Thoughts on this?

Rafts work better for transporting cargo on rivers than boats

He thinks Iran is gonna nuke the US.

There was that time that he said Rachel Carson's criticisms of DDT led to bans on DDT that killed millions because it couldn't be used to fight malaria, even though there were exceptions to the "bans" explicitly for fighting malaria.

Navigable rivers != Rivers

Africa has some mighty tumultuous rivers.

He's the economics equivalent of molyneux, sam harris, etc.

I mean I guess? Since he bases what he says on empirical evidence instead of theory, but like them he just draws his own conclusions instead of what conclusion the evidence gave.

And yet the Europeans somehow managed to do it in Africa.

They wish.

My problem with him is he takes an approach of "if it didn't work here, it can't work anywhere".

He was completely wrong about that Black highchool Dunbar highchool.

It's not that he was wrong, it's more that he thought that one example was enough to say desegregation of schools was bad.

>Steamboat

He was wrong because that black high school had higher standards because public school teachers were federal civil servants so they got pay equal to whites in other districts so they could actually attract qualified teachers with good degrees.

This was in Washington DC might I mention. Also the high school was very selective in which Black students it admitted.

With segregation gone now Black students could go anywhere in Washington for their education so of course the monopoly on the better performing Black students was now broken.

Don't argue with racists. You can't win.

How so?

>advocates supply-side economics
>not wrong

See , his argument was that desegregation is what brought grades down

So your contention is that the outcomes at that school are link to teacher pay?

So student outcomes are a function of teacher quality which is determined by teacher pay?

Just want to be sure I'm understanding the line of argument.

Sowell's argument was the reason the students had better grades is because the school was segregated and an all-black school will do better than a mixed one.

Sounds to me like
"It doesn't work and here are examples showing it"

>a bunch of quotes explaining how he's
"""wrong""" about tangential shit

Things aren't universal, that's the simple truth. The Japanese economic system works in Japan, it doesn't really work anywhere else except maybe South Korea.

The Congo is not a navigable river. The first people who made it to Tanganyika were Livingstone and then Stanley shortly after, and they were only able to do it at the cost of scores of human lives and after multiple unsuccessful attempts. They had to navigate upstream through HUNDREDS of waterfalls, clearing roads through dense jungles, often making less than a mile of progress a day.

The only big navigable river in Subsaharan Africa is the Niger, and guess what? There was a trading empire based on commerce from the Niger for several hundred years.

Yes, it's the same argument that people use about charter schools.

The reason charter schools can beat public schools is because they benefit from selection effects. They draw all of the best minds from the greater area and concentrate them in a single school rather than having them spread out into their local neighborhood schools.

Because of this concentration and the renown that followed, the school was able to attract the best and brightest black teachers (the 1st black women to get a phd from Harvard if I'm not mistaken).

But maybe Sowell was wrong and it's just an issue of teacher salary.

Yeah but this doesn't apply to ALL segregated schools, it just applied to that one. There were plenty out there that were shitholes due to purposely being designed that way.

Agreed. I think there's research that shows, ceteris paribus, greater diversity is a net positive with respect to education outcomes, though I may be mistaken about that.

But I don't think Sowell wasn't making a case for segregation. I think he was making a case for the unintended consequences of ham fisted government interventions. That's a general theme with him and an almost religious belief amongst many economists, especially chicago school economists.

> greater diversity is a net positive with respect to education outcomes
>if only there was a black person in school, that way we would all get better educations because diversity
Love how skin color has magical properties now

These are full of waterfalls.

The japanese have the worst gdp to debt ratio on the planet, worse than USA or Greece, possibly the worst in human history.

That was diversity of opinions and perspectives.
Subhuman liberals just saw the word 'diversity' followed by 'positive' for literally the first and last time ever and went even fuller retard.

Ah, I see, I didn't realize they were unusable.

not knowing the minutiae of African rivers != racism

kill yourself

/thread
Everything else is just rhetoric

In net debt, not gross debt. The ratio is actually much better when you take into account the nation's assets.

And what I was talking about is how their economy is so affected by their cultural norms instead of economic schools of thought. Hence why it only really works there.

I think what he's saying is that overall, the black students get a better education this way.

>I think he was making a case for the unintended consequences of ham fisted government interventions.
How was segregation anything but a hamfisted government intervention?

For the black student yes. It's not that the diversity magically improves things. It's that black students now have the same access to educational resources as their white counterparts.

Let's not try and pretend that most segregated schools for black kids weren't usually underfunded shitholes.

Great book by the most important thinker of our time.

/thread

>supply side economics
>tangential

It's literally the single biggest political issue of our time.

Are Jews Generic?

I don't even think SSA had sails until after Portuguese.

I don't think so. That's the one part of the book I think he's not completely right about. The middlemen theory is a nice one, but jews are anything but generic. If nothing else, they're astoundingly high IQ makes them unique. Think of their position in America. They're 2% of the population but make up huge percentage of our ruling class. Think of the percentage of lawyers, doctors, high finance and banking, economists and our supreme court and tv and movie and advertising and internet industries are dominated by the little 2% and all because of their enormous IQs. That's hardly generic and while it's an appealing theory, it just doesn't square with the very exceptional nature of the jewish peoples.

Not impressive at all for an intellectual. His influences are garbage too and he didn't influece anyone worth anything. He has a cult following among people too dumb or lazy to read anything deeper than popsci.

I wasn't talking about you. You made an actual argument, but it was so general and unfounded that it wasn't worth differentiating from the other schmucks.

So who then do you consider to be today's most important economists? Who would you consider "worth anything"?

>And what I was talking about is how their economy is so affected by their cultural norms instead of economic schools of thought.

This

Institutions work within the context of their society. When people look at successful societies and attempt to emulate them by adoption of similar policies they often fail because they always ask the wrong question. They ask how it works but not why it works. The ability to realize this separates the idiots from the thinkers.

>all because of their enormous IQs
Skeptical of this. Wouldn't there be a higher absolute number of whites with bigger IQs than those Jews? Isn't a cultural and genetic difference in morality more likely in that Jews are going to be more nepotistic and give less of a fugg about being scientifically dishonest and attacking the ruling culture, thus granting them opportunities that the whites are "too good" for?

(Cont)
What I mean is, aren't Jews genetically and culturally evolved because of their desert heritage, history of persecution and niche doing despised work that Europeans/Christians were "too good for" to have less compunctions about dishonesty and socially destructive behaviour and to be more ethnically nepotistic.

Having no contact with whites cripples you so hard if you are black. Majority white places have majority kids who go to schools which are obviously white and go into educational institutions that are mostly white. Black schools (many of which are ghetto) the jump to hs or god forbid for the kid if it's that late university you go from only encountering whites only in authority/administration (school cop/teacher etc) roles to suddenly they are everywhere and you never really met any outside of those roles. Lots of people in America barely encounter term blacks/minorities for most of their lives and they are alright because it's no big deal because everyone at all levels is vaguely similar to you.

Did they have it in the east coast?

It's not navigable, and it doesn't create accessible valleys.

Rivers =/= navigable rivers

Just look at a list based on paper citations or other objective academic criteria.
ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.all.html

...

not really, he's not into hype, he's old school not a youtube nuphilosopher

the world will be a poorer place when he's gone

Sowell actually knows what he's talking about. Molymeme is a cult leader and drama queen.

Molymeme left the libertarian cult a while ago.

Just to join the ethnonat cult.

>Africa doesn't have winter
>Africa is hindered by fucking rivers
>None of these environmental differences affect genetics at all
Hmm...