Tough Questions

1. Holla Forums do you consider negros who live off of welfare to be a part of the "working class" you're so eminently concerned about? Why is it evil for capitalists, the majority of whom did not inherit their fortunes (google it, you bum) and actually provide a useful function in running society/making investments valued by consumers/predicting consumer preferences to benefit from the labors of the working class, but it's somehow totally okay for low-IQ people who commit a bunch of crime to benefit off of the labors of the working class while providing no service except for the production of more low-IQ, brown-colored Democrat voters?
2. Given that diversity destroys social cohesion (archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/) why aren't the majority of you vehemently opposed to the capitalists promoting disunity among workers in the West with nonwhite immigration?
3. If you believe non-whites are equal to whites, assuming you also support third world immigration to the West, why do you think nonwhites need to be in the presence of the whites? Isn't it a form of white supremacy to say that whites are so fantastic that nonwhites can't be deprived of our presence?
4. If your solution to the enormous disunity created by diversity is "everyone becomes a mocha-colored vibrant person," consider the problem of IQ. We know American blacks score on average 85 on IQ tests (they have 20% European admixture on average), Africans 70, Western Europeans 100, Orientals around 106, Ashkenazi Jews around 110 (give or take depending on who you ask). IQ is highly heritable, a huge predictor of future earnings, positively correlated with every beneficial social outcome, negatively correlated with every negatively social outcome (e.g. crime), even blacks from wealthy families have low-IQs, now I am not going to bother to try to prove the truth of hereditarianism (that racial differences in IQ are significantly genetic), but let's think about this issue. Let's say there's even a 5% chance that 60% of the IQ gap between Africans/American blacks American blacks/whites whites/Asians is due to heredity. Are you willing to risk enormously lowering the average IQ of the world, and especially the West/Asia, just so you can achieve your utopia of multiculturalism?

Other urls found in this thread:

academia.edu/25259346/Wider-Community_Segregation_and_the_Effect_of_Neighbourhood_Ethnic_Diversity_on_Social_Capital_an_Investigation_into_Intra-Neighbourhood_Trust_in_Great_Britain_and_London
scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Nisbett-et-al.-2012.pdf
brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_iq.pdf
people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles for Online CV/Nisbett (2012) Group.pdf
iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010b.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=-VJyKRwQHHM
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Mental_chronometry
westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/
shareable.net/blog/the-italian-region-where-co-ops-produce-a-third-of-its-gdp
scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/the-extreme-warrior-gene-a-reality-check/
cnbc.com/id/49167533
zillow.mediaroom.com/2015-02-09-Black-Applicants-More-Than-Twice-as-Likely-as-Whites-to-be-Denied-Home-Loans
iqandenvironment.blogspot.ca/2008/05/list-of-environmental-factors-that.html
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812010750
liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/tag/black-white-iq-gap/
debunkingstormfags.blogspot.ca/2016/07/with-rise-of-alt-right-far-right-neo.html
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886999002585
brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/129/2/386
www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/problems-with-the-us-black-iq/
psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight
brown.uk.com/brownlibrary/INTEL2.htm
unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/
archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)
debunkingdenialism.com/2012/08/11/the-widespread-abuse-of-heritability/
archive.is/rRGmE#selection-419.0-425.347
archive.org/stream/geneticstudiesof009044mbp/geneticstudiesof009044mbp_djvu.txt
scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=articles
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

hey, fuck off Holla Forums

I know I worded these questions in a smarmy way but I am legitimately curious if Holla Forums has any valid responses to them.

sage grows in all fields

agreed brother

lol

Please stop conflating us with liberals. Hell most of us dont even support multiculturalism and mass immigration. All we care about is economics and class struggle, all your questions are irrelevant in our eyes.

Seriously, learn a bit about leftism befire shit posting next time. If you actually want to know our point of view though, or how socialism works (spoiler it's not the state running everything) then fine, but not this bullshit please.

He's probably an ancrap…

You guys "don't support" multiculturalism, yet you don't seem to actively oppose it. Which is basically like saying, there's a murder about to happen, you have the capacity to stop it, you aren't going to make any effort to stop it, "but you don't support that murder." Well, maybe you should act like it…?

1. Most wealth in the world is controlled by a very small cabal of people that do, in fact, tend to pass their wealth and opportunities down. A self made millionaire is nothing compared to the Koch brothers (or George Soros the Jewish overlord, if you prefer). Regarding welfare, it only exists to pacify the working class, because most people who use it have jobs; it's not a free ride unless you are seriously disabled.

2. A retarded maymay pulled out of thin air so idpolers can have something new to argue about. academia.edu/25259346/Wider-Community_Segregation_and_the_Effect_of_Neighbourhood_Ethnic_Diversity_on_Social_Capital_an_Investigation_into_Intra-Neighbourhood_Trust_in_Great_Britain_and_London

3. We are not liberals, faggot. We don't care about race, which is a scapegoat for people too stupid, arrogant or brainwashed to form a cohesive worldview without simplistic caricatures.

4. With regard to IQ:

scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Nisbett-et-al.-2012.pdf
brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_iq.pdf
people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles for Online CV/Nisbett (2012) Group.pdf
iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010b.pdf

Even ignoring this, we have the Flynn effect: IQ has risen so much over the years, and across the entire planet, that even a below average person is capable of contributing to society effectively unless they have Down's or something. Nonwhites today are smarter than whites were a century ago.

stop using ellipses improperly and maybe i'll take your retarded questions seriously…?

I can never remember which one


Hell most of us don't even support multiculturalism

I do, stop trying to appease this faggot.

you do realise what that means?

iq is going down

maybe you should do something you big baby

People in poverty on average work 8 hours a week, in America, when you average the unemployed/employed adults. Only 2% of people in poverty have a full-time job, did not get married before 21, did not have a child before 21 (according to Brookings, google it).

Phenotypic IQ has risen, not genotypic IQ which has actually declined since the Victorian era judging by simple reaction time tests.

Why should I . . . . .?

Paul Ryan, is that you?

We dont think it's a good thing, but the reason it's not at the focus of our agenda is because we realise that there are many more important things, such as global capitalism which is slowly killing us all, even white people.

Race and culture seriously mean nothing. It's all economics. We change social conditions when we change material conditions. There is no point trying to go about it from the reverse way.

Learn about the base-super structure relationship and how material and economic conditions shape behavior, not race or culture, or at least race and culture are much less effective.

yes, ama.

This is literally the opposite of the truth. The Flynn effect is one of the most known and well established facts in human psychology.


And if they try to work more? They get entirely cut off, leading to a pointless cycle of mediocrity. Social Security is abysmal.

And reaction time is utterly meaningless, this is like saying "I correctly adjusted IQ statistics, I just had to get rid of those pesky IQ test scores". It was a fringe hypothesis that only became known because of clickbait.

what

Well, zizek dosnt support it, and I think a lot of leftypol's views align with him, so I'm not trying to appease anyone more just taking an educated guess.

Was in responce to

youtube.com/watch?v=-VJyKRwQHHM

Look, I am not going to argue that the welfare cliffs that exist are a good thing. You're right, they discourage working because you lose benefits abruptly past a point…

IQ is highly correlated with reaction time. Spoiler alert: Asians, the highest IQ racial group, have the quickest reaction times.
And reaction time is utterly meaningless, this is like saying "I correctly adjusted IQ statistics, I just had to get rid of those pesky IQ test scores". It was a fringe hypothesis that only became known because of clickbait.


So how does the fact that a wolf is always more aggressive and undomesticated no matter what its "material conditions" are, relative to the domesticated dog, fit in with your narrative that material conditions are less important than biological factors like intelligence?

I posted that twice when I meant to paste:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470

this is fucking retarded. the biological behavior of a wolf was determined by its material conditions. it's a predator.

just in the way that we domesticated dogs: their behavior was determined by their material conditions, i.e. being fed by their masters, so they became more obedient and less aggressive.

material conditions are more important than biological factors*
fuck.

Actually:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Mental_chronometry


In addition, only reaction time has gone down on average–IQ in general has gone up. Modern IQ tests correlate with g factor much more than reaction time, and gains in the former have gone up in all races.

That's evolution occurring over generations, not "oh, I need to be a predator, now I will be aggressive suddenly despite generations of my ancestors being completely docile."

That was a result of changes in gene frequencies, i.e. evolution, which occurred due to artificial selection.

so, what, you're saying that their evolution is totally unrelated to their material conditions?
are you retarded?

Have you taken the brown pill yet, mateys?
it's a tough pill to swallow! The brown pill was founded in 1999 by Slavoj Žižek, who presents and narrates the attached video.
Forget red and blue pills, brown pills are the way of the future.
Video related. Please leave your questions, comments, and concerns below about this radical new paradigm of thinking!
Swallow the brown pill today! Red pills are for fedora fucking wearing faggots, blue pills are for the ignorant masses. Ignore the other le epin Holla Forums maymays, this one is the real deal.

What a load of shit, elephants have a greater distance between their brain and their tail than rhesus monkeys, but much higher intelligence, distance is a huge limiter of how fast you react, so of fucking course you can have smaller organisms that are less intelligent than humans and have faster reactions times. What a fucking Jewy argument to make. And the link to Mackintosh's article doesn't allow me to actually look at it as far as I can tell.


No, I am saying present biology has a greater affect on behavior than present conditions. A camel which evolved to live in dry climates will not discard its hump the next day if it is thrown into an area with high rainfall.

Also, if all races are increasing at the same rate that still means blacks are inferior in intelligence and why the hell would you want them in your country?

