Book thread on "The Billionaire's Apprentice," by Anita Raghavan, an Indian-American journalist. It chronicles the rise and fall of three-time McKinsey director and Goldman-Sachs board member Rajat Gupta and billionaire hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam. (1/n)
Raghavan refers to Rajat's generation as the "twice-blessed," benefitting from both the end of the Raj and the passing of the Hart-Celler act of 1965, which allowed them to escape their newly independent homeland and come to the US instead, where they quickly rose to the top.
The book spends some time chronicling the ethnic divisions in NY finance and business. There was a WASP ethnic clique and a Jewish one, and the newly arriving Indians quickly set up their own. The usual process was firms beginning to hire Indians to get a leg up on...
...their American competitors, followed by the Indians leaving or taking over and hiring more Indians, forming their own ethnic network, and shutting Americans out. This process is an example of a prisoner's dilemma; Americans...
...are harmed by being shut out of large chunks of the market by Indian ethnic networks (note: ethnic networking is a zero-sum game; other groups doing it hurts you), but companies feel the need to hire Indians to compete. The solution to this dilemma is immigration restriction.
Raj Rajaratnam in particular used an ethnic Indian network of insiders at a number of American tech companies as a source of internal secrets to use for insider trading, making billions. Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs got over ancestral hatreds to form a common front against whites.
Despite being a book about Indians committing crimes, the book practically oozes Indian triumphalism, with Gupta's ascension to director of McKinsey representing the company rejecting the 'homogenous [read: white] past' in favor of the 'diverse and multicultural future'.
The first Indian at McKinsey, Tino, made it a priority to promote and mentor more Indians. His group then helped lead white collar outsourcing to India in the 90s.
Raj Rajatnaram was incredibly successful with his insider trading, becoming one of the 400 richest people in America.
What brought Gupta down was selling information about Goldman Sachs to Rajatnaram while on the board. Both were jailed.
Funnily enough, Gupta's father was arrested during the Raj for impersonating someone else to take an exam for them. The author expects us to sympathize with him because he was doing it for a good cause (raising money for the socialists).
The author concludes that the fact that two leading lights of the Indian-American community were arrested proves that Indians have made it, as they are powerful and secure enough to commit crimes at the top of American society, and are starting to flex their power.
I think the big takeaway from this book is that high-skilled immigration from India is a terrible idea, because they form ethnic networks (zero-sum) to shut out Americans. The small boost a company gets from hiring one is not worth the long term transformation of institutions.
May be interested:
@USTechWorkers
@moldbridge_
@russian_cosmist
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It is completely false that redlining was "explicit racial gatekeeping." 92% of redlined homes were white! Redlining was based on bureaucrats trying to predict if home values in an area would go up or down so as to avoid wasting taxpayer money on bad loans.
Almost all black neighborhoods were redlined because black neighborhoods tend to be poor, violent, dirty, and getting worse (because of black behavior), and so not places people want to move to. This was true in 1936, it was true in 1966, and it is true today.
The current view of "redlining" in the popular consciousness is a (wholly, 100% false) narrative to frame current black lack of housing wealth as the result of past white malfeasance and hence justify white expropriation.
Thread with excerpts from Helen Andrews "Boomers" (2021).
Steve Jobs was an atypical Boomer - he didn't care for politics or philanthropy. Also did not like porn and saw himself as an institution builder, not a destroyer, and closer in personal habits and ideals to the founder of IBM than his age peers.
Unlike Jobs, Tim Cook is a very political CEO of Apple, and awarded for it by the UN and ADL.
Thread with excerpts from Charles Murray's "Losing Ground" (1984), a book on the failure of US welfare and social policy 1950-1980 to achieve its goals.
In 1950, poverty was such a non-issue it was causing problems - philanthropists had nothing obvious to do [perhaps the foundations went race communist]. In 1968, after a huge economic boom, mainstream papers predicted imminent race war without massive welfare expansion.
Social welfare expenditures increased by a factor of 20 (!) 1950-1980. The goals, per Kennedy, who initiated this change: preserving the family unit and ending dependency, disability, ill health, and juvenile delinquency.
Most Spanish South American countries had very liberal constitutions on independence, guaranteeing property, liberal freedoms like speech and contract, and abolishing the fueros and legal caste/race distinctions, often inspired by but going further than the United States.
Many people claim the US was founded as a [classical] liberal state without racial or ethnic content. This is mostly not true; the US was founded by Whigs (the word liberal was coined around 1800) and had explicit race laws. But it *is* true of most of Latin America.
Spanish-American liberals were within the Spanish liberal tradition, much like the Founding Fathers were Whigs. 19th Hispanic century liberalism, politically very successful, is overlooked vs Britain or France. Liberalism won but failed in both Spain and America.
In experimental settings, blacks of both parties and white Democrats favor black criminals over white ones in sentencing and pardoning decisions, while white Republicans have no racial preference.
The same effect shows for sentencing. Of note: black Republicans are basically indistinguishable from black Democrats, in aggregate.
This is driven by racial liberalism (believing things such as anti-black bias being a major problem in the justice system). More racial liberalism => more pro-black bias.
In 2009, Denmark cut the top marginal tax rate 7%, from 63% to 56%. Thanks to Denmark's population register, we can estimate the effect of this tax cut on the fertility of coupled (married+cohabitation) men and women. More money increased male and reduced female fertility.
Specifically: higher wages (increasing the opportunity cost of time) reduced women's fertility and had negligible effects on men, while higher incomes (increased money overall) had negligible effects on women and increased male fertility (ie, children are a normal good).
Many pro-natal policies are effectively transfers from men to women, which is counterproductive.