Thread replies: 101
Thread images: 13
Thread images: 13
>>
>>1848869
Are East Asians just genetically and culturally predisposed to development unlike South Asians?
>>
East Asia is made up of ethnically homogeneous states, was never really colonized in the same way South Asia was, and in the case of certain countries like Japan, Singapore, or South Korea, had a shit ton of foreign investment from the West in the early years of the Cold War to rebuild and jump start their economies.
>>
>>1848909
What about China?
Explain Iran
>>
>>1848909
>foreign investment meme
>>
>>1848891
>mfw it's 2016 and /pol/ is still flinging racial pseudoscience
>>
>>1848891
No not at all if truth be told.
>>
>>1848946
How can even deny that?
>>
>>1848909
South Korea restricted foreign direct investments and rather developed through their own capital accumulation.
>>
>>
>>1848957
Wrong.
I am OP and I am currently studying development economics. I specialize with East Asia/Latin America.
And you are wrong.
But truth be told, South Korea followed a mercantilist economic policy until the mid 2000's.
>>
>>1848961
Can you explain why did south korea have the development level of a subsaharan country before copying the japanese model of development? Did they coincidentally become genetically superior?
>>
>>1848970
>before copying the japanese model of development
Lmao wut
>>
>>1848968
>I am OP and I am currently studying development economics. I specialize with East Asia/Latin America
Cool, and i did my major thesis in the south east asian "miracle".
>>
>>1848978
>south east asian "miracle".
Did I miss a memo?
>>
>>1848961
>what da fuck is colonization
>>
>>1848987
>what is Australia/singapore/newzealand/southafrica/America
>>
So far no answers
I'm impressed /his/
>>
File: Capture.png (88KB, 818x634px) Image search:
[Google]
88KB, 818x634px
>>1848968
>>1848981
>Japan, Korea, and, to a lesser extent, Taiwan, China, restricted foreign direct investment but offset this disadvantage by aggressively acquiring foreign knowledge through licenses and other means.
Source: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/322361469672160172/pdf/123510v20PUB0r00Box371943B00PUBLIC0.pdf
page 40
Although you could find a other sources by simply googling.
>>
>>1848995
4 of them are land that are populated not by natives but natural resources taken by colonists.
>>
>>1849012
>hot money flows = restricted FDI
No
>>
>>1849021
What?
>>
>>1849020
>namibia
>malaysia
>>
>>1849023
India restricted FDI as well. Why is it a shithole?
>>
>>1849027
Are you retarded? Saying that FDI was not the cause of development is not equivalent to saying that lack of FDI leads to development.
You are wrong about south korea, there's not much more to argue really.
>>
>>1848869
China and Japan both adopted a model of economic nationalism which procures and then throws cheap capital at infrastructure.
Works for a while, and then you run out of profitable enterprises and the whole thing goes tits up. It could be characterized as Nazi Economics but honestly it goes much further back than Germany circa 1934.
>>
>>1849011
Only 8 years of your chart occurred more than 25 years ago, and at that time East Asia and South Asia were performing similarly.
>>
>>1849029
>You are wrong about south korea, there's not much more to argue really.
Why soes my source disagree with your's?
https://kellogg.nd.edu/publications/workingpapers/WPS/166.pdf
>>
>>1849033
What about Taiwan/SK/Singapore?
Your answer is wrong by the way.
>>
>>1849037
>1981-1991
>8 years
Also
>&Humanities
>>
>>1849127
Those all adopted some form of the CME model, senpai.
>>
>>1848977
They literally copied the Japanese development model and got great help form the U.S and Japan.
>>
>/his/ - racial psuedoscience and shitflinging
>>
>>1848968
So that's why east asia is booming while latin america is lagging?
>>
>>1849124
Your source claims that:
1) Foreign aid and loans were more relevant than FDI, which was "relatively unimportant"
>Until the early 1960s, capital inflow took the form of massive foreign aid for relief and rehabilitation of the economy. By the mid-1960s the concessional aid was phased out, gradually replaced by soft loans in limited amounts.