Also, Nisbett is a fucking retard, or just intellectually dishonest. On the part from your wikipedia article on IQ, at brain size, (we know from MRIs which followed IQ tests IQ is 0.45 correlated with brain size)
Relativistic brain size! Women have significantly smaller body mass on average, which decreases the relative brain size differences, and women have less variability in IQ and there is enough evidence to conclude they score worse on specific cognitive tasks even if people are too much of egalitarian ideologues to admit there's a difference in average IQ.

Capitalists don't contribute to society though, it's what they own that does. A capitalist could be replaced by a community in terms of ownership. You assume that the capitalist is an important and necessary part of production, but apart from owning the means (which can be changed), there is no reason why you would add private individuals to the production process simply so they can gain personal wealth.

A capitalist brings capital to an industry, and any 'expertise' they have does not have to be limited to them, and in fact is usually brought to the table by hired experts.

So being a middle man between consumers and what they want, is beneficial to those consumers? Anything a capitalist uses (in reality it is market research workers, not the owners themselves) like sales data, polls, internet habits, fashion trends etc, to predict what consumers want is not limited to capitalists, and could be used by consumers directly to drive production. That's not even considering all the useless, unwanted, crap designed to make money that gets shoved down our throats has nothing to do with knowing what people want, and more to do with tricking people into buying it through advertising. Since the profit motive is the number one reason for a capitalist to supposedly give the consumers what they want, then actually helping society is not important as long as shit sells. Predicting what people will buy after you tweak society into wanting it (everyone needs a new iPhone every year! I need to throw away my old TV and buy a new one!) is hardly what I would call useful.

Get rid of capitalism and we could put the needs of society first when the consumers themselves decide what needs to be produced without the influence of profit.

As for all that IQ shit, I'm sure someone else has links and arguments handy, but I'm on my phone and not really in the mood to get bogged down in a racial argument with Holla Forums anyway.

The primary job of an investor is to predict consumer preferences and make sure they own the right things to cater to those interests which will exist in a few years.
You realize the vast majority of profits in any corporation are reinvested into capital goods (though that trend has been strong for hundreds of years it is beginning to weaken thanks to the variety of ways businesses can lobby to stifle smaller competition).
LOL

Producing a profit means you're providing consumers what they want at a price they can afford. Gold-plated motel rooms? No market for that. Roach-infested cyanide-laden hotel rooms? No market for that either. Profits tell business owners they're using society's resources efficiently towards an end that is socially desired enough to actually be profitable.
If all that was required to become a millionaire was to have a product and have advertisements why don't you commies advertise commie books, sell them, and become billionaires over night? WE ADVERTISED IT, SO IT JUST WERKS!

Profit is the fucking influence of the consumers. If the consumers need aluminum airplanes more than they need aluminum boats, aluminum will be more expensive and boat-builders won't make as many boats out of aluminum so they can still sell affordable boats to consumers who don't value aluminum more than airplane manufacturers/airlines/the customers who need to travel.

Being a capitalist isn't as simple as "I have money, I buy business, I advertise, I make money, I eggsploid worgers :DD." You take the enormous initial risk, you persuade investors to support you, you choose who will work in the business and how they are trained, you continually ensure the long-term success of the business by re-investing in its capital stock, comply with all the regulations, make sure the inputs are there to facilitate the output, make sure you're getting a good price on the inputs, and I can't understate the value of reinvestment. When you have a factory, is it better to have the workers bring home an additional $1,000 of beer money per year or, over the course of a few years, actually reinvest in making the workers more productive so the value of an hour's work is greater? If you have a bunch of idiots with high-time preferences, the last thing you want to do is have them be in charge of investing in the future of a business they have no stake in.

And I'd like to clarify that if you say "put da worgers in charge of all de money for capital investment and capital maintenance" they have an incentive to let the business degrade as they engage in capital consumption. Capital consumption is basically "let the 'vehicle' of profit degrade as we profit off of it as quickly possible because we'll just move somewhere else after it breaks down." That's the incentive created by giving the means of production to people with high time preferences and no stake in the business's success in the sense that unlike a capitalist they don't go broke, they don't owe people money when it goes under (sadly this doesn't happen with corporations due to the corporate shield, which is not an inherent part of private ownership of the means of production.)

Commodity fetishism, Apple products aren't superior to other products, they just have a weird theological weight due to branding. This is basic birch Adbusters stuff.

Consumers have a guarantee of (overpriced) quality. Also, intellectual property isn't remotely inherent to the capitalist production method, so the fact that big businesses like Microsoft and Apple build their brands off of le patents and shit like that seriously hinders competition in their markets. Also, there is value in a name, you can't stop the power of "commodity fetishism," if some business does something well, it will eventually require a reputation, in the case of franchises the reputation is valuable enough to sell, literally.

A perceived sense of quality, maybe.

I'm out of touch, but I seem to remember when phones didn't break as much as they do now.


You can't force companies to compete when it's easier to collude.

Collusion is very risky to even attempt, which would be the case even if it was legal, imagine 500 of the biggest fast food corporations trying to agree on uniform prices for all of their products, yikes (each would have an incentive to price their products slightly lower to be the most competitive of the colluders, and each would have an incentive to out their competition, and each would have an incentive to break ranks even when the collusion was in process).

I have a basic, cheap not-smart phone that hasn't broken for years. Why don't you redistribute 60% of your phone budget to the poor and buy a cheaper, simpler, probably more reliable phone?
Oh, right
Standards of behavior are to be imposed, not voluntarily conformed to, amirite?

Then you should kick out anyone under a certain threshold if you want a country entirely made of intelligent people. Tying race to it doesn't make any sense, individuals that are identified as black aren't stupid because of melanin, they're stupid because they inherited it. Just like an intelligent black inherited that trait to and will pass it down to their offspring.

A 120 IQ black couple produces less intelligent offspring than a 120 IQ white couple.
westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/

Doesn't mean they're necessary. That function can be replicated. You must think the workers are really dumb huh? Or because someone is doing that particular work, they're somehow entitled to a share of the labour of all the workers? I could buy 40% of a company and never go to a single share holders meeting and if it's successful still get a return. It's parasitic. If you removed their function, the product would till turn out of the same.

And there's no reason these same predictions couldn't be made in a horizontally organized business. Someone better call Mondragon and tell them their cooperative structure will inevitably lead to failure.


Profit for the capitalist is only created when the worker is given less than their work is worth. If I trade $50 worth of wine for $60 worth of corn, the total amount of currency circulated was still $110. I have 10 more dollars, but that doesn't mean $120 circulated. I just changed the distribution in my favour. I(cheated) who I was trading with and gave them less than their product was worth and ended up with +$10. If a managers work in a day is worth $120 and the workers is worth $70 and they receive $120 and $70 respectively, exploitation didn't take place. Surplus value(for the capitalist) can only be created by selling a product for higher than its value or buying it for lower than its value. The latter of which is what they do with labour.


CALL MONDRAGON QUICK. THEY'RE THE 10TH LARGEST COMPANY IN SPAIN BUT THEY'RE GONNA COLLAPSE AT ANY MOMENT

shareable.net/blog/the-italian-region-where-co-ops-produce-a-third-of-its-gdp


Top kek.

Also tying it to races makes sense because not only are blacks a standard deviation lower than whites on average, they also have a higher frequency of the MAOA2R "extreme warrior gene" (google it). Also, their presence lowers social cohesion.

And there's no reason to think that workers who have not been successful as established investors would be as successful in predicting consumer behavior as people who have built a career off of that.
Not as dumb as the average welfare queen, but certainly less intelligent than the average entrepreneur.

Except you had to bear an enormous risks no worker had to bear to earn that return. If you own a tool that allows me to produce value, and that tool might be of no value if consumer preferences change, you absolutely should profit because you allow me to own that tool. Or maybe you only own it in part. I shouldn't get to freely use whatever you own just because you aren't using it. You aren't taking a shit right now, does that mean Tyrone gets to occupy your anus with his benis because you don't own it unless you're using it at that moment?


Cooperative structure =/= democracy.

Yes, because the worker doesn't have any risk, and didn't put in any initial investment, and didn't work 80 hours a week for 10 years so the business could be profitable (yes, entrepreneurs actually do this, no, this is not the case for every single business.)

You didn't rebut my point about the incentive for capital consumption and I am not sure you even understood it.

to use that tool temporarily in my work*

by fucking with interest rates*
Okay, I'll start proofreading, I promise.

That source does not support your argument.


You think that because you are so ridiculously spooked.

Also,


scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/the-extreme-warrior-gene-a-reality-check/

No they are not, they are mostly distributed to non-productive workers. AKA the security guards, the managers, the lawyers, the marketers, taxes, etc. People who are not on the front line of production. Then a small part of the surplus profit goes into machines.
This is denying reality. Workers of the first world have had stalled wages for the past 30-40 years. Not to mention they are never paid the full value of their labor in money because that would be idiotic of the capitalist to do that. If he does that, then he cannot make profit.
Do you not see why that is a problem? The capitalists, owning the means of production, locks the gates infront of the workers and denies them the ability to create things for their subsistence.
This is not true in most cases. This even ignores one of the primary causes of the 2008 crash. People loaning money to buy things that they can't afford because of the wages being stalled for 30-40 years. When the people (mostly lower-middle class) turned nervously to the banks, who lower down on business loaning as not as profitable as consumer loaning, and said "we can't pay you" the market collapsed. This is obviously ignoring other things like shady banks loaning each other the debts of their consumers to make a profit and government borrowing to avoid an increase of taxes for public services.

