Economics Questions

Re: Argument with a eugenicist central planner

krazy kaju — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:57:36 GMT

Though I do agree that IQ tests accurately measure intelligence, it is important to remember that intelligence is not the sole factor that determines how productive someone is. There are other environmental and biological factors at work (e.g. strength, memory, cultural values for hard work, etc.). In a free market, the most successful people would display the traits that are the most beneficial to society (since the wealthy can only become wealthy by serving others).

Today, the problem is that welfare programs promote a disgenic trend. For example, in between tax credits and welfare payments, it's a financially sound decision for many poor people to have as many children as possible. Now imagine what would happen if there were no taxes and no welfare. Well the poor would be too poor to have more children, whereas having children would have no noticable financial impact on the wealthy.

Thus, the situation resolves itself.

Re: Argument with a eugenicist central planner

The Late Andrew Ryan — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:23:10 GMT

Dumb people are going to have sex no matter where they live... Sorry

Re: Argument with a eugenicist central planner

Sieben — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:20:54 GMT

kenneth:
He told me that because lower IQ people reproduce more than higher IQ population groups then the global population is having a disgenic effect.

So? No one has an obligation to take care of these extra people... the very worst case scenario is that smart people survive at their own rate and dumb people die.

But this won't happen! As stupid and useless as people are, capital investment has and will continue to increase worker productivity by orders of magnitude. No entrepreneurs are complaining that there are too many stupid people the same way there are too many computers or hammers. They're all useful.

Slow computers are made at much higher rates than supercomputers!

kenneth:
When a society gets out the malthusian trap, child production of different IQ groups more or less equalize, and when a society adopts welfare statism, then those lower IQ groups are subsidized at the expense of higher IQ groups. Welfare statism was invented in Germany in the late 1900s and a few generations of welfare statism in America has created a horrendous amount of dependency, illegitimacy, and moral decay.

good

kenneth:
I then told him that this disgenic effect is unstoppable and having the state do eugenics will make it worse because the state interventionism is never a solution. I fundamentally don't care about a 'lower quality' population stock because I am individualist. The only way to mitigate this problem is to eliminate public education and the rest of the welfare programs. I don't know if that will solve the problem but it will definitely help a lot.

No. You need to continue attacking the overpopulation/idiocracy myth. If the number of dumb people on earth doubled the amount if smart people wouldn't be cut in half... Moreover, there's no evidence that people continue to have oodles of children when it becomes uneconomic to do so. You have 8 kids because you need them to farm etc...

Moreover, in the status quo, we are well below the carrying capacity of the earth. Given that we are below carrying capacity, it is unsurprising that world population might grow. When we are at carrying capacity, you can't pretend like people will behave the same way.

Then there are also all the moral hazards of statism... like the temptation to eugenicize political opponents, or the temptation to do a half a$$ed job of it because the government doesn't rewarded if it does its job properly. He would be much better off supporting birth control and education.

Speaking of which, if IQ is on a normal distribution, has the curve gotten fatter or thinner over time? I thought it had either remained unchanged or gotten fatter... certainly not thinner like he is expecting.

Re: Argument with a eugenicist central planner

Vitor — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:19:45 GMT

People nowdays have higher IQ than their ancestors, what proves that the hereditary/genetic factor is far from being deciding one when it comes to IQ.

Re: Argument with a eugenicist central planner

Lewis S. — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:42:02 GMT

Even if intelligence quotients were accurate predictors and/or indicators of a person's overall economic productive capability, his argument still fails because comparative advantage and specialization in a free economy lifts everybody. The beauty of the free market provides an opportunity for all - even people of lesser intelligence can, and have, become entrepreneurs. Hard work and experience develop qualities in people that IQ's have nothing to do with and cannot measure.

I put little stock in IQs. When asked what "intelligence" is, a behavioral psychologist (I can't remember who) replied, "it's what an intelligence test measures." I am not saying they are meaningless, only that they measure a portion of overall human capability.

Argument with a eugenicist central planner

Kenneth — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:45:56 GMT

He cites Richard Lynn, Micheal Levin, J.P. Rushton and attacks illegal immigration as a big problem in the US. He told me that because lower IQ people reproduce more than higher IQ population groups then the global population is having a disgenic effect.

I basically agreed with the essence of his assertions but told him he is ignorant in economics and he should read Hoppe's, who is Richard Lynn's friend.

My arguments are drawn from this video: http://blog.mises.org/10090/property-and-freedom-society-09/

When a society gets out the malthusian trap, child production of different IQ groups more or less equalize, and when a society adopts welfare statism, then those lower IQ groups are subsidized at the expense of higher IQ groups. Welfare statism was invented in Germany in the late 1900s and a few generations of welfare statism in America has created a horrendous amount of dependency, illegitimacy, and moral decay.

I then told him that this disgenic effect is unstoppable and having the state do eugenics will make it worse because the state interventionism is never a solution. I fundamentally don't care about a 'lower quality' population stock because I am individualist. The only way to mitigate this problem is to eliminate public education and the rest of the welfare programs. I don't know if that will solve the problem but it will definitely help a lot.

Is that a good enough answer?