his own rhetoric that he single handedly 'saved the world from collapse'. He'll start wearing his pants on the outside next.

    KEEP TAKING THE PILLS GORDON!

    Nice to see that the BBC are at last growing some cajones (Re Andrew Marr)

  • Comment number 46.

    John_from_Hendon (#44) "You appear not to understand that there are no value free judgements!"

    You have just been seduced by the nonsense of 'Post-Modern' social 'science' which is essentially solipsistic, neo-Trotskyite/Gramscite nonsense. They were 'wreckers'. See Frankfurt/Austrian?Chicago Schools.

    If a species (race) does not replace itself, its numbers contract and ultimately it becomes extinct. If you set fire to wood it burns and turns into charcoal. If you heat uncontaminated water to 100 degrees at normal atmospheric pressure it boils, ultimately, it evaporates.

    Where are the 'value judgements'?

    You need to learn some real science. I am teaching you some.

    You have been badly taught, or, from the point of view of subversives, excellently conditioned to behave as an unwitting 'useful idiot'. It hae been cleverly done, so I am endeavouring to undo it, for those who will pay attention.

  • Comment number 47.

    John_from_Hendon (#46) "If being driven by moral and ethical standards is irrational to you then I am please to be called irrational by you."

    It is extremely dangerous to be driven by ideology and moral imperatives. See the current Arab-Israeli conflict where some on both sides assert that God is on their side. They are both waging jihad.

    One has to work with empirical reality and work with that as that's controlling behaviour far more than lofty talk about ethnics and morality.

    You should take a peek at what I have set out as it's happening. You just don't appear to know this. Knowing is an intensional, i.e psychological, state. These don't stop things happening, they often just amount to people being unaware of what's happening. I have explained how elsewhere.

  • Comment number 48.

    42 JJ

    Stalin closed down the Comintern because it had failed. Your reasoning is just the usual internal consistency that authoritarian personalities enjoy so much.

    With regard to the other bit you are perhaps explaining to me how my wife cannot read a map and has a very poor sense of direction. So if a male has a feminized brain then they will get lost as well. Perhaps this is due to the conditioning our hunter-gatherer forebears required so they could find the way home with their prey. However, all we actually have is a theory showing how some people can find their way around and others can't. I must advise though that my wife is very dexterous in verbal matters but then find me a wife that isn't.

    I find your argument about population decline a bit absurd. There are now 60 million people in this country. There were less than 50 million when I was born. Some decline, eh? Its like that other piece of nonsense the politicians keep dragging up; namely, we are all living longer. This is absolute rubbish. What we have is a statistical mean: a form of measurement based on certain criteria. Amend the criteria by adding other factors and you get a different result. Detail and context are everything!

    I am sorry to be so verbally capable. I will endeavour to be dimmer in the future as it will be more scientific to prove my historic role as part of the downtrodden lumpenproletariat but then I am an anarchist so it doesn't really count does it?

  • Comment number 49.

    BankSlickerminustheR (#45) The three parties are essentially the same though. By effectively proscribing (or vilifying) 'extremists', centrist party politics looks like a choice. Imagine the left and right being clipped off. An inverted U with the three main parties all at the bottom. As the left and right J is vilified (suppressed cognitively), one is left with what looks like a choice, but really it's just inertia - i.e. regulative anarchism, and the arguments between them hair-splitting which keeps you distracted from substantive issues of governance. Hence, when the BNP appears on the scene, it's major hissy fits from all three parties.

  • Comment number 50.

    #46

    IF John_from_Hendon may be described as a "'useful idiot" then we must ask the question what does that make you?

    In his #44 he is perfectly correct when he claims, "But your facts aren't! Your empiricism isn't! And your rationality isn't!" Therefore, that leaves you with being nothing more than an idiot (on the basis that you can't have a non-useful idiot).

    Even your claim to teach is untrue. In reality you are merely ego-scratching.

  • Comment number 51.

    #48 stanilic,

    Hold on! Who's you callin a "downtrodden lumpenproletariat"

    Downtrodden - yes by the Mrs

    Proletariat - OK part of

    Lumpen - I'll punch yer eyes out!!!

    hahahahahahahahaha (pity you can't put smileys on this board!)

  • Comment number 52.

  • Comment number 53.