Let's say I'm a business owner. I own a factory making cheese. I decide to fire workers because I'm not making a good enough product and decided to invest that money into better machines. I have increased my amount of surplus. However, in a larger picture workers cannot buy anything anymore, leading me to lose profit over a long stretch of time, slowing down the market and then coming to a halt or crash. Profit is not a indicator that I am doing things "efficiently". It can be short term profit, but long term I will lose money. This type of thinking has lead to quick market crashes and busts through out history. Just like the oil crash
of this decade. We can also mention an old example off the top of my head of British land owning capitalists (not Lords) after the Napoleonic wars to stop the shipping of corn into Britain to make an extreme extra profit. You know who loathe this and prompted him to go into British parliament? Not a proto-utopian socialist, but champion of Capitalism, David Ricardo. Even he recognized that profit by itself is not a sign that everything is being handled they way it should.


They are. People just like you and me take in messages from advertisements all the time. Even if we don't buy things from a store or don't buy a brand, we learn to associate things with that store or with that brand. This is why marketing is an essential part of business and to ignore that or to down play it is being naive.


And these investors are (or were mostly) bankers lending the capitalists the communities money. Industral capitalists borrow from the community all of the time, they rely on the community around them (via. banks (sometimes angel investors, private investors)), to fund the initial project. This doesn't change the fact that Capitalism denies the workers the means of the production, this doesn't change the fact that there is exploitation in the front lines of production, it doesn't change the fact that the people must sell their labor-power to capitalists in order to survive, It doesn't change the fact that the relation of production doesn't cause alienation. This only fleshes out the world of Capitalism, which other Marxists smarter than you and I already have done and are doing. Including Marx.


You and I know this is not true for most profitable companies in the world.


You make the worker more productive to eliminate the amount of human labor-power you need to purchase. Not to just make them do work better. That's the goal of automation for the industrial capitalist.

*good enough profit

YES IT DOES.
The black breeding population has an IQ of 85. Meaning the children regress to a lower mean.
It's more than 5 times as common with blacks.

I spent like 100 dollars on this thing.


Because that wouldn't change the prevailing system, you dolt.

sage

Americans to solely account for crime rates in blacks”

Here is a read for you.

scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/the-extreme-warrior-gene-a-reality-check/

MONEY THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY TO OTHER WORKERS ISN'T PROFIT. PROFIT IS EVERYTHING LEFT OVER AFTER REVENUES - COSTS, THE WAGES OF SECURITY GUARDS AND MANAGERS AND LAWYERS IS A COST.
I deserve a medal for refraining from insulting your intelligence at this point.

I was explaining what would happen if workers' wages were tied to the profits of the business when there was no capitalist middleman to provide a constant flow regardless of seasonal fluctuations in profit
Practice your reading comprehension, fam.
Blah blah you are making a criticism founded upon the misunderstanding that I was talking about reality when I was not.
Yes, the bubble had nothing to do with government forcing banks to unqualified minorities and artificially lowering interest rates, it was just le mean banks!
Greed is a constant. When it suddenly swells and creates a bubble, it is because government has destroyed that which always counteracts greed: fear of losing what one already has.

I am not reading the rest of your shit if your premise is that counter-factual and then you want to pretend like that has some bearing on present-day reality or capitalism.

Tariffs aren't capitalism you fucking dweeb.
projection.jpg

No, the fact that they don't have the competence to produce their own capital goods or the competence to convince their community or investors to give them the resources to control those capital goods is why they don't have control of capital goods. This is like saying "I don't have a fishing rod to fish with because someone else has a fishing rod and didn't give it to me. Exploitation!"
If you know of a business that is currently not complying with regulations you should be blackmailing them, not misreading my posts on leftypol.
But I thought le brilliant Marx showed that the less capital-intensive your industry the more profits you make off of it :DDD?

Yes, this is totally consistent with what I said, the MAOA2R is a genetic predisposition to crime, not a determinant, and populations with this predisposition on top of being less intelligent are not desirable.

Okay. What is going on here?

I am not asking you to give away all your wealth, I am saying if you decry wealth inequality you should limit your entertainment budget/blah blah that isn't devoted to helping the goal of global gommunism. Sage because I just posed.

Don't you have some Ukrainians to starve or cool-lads to hang?

yes, I know it's spelled kulaks.

I pretty much just pay for food & internet, so idk what you're on about.

:|

So you can hire someone to do that. Socialism means that if the workers want a leader they will elect one, and most of them will. They would just like the leaders work to be factored into the total value and not dip into the workers compensation.


If I inherited that money I had to bear a risk to earn that return? Nope. The last part doesn't even make sense.


Love that logic. The question is wether it's a necessary function, and the answer is no. My point with the co-ops was that companies that are OWNED by the workers do fine and are more efficient, without the function of the investors.


If someone is doing work worth exceptionally more than the worker, they will be rewarded as such. Their work will be factored into the total value of the product, but that doesn't mean they get to dip into the workers compensation.

This is assuming that people don't inherit their money. Vast majority of the people in the Top 40 Richest People(Forbes) inherited money or started off with loans from their relatives. A good example would be Donald Trump. The fact that someone can inherit 10's of millions of dollars and invest in as many things as they want to start off(and will also receive a substantially better upbringing than say, someone in Flint) throws that idea out the window :/

Fucking lawl.
God, you're a moron.

No you mong. Socialism has nothing to do with redistributing wealth. If someone is active in politics and trying to raise class consciousness, that's enough. If they're willing to fight when the time comes that's enough. Limiting how much a worker spends just because he's socialist is literally retarded.

If you provide less compensation for CEOs fewer people will go the "spend 30 years working 80 hours/week to climb the ladder" route = smaller pool of CEOs = less competition = decline in quality of CEOs.

The money your parents give to you after you die is your money. Yes, it is still "risked" when you gamble with it in a business venture, or Las Vegas, or by leaving it on a park bench.
If they are significantly more efficient why haven't they out-competed their "inefficient" traditional competitors?
crickets chirp in the distance
See point about the CEOs.
What % of business owners inherited their money?
THE GOVERNMENT MANDATED REGULATORY AGENCIES WERE THE ONES THAT GAVE THE TRIPLE A RATINGS YOU IGNORANT TWAT

Speshul bleading :DD?

oh god, is this ancap central?

Communism isn't even anti-consumerist, so idk what you think you're saying. Acting like owning consumer goods is equivalent to owning productive capital is dumb.

oh god, is this the new socialist man I've been hearing about?

To pretend that decrying wealth (of property, not just currency) inequality is not an enormous thread among leftists, including communists, is intellectually dishonest. You're fooling no one, save perhaps for yourself.

Buddy, I said surplus. Calm down next time and read.


Again this denying reality. Banks did get into consumer lending more than business lending because of the profits. This is also ignoring the fact that most of the loans given by the banks were shitty predatory loans. This is just pushing the blame from the Banks to those damn Negros and the PC illuminati jewish cabal!

wat


You do realize you can apply that example and see who that occurs for a Industrial sector? Right? This happened in manufacturing cities across the United States. Again, I don't know why you are getting triggered. Don't take an example so seriously next time and think I'm talking about one business when I'm clearing just explain a simple idea.

Okay

Okay


But they are producing their products, but for the Industrial capitalist. Obviously they have the competence to do it, other wise the owner wouldn't have purchase their labor.


What are you even talking about right now?


I'm sorry, but this is a stupid post. Guys, lets go blackmail those oil cartels or car companies for not following regulations. What a brilliant idea. Truly a genius waiting to lead humanity with these ground breaking thoughts.


So, worker co-ops? They are pretty successful in most parts of the world.

You must be some devoted follower of Austrian economics, they are the only ones who get so triggered like this.

We're not interested in your toothbrush, pal.

It's pronounced World Revolution.

Ah. I see. The poor AnCom guy went full-Marxist. He might convert into Marxism-Leninism, if you are not careful.


Actually, no. Making CEO position and education more accessible will mean higher pool of those willing to work. I.e. more competition.

Also, if you are working 80 hours a week - your quality very explicitly suffers. It's quite clear that you are not delegating anything. I'd call it "being incompetent", but I know better - it's the system that punishes competence.

No one said to give them less than their work is worth. I said to give them what their work is worth.
The fact that you think people will only work hard if they can dip into someones else's handwork boggles my mind.

crickets chirp in the distance

Because a capitalist business success isn't determined by how efficient it is. It's determined by how much surplus value(capital) it reaps. In a co-op, the workers even if they are more efficient than the workers in a business owned by a capitalist are given full compensation for their work. As a result the person paying their workers less will have more capital to reinvest. This why the capitalist is incentivized to pay his workers as little as possible.


cnbc.com/id/49167533

Notice none of those people rose out of extreme poverty.

It's not "more compensation" for the workers, it's fair compensation for the workers and having the workers collectively own the property they work on. It has nothing to do with taking Danny's compensation and giving it to Jamal.

So you're saying managers and security guards don't provide value. Neat-o! I guess people hire them because they like losing money.
The Feds literally required banks to lend more to minorities, that isn't hyperbole.
You're a fucking retard
-Minorities don't get loans because they have lower levels of intelligence and income
-Durr, no minorities can get loans, banks you must gibe more loans! t. leftists in federal government
-Minorities don't pay back loans
-Fucking predatory loans! t. leftists
For fuck's sake, give me a break.

Banks are always greedy, when they all suddenly make riskier loans all at once it's because the incentives and the balance between risk & fear/greed were changed.
LOBBYING A COERCIVE REGULATORY AGENCY WHICH HAS A SPECIAL MONOPOLY ON FORCE IS NOT SYONYMOUS WITH A PRIVATE MODE OF PRODUCTION, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I said the competence to earn ownership of the capital goods, not to operate them.

You said capitalists want to automate.
The LTV predicts more profits in more labor-intensive (less automated) industries.
Wrong!

Also to the last part:

...

It's means of production we are always talking about.

Luxuries are not important.

WEW!: The Thread

Giving unintelligent people educations doesn't increase the pool of workers for jobs that require intelligent, educated workers.