>Although relatively unimportant in amounts compared to the loan, direct foreign investment has been instrumental in promoting the development of indigenous industry in a different way.
2) FDI was particularly not present during the start of the economic miracle, making your claim that it was its cause ridiculous
>It took some time, however, for an appreciable amount of direct investment to flow in. By the end of 1981 total direct foreign investment amounted to US $1.4 billion.
3) Although not calling them restrictions directly, the article mentions:
- Restrictions in sectors where foreign capital could invest:
>Foreign capital was welcomed as long as it could contribute to the development of “priority” sectors, the transfer of technologies, and the enlargement of marketing contacts.
>Foreign investment in export-oriented industries has always been welcomed in Korea.
-Restrictions in capital inflow:
>In recent years, in a bid to facilitate the realignment of industrial structure, the government further intensified measures to attract foreign investment by dismantling many restrictions on capital inflow.
>dismantling many restrictions
-Restrictions by forcing foreign investors to associate to local ones:
> Korea’s investment policy started to aim at inducing the import of technical knowhow through joint-venture projects
Why do you think the author is specifying where and in what conditions the foreign capital could invest in south korea?
In conclusion, you should improve your reading comprehension, and also search for other authors that go more in depth at what your source is hinting at.
>>
>>
>>184920
First of all,
>making your claim that it was its cause ridiculous
What claim?
Secondly,
So your claim>>1848957
used the past tense verb "restricted".
That can mean "restricted" as in none allowed, and "restricted" as in .000000001% not allowed.
So which was it?
My source clearly states that
>>
>one place had multiple countries protected by the US nuclear umbrella and had a humongous amount of money pumped into it.
>the other had a deeply isolationist country that was run by a bunch of socialists who absolutely believed in the moral strength of a bunch of uneducated hicks, had multiple wars and actively curtailed industrial development because of it's experiences under colonialism.
Pakistan before 1965 was developing just fine with US aid even with it's retarded racial policies for example with strong industrial growth and an emerging middle class.
It also helps that taiwan, hongkong and Singapore are tiny port cities that can have strong GDP due to their low population numbers and a service economy.
>>
>>1849210
>Taiwan
>South Korea
>not counted as East Asia
Singapore's too small to make a dent in OP's graph. So are Taiwan and South Korea, desu.
India is the big failure in SEA.
>>
>>1849208
Look>>1849220
My source clearly states that FDI was allowed in significant amounts in certain sectors. That doesn't sound like the "restricted foreign investment and instead relied on capital accumulation" claim you made.
The fact is that South Korea both restricted FDI in certain areas and allowed it in others. This enabled South Korea to regulate the flow of hot money in and out of the economy, and to keep the won exchange rate relatively cheap.
>>
>>1849228
>dude why don't you just let big corporations fuck your people over for cash when you are unable to compete at all with abysmal literacy rates, little to no infrastructure and skilled labor?
>>
>>1849223
>what is China
>no US aid
>has to protect itself
>ethnically diverse
>BIG AS FUCK
>full of separatist movements and surrounded by enemies
How did it develop so fast? It is growing even faster than the Asian Tigers without US help or protection.
>>
>>1849240
you can develop a country really fast when you don't have to care about 5 year election cycles or human rights violations.
>>
>>1849228
>India
>SEA
>Taiwan/Singapore/SK too small to make a dent
Also, you didn't answer my question about China/Japan and Le Nazi Economy
>>
>>1849248
>South Korea
>Taiwan
>SINGAPORE
>Hong Kong
>caring about human rights or elections
>>
>>1849240
>Without US help or protection
Is this like a thinly veiled China Strong thread or what? China got shitloads of help from the US, not the least of which being freedom of the seas and a massive consumer market for China to dump tons of manufactured goods onto.
