Topic: Economic Devastation - page 61. (Read 504811 times)

You confuse g (i.e., "general intelligence") and particular intelligences (hence, the post that cites course material from a graduate-level psychology course). Certain intelligences (namely, those of Socrates that ensured his demise) might prove hostile to plutocracy (at least, without the plutocracy); however, other intelligences might aid its "self-actualization."

Thats a really rude comment and you fail to address my points, you just mumble around and reiterate your points, which i clearly refuted, but instead of you defending it you just now start insulting and repeating yourself.

I never said that low IQ people are useless to society, and you really misinterpret my points (perhaps intentionally).

My whole point is that the wealthy decide the future of humanity weather you like it or not, and they, do not like low IQ people.

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/24/human-cull-how-to-decode-elite-eugenics-propaganda/

Just read eugenics books that were written by the elite and you will see that they all call for population reduction and elimination of "unwanted traits".

So either nature will eliminate low IQ or the elite will, in either case, we will see a very dark future in our paths because it seems to me that humanity is getting more and more at the edge of it's existence.

(Colorization mine.)


(Colorization mine.)

(Colorization mine.)

You failed to address a relevant scope of my argument (which pertained to quartz, copper, topaz, palladium, sapphire, etcetera).

(In light of the posts above, a psychology review seems in order.)

No you don't. There was something wrong with that test. Which just goes to show IQ tests are bullshit.

You don't seem to comprehend that monopolizing a zero margin directed sector of the economy is akin to having sex withraping a dying old woman. Not a gratifying or relevant achievement.

Edit: even if were true that low IQ individuals are worthless to society, then they will be culled by nature and evolution will raise the IQ levels rapidly with natural selection. Nature is not as helpless as you seem to imply with your top-down proscriptions.

The plight of people today is much better than in the Middle Ages when there was so much overpopulation that human labor was nearly worthless. The Black Death resolved that.

The problem of the world today is that the Industrial Age capital is dying. Individuals need to break free of that morass on their own accord by embracing the autonomous opportunities available to them in the Knowledge Age.


I really need to stop commenting. So if you insist going on with your top-down Chicken Little Malthusian themes, I guess you'll get the last word in our thread for a while.



Edit#2: George Carlin - People Who Ought To Be Killed seems appropriate in this context.

I already told you the artist class is only like 0.1% of the job market, so its really surreal to think that everyone will be artist in the future and even if that were true, the competition would be so big then that most of them will be driven out, and become again unemployed...


But it's you who can't grasp the fact that the corporations are more efficient and drive out competitions with or without printed money.

http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/09/radiating-death-how-walmart-displaces-nearby-small-businesses/3272/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/06/franchise-rule-could-destroy-700000-small-businesses/
http://moneymorning.com/2013/05/29/how-big-corporations-are-destroying-the-free-market/

So unless they lose all their money in the next crisis (unlikely), you won't have a free market. They are ultracompetitive and they fill out all inefficience gaps in the market, so small businesses will be outcompeted by millions.

Do you realize that you will be shoveled out of business if you are not competitive?

So how do you think low IQ people, and undercapitalized ones, can compete with a mega corporations, where every advantage is on the corporation's side?

EX: Average Joe opens a Grocery store and he wants to compete with Wallmart.

-He doesnt have good connections with producers, and he is new so he wont get discounts
-His accounting is probably inefficient and will lose money on that
-His electricity configuaration is also inefficient
-Taxes and regulations also bury him under 5 feed of dirt vs big corporation
-His workers are probably unskilled and he doesnt ave the time and money to train them
-He is new so he doesn't have many customers
-He doesnt have a parking space, so he wont have massive buyers
-He cannot afford promotions and competitions that big store usually do to attract people
-He will get harassed by all kinds of government inspectors like they like to harass small shops
-He doesnt have money for proper security systems so he can get robbed
-He doesnt have enough credibility so he cannot get bank loans easily to expand his business
-He might get harassed by local gangs and mobs
-He can barely pay his insurance costs and employees
-He will offer his products at a high price to cover all his risks, which will make him very uncompetitive
etc...

So a small business owner has all this negative disadvantage on his side vs the big and established corporation near him, so its no wonder he will go out of business in a matter of months.