    #47. JadedJean wrote:

    "It is extremely dangerous to be driven by ideology and moral imperatives"

    Garbage, and that is the politest repost that I can come up with.

    Discuss: is it better to be driven by value free error than it is to have an ethical and moral compass to steer one's way though life!

    Or rather do not 'discuss' as you have shown yourself at interminable and repetitive length that this is something that you are incapable of doing as you are ... (pause whilst seeking a polite expression) so absolutely convinced of your own correctness that you are unable to ever overcome your extreme arrogance.

    By the way this is an economics blog not a place for displaying your own ludicrous absolutist nonsense that is not even remotely connected with economics! We are supposed to be ruminating on the changes in the voting rights of small European countries resulting from the rise of the G20 and the decline of the G8.

  • Comment number 54.

    I think that when the ration of jj/jfH/StiC posts to any others reaches 10:1 the blog has ceased to be meaningful and should be closed down. A Bot could probably do this without moderator intervention. Better still, perhaps, maybe the BBC should set up a private blog somewhere for these debates to rage unrestrained. The Bot could be reprogrammed to trawl the private blog for repetition, gradually refining and structuring the arguments until the key points could form a thesis/counter-thesis that we could read at our leisure.

  • Comment number 55.

    #50. foredeckdave

    Dave,

    It is really quite sad that we allow ourselves to be diverted from the examination of economics by irrelevancies! Dishing out a good kicking may be fun but it is not really a good use of the skills, experience and knowledge of the contributors to this blog - I also fear that it puts off new contributors who pass by. Hey-ho...

  • Comment number 56.

    No 51 "hahahahahahahahaha (pity you can't put smileys on this board!)"

    Try this - :-) !! This was the original "smiley" !! Way, way before there were graphics on computers !! :-)

  • Comment number 57.

    No 48 "I am sorry to be so verbally capable. I will endeavour to be dimmer in the future as it will be more scientific to prove my historic role as part of the downtrodden lumpenproletariat but then I am an anarchist so it doesn't really count does it?"

    Perhaps if you beat your chest and grunt a lot more, it might help !! :-)

  • Comment number 58.

    stanilic (#48) You appear to have a somewhat feminized brain in that you mistakenly believe that arguing changes facts... ;-)

    "I find your argument about population decline a bit absurd. There are now 60 million people in this country. There were less than 50 million when I was born. Some decline, eh?"

    Britain has one of the best below replacemenmt level TFRs in Europe. It has a TFR of about 1.9. The reasom why the population has not changed dramatically yet as some, especially East European, countries have, is because of a) longevity and b) immigration.

    Note also that the registration of UK births only records country of birth of the mother, so births to 2nd 3rd generation Asians are recorded as British (as they should be). You should go and look at the TFRs of East Europe, Spain, Italy, Russia etc.. They are much worse off. Hence Mr Frattini is planning on bringing in 20 million from Africa and South Asia to make up the numbers a bit :-(

    "Its like that other piece of nonsense the politicians keep dragging up; namely, we are all living longer. This is absolute rubbish. What we have is a statistical mean: a form of measurement based on certain criteria. Amend the criteria by adding other factors and you get a different result. Detail and context are everything!"

    You are, I am afraid to say, a very 'argumentative' person (think 'Vicky Pollard' or 'Lauren' with a far better reading ability). I suggest you go and look at the demographic data. It's all out there.

    "I am sorry to be so verbally capable. I will endeavour to be dimmer in the future as it will be more scientific to prove my historic role as part of the downtrodden lumpenproletariat but then I am an anarchist so it doesn't really count does it?"

    You are doing very well at being exceptionally 'dim'. Please don't worry about that bit at all. ;-)

  • Comment number 59.

    John_from_Hendon (#16) "By the way this is an economics blog"

    Please see post #16 above and my many helpful instructions that you should educate yourself in areas which actually matter.

  • Comment number 60.

    REMARKABLE COGNITIVE BLINDNESS

    foredeckdave (#50) "IF John_from_Hendon may be described as a "'useful idiot" then we must ask the question what does that make you?"

    Not (a useful idiot)?

    Although, maybe I'm a bit idiotic in ever expecting the likes of you, JfH or stanilic to wake up to empirical reality instead of the solipsistic world which you live in inside your head, i.e thinking that you'll ever learn what really matters in the control of behaviour and stimulus control ('economies')? It would come as a major shock to you if you did you know.