>>1849250
>Also, you didn't answer my question about China/Japan and Le Nazi Economy
Japan did, and China took a while but came around to it in the late 70s/early 80s, but what really accelerated their progress was the Yuan devaluation in 1994. Unsurprisingly, you see the steepest decline from East Asia's poverty rates after that devaluation.
>>
>>1849255
whoops
>caring about human rights or elections until the mid 90's
Dumb Westerners think East Asian allies have been democracies for a long time because they are on "the good guys team".
>>
>>1849257
>Is this like a thinly veiled China Strong thread or what?
>Muh boogeyman
>China got shitloads of help from the US, not the least of which being freedom of the seas and a massive consumer market for China to dump tons of manufactured goods onto.
Help != aid
>Japan did, and China took a while but came around to it in the late 70s/early 80s, but what really accelerated their progress was the Yuan devaluation in 1994. Unsurprisingly, you see the steepest decline from East Asia's poverty rates after that devaluation.
I'm asking your memeing ass to explain your claims here>>1849033
>it goes tits up
>Nazi Economy model
Essentially a lot of hot memes
>>
>>1849261
When you control capital flows in a country, as Japan does, as China does, as Nazi Germany did (and current Germany does,) inevitably and essentially by definition, it pools up in the country's money-holding institutions. The standard model is to use this now readily available capital to fund infrastructure projects to create increased consumer demand over the life of the project. A primary example of increased consumer demand is through making people's lives easier so they don't have to spend so much time, and therefore potential money-making opportunity, doing valueless labor, like getting from Point A to Point B.
The problem in this system lies in what happens when all of the easy infrastructure projects get built. Political Economy 101 tells us that economic engines are difficult to dismantle because they engender a political elite which then seeks to further said engine, and their returns therein. So as a system becomes more successful it becomes harder to get rid of, which is a problem for investment-led economic systems in particular.
But right, back to the problem: The problem is with the returns on investment. When any input is inexpensive, firms will load up on that input to maximize efficiency. In this model, capital is made inexpensive, artificially so. The specific mechanisms on this vary, but generally boil down to two major modes: Explicit or Implicit financial repression
>Explicit financial repression (core model: Brazilian economic miracle of 1968)
-Tax households like a motherfucker
-Reinvest tax proceeds into infrastructure and development
>Implicit financial repression
-Secretly tax households through shitty depositor conditions and trade intervention
-Keep the spread between deposit interest and lending interest relatively high to generate a profit for the bank
-Prevent households from keeping money outside of the country
-Reinvest as above.
continued
>>
>>1849290
This means that malinvestment and as a result, nonperforming debt, is a - perhaps the - crippling downside to this model. Where the debt accrues is specific to the model itself, though it's usually in the government sector as investment-led economies tend to go hand-in-hand with CMEs.
Southeast Asia hasn't really undergone this sort of boom in earnest yet, in large part because India's been slow to adopt the model. Which could be for the better; this sort of financial repression only ends in a few ways:
>Government absorbs the debt of the business sector, causing a paralysis in government spending
>Massive economic downturn due to a business debt crisis
>Households become nonfunctional and the people outright revolt
>>
File: Capture.png (52KB, 556x173px) Image search:
[Google]
52KB, 556x173px
>>1849235
>My source clearly states that FDI was allowed in significant amounts in certain sectors. That doesn't sound like the "restricted foreign investment and instead relied on capital accumulation" claim you made.
That's exactly what happened though. It's funny because you seem to be arguing about my terminology, yet the world bank wrote basically the same thing.
FDI serves three main purposes in developing countries: providing capital, transferring technology, and allocating resources. As i said, and as your own source claims, FDI was NOT the main source of capital for SK. It wasn't even the main source of capital to cover their internal gap between investment and savings. In terms of transferring technology, as the world bank mentions, south korea mainly acquired technologies by acquiring licences and "other means" (mainly reverse engineering and joint ventures, mentioned in your source). Finally, restrictions in FDI meant that it was mainly the south korean government that decided which sectors to promote, therefore removing capital allocation as a role of foreign capital, again, mentioned in your source. Thus, FDI had no major role in South Korea.
