Japanese economy will rise. South Korea economy will rise. Chinese economy will rise if it adopts capitalism. North Korea economy will rise it adopts capitalism. . Singapore, Taiwan, Hongkong economy will rise. In generally, east Asia will become the only peer competitor of west dominance in technology and science.
South east Asia economy will grow but stagnate and not reach the same level of east Asia countries and West European countries. Latin American economy will grow but stagnate and not reach the same level of east Asia countries and West European countries. Middle east economy is hopeless if they dont have oil. Africa is hopeless unless they have a lot of resources. India is hopeless unless they have a lot of resources.
what does IQ have anything to do with being a hard worker with high trust values? IQ is not a predicter, IQ is a result of first world countries able to deliver good ecucation. most high IQ notes from the USA comes from indians and chinos.
Aiden Myers
absolutely correct, fuck off OP
Jason Lewis
iq predicts these things as well. Check researches, these are well known scientific facts
Benjamin Roberts
iq is american propaganda
Oliver Gonzalez
>Africa is hopeless unless they have a lot of resources. What do you mean "if"? They do have a lot of resources, but those resources are no use to someone who cannot understand and implement modern industrialism. The cobalt was in the ground for billions of years but nobody did shit with it until some people figured out that it can be dug up, purified, and employed for industrial purposes. A resource wothout the skill to exploit it is just inert matter.
Elijah Nguyen
It is more sad that they have resources and still hopeless
Adam Price
Hard work by itself is of little use. Digging holes in the ground by hand is hard work, but also useless. Carrying goods in your hands instead of using a cart or truck is useless. If you can't understand VSDL, you'll never male microchips, no matter how hard you work. The John Frum people who built airstrips from straw and bamboo and radios from coconuts also work hard at that, but the cargo planes still do not arrive.
Elijah Kelly
iq is tied with lifetime earnings and success,possibly the strongest correlation of any psychological evaluation, makes the rest of psychology look like a joke.
John Gomez
Why didn't IQ predict gommunism collapse, german stagnation, etc, etc and why does anybody trust chinese iq figures when they're exactly the sort of people to cheat on iq tests
Connor Ramirez
this is why bushwars and genocide of niggers in africa is required to make humanity prosper
Ethan Rodriguez
Resources often make an economy worse because people can coast from inefficient extraction and saley e.g. people washing gold from rivers in the Congo. You could get the gold much more efficiently, but you won't if you can make some meager living off of those tiny gold nuggets. Historically, it was actually resource-poor countries who had a hard time with extraction that industrialized, like England, where you laboriously had to dig up coal, Germany which only had the Ruhr valley where shit wasn't just lying around either, our South Korea. If you don't have everythint lying around, you have to make up for it with productivity. There are poignant analogies to jungles vs. pine forests, where the former have poor soil quality but much greater biodiversity (analogous to the greater diversity of industry in resource-poor countries), and to people living in harsh climates with perilous winters for which you have to prepare vs. people living in subtropical grasslands with fruits year-round. Productivity develops on the edge between abundance and scarcity, where efficiency makes a difference.
Joshua Campbell
because communism prevents smart people from working. no incentive for reward, no inventive to use your brain
Juan Sanders
stupid argument, both US and China have plenty of resources
Matthew Reyes
It's not the natural resources that made Europeans and Koreans genetically strong, we've been genetically strong dating back to the ice age. The consistent, cyclical harsh conditions are what made us so competent; winter is coming and if you're not prepared you'll be dead by spring. The soil is bad in rain forests because the heat and high humidity allow plants to grow so incredibly fast that they just rapidly suck all the available resources from the ground.
Robert Lee
>Japanese economy will rise Lmao, the nips will die before their economy rises
Matthew Gonzalez
The Soviet Union was extremely unproductive because it had no signals to regulate production (price set by supply and demand). Instead of high grain prices incentivizing increased output and everything that went into the agricultural production chain, some central planner decided how much grain there needed to be and while he did make sure that the people got enough fertilizer and machinery, nobody asked how much grain actually should be produced. It's a push- vs. pull-based system, actually similar to modern "trendy" consumer goods lile iPhones, where Apple also manufactures the need by telling consumers that having an iPhone is a religious experience instead of satisfying a pre-existing demand. This is also quite inefficient in terms of the utility to the overall economy. Grain is actually far from the worst example, because that can at least be estimated well from caloric needs. A better example of inefficnency were consumer goods like cars, which had a 5-10 waiting list onto which only a small segment of the population could get and which were dogshit. Lada was based on a FIAT license from the 60s (in the 80s); Trabant was a proprietary design with a two-stroke engine and a plywood frame of which you couldn't choose the color.
