What if Jefferson had gotten the agrarian country he wanted?

[Speaker to Animals]

Or if you want to see it in pictures..

[brewster]

Iceland and Japan have fuck all for resources, but their mean IQ is relatively high, and they built strong economies.

Iceland is not a great example of a modern economy, I was there recently. Its nearly Jeffersonian, except extractive from the land and sea rather than agrarian, the land ain't worth crap except to raise meat ponies. There's huge holes in your racist model, how about Argentina with a large percentage of European immigrants and huge resources has been an economic basket case for centuries? Culture, now that's a different story.

But what of my OP, how do you see a Jefferson win playing out?

[Speaker to Animals]

Iceland and Japan have fuck all for resources, but their mean IQ is relatively high, and they built strong economies.

Iceland is not a great example of a modern economy, I was there recently. Its nearly Jeffersonian, except extractive from the land and sea rather than agrarian, the land ain't worth crap except to raise meat ponies. There's huge holes in your racist model, how about Argentina with a large percentage of European immigrants and huge resources has been an economic basket case for centuries? Culture, now that's a different story.

But what of my OP, how do you see a Jefferson win playing out?

Look at the GDP per capita map above, note Iceland's color, look at the legend to see where they stand, and then get back to me with this talk about how they are not a modern economy.

I think Jefferson was a cockbag, and I think the original premise is bogus.

We can have the same kind of civilization we have now without these massive cities. Really, it's already happening. Industry has been steadily moving out of the cities for "flyover country" for years now.

Indeed, our own industrial revolution began in small towns across New England. Not in New York City or Boston. The idea that we should maintain more dispersed populations in smaller communities remains a valid objective, and all the nasty evidence coming out of the cities today support it.

[brewster]

Look at the GDP per capita map above, note Iceland's color, look at the legend to see where they stand, and then get back to me with this talk about how they are not a modern economy.

This shows their exports are extractive, the smelting is basically exporting geothermal and hydro energy.

Far as I can tell from this graphic, Iceland's economy is giving each other backrubs. Astoundingly, their financial sector is an even bigger proportion of their economy than ours, a bad sign.

I think Jefferson was a cockbag, and I think the original premise is bogus.

How is the premise of the early Republicans getting their way bogus? This was the major political battle of the 1st 2 decades of the country.

[Speaker to Animals]

Because there was more to what they wanted than simply less cities and lots of small farms.

We can have an advanced society without cities. If anything, I think the cities hold us back. There was a time when having that population density offered advantages, but no longer.

Manufacturing and other sectors are leaving those urban areas for red states. There has been a steady population drain from cities as well.

There's no need for these places and no need to live like that.

[Speaker to Animals]

The other problem with your premise is that you failed to note that it's actually industries that drying up with respect to jobs due to mechanization and automation, driving people back out into rural areas or leaving them on horrific welfare plantations in the cities. Instead, you posited some nightmare scenario where rural people are shit out of work with no industries to provide them with jobs. The reality is completely inverted.

[Zlaxer]

Or if you want to see it in pictures..

HAHA...Stupid Canucks. USA BETTER.

[Speaker to Animals]

Interesting analysis: http://www.heritage.org/government-regu ... lue-states

Flyover America is kicking your asses right here in the now.

[JohnDonne]

If the racial economic theory is true, what about North and South Korea? Seems like a big exception. It would be interesting to compare IQs between the two countries. If they turned out to be relatively disparate, that would point more towards GDP influencing IQ and less towards IQ influencing GDP. If they are relatively equal, then an explanation would be required for why their outcomes are so stark.

Also, for anyone interested, here's a graph of the world economic history for the last 2000 years.

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/a ... 5%20AM.png

(Edit) How come Canada and Mexico have the same color in your GDP chart?

[Speaker to Animals]

If the racial economic theory is true, what about North and South Korea? Seems like a big exception. It would be interesting to compare IQs between the two countries. If they turned out to be relatively disparate, that would point more towards GDP influencing IQ and less towards IQ influencing GDP. If they are relatively equal, then an explanation would be required for why their outcomes are so stark.

Also, for anyone interested, here's a graph of the world economic history for the last 2000 years.

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/a ... 5%20AM.png

(Edit) How come Canada and Mexico have the same color in your GDP chart?

But to discount the cultural angle.. Africa has access to all the ideas and values that made the West great. We hardly kept these things secret. But they seem constitutionally unable to adopt these ideas. Asians are willing to adopt western ideas and values as needed to get the effect. They didn't have trouble doing it. So, maybe it's partly cultural too, but you need the genetic predisposition to adopt these kinds of social behaviors in the first place.

As I said, IQ is the prerequisite, but you still need those cultural and social forms developed by the West. North Korea has no intention of adopting those things.

Also, some of the social forms you see in western civilization seem to be relatively recent genetic adaptations (i.e. the development of a middle class). You could theoretically develop a middle class in the economic sense anywhere, but that doesn't mean you get the genetic behavior associated with a western middle class.

If whatever alleles that give rise to the behavior are present in the other races, the development of a middle class, and it's maintenance for many generations, might give rise to the behavior. I don't know if that's possible or not. The key genetic behaviors involved tend towards future-planning and putting the future welfare of one's children first. These values lead towards a greater emphasis on education and social rise over generations. This is something that began in the middle ages and gave rise to the technological civilization we have today. It's not something you can just mandate through government policies either. People have tried that all over places like Africa and South America with poor outcomes.