    People such as yourselves used to be put into 'safe havens' where they could do as little harm to themselves and others as possible. They were not mad, just out of touch, Axis II? That's what happened in Germany and the USSR I suggest. It still happens in other places today. It always will. People like yourselves sadly can't see what you're doing which others regard as wrong, even when it is put right in front of them. I hope others reading this blog and following the links, e.g. the ETS one, can see some of this now.

  • Comment number 61.

    57 ishkandar

    Nice point.

    On reflection I must confess that for the last two threads I have participated on in this blog I have deliberately set out to whind another contributor up for the simple reason I thought they were a whind-up. I now have to admit that they actually believe in what they say.

    Now to those who feel this is a deflection from the real point of discussion I would like to draw your consideration to the reality that despite twelve years of terror and six years of vicious warfare National Socialism is back in the ascendant in Europe. It has a simple and easy appeal and despite everything will not go away.

    We have been here before in the Thirties with our institutions breaking down due to a lack of vision amongst our leaders. We have to be very careful as to how we approach our future. The recent German election suggests that my contention that social-democracy could be finished within the European context at least might have some validity. It was the collapse of social-democracy in Weimar which brought a certain party to power from whence a frightful disaster unravelled.

    The potential affect of the recent G20 conferences on small European democracies could be dire going forward. More and more of their governmental functions are being absorbed by the Commission in Brussels and, given the only nominal nature of democracy in the EU it has become more and more difficult for small groups to lobby government effectively within the EU. The disconnect between people and the nature of government decisions is becoming quite evident. This is the very soil in which political extremism can flourish.

    I would, however remind all and sundry that it is not just the small countries which will experience a loss of influence. I can see the most economically damaged going the same way and this includes the UK, Spain and Italy. The engine of Europe is in Germany; fortunately it is a BMW engine so it will run and run. We do have time to put our collective house in order but it is not a long time. We need to get it together and this will mean change in Brussels and all other seats of government.

  • Comment number 62.

    #59. JadedJean see post #16

    WRONG in every possible way (as I have said before). Simply repeating the lie that it is all about genetics and citing others who share your nonsense does not make it correct! Dr Goebels tried this nonsense about racial purity and Arian race and your rubbish is just as evil and just as absurd. Your so called facts simply are not true. They represent a denial of humanity and as such beyond the domain of science and well within the zone of garbage.

  • Comment number 63.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 64.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 65.

    John_rom_hendon (#62) "WRONG in every possible way (as I have said before). Simply repeating the lie that it is all about genetics and citing others who share your nonsense does not make it correct!"

    It isn't the repetition which makes it correct, it's the universal replication and absence of empirical refutation.

    You are in trhe grip of false beliefs. This is a fact. You can't see this. This is also a fact.

  • Comment number 66.

    #61 stanilic

    You have succinctly defined the imperative.

  • Comment number 67.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 68.

    Gordon has a cunning plan.....Baldrick must be quaking in his shoes.

    G8 becomes G20, conclusion the fudge becomes bigger and lasts longer.

    The banks need to be seperated back into low risk and high risk modules, a re-invention of the wheel is once more called for, I give you Glass-Steagall.

    The G20 give you fudge on bankers bonuses, the deliberations of committees are ever thus; Why deal with the cause when you can forever debate the effect.

  • Comment number 69.

    JJ...keep posting.

    I have to try very hard to be reasoned in my response to your defamers!

    Your logical, objective and substantiated posts are appreciated.

    Only cowards/bullies tend to hunt in gangs.

    None of your detractors have EVER posted ANY links to ANY information that opposes your position by simple argument...or that which simply refutes the facts that you state. They only choose to attack you on a personal level. I realise that that you have explained this reaction/behaviour on many occasions.

    Rhetoric really is cheap.

    I guess, in the end, if anything that you have posted on here was either racist or biggoted...then it would surely have been moderated out.

    I guess, sometimes, some people just can't bear to hear the truth.
    Or...they really do have ulterior motives for their constant, personal verbal attacks against you; rather than against your well made, reasoned arguments.

    I truly despair for this country.

    You are better than they are.

    Keep posting.

  • Comment number 70.

    #69. BankSlickerminustheR wrote:

    "JJ...keep posting.