This being said, i think you are just covering your ass at this point. Even your source refutes you, and it doesn't even focus on the subject.
>This enabled South Korea to regulate the flow of hot money in and out of the economy, and to keep the won exchange rate relatively cheap.
It went much further than that, since south korean restrictions greatly reduced the amount of FDI and therefore foreign capital incidence in the development of the country, and also heavily affected the resource allocation (pic related, from the NBER).
But whatever, i'm going to sleep now. Just read more sources, faggot. I recommend Amsden or Singh after you have finished with the World Bank to have a counter view (although i'm sad to tell you that nobody claims that SK grew thanks to FDI)
>>
>>1849290
>it is difficult to change the system
Has this actually been proven?
South Korea/Japan/Taiwan/HK/Singapore are all now consumer driven service economies. They do generally have higher savings and investment ratios than countries similarly developed as them in East Europe/Middle East/Latin America, but the difference is that the HDI of these countries is substantially higher and has been for a lot longer than their peers.
So I'd argue that the B variant Financial repression Mercantilist economic system is preferable to the LME models for the development of poor economies.
Your people living like shit is a permanent loss that you can never get back. Might as well sacrifice some long-term growth to drag everyone out of absolute poverty.
>>
>>1849299
>Government absorbs the debt of the business sector, causing a paralysis in government spending
>Massive economic downturn due to a business debt crisis
>Households become nonfunctional and the people outright revolt
The only place this happened to is Japan.
South Korea/Taiwan/Singapore/HK all recovered tremendously from the 1997 Asian financial crisis.
I have yet to see these claims you make pan out in more than 1 country.
And let's not forget that the average Japanese per capita income has risen 30% since 1990.
>>
>>1849304
>That's exactly what happened though. It's funny because you seem to be arguing about my terminology, yet the world bank wrote basically the same thing.
Except you clearly stated>>1848957
>South Korea restricted foreign direct investments and rather developed through their own capital accumulation.
Which doesn't sound like
>The fact is that South Korea both restricted FDI in certain areas and allowed it in others. This enabled South Korea to regulate the flow of hot money in and out of the economy, and to keep the won exchange rate relatively cheap.
Either your use of "restricted" is wrong, or we are having a huge misintepretation problem.
>>
>>1849304
>As i said, and as your own source claims, FDI was NOT the main source of capital for SK
>As i said
Uhhhhh where?
>Even your source refutes you,
Where?
>and it doesn't even focus on the subject.
Uhhh it clearly discusses it for 5 pages in an article about the 1962-1980 development period.
>>
>>
File: Capture.png (13KB, 563x188px) Image search:
[Google]
13KB, 563x188px
>>1849320
>Either your use of "restricted" is wrong, or we are having a huge misintepretation problem.
"Japan, Korea, and, to a lesser extent, Taiwan, China, restricted foreign direct investment"
This is a quote by the fucking world bank. I literally searched "restricted foreign direct investment" in google scholar and got a bunch of links about south korea, even though i didn't even mention it. This is usual academic usage of "restriction". You are pathetically grasping at straws here, anon.
>>
Asian here
One reason I can give is that East Asians value society and order contrary to other shit ethnic groups.
The result is, they don't deviate from keeping their normal family style life. This leads to accumulation of wealth in individual households and especially when they adopt to capitalism which facilitates such accumulation of wealth on individual level and as nation makes fortune based on their subject's trades, the country naturally develops into a much more civilized state. The facilitation of individual/group wealth is also supported by their attitude towards others which is not to kill and hurt people for no reason (also unlike people from shitholes.) Not attacking others and saving up wealth has been part of Asian culture for longer than a two thousand years. This has been true even when they were going through extreme poverty (unlike shitskins who go berserk when they don't have money).
With proper system given, Asians will on the long run out perform any other ethnic groups because they are diligent. No wonder why our stereotypes on them is work hard, no emotion, do good at math, nerds.
>>
>>1849332
So America restricts foreign investment?
