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.
And of course, in the early 2000s Richard Lynn correctly predicted the high-IQ post-Communist (most importantly, but not exclusively, China) world would outperform the Third World, while institutionalists predicted the opposite.
Two caveats: everyone starts poor before the Industrial Revolution for Malthusian reasons, which is why LatAm used to be rich relative to the Old World (high land/person thanks to disease) and sufficiently bad policy (Communism) can make anyone poor.
Cognitive Capitalism (Rindermann) and Hive Mind (Jones) both make this case at book length, but it's really very simple.
(Before anyone brings up land reform: most major Latin American states, including Bolivia, have done land reform not once but several times since independence.)
To the extent development economics even needs to exist as a field, it should be concerned above all else with "how do we exterminate the Communists and adjacent groups."
Maybe deliberate tech diffusion and policies to promote saving (such as little welfare) as a distant second. Sort of the opposite of what most 21st century Western countries have done.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread with excerpts from Richard Pipes' Property and Freedom (1999). Pipes is a historian of Russia, and the thesis of the book is that private property, as something distinct and protected from public power and sovereignty, is indispensable to human freedom.
One of the fundamental differences between Russia and the rest of Europe lay in the weak development of private property; one of the major themes of Western philosophical history is the benefits and drawbacks of private property; Russian philosophers unanimously condemn it.
Freedom, as used by Pipes, includes political freedom, legal freedom, economic freedom, and personal rights. It does not include the right to public support ("freedom from want"); such 'rights' are at best a moral claim and at worst an unearned privilege.
Red state pension funds tend to vote with management if management is providing good returns (ie, doing their job); blue state pension funds tend to vote with management if the company does leftist things (ie, ESG, or not paying CEOs very much).
This reflects a general difference in attitude towards institutions; rightists prefer institutions do what they were created for (eg police should fight crime, the military should fight wars, companies should make money doing their business, schools should teach)...
...while left-wingers want every institution to have pushing the Party Line as its #1 priority (extremely totalitarian in that regard). The formers produces a better society, the latter is more politically powerful but destroys everything in the long run.
Training an LLM to be more politically evenhanded (as opposed to left-wing, as almost all LLMs are - so more right-wing) makes it more egalitarian in how it values the lives of people of different races without training to do so. PCT = Political Consistency Training.
LLMs trained in this way also value members of different religions, political creeds, and public figures coded left vs right more equally.
Almost all notable LLMs except Grok are left-wing on the US political spectrum, but in a very particular way, sort of like a superhumanly-knowledgeable Redditor or Wikipedia editor from the year 2018.
Since 2009, medical schools have had to prove they sufficiently discriminate against white men ("achieve mission-appropriate diversity outcomes") to get accredited.
White men are now significantly underrepresented among med school students.
Fortunately, competence isn't that important in doctors, so purging white men in favor of "underrepresented minorities" (blacks, LatinX) who can't pass clinical exams shouldn't matter.
European IQ's rising due to natural selection (as measured by PGS) continuing into the modern era whereas it stalled in East Asia could have been predicted from Gregory Clark's genealogical studies in both regions.
Clark found that "survival of the richest" was the rule in England from 1300-1880 or so, with huge differences in surviving offspring by class and this was much weaker in Qing China because higher class women didn't have more kids due to elite polygamy.
(IQ is not the only trait that goes into income or wealth, of course, so selection for wealth is only indirectly selection for IQ and also selects for a package of other traits, some of which are collective goods like IQ and some of which are not.)
The Bancroft Prize (one of the most prestigious history awards, given by a panel of historians for works on diplomacy or the history of the Americas) was given in 2000 to someone claiming guns were really rare in colonial America (he committed fraud by changing quotes).
This should have been obvious nonsense to anyone who knows anything at all about colonial America, of course, and yet a panel of professional historians thought it was work at the pinnacle of the field until some random blogger pointed out all the fraud.