    I have to try very hard to be reasoned in my response to your defamers"

    Your use of the description 'defamers' indicates that you also support JJ's Dr Goebels's position - Do you? Do you really support JJ in the Arian supremacy / white genetic supremacist position?

    But I would also not wish to silence JJ, but that does not mean that I will be any the less censorious and rigorous and forthright in my absolute condemnation of supremacist genetic arguments when applied to any, and all, fields of study. I view any and all arguments based upon or that imply such a basis, as abhorrent and unconscionable and improper in any and all forms of civilised debate.

    By the way I despair of a country that does not find such genetic arguments abhorrent and unconscionable. There is and can be no 'reason' in such arguments and I will always vehemently oppose such arguments, but as I said I do not wish that JJ ceases posting.

  • Comment number 71.

    And then there were 2 or is it really still only 1?

  • Comment number 72.

    John_from_hendon (#70) In the UK, the ordinal relationship in SATs at all Key Stage levels is:

    British Chinese/British Jewish
    British Indians
    British Whites
    British African
    British Pakistani/Bangladeshi
    British Caribbean

    Each year this is based on nearly 600,000 pupils.

    You have been told this many times, and you have been given links to the official record.

    Internationally, mean IQs are ordered:

    East Asia ~106
    White Europe ~100
    Sub Saharan Africa ~ 70

    The higher mean IQ of Black Amercians of ~85, is higher than sub-Sshara Afrcia because of better nutrition, health-care and years of admixture with the white population.

    In addition, TFR and IQ is highly negatively correlated at national level universally, whilst SES/GDP is highly positively correlated. This is why countries with low mean IQs have limited infrastructure and are socially unstable.

    You persistently get these well documented facts wrong, so you persistently misrepresent and misattribute. Why? Are all the educational researchers and official organisations wrong? If so, please explain how you know this. Where is your counter evidence? Your not wanting it to be true does not, and can not, make it not true.

    Do you understand that?

  • Comment number 73.

    58 JJ

    All I have done is point out to you certain inaccuracies in your data. You then accuse me of arguing against facts. I have pointed out to you many times that your historical knowledge is very poor.

    I will argue when you are wrong. This is the nature of informed debate. Today you have defied me on a number of points which I know to be correct as I have talked with people who were there at the time and whose views are sustained by other written and accredited evidence. What more information do you need?

    The issue is that you are unable to accept where you are wrong. You may see this as a strength but I see it as a great weakness. This is your problem not mine. For my part I will continue to argue the points where you are wrong. You talk about teaching but in order to teach you need to listen and learn first.

  • Comment number 74.

    stanilic (#73) "All I have done is point out to you certain inaccuracies in your data."

    That is both factually untrue and logically absurd. One cannot argue with data, one can use data to argue from. Argument is a logical procedure which is mechanical, i.e computational. What I have been sharing here in these blogs, for some time, are empirical data and arguments drawing on those data. This is just a way of making the data better known. Argument contributes little more than that as argumennt is essentially tautologous. It is data that matters. measures over variabels and their relationships. The arguments are logically sound. The data are reliable i.e well researched. I have provided many links to sources, all of which appear to have been ignored. This worries me. Rational people do not ignore evidence, they present additional evidence. That is how research is done. This research has been done. I am summarising it. Those arguing with me here appear to me to be very irrational people as a consequence. We can all see that the economy is in trouble. In #16 I explained why this is the case. This is not something I came up with overnight.

  • Comment number 75.

    #74

    The big flaw in your argument is the use to which you put the data. Within its bondaries the data may be well researched. However when it is exposed to the 'real' world and a myrad of other factors have to be taken into consideration, much of it loses it's value.

    You really must learn to listen and question yourself before you pontificate. stanilic has given you a history lesson today but you can not follow your own advise and thank him for teaching you what you obviously did not know or misunderstood.

    If you believe that your #16 is an explanation of why the economy is in the state it is then you are certainly myopic in your thinking.

  • Comment number 76.

    #71. At 10:14pm on 28 Sep 2009, foredeckdave wrote:
    And then there were 2 or is it really still only 1?

    You seem to say this with glee!

    I can assure you it's not one.

    I studied engineering at (and graduated from) one of the Russell Group universities in the 80's.