Sorry this is reality, sharks eat small fish.

Besides I got an IQ of 138 just for the record.

RealBitcoin you must be one of those low IQ people you irrationally view as useless.

How many posts now have I tried to explain to you that so called "lower IQ" people are not so worthless that they can not work to feed themselves. Only welfare, minimum wages, regulations (e.g. preventing growing a vegetable garden and raising pigs and chickens in a city backyard), and inflated living expenses due to rampant (e.g. housing loans) debt driving up the prices of everything causes them to not work. Physical products are declining towards 0 price due to technological advance.

Besides it seems you don't understand a Gaussian distribution means half of the population has an IQ higher than the mean. If you are insinuating that only a person with a 140 IQ can earn enough to buy or work on their own backyard to grow their own food, then I think I will just ignore you now.  

And I have on idea why you think only people with a certain IQ threshold are able to do anything other than manual labor. Even a person with an IQ of 95 such as my brother-in-law who is working in a hotel in Brunei are capable of more than manual labor. He is doing many knowledge age sort of functions such as creating dance classes for the guests, etc.. I measured his IQ on a Raven's matrices test and he is quite capable of doing tasks that are not only manual labor. In fact, it was I who did the manual labor to build a concrete house in their squalor area in 1996 (I was 31 and he was a teenager) and he was too lazy to help me.

But we are talking about the economy here, where people are money oriented and go where the money is.

We already see massive unemployment in Europe due to corporations moving out to S-E Asia and Africa to find cheap labour. The labour market is just optimizing, everyone follows the incentives.

A corporation wants to make more money, so it has to move to places where you find the same quality labour for /10th of the price.

This is partly due to minimal wage laws (employers forced to pay high salaries to people who dont produce that much, so they lay off bad quality workers, a.k.a socialist job-buster ) , high regulations, and printed money.

But even if those 3 elements weren't there, it would still happen eventually, as technology grows. So socialism only accelerates the problem, but it doesn't cause it.

The real cause of unemployment is technology & human incentives, which can't be changed.


So as high IQ people in the past got wealthy (they can do it just now but a bit harder) and were smart enough to not raise offsprings that are spoiled brats and waste their wealth. Instead this old money got preserved by the rich people's families. Perhaps not all offsprings but some:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3195273/Son-Swiss-multi-millionaire-convicted-deliberately-setting-fire-150-000-Ferrari-458-Italia-failed-attempt-claim-brand-new-supercar-insurance.html


So like it or not, they were smart enough to keep their wealth, so they now dominate the planet, and unless you can raise to their ranks with intelligence, cunning and a bit of luck, its hard to imagine that anyone of us will dictate the future of mankind.

Thus these corporations will dictate it (unless a massive economic reset happens as I said already, and the rich will be dumb enough to not arrange their wealth safely and lose it all)

So as technology becomes more complicated LOW IQ PEOPLE & LESS CAPITALIZED PEOPLE (which is nearly the same), will be shoveled out of the economy, and 1 out of 3 outcomes will happen:

You hired the man who comes by to clean your car every week, because you like his quips and personality.

Is that IQ?

Is that only manual labor?

Some of the most interesting people I've know in my birthplace New Orleans were blacks who probably wouldn't have high test scores on IQ tests.

Making life interesting is very valuable to me.

You have dehumanized it all.

Fitness means there are many myriad of values in society. If society was a xerox copy, then we would not likely survive the next near extinction event. Diversity is appreciated by mankind because it is resilient and necessary.

Well, I'll have to agree with this. No matter how well you have prepared your business, or a bright idea you had and decided to make money out of it; there's always the factor of "chance". YES, there's choice, YES, there's IQ, hard work, dignity, commitment, public relations, BUT... there's also pure, blind, filthy, LUCK! Whatever you do, whatever I do, whatever ANY AVERAGE JOE does, it's based 50% on luck - if the Universe decides you're not worthy, there you have it.

Unlucky events come in various forms, the most common is a love affair that went wrong. I've once met a PhD guy who got his heart crashed. He tried to commit suicide! I convinced him not to do it, after a couple of days he solved a problem that had been unsolved for the last 100 years. In a parallel universe, where he never met me, he might as well be gone, and that problem would have to wait another 100 years for another genius to solve it. Another form, is a terminal disease; cancer, Alzheimer's, a plane crash, pick your best... you're out of luck GENIUS. End of the chapter.