If the compensation for carpentry is halved for eternity, do you think the quality of carpentry will decline or increase or stay the same? IF you didn't answer "decline" you're a fucking retard. If you take LITERALLY ANY JOB with a competition to enter it and you decrease the compensation for that role, fewer intelligent people will take the trouble to enter into it, ceteris paribus this is necessarily true absent some fundamentally rewiring of human biology.
So you're admitting that worker co-ops fail to reinvest in their future due to the incentives available to workers with high-time preferences and relatively little stake in the business. Thank you for illustrating my point.

GASP!
Now I am a Marxist-Leninist, I truly see!

...

I'm mostly neutral to it.

Is a knife a mean of production if a chef uses it both at home and at his restaurant? Does it magically become a meme of production when he starts driving to work, when he gets up in the morning to get to work, when he enters the restaurant, when the knife gets in the kitchen, when the knife is washed, when the knife is dropped on some food accidentally, when the is consciously used to prepare food, or when? How is your definition of mean of production not arbitrary?

Does a knife produce goods for others consumption?

Is this nigga serious?

That's not profit, that's part of the normal capitalist production cycle, just like all overheads including rent or wages. The extra that the capitalist makes from buying labour cheaper than what it can produce (i.e turning $1 worth of plastic and rubber into $100 worth of shoe, whilst being paid $0.05 per shoe) minus other costs of production is profit.

Even so, how is the argument of capitalists not being as rich or greedy as we might think any sort of reply to them being an unessential part of the production process?

If workers and owners were one and the same, rather than workers being bought for less than they are worth to make profit for owners, then society would be much better off. You haven't shown me how they are essential.

LOL
Not sure what you are implying here. Is it that workers are too dumb to adjust and adapt a business they work in?

Why do you constantly say that workers who own the means of production have no stake in the successful running of industry? They have more incentive to make industry work for them, their families and their communities, than someone who can and will pack up a business to a cheaper environment (china) or sell it off completely if it isn't doing well. Why wouldn't a failure in managing production also mean a failure in the success of a worker/owner's life? The worker/owner has just as much, and more, incentive to keep an industry running well.

Funny how Holla Forums is so convinced that "cultural Marxism" and Jewish subversion is moulding society to be weak and degenerate (for what reason, I think just to be malicious, right?), but can't accept that constant advertising we are bombarded with in all forms of media from a very young age moulds society to be particular consumers and commodity fetishists, all with the very plausible purpose of making a profit).

Anyway, nothing you have said proves that a private owner is necessary for production. Your best argument is that workers are too dumb to manage things like a capitalist does.

Giving dumb people "educations" doesn't increase the number of intelligent people with actual educations. Read, nigger.

That's the point, it does at the restaurant, but not at home, when does the transition occur?

Knife is not "means of production", you moron.

Means of production refer to industrial mass-production.Major economy. Factories, for example. Extremely expensive things that require a lot of people to work. Not knives, toolboxes or computers.

How does capitalist education of the entitled elite makes everyone who gets education intelligent, while socialist education that actually chooses the brightest, produce dumb people?

Wrong, that is profit. It's left over after capital maintenance/rent/blah blah blah is covered, you could feasibly not reinvest, it would just mean you lose the ability to compete within a decade or so.

They are essential because they reinvest more than workers will. Workers have less of an incentive to invest in the future, I've already explained this several times so I am not going to repeat myself, I can link you to an earlier explanation if you need me to do so.

Sorta. Teachers in Detroit (the majority) opt not to be paid all during the year, to have the paychecks space throughout the summer because they don't trust themselves not to spend all their money. Workers would be somewhat inclined to spend too much in the "high-times" if their wages were tied directly to (relatively high or low) fluctuations in profit.

They are not the part of the value of the product the capitalists is selling. They were not apart of the labor process. This doesn't mean they do not create value. The security guard does not work on the product, he has an entirely different function. No where did I claim they didn't create value. I said they are unproductive workers. That means they are not the worker who produces the product but lives off the surplus of the worker.


Lmao. Let's ignore the fact that many middle class americans didn't pay back those same predatory loans. It was all the niggers fault! Never seen someone actually try to blame the 2008 crash on a couple of poor blacks not paying back loans because the PC jewish illuminati lizard cabal didn't pay them. Also, blacks are still more likely to be denied of a loan compared to whites.
zillow.mediaroom.com/2015-02-09-Black-Applicants-More-Than-Twice-as-Likely-as-Whites-to-be-Denied-Home-Loans

I'm saying greed is not an constant.


Why not? Because it's not REAL capitalism?


The statement you made

Which very odd, since it's just a simple example of the falling rate of profit. Which Marx wrote.

I don't see it being the same as a textile factory or a petroleum refining facility.

Give me a clear-cut definition then, don't just give me examples.
Nigger, my point was only that giving more stupid people educations doesn't increase the pool of smart people who are capable of doing highly demanding jobs.

Why not? Making arbitrary distinctions, are we :)?

Fuck off.

Why are they stupid, you stupid polyp?

Does the inherited cash magically make you smart?

Define productive worker and define labor process.
Blacks are less capable of paying back loans. They have lower incomes, higher crime rates, are more likely to default, have lower credit scores, etc.

Yes, it is, in any system of economics to assume that people are not acting to enhance their own economic wealth is retarded.

You are making a criticism of government regulation of capitalism, not capitalism, go back to the drawing board.

We give them the full value of their labour yes. We use

No ones talking about carpentry. We're talking about the owner of a company. Again


No you dumb fuck. I'm saying that co-ops pay their workers more than a non co-op and have more money to reinvest because they pay their workers less. If a co-op wishes to expand they do. I already linked you to that one article where co-ops were making up 1/3 of the GDP for that area. Mondragon is the 10th biggest company in Spain.

If anything, this would just lead to a bunch of smaller co-ops who don't expand until their ready instead of big monolithic companies that treat their workers like shit. Isn't that what you're all about in aynclap land?

So, where do you place on the autism spectrum?


It's a knife. We mean the entire building they work in.


A factory. Give me an example of something not as menial as a knife. A means of production would be the entire building. In a kitchen, it would be the oven or the dishwasher owned by the workers. If a chef chooses to bring a knife from home who gives a shit.

And yes, but if someone is born into poverty they're gonna have a shitty upbringing. Shitty food, shitty education. Even if they have potential to be smart, they're not going to reach it.

*Again, I pointed out that co-ops have more efferent work forces. The quality has not decreased because the people at the top don't get to leech off the people at the bottom.

What does a knife produce?

IQ is highly heritable (basically, significantly a result of genetics) and is correlated with academic performance/income. So, yes, rich people are more intelligent than the poor on average, and it's not because the poor can't afford books. Environmental factors like "books" do not have a causal link to IQ, some factors like nutrition, however, do.

Filleted fish from slabs of fish.

Having a mental illness can severely impact school performance.

iqandenvironment.blogspot.ca/2008/05/list-of-environmental-factors-that.html

Living in poverty is tremendously stressful.

And why is that comparable to the former examples?

The point is that if you are hiring people for a role and you advertise a lower salary you get a less skilled candidate.
Fewer people will become doctors if doctors earn the same as everyone else, obviously. Fewer people will work to become eligible for a CEO position if you forcibly decrease the compensation of CEOs with socialism. This is an unavoidable result of lowering the salary of CEOs, you can argue this will not have a significant effect, go ahead, you can not argue it will not happen (without revealing yourself to be a complete idiot.)

And I'm sure government regulations and tax breaks definitely didn't favor that mode of production in that area :DDDD
No one said that, least of all me. However, I don't blame them for taking too many risks when the government creates a moral hazard that is begging them to (by insuring deposits and too big to fail, both moral hazards.)

Making education more available won't increase the number of highly intelligent people capable of benefiting from an education oriented towards the highly intelligent, learn to read, nigger.


So basically you have no definition for means of production, cool.

So why do whites from families that earn les than $20,000 per year have higher IQs than the average 85 IQ black who comes from an average of what, I think it was $35,000 year?

As I said, even for relatively poor whites, IQ is highly heritable, meaning genetics is the primary determinant if you have a high or low IQ, and IQ is more not less heritable as you mature from childhood to adulthood.

Because it's a tool, property used in the production of consumer goods?


Living around highly criminal "urban youths" is stressful, yet poor white communities have lower crime and higher IQs than poor black communities, weird how IQ is highly heritable.

I did in the previous comment. The productive worker are the ones who expunge their labor into the product. As in, they are the ones who combine their labor with the other materials to make that product. That is a major part of the labor process.


In reality banks decline loans requested from blacks quite frequently compared to whites even with federal laws in place. Even then, it's simply deflection to the point that these banks did offer predatory bad loans to middle-class Americans when they saw it was profitable to do so. The bubble wasn't created just because of Black people.


Where? Do you mean this comment?


If so, then it is a critique of capitalism. Capitalists getting passed these regulatory guidelines with just the power of their profit.

Poor white communities are generally also less urbanized.

So waiters aren't productive workers and chefs are?

In a free market situation, banks have an incentive to make only loans that are more likely to be paid back than not unless
A) Someone else bears the risk
or
B) They're trying to go out of business
A) can only happen when
C) The government forces people to bear the risk via too big to fail policies and people have no incentive to seek secure places of deposit due to government ensuring of all deposits up to $200,000
or
D) the banks can lie about the quality of the loans, which is fraud, which is illegal, or the government-imposed rating agencies do a shitty job (the latter happened.)

No, the one where you mentioned Ricardo.

So niggers are stupid because of their proximity to concrete and high-rises?

You completely misunderstand this. A Doctor at the moment is a labourer. He would have his pay increased. You can't apply what you're saying to CEO's who as I showed you in the co-op model don't become less efficient. This applies to CEO's only and I'm saying I have evidence that in the co-op structure they do not become less efficient.