My impression of your post was that South Korea RESTRICTED foreign investment and relied on DOMESTIC CAPITAL ACCUMULATION instead.
That sounds a lot like the "99% restricted" use of the word and not like the "65% restricted" use of the word.
The World Bank does not explain what percentage or intensity of restriction SK used. Only that it was more than China and Taiwan.
Which goes to show that since China and Taiwan have grown as fast as South Korea did, maybe it wasn't the FDI restriction that helped South Korea grow so fast.
>>
>>1849346
>culturalist explanations
>>
>>1849305
>Has this actually been proven?
The US is the only economy to successfully rebalance away from investment and into consumption. Japan will be there soon, FWIW, but it's not there yet. Both it and South Korea still rely on exports for 25% of their economic growth, which makes them a mixed sector at best.
>So I'd argue that the B variant Financial repression Mercantilist economic system is preferable to the LME models for the development of poor economies.
I didn't mean to imply a value judgement on the systems, only to say that financial repression is not without its downsides. Japan in particular has suffered decades of shoddy growth during its rebalancing.
>>1849314
1) Japan, ongoing
2) 1997 Crisis, four countries. Brazil, 1960s. South America, 1980s (Brady bond is your key word for today)
3) Hasn't happened, in all fairness. But is certainly an option and logically follows: squeeze households too hard - and every variant of this model requires you to squeeze households - and they will eventually revolt.
>>
>>1849346
>implying
Confucian ethics were derided in the 1960s when China was a shitpile. They were then lauded in the 90s-present now that China is less of a shitpile.
>>
>>
Isn't American economy just propped up on the petro-dollar?
>>
File: 1447585327461.png (131KB, 396x385px) Image search:
[Google]
131KB, 396x385px
>>1849346
>its a chink tries to take credit for policies that his leaders have implemented episode.
>>
>>1849353
It's really late, i work tomorrow, and i'm very tired of your faggotry. If you are angry about academic terminology and how economists use the world "restricted" i kindly invite you to the nearest economic department to go cry to them about your problems, since everyone uses the term in relation to SK. As far as the language we regular humans use to communicate with each other is concerned, you are objectively wrong.
>maybe it wasn't the FDI restriction that helped South Korea grow so fast
This isn't what i was claiming, you gigantic, helpless, retard.
Bye.
>>
>>1849355
>The US is the only economy to successfully rebalance away from investment and into consumption
Wew now that needs a source
>25% of GDP in exports = mixed economy
Not everyone can consume and go into infinite debt like America. I don't get how exported is necessarily a bad thing for the economic development of rich countries.
>didn't mean to imply a value judgement on the systems, only to say that financial repression is not without its downsides.
You clearly claimed that maybe India's "model" is better.
>1. japan
And yet Japan's GDP per capita growth rate has been faster than America's since 2001.
>2.
You've been reading Petis I see.
I disagree with his examples. All of those countries recovered strongly from their crashes, and the preciptating cause for their crashes was allowing FDI hot money flows for domestic corporations. Not necessarily the system of financial repression.
>3.
And it most likely won't in East Asia. The culture simply is less likely to overthrow its government.
>>
>>
>>1849374
Not really.
It's propped up by having 300,000,000 citizens and those citizens having European levels of labor productivity.
>>
>>1849399
japan in the 40s had over 2 generations of continuous industrialization, a well educated population and colonies like korea which gave it access to raw materials to fuel said industrial growth.
>>
>>1849381
>muh academic terminology
"Restricted" can be used in many ways.
>>maybe it wasn't the FDI restriction that helped South Korea grow so fast
>This isn't what i was claiming, you gigantic, helpless, retard.
Umm you responded with this>>1848957
in relation to this post>>1848909
which was answering my question>>1848869
Also, no hard feelings. Thank you for the argument. I happen to still disagree with your claim though.
>>
>>1849354
>>1849363
>>1849379
It's not even a cultural explanation when the group behavior is directly linked to capitalism. If you know how Asians live in Asia, you will understand how their life styles matches national capitalism extremely well.
