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
Thread with excerpts from the 1976 essay "On Meritocracy and Equality." I want to clear up some misconceptions around the idea of "meritocracy." The word was initially coined as a *pejorative* in 1958 to describe presently-existing Anglo-American society.
What characterized WWII and postwar Anglo-American society that made the word "meritocracy" appropriate? That talent (as measured by heavily genetic IQ) and technical skill, rather than hereditary privilege or some other mechanism, led to status and wealth.
But by 1976, this had already been successfully attacked and overthrown by the New Left/Civil Rights state, which replaced talent with hereditary privilege (race, sex) as the ideal arbiter of status.
The California Racial Justice Act of 2020 allows defendants (in practice, blacks and Hispanics) to claim racial discrimination and overturn convictions explicitly in the absence of intentional discrimination, off of disparate impact alone.
Supposed discrimination can be used to reverse a judgment even if said "racial bias" is harmless and did not actually impact the decision.
Successes of the racial justice act: getting murderous gang members lower sentences because they are black and blacks are more likely to be charged as gang members [because they are more likely to be gang members].
In 2022, 45% of high schoolers polled say they were taught that "America is built on stolen land" in class at school, and another 22% heard it from an adult there.
Students taught all of the "critical social justice" (CSJ) concepts were in fact more likely to agree with them; among those taught "America is built on stolen land" 73% agreed.
Among those students taught 5 CSJ concepts, 75% believed whites are responsible for the inferior social position of black people and 44% support preferential hiring and promotion of blacks.
Thread with excerpts from Boris Sax's "Stealing Fire", a book of the author reckoning with his discovery (after his father's death) that his father, Saville Sax, had been a major Soviet atomic spy, stealing important info on the A-bomb and likely the H-bomb and going unpunished.
The author was initially devastated, but eventually relieved at this discovery as partly explaining his father's awful lifetime behavior (living in black slums, beating his wife and kids, torturing dogs, never getting a stable job, dropping out of Harvard twice).
Saville's mother (author's paternal grandmother) was a Jewish immigrant from Russia. According to the author, she, like many Jews, became a Communist as a way to partly recreate an idealized version of her Russian village without the Ukrainian pogromists in America.
No it wasn't. We know exactly what the key decisionmakers (eg Bill Clinton) and intellectuals at the time were saying: China will become rich (benefitting everyone else in the process), and this will make them liberal, democratic, and peaceful.
"Globalist Americans are just trying to turn China into a cheap labor sweatshop" was a conspiracy theory promulgated by the last remnants of the Western laborist left (think anti-WTO riots) in the early 2000s, to reconcile "this is hurting Western workers and unions" with hating nationalism by arguing the REAL victims of outsourcing were workers around the world. Never based in reality.
Here is the full text of Bill Clinton's speech on opening trade to China. Read it. iatp.org/sites/default/…
The obvious historical comparison here is Nazi Germany, which pursued similar policies of suppressing labor (by eg destroying independent unions) in favor of capital to allow for investment and exports while still successfully raising worker's living standards.
Mexico not growing much since 1990 isn't because it "knows its place," it's because Mexico, being a New World country, escaped the Malthusian trap centuries prior and thus already had high living standards [comparable to China today] befitting its human capital.
When you're growing at 10% YoY, suppressing worker's incomes rises to only 5% YoY (the Chinese situation for roughly 30 years) via eliminating unions, forced savings etc still makes for a massive and very fast rise in incomes.