    I don't know much about genetics or genetic theory, however, having studied a numerate/scientific degree subject, I do understand reasoned arguments based on factual data, using scientific and statistical analysis of the data.

    I can assure you that the facts that she posts are usually very factual/honest in form and presentation (from what I have investigated via the links, for over a year now) and are mainly scientifically correct. Nearly all of the websites linked to, are respected governmental sponsored sites.

    She also posts links to major national press websites...including Arabic as well as Jewish/Israeli websites...how can these links be construed as racist?

    If you ever read a scientific paper on any technical subject you will find references annotated throughout the paper whenever hypotheses or conclusions are made...which are then listed at the end of the paper.

    The classic example includes the book 'The Bell Curve' written by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray...(one of whom is Jewish for crying out loud!)

    I do not see this recognised scientific procedure adhered to you in your 'ad hominem' attacks on her.

    I have yet to see such an approach used against the main subject of her posts...namely proven cognitive group differences and their potential effect on an economy.

    She doesn't seek persecution of the Jewish group, she is only trying to understand their behaviour from a genetic perspective.

    Or, maybe the world really is flat!

  • Comment number 77.

    # 64 John_from_Hendon

    Your reply to JadedJean "Dr Goebels tried this nonsense about racial purity and Arian race and your rubbish is just as evil and just as absurd."

    Just to remind readers, in a the previous blog 'What could/would/should central banks have done?', JJ linked to a report (at #130) about the Malaysian Prime Minister saying 'Jews rule the world'.

    In that same blog (#88) JJ seems to give credit to Stalin and Hitler for their dealings with 'trouble-makers'.

    At #119, JJ seems to deny that Jews were persecuted in Russia, but suggests what happened to them was 'retaliation' for their 'predatory behaviour'.

    In another blog, 'Gotcha', JJ links to a pages that claim Jews want to corrupt society and "bring about this hell on earth (#269). Another link (at #281) claims" Jews dominate the art world, as they dominate the mass media and every other area of influence" and talks of the "Jewish Mafia".

    As you rightly point out, this is all very reminiscent of what Goebbels said in 1932, which formed part of Nazi ideology. This was the basis of their 'justification' for the final solution and extermination of Jews. See this historical pamphlet to read what the Nazi's were saying. It's interesting to compare with JadedJean's posts and links.

    JJ's views on Black IQ and 'cognitive ability' have also been repeated ad nauseam.

    In a way it's useful that others can read these sorts of bigoted views to get a better understanding of the intolerance in the world. But it's also very tiresome to be bombarded with such nonsense on a blog that's supposed to be about economic issues.

    JadedJean attempts to justify these views with repetitive talk of genetics and psychobabble. It's not not worth engaging with such rubbish.





  • Comment number 78.

    #77 me

    I was replying to John_from_Hendon #62, not #64 as stated. Sorry for typo

  • Comment number 79.

    #76 BankSlickerminustheR


    I can assure you that I am far more than just acquainted with academic papers and their strengths and weaknesses.

    In JJ's case it is the use of the data that is so virilantly opposed, together with an arrogant use of history, politics and economics that is continually proven to be wrong.

    If you care to look more closely at the academic studies you will find that both Skinner's and Hernstein's work has provoked more opposition than it has support. It cannot be presented as unopposed fact.

    If you care to research the work on the analysis of human value and potential you will find that IQ is largely dismissed as a valid indicator. Surely these two factors are of far more economic importance?

    Now, you must form your own conclusions. I will continue to oppose those statements that I find factually or morally wrong. I will also oppose the cowardly use of propoganda. If JJ has the courage of his/her convictions then it is an easy matter to publish a manifesto - to date this has not happened despite numerous requests.


  • Comment number 80.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8278581.stm

    As usual, it is easier to make dictats than to implement them !! This government had very obviously *NOT* studied the scale of the need nor had it studied the resources required to satisfy that need.

    This story had been repeated throughout the laws passed by this government whereby, laws are passed to satisfy passing whims and fancies without clear objectives and knowledge of the needs and means of implementing them and all the possible consequences arising from that !!

    The most famous case in the financial world is the scrapping of the 10% tax band. Give you one guess who did it !!

  • Comment number 81.

    IS IT POLITICAL OR IS IT PSYCHIATRIC?

    foredeckdave (#79) "I can assure you that I am far more than just acquainted with academic papers and their strengths and weaknesses."

