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
Why Brazil is Brazil: during the huge population boom of the second half of the 20th century, the lowest class decile had more than twice as many kids as the highest (7 vs 3 in the 1914 birth cohort, 5 vs 1.9 in the 1964 birth cohort).
"Women without educational achievement have more than 4 children, women with more than 12 years of schooling have only 1.
This is why I am not a fan of pro-natalist proposals of the form of "giant unconditional cash transfers." I think for the right value of giant (like Hanson's $200K) they would "work" to get TFRs above replacement, but at the cost of Brazilification, which defeats the purpose.
Japan's aging demographics are sadly causing labor shortages, leading to rising wages, reallocation of labor from low to high productivity firms, investment in automation, and 30-year-low youth unemployment. A tragedy that can only be averted with 20M migrants, ASAP.
One of the special interests for labor migration in many countries is low productivity firms trying to avoid going out of business. An example: textile factories in postwar Britain recruiting Pakistanis. They phrase this as "labor shortages," but we don't have to listen.
The same thing might actually bail China out of their extremely high youth unemployment, which is consistently around 15%. With 22% of the country still in low productivity agriculture too.
Quick thread on "white flight" in the Bronx. In 1950, the Bronx was over 90% white. Between 1970 and 1980, the absolute number of whites dropped by half, partially replaced not by blacks but by new immigrant minorities (Puerto Ricans, Hondurans, Vietnamese, etc).
From the 1930s to the 1960s, the Bronx was known for its tranquility, with children playing outside unaccompanied, bikes and scooters left unattended, and doors left ajar for fresh air (!).
This changed in the 60s/70s, when black and Hispanic residents entered the Bronx en masse, attracted by public housing and rent-controlled apartments. For some reason, crime and drug use exploded around the same time. Knives, mugging, shootings, drugs, gang warfare.
A few excerpts from the 1968 book "Danger in Washington," about 20 years experience in Washington DC public schools, serving as head of the system for decades. Had a much longer thread, but the site ate it. Author is a postwar liberal overtaken by the 60s Cultural Revolution.
The author, Carl Hansen, moved from Omaha, Nebraska to DC to join the public school system there. He was shocked and horrified by segregation in DC, which he regarded as evil, and made up his mind to do all he could to oppose it.
By 1954, pretty much all DC was desegregated except the schools. Basically the whole DC govt and school system was thus prepared and eager to comply when Brown v Board was decided.
If democracy means unlimited pensions and Pakistanis, of course it won't be popular. The prestige of democracy came from the fact that in the late 20th century democratic countries were world-historically rich, stable, powerful, and internally peaceful.
Fact of the matter is that most of the winning Cold War democratic bloc has been in very noticeable decline since 2008. In my view, mostly because of extremely destructive social/legal changes in the 60s that undermined the basis of our civilization.
The US has had actual economic growth thanks mostly to tech and fracking, but even worse social decay.
1Disagree. 85.9 to 77.4 is like going from Argentina to Kenya. This is one reason why getting some sort of racist or nativist political consensus is so urgent from a "keep the power on" perspective. If half the political spectrum is pro-Open Borders when Africa's pop doubles...
Even ignoring absolutely everything else, the default future of the rich world without severe immigration restriction is like 3/4 African + (unselected) South Asian. That's civilization-ending. We need a consensus for restriction on *some* basis ASAP.
This in turn is the single biggest reason mass skilled immigration is fatal: skilled immigrants tend to see themselves as *immigrants* (rather than Americans, or civilized, high IQ individuals, or some other identity that could oppose this) and oppose restrictions on that basis.