Alexander Gomez
It didn't matter how intelligent you were in the Soviet bloc because your initiative was stymied or you got shot if you made too much trouble. Intelligence is a resource like any other that needs to be exploitet, just like gold or aluminium. Germany stagnates because of demographic collapse brought on by urbanization, which is an unsolved problem to this day. With advanced aging, you first get decreased consumption (young people are consumer, you run out of them first, though you can paper over this through exports), then decreased investment (middle-aged people have capital to invest, though you can paper over this too via foreign direct investment, see the index fund craze of 2000-2020, but this is also already less efficient as money gets thrown at everything indiscriminately), and then you run out of everything and get rampant inflation as you only have retiree consumers with subsistence-consumption and no more labor. At this, last stage, you can only paper over things by providing liquidity for international markets with your currency, creating an artificial demand for it (Euro in international trade). This is partly the reason for today's hyperfinancialization and low interest rates, as high supply of cash and low demand for it for economic acticity causes the price of money to go down - low interest rates are a sign of a depression, and contrary to what they want you to believe, the central banks didn't set those low out of their own volition; rather, they cannot raise them. Somewhat similarly to the Soviet system, we have here a structural problem that cannot be solved with magical IQ juice just gushing around out there in society. If you have structural problems like these, IQ doesn't do shit on its own unless that IQ is applied to solving those problems. If people are prevented from applying their intelligence to solving them by entrenched interests like the EU/lobbyists/the Stasi, they won't be solved.
Jordan Sanders
>thinks bloated numbers for virtue signal points are real indians and chinks are some of the dumbest bastards there are. white always invent shit
Kevin Collins
I.Q. is important although only one factor. This is why to prevent the collapse of civilisation we need to do eugenics, using ivf the best people genes should be implanted into every young women. Within a few generations I.Q will increase to 200 plus.
China is not a tropical paradise. It developed based on rice farming, which is incredibly labor intensive. Those rice terraces didn't make themselves. It also got invaded frequently from the North. In contrast, in Central Africa, you had food within easy reach (at pre-industrial population levels, anyway), but, on the other hand, no ability to develop infrastructure because of the extremely adverse geography. In one respect, it's a place with overabundance, in another, with absolute poverty. England, as a counterexample, has a harsh climate yet the ability to develop infrastructure because it's mostly flat and has access to the sea. America was settled by people who had been made intelligent and productive in Europe - the natives before the Europeans never developed it. But even here, we see the Northeast industrializing much more rapidly than the more lush South, where plantations were common. My argument is that if you develop in an easy environment, you'll never increase productivity because you don't need to. This is true both evolutionarily over evolutionary time scales and societally.
Ryder Perry
>200IQ average That'd be unsustainable on its own because you need lower-skill labor too. But more importantly: human minds are not equivalent to their ability to reason, but also need a lot of other cognitive functions to make a functional and sane whole. Just like with those anthropoligical mutt horrors that look like you had pressed "random" in the Oblivion character creator, you need a period of selection to harmonize that mix of traits, reducing entropy until you converge onto something that is no longer hideous. The 160IQ person who only has an IQ that high because he has a gene that makes glutamate signalling more efficient or whatever will still have the instincts and social dynamics of a baseline human and will often be quite maladapted, like many such people indeed are. They create their own languages and whatnot for fun, but they kill themselves by 25 or become recluses, being unable to overcome both their own unbalanced minds as well as their adverse environments (like colleges that are midwit daycare). Under the IQ-only hypothesis, they should just IQ it out, yet they do not. You can't have a society that works like ours, with the only change being that everyone has 200IQ. You'd need structurally different society, just like how we do not live in burrows like our rat-like mammal ancestor. This isn't an argument against eugenics in general, just against their reduction of everything to IQ.