Glass Steagel is needed tbh.


Source and methodology? Again: urbanization leads to crime
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812010750


Population density breed degeneracy.

What about the buying on margin criss of the Great Depression?

Chefs yes. It takes more training to become a cook or chef and this is factored into the labour process.

No, but urban areas are more inclined to crime. This was observed in cities during the migration of European immigrants to major American cities at the turn of the century.

Read, nigger.

I wasn't making a point about the efficiency of the business structure, I was arguing the impossible-to-deny fact that people respond to incentives and there's less of an incentive for highly intelligent people to become CEOs if the compensation for CEOs declines.

Not if the government doesn't create moral hazards with too-big-to-fail/ensured deposits for customers/
and if government gets rid of universal "no shareholder liability" and decreases the enormous regulatory burden that discourages small community banks/favors large bank centralization

liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/tag/black-white-iq-gap/
Look at the SAT vs. family income, the SAT is an approximate IQ test.
Show me any 90% white city on the planet with a crime rate as high as Detroit?
crickets chirp

Show me one 90% white urban area with a crime rate as high as the average 90% black urban area.

Fun fact: An Ancap society would have way more crime. Population density would have to be huge because the only roads being maintained would be the ones where corporations deem it profitable to build them.

I guess people couldn't use gravel or lay asphalt/cement without forming a corporation to do so…

Capital goods are literally goods bought and used to produce commodities. Lumber to produce tables. A business needs to buy this to continue to produce. If you are talking about other types of investment into expanding production in different ways, or research, then that is different.

They only reinvest more than workers at the moment because they have the spare capital to do so, and the incentive of owning the business receiving the investment. The major reason to invest in their own company would be to make more profits and/or keep up with competition (the latter reason shrinking as monopoly expands), and there is no reason why worker/owners can't also do the same thing if they were to own and run the business. The only difference being worker/owners would decide how to invest as a collective and on an individual basis if they chose.

Worker/owner incentives to invest in an industry, and manage it well, are the same as a capitalist, I.e they don't want to go bankrupt and they want to live well, but with the added incentives of helping their fellow workers, their local community, and our global society.

Capitalists aren't essential to production, and none of your examples can't be done by owner/workers.

As for workers being dumb, that's a product of a society that needs dumb workers, and generally only dumb enough to keep the ship sailing. Workers are capable of managing their workplaces, since they already do. Owners don't manage them, they hire workers to do it.

I don't give a shit "how smart" the guy running it is if the workers can run the business more efficiently than a capitalist business.

Show me a white city with a population density and with urbanization on the level of Detroit.
Black people are concentrated in ghettos since they were never moved out of them after the civl rights movement was passed.

debunkingstormfags.blogspot.ca/2016/07/with-rise-of-alt-right-far-right-neo.html

Here you go.


When are people going to have time for that when they're working? Why would they do it for free? They're just going to move to an area where roads are being maintained. There are stretches of farm land that go on for miles that wouldn't be maintained at all. These people would just move elsewhere.

So water is a capital good if you run a restaurant? Because you pay a utility bill. And it goes into food.

No reason why? It's not impossible, but they have less of an incentive to do so.
smh…

Chicago had 510 homicides in 1926. Chicago these days is averaging around 450, with the exception of 2008(508 reported). Other cities had a higher murder rate than Chicago around that time.

You realize Detroit was white before blacks took it over and it didn't have a high crime rate before blacks took it in, and it wasn't suddenly "highly urbanized" after blacks came in?

Why do people in rural areas have a positive right to force people in urban areas to subsidize their travel?

What was the white murder rate in Chicago in 1926? The black murder rate in Chicago in 1926?

This book is fictional, btw, Theodore Roosevelt who wasn't exactly known for his arbitrary favor of business said Sinclair was full of shit (paraphrasing).

The cost of the water would get added into the price of commodity. You still don't dip into workers compensation for that.


People living in poverty are going to have a harder time getting a good education and may not have the money period to go to college.


There were a lot of economic issues that led to that. Factories closing, 1000's of people loosing their jobs. You didn't show me what I asked you for.

I figured I'd get shit if I omitted any part of the article. I think the Chinese American and movement time studies are evidence enough.


They're not (black IQ in America is increasing faster), but even if they were, that's still not how averages work.


What does it matter? Brain size is brain size, body mass ratio regardless. Humans are similar enough in body size that the sexual difference in brain size is far greater.
Irrelevant to comparing averages.
That's not how IQ works, you retard, it's just one part of measuring g. Specific task ability between males and females is not found between people of the same sex with different brain sizes, after all.

Nonetheless:

In other words, if we assume this to be a hereditary racial difference, it's so small as to lack any political implication.

You idiots cherry pick data for a personal agenda, and accuse everyone else of doing it too so you can pretend it's "fair game".

Education does not increase IQ, but more intelligent people are more likely to get educated.

What did you ask for specifically? I showed you the SAT vs. family income (SAT being a proxy for IQ) that poor whites outscore wealthy blacks.

Also my point was that population density would increase and urbanization and high density means more crime. It would up to the people of the state to decide if they want to build those roads.

Living in poverty has a whole bunch of other affects on you. I posted the environmental factors earlier. Lack of nutrition is a big one, a long with being constantly stressed out. High stress = more likely to abuse drugs etc.

Correct, I did not word that properly.

More variability = more geniuses (and retards). Pretty relevant at the far ends of the bell curve, exceptionally relevant, actually.

What factors? List them for me :^)?

wrong:
Corrections for restriction of range and attenuation in both this and past studies suggest that the population value of the brain volume-IQ correlation is closer to 0.50.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886999002585

gee i wonder
maybe it's becaukill yourself

Blacks can afford food, it's not our fault they spend it on fast food which is actually, per meal, more expensive than buying healthy food in bulk and preparing it yourself
not on your life

Only in a loose sense of the word. Leave it to an ancap to re-write history to fit his narrative.

No poor people can't afford good food. Some of them can't afford food at all. You have no idea what you're talking about. We aren't talking about "all blacks" we're talking about poor people.


And anyway, I want them in the country cause they make good music.

brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/129/2/386

Not him, but family income as a measurement of SES is extremely limited and a naive assumption. Communities in the US are still de facto segregated, an economic leftover reinforced by a desire for people to remain near their friends and family, which means people of different races are likely to experience drastically different environments even at the same income bracket. Your home environment plays a small part compared to the entire neighborhood you grow up in, largely because of mandatory education, which is why IQ only correlates about 0.5 between siblings from the same biological parents.

Black Americans, for example, are starting to move out to the suburbs as economic status improves, which has probably been a decent source of IQ gain: poor urban areas are rife with disease and pollution, which is further compounded by malnutrition common among the lower class. Banning lead fuels and legalizing abortion (thus allowing fewer kids to be raised with the same income) were a massive boon to the black community.

If you can afford McDonald's, if you can afford unhealthy junk food, you can afford to go to Costco and buy healthy food in bulk.

So blacks, left to their own devices, create atrocious communities? Next you're going to tell me that Africans never built a two-story building or learned how to use the wheel or developed strong pair-bonded families!

[citation needed]

...

Anyway, are you so out of touch with the poor that you honestly think that they can afford food but they just choose not to buy good food? Man, you're an asshole. Sometimes people only have enough money for the month to buy Ramen noodles in bulk. You've never been poor so you don't know what it's like.

I am now going to specify Sub-Saharan Africa to avoid the fucking we wuz kang crowd.

Yes, I fucking believe it.

If where you grow up, there are no jobs it's hard to get a job. But I get how it's easy to look down at the peasants from their ivory tower. What was that about ancapism basically being neb-feudalism again…..

But no I get it. You think the poor should stay poor and not have the same opportunities as the rich even if they're born into poverty. That says enough about you. I don't think you need to bother posting here any longer.

your* neo*

Coke use is rampant among day traders on Wall Street. Turns out having money and connections helps to shield you from the consequences of bad decisions.

Correlation is not causation, and a casual link has never been established. At no point did I deny that this correlation exists, but the total number of things that correlate with IQ is too long to even list here. I am arguing about relevance to group differences.

Now I get the feeling you are intentionally moving the goalposts.

Wikipedia link's right there.

>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886999002585
This data is already covered in meta-analyses. Very low correlations have also been found. That is how said analyses work.

Regardless, it does not contradict what I already linked, because brain size differences are everywhere; if it does explain any difference between races, said contribution is very small.

Like I said, you are just going to cherry pick individual studies until I get bored of arguing with you, even though current statistical analysis has already disproved a static, and thus hereditary difference.

I should just be sleeping, r'ace realists' can argue forever, because it's the foundation of their sense of self-worth. Why do you think these threads go on forever?

I should just go to sleep already.

debunkingstormfags.blogspot.ca/2016/07/with-rise-of-alt-right-far-right-neo.html

Read this.

Brain size in men and woman is different to, but their IQ is now the same as guys. So fuck off you stupid stormfag.

There are no jobs because niggas with a mile-long rapsheet are unemployable.

Le strawman defeated! You have outed me as someone who totally grew up wealthy™ wink wink and formulated my entire ideology around being a big bully to poor people. You understand me so well.


Inducing causation from correlation is literally the method of science. And brain size is the causal difference that has caused the increase in intelligence from Australopithecus to Erectus to Hss.

Regression toward the mean provides still another method of testing if the group differences are genetic. Regression toward the mean is seen, on average, when individuals with high IQ scores mate and their children show lower scores than their parents. This is because the parents pass on some, but not all, of their genes to their offspring. The converse happens for low IQ parents; they have children with somewhat higher IQs. Although parents pass on a random half of their genes to their offspring, they cannot pass on the particular combinations of genes that cause their own exceptionality. This is analogous to rolling a pair of dice and having them come up two 6s or two 1s. The odds are that on the next roll, you will get some value that is not quite as high (or as low). Physical and psychological traits involving dominant and recessive genes show some regression effect. Genetic theory predicts the magnitude of the regression effect to be smaller the closer the degree of kinship between the individuals being compared (e.g., identical twin  full-sibling or parent– child  half-sibling). Culture-only theory makes no systematic or quantitative predictions.

