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
A common normie folk belief is that AIDS was ignored by The Establishment out of homophobia. The opposite is true; AIDS became the most researched disease in human history within a few years, and gay orgs strenuously fought measures that might have stopped it.
The attitude of gay orgs during the peak of AIDS was: 1) The REAL epidemic is stigma (it was not, it was HIV) 2) You (meaning mainstream society) must do absolutely everything in your power to save us without us having to change our own behavior in any way at all
Gays were eventually bailed out of the consequences of their own behavior by extraordinary amounts of public research (mostly conducted and paid for by non-gays) plus expensive and continuing public funding of medicine for them (PrEP).
Because there's an obvious answer that will get you fired (and sometimes beaten in the streets) for saying: Koreans are (for genetic reasons) a lot smarter than Bolivians.
Why did Koreans being smarter than Bolivians let them became a frontier economy? Should be obvious: far more people with the ability to become engineers, scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs, and even manual factory workers and janitors and farmers are much more competent.
This is not just retrospective; race scientists in the early 20th century saw East Asians as highly intelligent and the non-white parts of Latin America as not really capable of civilization. Here's Lothrop Stoddard in 1921.
Rule of law, European Court of Human Rights: the ECHR decided in 2024 that Article 8 (right to privacy and family life) implied a right to protection from climate change and Switzerland was violating human rights by not having sufficiently-strong climate policies.
You might recognize Article 8 from all of those stories of MENA or African rapists and murderers being undeportable (it would violate their right to family life).
(This same logic could be applied to almost anything with a potentially-deleterious impact to human health, which is ~everything, so this is the ECHR giving itself unlimited power over domestic politics of member states)
Brazil is Woke Utopia. Racism is illegal (unbailable, worse than homicide), so is transphobia and damaging a woman's feelings. Everyone is mixed and the country is heavily black, but also there's extremely strong (50%+ quotas) affirmative action, and a judge rules by decree.
Extremely strong gun control laws, which are not enforced against actual criminals.
Insanely high pension spending despite being a poor and young (by OECD standards) country.
This is a conceptual error. The whole reason Orban became enemy #1 for European libs was refusing "Syrian refugees" in 2015. It has nothing to do with "vulgarity" or foreign associations (which came later as an attempt to survive EU hostility). Those are just excuses.
You can't actually trick libs into being OK with "no Africans and Middle Easterners" by being polite about it.
The stuff about vulgarity, corruption etc (neither of which were particularly bad in Hungary, though both existed) is PR. And you can't stop libs from running PR campaigns. What was real was Orban mismanaging the economy 2022-2026 (after doing a perfectly solid job until then).
This is even more true in Britain. The non-US Anglosphere is incredibly illiberal (not just in commerce, but also in freedom of speech and group-rights frameworks) even by the standards of an already long-post-liberal West.
My view is that major Western countries transitioned from broadly liberal to broadly socialist/social-democratic around the Great Depression, and then from there to New Left (with more continuity, but still big changes around things like technology) in the 1960s.
In the US, this is obscured because the socialists - the New Dealers - called themselves "liberals" (which, unlike in Europe, was not in common use in the US already) explicitly as a PR strategy. But it's obvious in Britain, where Labour pwned the actual liberal prty.