And, then; there are people who don't have to be THAT rich to have a wealthy life. Do you really need that 300ft boat or the Lambo? Think again. A *really* smart person doesn't need MUCH to live from, he requires LESS to live wealthy, in his own way. He doesn't even have to get a 150 IQ rating - believe me I know many of those.

Life is short. Don't go after much, only those you really need to be happy. That's smart. That's genius.

Creative jobs are the workforce of the future.


Falsify that causality.

How are you going to falsify which causes which?

I urge you to review statistics about blacks in the USA before and after widespread welfare corrupted them.

It is, with a small variance of 10-15 points that is caused by the enviroment, that is a scientific fact.

It's genetically based, and only modified slightly by your childhood experiences, nutrition and social enviroment.

You cannot doubt that.

No it's the other way around, low IQ people are indebted and living on welfare

As in where I logically proved my points step by step and you can't come up with a good counterargument


If you are talking about creative jobs: artists,musicians,writers, comedians, etc.. that's only a small % of the labour force.

60% of people either work in factory or do manual jobs in the same "hand & feet" using enviroment, and not mind using.


And while the artists I think you cannot ever replace, still 60-70-80% of the jobs will definitely be replaced by AI sooner or later (even actors and static people are replaced by CGI, musicians are replaced with DJ's that mix older music with digital tech, and I think there was an AI which made music based on math patterns)


I didn't said that they are worthless, I believe in human potential, but i`m also realist, and know that it has severe limits.


I can't comment this, i have to read up what Malthusianism is

You assume IQ is innate. Debt and welfare can give someone a lower IQ.

You continue to make the same error over and over.

Every human brain is unique. Everyone regardless of IQ has a creative input to make not just manual labor. They may not become as wealthy as the other person, but they are not worthless.

You might be worthless though with this derogatory nonsense that has been programmed into your brain by the socialist mass media propaganda.

Malthusian crap has always been wrong and always will. Nature isn't as stupid as you think it is.

Ok but you still don't understand.

So let's summarize: IQ and Net worth (wealth) is very highly correlated, now you might win the lottery or become lucky and be wealthy with a lower IQ aswell but it's not the norm. Same as you can be high IQ and be born with 1 arm and 1 leg it's harder to break out of poverty.

However on average, IQ does determine how rich you will become.

=====================================

The problem with this fact is that , as I told you on the earlier posts, is that if IQ is necessary to become wealthy, then if robots replace manual labour, the now unemployed people can't uppgrade their skills and be left unemployed.

So if you have an IQ of 65 and you are a plummer, if you lose a job due better pipes (!) you can still become a car mechanic.
But if both jobs become replaced by robots and AI , then you can't uppgrade to a bank manager.

So what will happen is that these low IQ people will be left unemployed, so either they will starve to death, or you create a massive socialist welfare state:


But there will be no work left, no manual work because they will be done by robots, the only work left will be "mind work": managers, directors, etc.

Which obviously the low IQ people can't perform.

Who said everyone had to be wealthy?

We were talking about whether they are so worthless that they can't work at all.

Also those who do well on tests do so to some extent because they are motivated to. So yes motivated people do become wealthier.

You try to claim that only 2% of the population can be motivated and can find work in the Knowledge Age. That is ludicrous.

Sorry but there is direct, and very high! (>90%) correlation between wealth and IQ of a person, based on real 100% scientific research:

SO OPPORTUNITY , FITTNESS , AND EQUAL STARTING OPPORTUNITY DOESN'T REALLY MATTER!

BUT IT'S HARD TO FIND GOOD PAPERS ON THE INTERNET TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE SOCIALIST APOLOGETICS DON'T ALLOW SCIENTISTS TO LOOK AT UNBIASED CONCLUSIONS!

You completely ignored the point I quoted from my essay. You whoreship IQ. You don't understand entropy nor fitness.

There is work for everyone in the Knowledge Age, because everyone's knowledge is unique. There is no such thing as a superior 1 - 2%. Fuck that. Somebody brainwashed you.