>Country wants to cope with the global needs of certain industrial labor
>They forcefully shape the countries economic model into adequate form and people don't give a damn
>Part of Asian moral is to work and make honest fortune. This fits the capitalist design perfectly, just like in the USA.
People will say cultural behavior don't mean shit in the economy, but they are objectively wrong. Look at USA, they have the culture to be employed and work to be considered human. It's the same in Asia.
>>
>>1849374
Depends on your viewpoint. The nanosecond foreign demand for the dollar collapses, the dollar will sink relative to every currency on the planet. This will hurt American consumers (imports will cost more) but help them too: it will be cheaper to manufacture things in the US, which gives people jobs which gives them income.
>>1849390
The US doesn't go into infinite debt because it wants to, it goes into infinite debt because foreign central banks are willing to purchase infinite amounts of US debt in order to weaken their currency vs the USD to gain a larger share of the US consumer market.
>You clearly claimed that maybe India's "model" is better.
I said it could be for the better; Japan has stalled growth and China's undergoing the first real problems it's had with debt and financial crises since 1997. lndia has multiple examples of what not to do.
>And yet Japan's GDP per capita growth rate has been faster than America's since 2001.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?end=2015&locations=JP-US&name_desc=true&start=2001&view=chart
>I disagree with his examples. All of those countries recovered strongly from their crashes, and the preciptating cause for their crashes was allowing FDI hot money flows for domestic corporations. Not necessarily the system of financial repression.
But certainly aided by it.
>And it most likely won't in East Asia. The culture simply is less likely to overthrow its government.
That's probably true; if it were an option for the Asian people, it would've likely happened by now.
>>
>>1849411
Not really. Japan is 1946 was poor and starving. 2 million Japanese civilians starved to death.
Mexico today is nowhere near as poor, and it doesn't have mass starvation.
Pathetic comparison desu.
>>
>>1849432
Thing is in the past Asian culture was considered detrimental to capitalism. Confucianism or the obsession to paternal filiety was blamed as the culprit or whatever was Asian.
>>
>>1849433
>it goes into infinite debt because foreign central banks are willing to purchase infinite amounts of US debt in order to weaken their currency vs the USD to gain a larger share of the US consumer market.
This is circular logic. The foreigners need debt to buy the debt. You can't just blame one side.
>I said it could be for the better; Japan has stalled growth and China's undergoing the first real problems it's had with debt and financial crises since 1997. lndia has multiple examples of what not to do.
India is 4.5 times poorer per capita than China.
Japan's GDP per capita growth has been faster than America's since 2001.
India is not in any way "for the better". Being A LOT poorer than everyone else for A LONG time is not made up for being richer in 100 years.
>world bank
That looks a lot like nominal growth.
>But certainly aided by it.
A price must be paid for financial repression. The difference is that it is still (in my opinion) superior to any other form of economic development for developing countries.
>probably true
I agree.
Goodnight senpai. Sorry for being an ass at times.
>>
>>1849447
Hey, before you go to sleep, got any reading recommendations for me? Good catch on me reading Pettis.
Also, good night.
>>
It's surprising to see the different in GDP between India and China. Can anyone explain this in simple terms? Is China more protectionist than India or are they just smarter about it?
>>
>>1849460
1. Raj License
2. Lack of unity
3. Anti-business laws
4. Culture
5. Shitty colonial leftovers from the Brits
>>
>>1849448
My favorite reading from recent times
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue58/Koo58.pdf
And his 2008 book
https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Grail-Macroeconomics-Lessons-Recession/dp/0470824948
Best explanation of 1990-2005 Japan and 2008-2013 developed economies slow recoveries.
>>
>>1849480
The Raj License thing sounds bad. And the lack of unity definitely makes sense, especially if you compare to very homogeneous countries like China, Korea.
What does the British colonial leftovers part mean?
>>
>>1849497
China isn't necessarily homogenous.
But it is much more so than India.