    No, sadly, this is not true. As with so much else that you post, what you write misrepresents reality. Do you sincerely believe the falsehoods you hold true? That is impossible to say based on blog postings alone, but you behaviour and that of John_from_Hendon and others is depressing grist to my mill alas. Journalists like SF, Peston etc should be covering this all too prevalent irrationality at much greater length and depth, as it is slowly destryoing our economy/culture.

    There are peole posting to blogs who do not write about reality, just their strange fantasies, how they would like to appear etc. Beware.

    Here is Muray on the overall problem of individual diffferences, and here is Coleman on his treatment by 'students' a while back.

    We are seeing some of this bizarre human behaviour in this blog. The reason why the economic and social problems we are enduring were not better predicted (ETS warned of this in feb 2007, and reported that the general public couldn't take it in) and is not now better managed, is because of the way that so many people respond to the truth of the matter. This is the legacy of the post-war denazification programme of allied psychological warfare units I suggest.

    There is a much bigger problem for some protagonists who use others as footsoldirs (although many don't see this). Here's part of it. Some see this as a battle for their survival, hence the ruthless cognitive distortions. They will use anything and anyone to secure hegemony, even though the only reason they are having to battle in the first place is because they have a problem with others through their own blindness to the consequences of their narcissistic behaviour. Most Europeans and Americans are just being used as pawns in a greater, darker game.

    And meawhile, the Pound and Euro approach parity.

  • Comment number 82.

    #78 Distant Traveller

    I take the attitude to JJ's postings described so succinctly and memorably by Pastor Niemöller (First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out etc... etc...) I find them totally outside the ambit of reason and debate and further that they need to be opposed as they are pernicious and insidious.

  • Comment number 83.

    74 JJ

    Your data was wrong, just accept it. When I get things wrong, I do. It is what happens in life so why worry. Relax, adjust and be mellow about it.

    What do they teach them at university these days? The expansion of further education has a lot to answer for: but then it was always a subsitute for engaging with the real world.

  • Comment number 84.

    stanilic (#23) "But we all know they were not The Last Nazis, don't we JJ?"

    Read the Labour Party manifesto of British 'National Socialism' in 1945, the manifesto was drafted by Michael Young who coined the term 'meritcracy' and criticized Blair for misusing/misunderstanding it shortly before he died. It was Michael Young who had earlier said what Herrnstein was to add flesh to with his book on IQ and meritocracy in 1973. It was Michael Young who started what was to find fruition in The Bell Curve in 1994.

    What you have to take on board is that the 1945 Labour manifesto was essentially Stalinist in objective (as is the PRC constitution today); that is what a welfare state looks like. That is what has been destroyed by Thatcher and politicians after her.

    Who was behind them? Who's vilifying National Socialism today? Who did so after the expulsion of Trotsky and the other Old Bolsheviks in the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s?

    It's you who needs the history lessons. You don't see the consequences of your own anarchism. You do not learn from experience. You are not an empiricist, you are an ideologue.

  • Comment number 85.

    stanilic (#83) "Your data was wrong, just accept it."

    What data is wrong? This?.

    This?

    This?

    What do you think data is? To me it's measures over variables and their mathematical functional relations.

  • Comment number 86.

    # 82 John_from_Hendon

    "I take the attitude to JJ's postings described so succinctly and memorably by Pastor Niemöller (First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out etc... etc...) I find them totally outside the ambit of reason and debate and further that they need to be opposed as they are pernicious and insidious."

    Yes, I absolutely take your point about the need to oppose views such as those. And there is the dilemma. The risk of continued engagement is that it might suggest that there is some validity to the argument being offered. But if you ignore it without challenge, it might appear to gain validity by default. If a lie is repeated often enough, some people will begin to believe it - a technique mastered by Goebbels and the Nazi machine.

    Similarly, politicians sometimes have to consider if they want to 'share a platform' with racists - and the BNP appearing on Question Time raises the same issues.