For any trait, scores should move toward the average for that population. So in the United States, genetic theory predicts that the children of Black parents of IQ 115 will regress toward the Black IQ average of 85, whereas children of White parents of IQ 115 will regress toward the White IQ average of 100. Similarly, children of Black parents of IQ 70 should move up toward the Black IQ average of 85, whereas children of White parents of IQ 70 should move up toward the White IQ average of 100. This hypothesis has been tested and the predictions confirmed. Regression would explain why Black children born to high IQ, wealthy Black parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents (Jensen, 1998b, p. 358). High IQ Black parents do not pass on the full measure of their genetic advantage to their children, even though they gave them a good upbringing and good schools, often better than their own. (The same, of course, applies to high IQ White parents.) Culture-only theory cannot predict these results but must argue that cultural factors somehow imitate the effect theoretically predicted by genetic theory, which have also been demonstrated in studies of physical traits and in animals.

Jensen (1973, pp. 107–119) tested the regression predictions with data from siblings (900 White sibling pairs and 500 Black sibling pairs). These provide an even better test than parent– offspring comparisons because siblings share very similar environments. Black and White children matched for IQ had siblings who had regressed approximately halfway to their respective population means rather than to the mean of the combined population. For example, when Black children and White children were matched with IQs of 120, the siblings of Black children averaged close to 100, whereas the siblings of White children averaged close to 110. A reverse effect was found with children matched at the lower end of the IQ scale. When Black children and White children are matched for IQs of 70, the siblings of the Black children averaged about 78, whereas the siblings of the White children averaged about 85. The regression line showed no significant departure from linearity throughout the range of IQ from 50 to 150, as predicted by genetic theory but not by culture-only theory.
www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

You replied to the wrong guy (he was replying to me, OP), and also women have smaller body mass so it's not an equivalent comparison. Our brains are larger than H. erectus and yet they were also sexually dimorphic in brain size, but I guess you're such a stupid nigger you'll argue that the continual increase of Hominid brain size has had nothing to do with the continual increase in intelligence?
Retarded.

It's not. There's no reason to think otherwise. Why would you be against giving people of every class bracket equal opportunity if not?

Also the average IQ of blacks in the United States is now 91. You're not even using current data. Blacks have gained +5 IQ points on whites.

Smh

Neanderthals were highly intelligent, buried their dead thousands of years ago, and developed complex tools, they engaged in much of the aesthetic culture attributed to "modern" humans.


Because "muh equality" isn't an end in and of itself as far as I am concerned, certainly not one that overrides the virtue that people should keep what they have earned.

Le citation needed.

Neanderthals were also very stocky- they had a large mass for their height so the relativistic brain mass still isn't as big as you are suggesting.

Useful.

robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/problems-with-the-us-black-iq/

You mean keep what other people have earned? Cause literally every other profession besides the CEO would be getting a pay raise. And we've already established that a co-op can function just fine without "Muh super smart white high IQ CEO" you dream about.

Also:
brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_iq.pdf

This looks at both Woman and Men as well as racial differences

psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight

And of course the article I've posted twice.

Woman used to have lower IQ's than men did anyway. And they went up when they were given more equal opportunities.

Bullshit, our brains are outright different in structure and design than those of earlier humans. Size increased because of complexity, while people of different races have brains of the same structure with natural variance among individuals, i.e. some people have larger prefrontal cortexes.


Data about American blacks long since disproved:

brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_iq.pdf
people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles for Online CV/Nisbett (2012) Group.pdf

Rushton's data on physical racial differences has also been met with skepticism, and he has been shown to actively misrepresent the findings of other scientists:

brown.uk.com/brownlibrary/INTEL2.htm

...

I get it. This website is for "muh freeze peach". But why can't out mods be as ban happy as the 8pol mods?

IQ variability is more important than 1 point average difference when it comes to "how many 130 IQ people are in college"
IQ is less heritable in children, black children who participated in Head Start had a temporary IQ gain which dissipated by adulthood, I literally do not care about the average IQ of the 0-18 year old children of any race as it is not indicative what genes for IQ are being inherited.


None of this is rebutting the fact that MRI scans consistently give a ~0.4 correlation with IQ.


>brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_iq.pdf
You just linked this one…

disregard, I fuggedu p D::

I wouldn't mind if we didn't have these threads every day. If I wanted to hear people jerk themselves off about IQ and read the word cuck 20 times in a paragraph I'd go to Holla Forums.

I did not want to talk about race realism. I only wanted to ask the question "if it's a possibility, isn't it unethical to disregard it?" Yet you guys decided to consistently make an issue out of it, so I'll keep replying.

I haven't mentioned it once you faggot.

I already covered this, if brain size is related to IQ then it doesn't matter how small the body is that is containing it. Differences in specific ability have been observed between men and women, but average IQ remains very similar despite discrepancies in brain size.

Because you are so fucking obsessed with MUH LIBRUL DELUSIONS THEY HATE SCIENCE, I'll give you some news that you might be happy to hear: SJ Gould lied about Samuel Morton's observations on brain size and his motivations for research. However, what Morton actually discovered by measuring brain size relative to race was a strong correlation with distance from the equator, suggesting that larger brains are actually a physical adaptation for humans living in cold climates. This further reinforces the likelihood that if brain size is directly linked to IQ, its relation to group differences is still very small and possibly not even genetic.


Doesn't matter in terms of my argument, because statistical evidence is not empirical evidence.

I know. Please actually read it, and the follow up rebuttal, which is suspiciously omitted in a blog you linked earlier.

The circles people of your stripe are prone to abuse the term.

I wish I still had that screenshot of someone who got banned from Holla Forums for like 200 years for ' lel Jewish shill'. The hotpockets there are way worse than here.

debunkingstormfags.blogspot.ca/2016/07/with-rise-of-alt-right-far-right-neo.html

Yeah it is ethical. You judge people based on merit, not on pseudo-science.


Also


And no faggot. If you came here to discuss economics I wouldn't care. You guys always post threads about "why are whites superior to everyone?" and derail threads. We had a cultural revolution thread that devolved into cultural marxism and race discussion. We need to just ban you fuckers.

Yeah, and there's a difference in grey/white matter between men and women and a difference in body mass. Significant one. Men have about 40% greater upper body strength, granted that doesn't correlate perfectly with mass.
I already know about this. I am not a plebe.


I am not in favor of Holla Forums's moderation style. I think if it's not spam it shouldn't be banned.

IS that why leftists pushed for IQ tests to be banned for job applicants, because they care about getting the most intelligent person for the job? hue
Nigger, we've been over this, IQ is significantly less heritable in children.

HAHAH
LITERALLY EXACTLY THE RESULTS OF THE TEST, NOT TO MENTION THAT SHITTY FUCKING EYFERTH TEST DID NOT MEASURE THE IQ OF THE PARENTS NOR DID IT HAVE A REASONABLE SAMPLE SIZE.

This is accurate, yet average IQ remains very similar between the sexes.

Read on then, and have a useful quote from the other link I provided:

As one can see here, brain size and IQ correlation goes both ways in terms of nature versus nurture: it may be directly linked, or it may be confounded by IQ and brain size both correlating with environmental differences. Even if it is the former, variance is going to be everywhere, within and without race.

Eyferth study*

You're just filibustering about the relativistic point.

Or maybe high IQ/larger brains is a liability in environments which are hot and have a low-optimum IQ because they make heat dissipation more difficult and increase caloric consumption, I'm sure none of this has to do with environments with massive variance in seasons (as opposed to one long season in the tropics) being more intellectually demanding. No, I mean, why would humans actually adapt to their environments neurologically, that would be racist or something.

1. Why do you specify this to negros? Seems a waste of time to me. No, they're part of the lumpen. Capitalists do it on a much larger scale. The wealth of the 3 billion poorest = wealth of something like the 85 richest.

2. You know, I'm not even going to bother answering this one because you provided a single *news* article (not even the supposed study) which talks about "uhhh liberal scholars" in the very title. At least try to present your sources as objective.

3. Equality is a spook, kill yourself.

4. I don't think it's a problem.
I'm certain that you're one of the lower quartile of the Europeans.

My point was earlier you cited academic achievements of blacks as being an example of IQ. How do you explain several nationalities overtaking the English average?

We've also established blacks have gained +5 IQ points on whites.

Do their nigger genes activate after puberty or something? Changes during childhood carry into adulthood.

I am also not sure about the validity of the Eyferth study, but hereditarians like to pretend that studies like the MTAS fully support their own conclusions too, so I guess it's a two way street. Recent data is what matters most.


Big words make you sound smart! Verbally asserting relevance also establishes it. Somehow.

So they survived a more challenging environment…by becoming stupid. This makes sense. Somehow.

127, professionally tested ;)

English average might be including their enormous low-IQ inbred Paki population, and again, IQ is not as highly heritable in childhood.
Not the adults, hence I don't care

Yes the adults as well.

psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight

I don't. I don't cite the Minnesota study in any attempts to prove, well, anything.

No, dipshit, in Africa you don't need to have an IQ of 120 to pick bananas and chuck spears, in Europe you need to use technology, store food, cooperate with a large group, hunt in the middle of fucking winter to survive, it is simply ridiculous to claim that the optimum IQ in Africa has been, historically, as high or higher than the optimum IQ for a human/hominid population on Europe.