>colonial
Unlike in Australia/Singapore/Malaysia/Zealand the British left an exploitive and powerful political/economic system in India. The British also left the British Raj as a clusterfuck of Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist states. This caused a lot of ethnic strive into the 1970's. It's why India/Pakistan/Burma/Nepal struggled like China until the late 70's.
>>
What is OP's explanation then?
>>
>>1849526
Pic related
>>
>>1849020
Pretty irrelevant to the overall thread, but NZ still has 100% it's native population, and they statistically play a huge part in the country.
Thanks for your time.
>>
>>1849541
That kid's skin is whiter than most white people I've met. Ironic.
>>
>>1849541
What? Blaming the West or what?
>>
Policy management and infrastructure.
British fucked up Indian economy so bad that it went from the strongest economy of the world to one of the weakest within 2 centuries.
East asia had relatively intact structures and thus was able to industrialize fast and without much issue. India is still re-learning its trade.
In 2050 or so, they will be very close to China's economy.
>>
>>1848869
Clearly because East Asians are genetically superior to Southeast Asians.
>>
File: 1Bxrgcm.png (124KB, 1320x3098px) Image search:
[Google]
124KB, 1320x3098px
>>1848869
I'm not East Asian, I'm Southeast-Asian. However being Vietnamese, I was raised in an East-Asian culture with the Confucian, Buddhist, and ancestral influences and what not.
I used to get beat if I got C's and B's as a kid. Wonder why so many Asians are smart? There you go. When my white friend told me his parents "gave him a slap on the risk" for breaking his bike, I literally thought he received a physical slap on the wrist as a kid. I think this gave me the good grades, but made me awkward in highschool til I grew out of it in College.
There perhaps is a genetic reason. But compare North Korea and South Korea, I'm sure the average South Korean is smarter. Same goes for Taiwan Vs. China or Singapore Vs. Malaysia. Environment is important too.
>>
>>1848869
>I-it's because India was colonized! And China wasnt besides meme coastal cities!
China literally went to hell for much of the 19th Century and the first half of the 20th. Foreign intrusion, Christian ISIS, more foreign intrusion, the end of the Empire, the Warlord Period and the massive civil wars of the 20's-30s, WWII, continuation of the last civil war, a genocide-tier famine, and political cleansing.
But no, apparently India had it worse.
Someone post the meme Empire of Dust Angry Chinaman.
>>
>>1850259
Its a combination of genetics and environmental factors. Its already proven that. The genetic factor is more important however as the twin adoption studies showed.
>>
File: Seal_of_the_Taiping_heavenly_kingdom.svg.png (116KB, 600x600px) Image search:
[Google]
116KB, 600x600px
>>1850259
Nice Polenball but shame since the Taiping did have their own flag.
>>
>>1850271
>twin adoption studies
What studies?
>>
>>1850271
>not testing your assertion across a wide variety of environments
I bet you don't even intentionally expose some of those twins to lead to see if it holds.
>>
>>1850269
>india receives similar treatment and has wealth sucked out of it with famins out of the ass, one of the biggest wars in the 19th century and a repressive police state
>because the brits built some railroads it means india was objectively better.
>>
South east asians used to have one of the greatest citycenters of the world somewhere in the 12th century I think, so it cannot be inherently or some shit like that.
>>
>>1849590
>>1849666
I was shitposting
>>1850159
>China 1949
>infastructure
>>1850259
Achieved intelligence = mostly environment/nurture
Achievable intelligence = mostly genetics
>>1850269
Yeah I would at least put China 1949 and India 1949 in equally shitty starting positions.
>>1850376
Minnesota twin studies, and a number of others.
>>1850767
The argument is that India and China in 1949 were in roughly similar shitty positions, and yet China is far better now.
>>
>>1850861
Bantu Africans had great civilizations as well.
That isn't proof of superior intelligence.
>>
>>1850271
What genes can you narrow it down to?
Thread posts: 101
Thread images: 13
Thread images: 13