    Personally, I find JJ's comments so utterly obscene (eg. suggesting Jews were not persecuted in Russia - it was merely 'retaliation' for their 'predatory behaviour') as to not be worthy of serious debate. (see earlier blog 'What could/would/should central banks have done?' #119,)

    However, the reason I have responded to some of those remarks is really to point out to other readers where this is really coming from - and leading to. (Some of the thinly-veiled innuendo may not be immediately obvious). But as for JJ, I don't hold out much hope that she/he can be persuaded by serious discussion - so that's why I wrote it's not worthy of engaging with such rubbish.

    JJ has now raised the same questions about Black IQ and Jews in several unrelated blogs, although nothing to do with the original topics. This raises the dilemma for others who are interested in Stephanie's blog as to whether to respond or treat it with the contempt it deserves. I believe in free speech which is why I do not resort to the 'complain about this comment' button. However, as this is a pre moderated blog, I am surprised and disappointed that some of these comments and links have been allowed through.

  • Comment number 87.

    WATER IS WET AND FIRE BURNS: NO ARGUMENT

    DistantTraveller (#86) "The risk of continued engagement is that it might suggest that there is some validity to the argument being offered. But if you ignore it without challenge, it might appear to gain validity by default."

    You are an instantiation of the problem - i.e lack of awareness of the role you play in your own downfall.

    Read this. Some areas of science itself have been under attack in recent times. You might ask why.

    You are either another victim of sophisticated anti-statist propaganda or just another pedddler of it. The objective of anti-statism was to push free-market libertarianism to the limit, and the only question really worth asking now, I guess, is to what end was it done? Was it Soviet driven (see Golitsin's two books) in an effort to hasten the collpase of capitalism from within by removing the Keynesian brakes, or was it just naive anarchism, narcissism and greed? In the end it's academic.

  • Comment number 88.

    Postscript (#87) "JJ has now raised the same questions about Black IQ and Jews in several unrelated blogs, although nothing to do with the original topics."

    Go and look at this link #5. Look at these demographics of NYC. Think of 9/11. Think of the context of predatory lending. Think of the context of the issue under general discussion on economics. Psychologists use the FACTORS 'intelligence' and 'personality' much as physicists use 'mass' and 'force'. Diversity is used epidemiologically. Do you understand why? It's the same reason why twin-studies are used.

    You just don't understand. Don't project you lack of understanding onto what I am posting.

  • Comment number 89.

    AN AMBASSADOR OF GOOD WILL AND PHILANTROPHISM

    Ameriquest

    DistantTraveller (#86) "I am surprised and disappointed that some of these comments and links have been allowed through."

    I bet you are, people like you would like the truth censored not aired.

    Here's something which sums some of what you don't want looked into. Meanwhile, guess who's been put in the frame - statist China. The evil savers and workers.

  • Comment number 90.

    Still spouting ths same old Continuous Regurgitated Antic Propoganda JJ - only it appears nobody believes you!

  • Comment number 91.

    erratum (#89) PHILANTHROPISM

  • Comment number 92.

    foredeckdave (#90) "Still spouting ths same old Continuous Regurgitated Antic Propoganda JJ - only it appears nobody believes you!"

    That view, sadly, is a clear symptom of Liberal-Democratic dysgenesis.

  • Comment number 93.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 94.

    #86 DistantTraveller. Whilst I would not disagree as to your general assessment of the musings of Jadedjean I do wonder why this person comes in for your repeated criticism at the expense of other equally "worthy" and more influential candidates.

    Perhaps you remember Gordon Brown welcoming the King of Saudi Arabia to London. If I recall correctly he spoke of the many shared values and interests of the two cultures.

    Do you agree with him? If so is this one of the values or interests that you share?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7098480.stm

    How many people have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as a consequence of British policy and actions? Is it not possible that the fact that no-one can agree on an exact number somewhat more obscene than some rantings of a likely eccentric?

    Do you know that the British government acted to prop up the Khmer Rouge? - a regime that exterminated approximately 30% of its population. Any thoughts on the obscenity of that action?

    If you are in way any exposed to US culture how about the fact that the Pentagon developed a computer program that "demonstrated" that the life of 1 US Marine was equivalent to the lives of 80,000 Rwandans and hence the computer said no in terms of seeking to act to stop the Rwandan genocide.

    There is plenty of obscenity to go around - no need to expend all your fire on one insignificant target.




  • Comment number 95.

    I am accused of wanting "the truth censored not aired" (#89), but when I point out that is not so, my post is removed! (#93)

    Astonishing!

 

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.