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
Excerpts from TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973). The Porfiriato gave Mexico a generation of stability and development for the first time since independence. This left Mexico overdue for another civil war: the Mexican Revolution.
One problem was that the Porfirian school system had created a large, literate middle structure (not class). These educated mestizos became dissatisfied due to lack of opportunity; growth was rapid but not rapid enough to absorb them all.
The Revolution kicked off in 1910, when Diaz announced he'd won reelection with 99% of the vote. This kicked off an insurgency in Chihuahua, in the mestizo, frontier north.
Thread with excerpts from the 'Porfiriato' section of TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973). This was the first era of stability and economic growth in post-independence Mexico, summed up with the slogan "Order and Progress."
Independent Mexico's problem was that Mexicans were incapable of setting aside personalisms for truly national institutions; congress, for example, was a joke.
Benito Juarez greatly expanded secular education; but this turned out to be more of a curse than a boon, because the vast majority of people with schooling insisted on government or legal jobs; very few became doctors or engineers or technicians.
Thread with excerpts from TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973), late 19th century. Like before the war, Mexico after the Mex/Am War was a mess, with many regions sinking into barbarism. Yucatan was the worst, with half the population dying in a race war.
Every Mexican president was a Freemason, but Catholicism was still universal and the position of the Church, which retained its royal privileges even in republican Mexico, was a flashpoint.
The Mexican Church was immensely wealthy thanks to its tax-advantaged status, and the clergy retained legal privileges. It also collected extremely high fees; one effect of this was to ~abolish marriage among the lower classes.
Thread with excerpts from the Mexican-American War section of TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973). Since independence, Mexico had seemingly gone backwards in all respects; in 1840 Mexico was less civilized than it had been.
An incident where French warships blockaded Veracruz over nonpayment of debts from unstable and perpetually-bankrupt Mexican governments. The Mexican response: show "Death to the Anglo-Saxons and Jews" and bring back Santa Anna.
After the secession of Texas, Mexico appeared to be disintegrating, with the Pacific areas effectively independent, much of the North run by bandits chiefs, and Yucatan seceding.
Thread with excerpts from the 'Pretorians' section of TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973). In 1821, postcolonial nation-building seemed easy; the only example was the USA. But the US was homogenous, well-led, free, and already had an identity.
Mexico was the reverse, with no history of self-rule, the criollo/casta/indio split, and no great leadership. The two major factions were the 'continuistas' (conservatives) and the 'reformistas' (liberals).
Mexico was the reverse, with no history of self-rule, the criollo/casta/indio split, and no great leadership. The two major factions were the 'continuistas' (conservatives) and the 'reformistas' (liberals).
Excerpts from TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973) on the Mexican War of Independence. The Mexican criollos were far less impressive than their South American counterparts, and produced no leaders equal to Bolivar or San Martin.
Where the South American criollos quickly declared independence upon the French conquest of Spain, the Mexican ones dithered. Acting quickly, the local peninsulares coup'd the government and the criollos accepted it.
With the criollos basically accepting Spanish domination, leadership of the independence struggle passed to men like Miguel Hidalgo, who turned it from a (hopefully) bloodless coup to a social and race war.