Mine's 148 so what? You're like a little negro as far as I'm concerned :^)

Are you talking about race or gender? As I told you, the higher variability of male IQ can account for greater male achievement.

Believe whatever you want, doesn't hurt me.

Reminder that all race differences inevitably fail statistical tests and polacks can't into mathematics.

ftfy

Or maybe because material conditions favoured them. Woman had lower IQ an then it caught up to guys when they were given the same opportunities. The article talks about racial differences. At 24, it was still improved by +5.

Also
Nope.

Looks like the nigger genes must activate!

That's not an IQ test, but again, the only thing confusing there is the Indian scoring, but given that it's an achievement test and not an IQ test it can be chalked up to more dedication to studies both by the child/imposed by the parent.

Pakis are white now?
Yes, the adults too, are you high?


Yeah, no, high IQ is always an evolutionary advantage. That is what makes intelligence useful to begin with. Modern humans being smarter than early hominids is why we are alive and they are not.

shocked af tbh fam

WAT?
Your source says
100-17 = 83..

Adults are taking an academic test? Huhwat? And I was saying I wasn't sure what you're talking about, if you're saying "in general, English averages (from the geographic location)" have declined, that could be due to Pakis.

No it's not, you stupid nigger. It's an extremely expensive organ, if your brain being 5% larger doesn't offset the caloric cost/increase in insulation then it makes you less fit for that environment. Intelligence has a cost in calories, and ability to dissipate heat.

NOPE! It's not material conditions it can't be! You already said. Must be because whites are inferior to Indians. Say hello to your new overlords, better get shitting in the street.

Anyway, what you'll notice is that poor whites always do worse than every other ethnic group there. Even "le subhuman paki's"


And in 1972 it was 5 points higher.

Yes. A tangible asset required to produce. Its definition isn't really important to the conversation though.

You say they have less of an incentive just be a use they wouldn't be taking a risk, and would have nothing to lose… I don't know why you don't think this applies to worker/owners. They invest in the industry they work in, they want it to do well, they want to strive to do a good job that they aren't alienated fr completely, they don't want to fail and produce nothing, they want their family and community to be better off. They have more incentive than the shareholder, who just wants to make money, and will often drive an industry into the ground - with no regard for the workers or society - to do so. Capitalists often can afford to fail, too, and sell their poorly run business, or move production overseas.

What incentive to invest and run a business well does a capitalist have that an owner/worker wouldn't have?

Not an IQ test, don't care ;)

Nope!
unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/


So you disagree with the very basis of an objective concept of human intelligence? Which itself is the basis for IQ?

Workers as a group have an incentive to get higher short-term wages and lower long-term reinvestment in capital goods. I've said this half a dozen times and I'm beginning to get tired of repeating it.

Okay. Then your whole thing about poor whites doing better than poor blacks earlier is discarded and you can never use that argument again.


And we answered it a million times.

>unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/
1. Academic achievement? Don't care, I'm talking about IQ. Dedication/motivation can really conflict with IQ there.
2. African immigrants represent the most intelligent/dedicated Africans. If they have an average of 70, and these African immigrants average 110 (of course these sophists don't tell us the difference between the IQ of the parents and the children at adulthood), then we would predict an IQ of (assuming 0.5 heritability) 90. If the heritability of these immigrants is higher, they might have an average almost as high as whites. Given systematic favoring of blacks in higher education, the idea that a group of blacks around as intelligent as Mestizos doing way better than American blacks is not incompatible with hereditarianism. This "study" doesn't tell us parent/child IQ at adulthood so it's literally useless.

The basis for the concept of intelligence is not that the "optimum IQ" for every human environment is always "higher." That is nonsensical, the brain consumes 20% of your calories, making it larger will not be strongly selected for if doing so confers little to no benefit.

It's less meaningful if we're talking about people under 18, absolutely.

Earlier you said academic achievement correlated with IQ. Does it or does it not?


Okay, then don't use that in an argument. Either way, we still established that blacks have gained +5 IQ points on whites.

Anyway, I have to go to sleep now. Have fun shitting up the board with your verbal diarrhea stormfaggot.

It's a loose correlation and it depends on the test.
They're +5 IQ points less retarded on average, as adults, yes. There's also been an increase in European admixture into American blacks (greater interracial marriage)

I want people to have their own countries, I guess that makes me literally Hitler!

Workers who don't own the means of production and can't afford to invest, often won't invest as much as capitalists who own the means, and can afford to do so..? No shit.

I'm talking about a worker that is also an owner. A worker who gains very little from the profitability of a corporation will not have much incentive to work hard, improve production, or invest, since they are alienated from the fruits of their labour.

A worker that owns what a capitalist owns is different. You have no reason why an owner is essential, and why a worker/owner set up would not be able to fill the spot.

Nat.* Socialist

Are you playing stupid or is pretending not required? I was saying that the incentives for a democratically run business are vastly different, and if you give a collective the option "put money into investment that might pay out later" or "gibe mone to everyone now to spend on beer" the latter is more likely for the collective and the former more likely how a high-IQ low time-preference capitalist.

I'm not talking about essential I am talking about incentives. I am not talking in these black and white dire terms you apparently think I am trying to talk in.

So IQ simultaneously does and does not matter, depending on whichever is convenient. Figures. These stats correlate strongly with IQ, by the way.


First of all, more accurate estimations of SSA average IQ is just over 80, as shown above. Retard-level estimates are based on very outdated and methodologically inept data.

Second, the parts regarding the United States are not why I cited that link, as amusing it is to watch you accuse all dissenting evidence of sophistry. It does well to explain how genetic explanations for such phenomenon in the UK require some ridiculous mental gymnastics.


Except doing so always confers benefit, because being smarter makes you better at damn near everything in daily life. It's a boon to survival.

LoL

I guess that's an incentive to irrelevant shit then, at least.

No, academic performance has a significant correlation with IQ but when you account with the fact that IQ is less heritable in childhood that's less relevant.

NOT WHEN YOU ARE IN A FUCKING HUNTER GATHERER SOCIETY IN AFRICA WHERE ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CHIP ROCKS, THROW SPEARS, RUN, FUCK, SHIT, AND SLEEP.

and eat*

something something niggers

Not to mention that even if IQ is a slight benefit to everything, but it's a more significant benefit to everything "elsewhere", "elsewhere" being outside of Africa, that means the selection pressures are not equal.

It is immensely dishonest to claim that the optimum IQ for humans, the selection pressure for high intelligence has been EXACTLY identical across all human environments. Just pure insanity, especially given that Africa was still a shithole while Europe was in the Renaissance.

Sure I do, "working class" doesn't literally mean anyone that works. Plenty of bougies work for a living, that doesn't make them working class. Plenty of handicapped people can't work, doesn't make them bougie. Same for those on the dole. Crime is a different issue in itself, don't try to merge the issue of race crime with class conflict.

>2. Given that diversity destroys social cohesion (archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/) why aren't the majority of you vehemently opposed to the capitalists promoting disunity among workers in the West with nonwhite immigration?

Uh, diversity doesn't destroy social cohesion, bub. See; Melbourne, Australia. Fuckloads of Asians, fuckloads of whites, more than enough social cohesion. What the fuck do you even mean by social cohesion? Shitty, seemingly subjective terminology doesn't win arguments.


You're a fucking autist. The idea is to *allow* them to be amongst us, not pressure them into being amongst us.


Checkmate, cunt - that isn't my solution. Get rekt.

OK, we get back to the 'workers are just dumb' argument. You state their incentive to get short term gains and drive a business into the ground is because they are dumb. OK.

Unlike a capitalist, who is always smart, and will never run a corporation into the ground for short term profit. Will never rely on government bail outs. Will never collapse an industry and turn communities into barren wastelands of unemployment. Will never break up a successful business just to sell its assets. OK.

Workers are always dumb and capitalists are always smart. Even if the workers were essentially doing the same role as a capitalist.

What if the capitalist is black and the workers are Asian? Would that change things?

But workers are less intelligent, on average, than business owners. This isn't rocket science. Lower intelligence = higher-time preference (muh instant gratification). The way you can get around my objection is having the group put someone in charge who has a high-time preference and will make the long-term investments that forego the temporary higher wages for long-term well-being and satisfaction. I don't see why you have to be a faggot and pretend that workers have the same time-preference and IQ as business owners on average, guess what, the Wal-mart manager and janitor don't have the same IQ level (with little to no exception.)

But you're not going to allow any of "us" to be separate from them because white people having their own exclusive communities would be duhscrimmyneighshin?

Post proofs you fucking faggot

Consider the possibility that willingness to run frantically to spin the hamster wheel faster may not be the essential quality necessary for good leadership?

As for your concern in OP Marx presciently observed in Das Kapital that under capitalism the burden of maintaining the reserve army of labor[1] would fall on the working class


[1]ie. the people who capitalism maintains as unemployed in order to sink wages, have as readily available scabs etc

I deduced it a priori you fucking peasant.

You're perfectly free to give it a shot, but to allow you to keep a secluded society to yourself undermines the idea of allowing other people to go where they want. The idea your political orientation seems to have is to tell the Arabs and whatnot to fuck off, but not once did you consider trying to establish a closed society to prevent having to interact with them.

No you didn't you made an unscientific claim with no proof on your side.

Into teh trash you go.

U.S. laws create forced association/forced integration, I did consider this, you faggot leftists won't let me.

I have no spoon, nor baby food for you :(

meant for

nice bait fucktard

sage goes in all feilds

This does not follow as working away at 80 hours a week has immediate rewards

One cannot conclude that a preference for useless busywork and more pay indicates a preference for delayed gratification

And you're acting as if there is an economic reason why a worker must have a lower IQ than someone who owns businesses. The reason is social. Plus there are plenty of longstanding worker coops who are obviously not suffering from dumb workers, and plenty of failed private ventures.

Also, managers, accountants, foremen, etc are all workers, not just the guy who turns the wrench.

Socialists also propose to educate people, rather than just wealthy.

Surely the average white person's IQ is high enough to manage a business? Investing in one is even easier.

IQ = lower time-preference, business owners have higher IQs than janitors.

No, the reason is there's a bell curve of intelligence and the right/"upper" ends of the bell curve are much more likely to become business owner than your average retard.

upper end*

Not going to read your PDF, if you're going to argue that CEOs are overpaid, you should be able to prove that to the shareholders who might even compensate you for saving them millions of dollars on a bad investment. If you can't prove the CEO is a bad investment to the people paying for him, I don't give a shit, it's not my problem, if it is a bad investment, that business will be hurt in the market for its stupidity.

I guess you would make the same argument for feudalism though, since feudal lords were much smarter than peasants. Why should merchants be allowed to freely operate when the king and his family have higher IQs?

The capitalist class is wealthy, able to educate itself in a capitalist society better than the poorer working class, and there is no way around that… Except to change society so that all humans have access to education, so that they can successfully manage the world they live in.

No, conquest is not a legitimate method of acquiring land. I guess you want to come up with another shitty strawman I'll only read the first sentence of?

Incorrect, at best this only holds true to about two standard deviations above norm, which is to say around 120

Past this point the person is more likely to become a janitor than a business owner


Are you a burgerfat by any chance?

easier than answering the question I guess.

What is? Buying it? Inherited?

A feudal lord could buy their land and have the peasants as vassals. The peasants having a lower IQ can't own their own land.

It's a similar argument you are making. The workers aren't smart enough to run a business (despite good examples of worker co-ops doing well, and capitalist ventures failing).

How about this: if the workers were all educated and knew how to run a business, what would the problem be there?

OK Holla Forums, answer this and don't dodge the question:

Why do all Nazis and fascists and not socialists want to burn books and destroy science and education? How can you run your nation with no science?

Incorrect, average IQ 130 individuals have higher incomes than average IQ 120, google "Gladwell wrong about IQ" if you want proof (dropped my spoonfeeding implements)

That's my point… more intelligence = lower time-preference = delayed gratification…. hence retards are bad at making long-term investments.

but strawman do real

Yes, and if you could find me the direct, undiluted descendant of an Amerindian who had peacefully homesteaded land and you knew exactly where, how much land etc. I would say give that specific area of land to that specific descendant. I do not believe in a "you're 1/16 Cherokee so you get an arbitrary amount of land."

Homesteading abandoned/unowned land, purchasing from valid title owner, inheriting from valid title owner.

They'd be wasting their highly educated workers who should, instead of filling out the lower roles of an outstanding business, be doing more good in the higher-up roles of a less successful business.

You're seriously telling an anarchist-communist that the US is retarded. That's what you're fucking doing. If I had my way you'd be free to do what it is that we're talking about here.

The (((books))) you refer to are part of a plot to degrade the culture and tradition of the west

That's not what heritability means you fucking retard.

debunkingdenialism.com/2012/08/11/the-widespread-abuse-of-heritability/

If you aren't in favor of forced integration then you're much lower on the "people I hate" list than any garden variety cuck, congratulations.


I am paraphrasing. I have not looked at what this says, but the more technical definition is:
Heritabiity tells us the proportion of variation in a trait that is due to genetic variation.
I simplified it for the laymen here, shoot me, nigger (and don't turn the gun sideways).

You say you don't care. But if there was conclusive proof found, genes that specifically code for smarts, and said genes were largely absent from certain ethnic groups, would this change your mind?

Well, hey, thanks for at least giving me an inch for my word. I can appreciate that.

You're arguing that smarts makes someone more valuable as a person. Monetarily on an average, that may be so - but this is leftypol, you fucking gigantic fuckwit. Most of us refuse the idea of money being of any reason. Go argue with a libcuck about this.

Intelligence also includes things like "ability to not steal your shit." Do you want to live around
A) A bunch of highly intelligent people who will respect your personal property
B) A bunch of low-IQ criminals who can't even maintain their lawns to save their lives and say "muh dick" every 30 seconds

This is all well and good in a post cash society. We're not there yet. We are as far from it as we were when it was first conceived.

OK, so if a feudal lord inherited land from a valid title owner, and acquired the vassals on that land to work it's crops and animals for his gain, then that would be ok since the serfs don't have the knowledge oh how to run a vassalage like the lord does, and they never will because their IQ is lower.


Where does the capitalist private owner appear in this?

I don't really have any concept of "my shit" in my mind. The concept of ownership is false unless you mean literal physical power over something.

No, it's okay because he has a valid property right. You guys are saying
'Why couldn't this work like capitalism (as well as capitalism?)
I am saying that's because of incentives/other issues. Now you're changing it to:
Why do you think someone has the right to earn profits off of x y z?
Because they legitimately earned/voluntarily acquired that property, I don't give a fuck if disregarding that legitimately earned property right produces some marginal benefits in utilitarian terms.

I thought commies believed in personal property e.g. someone can't take a family heirloom or something?

Still, I refuse to argue on how to better the capitalist system when I believe it's always going to be fucked to shit. May as well argue for what I actually believe in, eh? Liken it to a Christian arguing about how to better Islam when their heart is devoted to Christianity anyway, so they don't give a fuck in the real scheme.

Sounds like Holla Forums, to be honest. Nigger nigger Jew shill muh dick gimme dat kike.

Most of us do, and it's more pleasant to have "personal property" as most conceive it, but there is literally nothing that binds a person to an object morally speaking. It's a false, purely social concept.

hm…

1. You do realize there a ton of white people who live on welfare right?
2.Someone else already covered this
3. I don't support immigration of people who refuse to integrate like Muslims who want sharia law on a governmental level. I don't care what race someone is or their country of origin because it has no real negative effect in itself.
4. Was already covered by someone

evil is an autistic concept and you're an autist for misrepresenting what i said, go die slowly

So there we have it. The capitalist deserves to exist because the capitalist laws say so, even at the detriment of society.

more accurate for you :^)?

Are you the Nihilist guy again or someone else?

no, just a fool and/or uneducated

...

I see your point but what comes next must grow out of what we have. Cutting right to the heart of the question in OP, does mass migration of potentially less intelligent people further your cause or make it more distant? If the latter why is this a non-position in leftism?

I fail to see how the intelligence of people would undermine a revolution.

please die and please don't ever make such autistic mental leaps ever again

...

Yet you condemn 'fascists' as being tools of porky and cite that they're retarded as being part of the issue.

No, I call them retarded as an insult, I don't use it as an argument. Stop being retarded, you fucking retard.

Silly me, I misremembered 120 instead of 130

However if we drill into your claims

archive.is/rRGmE#selection-419.0-425.347


The paper cited here in fact supports my point on hamster wheels

Looking in the paper we find


Also you may want to read archive.org/stream/geneticstudiesof009044mbp/geneticstudiesof009044mbp_djvu.txt

and the paper on CEO pay you are so studiously avoiding

We are closer, how often do you throw out a broken item and purchase a new one instead of repairing it, also such things as downloading music and movies for free

The paper cited here in fact supports my point on hamster wheels

Looking in the paper we find


Also you may want to read archive.org/stream/geneticstudiesof009044mbp/geneticstudiesof009044mbp_djvu.txt

and the paper on CEO pay you are so studiously avoiding


… How does this contradict any of what I've said? And I already told you my view on the CEO thing, even if it is a form of market failure I'm not going to become a commie, thanks.

Heritability is the proportion of phenotypic variation in a particular population and environment that can be attributed to genetic variation in that population and environment.
That's not the same thing as saying how much genes count in said trait. To quote the link i posted:

In the other way:

That's not the same thing as saying how much genes count in said trait.
That's synonymous with what I just said. Phenotype is just "all observed behavior," so all you did was add "phenotypic" to the definition I gave. I know what it means.

IN A SPECIFIC POPULATION AND A SPECIFIC ENVIRONNMENT. Thoses are quite important subtilities. Did you read the examples?
70% heritability of intelligence doesn't mean 70% of intelligence is the results of genes.

You'd know if you could be bothered assuming you are capable of reading something more hefty than a blogpost

Talking of which, a potential problem with your blogpost is that it references two cohorts. Below 115 and above 135, it may seem a reasonable assumption that there will a steady rise. However it is unsupported

It is entirely possible without further evidence that there may be a drop off at greater than 130 in earnings, and then past 135 earnings and IQ again correlate

I know. I didn't give people a long-winded explanation of heritability because my goal was not to prove/defend/have an argument about race realism, but some guys seized on the issue.


Yeah, I guess some leftists are stupid enough to believe that's the case.

Have a look at the occupations of the

The academic scores correlate highly with IQ which(as you probably know), USUALLY becomes fixed around 16-18. The fact that we see blacks in Britain doing better than whites, and poor whites doing worse than all other groups PAST the ages of 16 heavily implicates a cultural explanation.

Here's someone going over how much of a retard Rushton is: scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=articles


You retard. We already went over this: the fact that there are companies like Mondragon as well as several smaller companies that function with the workers owning it and their wages being representative of their full compensation makes what you're saying null. Not only that, but they are more efficient. This disproves any retard stuff you want to say about "incentives" because we have examples that contradict it. The fact that we have empirical evidence that you're wrong means, just that: you're fucking wrong.

If you want to be "feelz over reelz" with your economics, then fine. You can't justify the capitalist function in the business by saying "the capitalist earned the property right because the capitalist earned the property right". You're fucking begging the question.

What you're saying doesn't even make sense based on what we know about evolution

lol

You dodged the question! Tell me why you want to destroy science and education in general.