Post: #26

(03-23-2015 01:07 AM)Laurifer Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 10:38 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Hong Kong still wins though for having a good economy and freedom.

2014 Hong Kong:





To be fair, the government response wasn't terribly violent or brutal. Sure as hell didn't end up like Syria.

More like one city block in one section of Hong Kong. Everybody else barely noticed as they were all at work. Used to see the same kind of nonsense in Korea when I was stationed there, but everybody back home thought "Oh, my gosh - that country is imploding!" Well, not so much. Government lets the kiddies have their little protest here and there but eventually everybody goes back to class.

Post: #27

He's a brilliant man - he built a prosperous multi racial state which is stable. That's a very difficult thing to achieve.

Post: #28

(03-23-2015 07:51 AM)RichieP Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 07:20 AM)Maciano Wrote:  Kosko,

Singaporeans are very well-behaved. That must save a county/city/country/whatever a ton, probably billions, of money.

They must have one magnitude less crime than US cities or Euro metropoles.

True, but easy to be well-behaved when you're brought up in a comfort-padded state with high economic growth with everything taken care of and the government policy specifically engineered to create social harmony lol.

So why isn't the West better behaved then? It's overflowing with comfort. Of course, government policy doesn't try to engineer social harmony, but that's precisely the point. Singapore could easily have turned into another basket case like South Africa or where the US is rapidly heading in terms of social harmony, or lack thereof. It's precisely that Lee was so red pill that he could see that a mile off and didn't want any part of it. It didn't happen that way purely by accident of geography. People have agency.

Quote:"Well behaved" is a consequence of prosperity and policy that they were able to create, but as kosko says the foundations for that prosperity are in geography.

This Jared Diamond-esque theory has been debunked several times by people such as Niall Ferguson by pointing out that there are/were massive differences between neighbouring countries, e.g. the two Koreas, and the two Germanies pre-reunification. Likewise, you can look all around the world and see this phenomenon. For instance, in South America, the fates of Chile and Argentina are radically different, despite Argentina actually having a massive geographical advantage. No, they've chosen to go full retard.

Post: #29

My classmate legit showed pictures of his father hosting Yew in his Bangladore office today. They were actual friends, ate lunch and dinner over years, etc.

Post: #30

^Well, I'd say geography is what enabled the growth and prosperity, and thus the policy, that kept things peaceful. The demographics helped too of course. Almost everyone in Singapore is either an immigrant or a descendant of one. Such people generally have a) strong work ethic and b) desire for a peaceful, comfortable life.

In terms of "well behaved" western places, some places are a match for Singapore. Check out Scandinavia and, to an extent, Germany.

Surprise surprise, it's the places with stagnant growth, high social inequality, inner city tensions, strong racial tensions and a portion of the population descendant from slaves that have the biggest issues with "behavior".

Strong growth counts for a LOT when it comes to social harmony. When the prevailing frame is "There is a lot of opportunity... work hard and you have a real chance to get rich", people are incentivized to do just that. That was Singapore from the 60's onward. It's when they have no hope that things go sour (see impoverished inner-city demographics in stagnant economies).

Singapore turning into a basket case like South Africa? No way man. Everyone in Singapore is descended from immigrants who came there seeking their fortune. They were more than willing to pull together and work hard when they could see a viable path to growth. South Africa had extreme difficulties because of the conflict between historically brutal white colonists and the native population they imposed themselves on. It's MUCH easier to run a city-state of migrants with work ethic than a large country where the prevailing dynamic is "the few colonial overlords vs the angry native masses".

Singapore could have been mediocre - due to great policy, it's not. But my point was that geography is the enabling factor for that prosperity, which is not often enough acknowledged IMO. The things done in Singapore could only have been done on a small island with deep waters in a perfect trade location, full of descendants of migrant workers with a strong work ethic (who came there because of the opportunity... which was because of it's location).

Post: #31

^If being oppressed prevented future generations from succeeding, then the Jews would be the worst performing group in the world. So would the South Koreans.
If being descended from immigrants was a strong indicator of future success, the economies of Japan and Australia would be miles apart.
If geography indicated success, Africa (with its abundant natural resources) would be one of the highest performing continents on earth.

There is no such correlation with immigrants, geography, and previous oppression, with future outcomes. It all comes down to the people's philosophy.

Post: #32

^ you're attacking a couple of Straw Men there. Jews and South Koreans had entirely different selection pressures from slave colonies, lol. Slaves were selected for *lack* of initiative (i.e. the ones that could be caught and rounded up and give up). The "death or exile" proposition Jews faced selected *for* initiative. Similarly for South Korea - being mashed between the two (hostile) giants of China and Japan for centuries selected for people with an extreme drive for survival.

I do believe demographic history is a factor. Selection bias is a real thing. I agree with you that it's probably not a "strong predictor of future outcomes", but I think it makes a difference.

In the case of Africa, it's geography *is* being taken advantage of, just not by Africans.

Please take the time to get where I'm coming from: I'm saying that geography lays the foundation for success. Economic growth doesn't come out of the sky. Policy can maximize the opportunity or squander it (see Philippines, which in the 50's was positioned better than S. Korea and Taiwan, but basically blew it).

The key point I want to get across is that policy alone does not a Singapore make. You also need an island with deep waters slap bang in the middle of major shipping routes... and I'd argue the demographic make-up didn't hurt either.

Post: #33

One thing history has taught us: if people have no natural wealth, they create it and become industrious, creative, and productive. This is also the case in Switzerland and Estonia.

If people have great wealth in the form of natural resources, they become lazy, childish, and criminal. This is the case with Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.

Post: #34

+1 on the demographic front, even though I still think the old man was probably the single biggest contributing factor to SG making it to where it is today, I'll save my thoughts on that for right now. To me, it seems clear that having a 75% majority Chinese population is a huge advantage for SG: arguably higher standards with regards to work ethic, penchant for collectivism and entrepreneurial spirit as shown elsewhere in the Chinese speaking world.

You go to just about any SE Asian country (and I've been to all of them except E Timor and Brunei) and you'll see that the economic and political elite tend to run disproportionately Chinese compared to the local ethnic populace. Very similar to Jews in the West and to a lesser extent, Lebanese and other Middle Eastern immigrants in Latin America. To me, it's no surprise that the only SE Asian country with a majority Chinese population is inarguably the pound for pound economic/social champion in the region.

Post: #35

(03-25-2015 12:59 AM)booshala Wrote:  +1 on the demographic front, even though I still think the old man was probably the single biggest contributing factor to SG making it to where it is today, I'll save my thoughts on that for right now. To me, it seems clear that having a 75% majority Chinese population is a huge advantage for SG: arguably higher standards with regards to work ethic, penchant for collectivism and entrepreneurial spirit as shown elsewhere in the Chinese speaking world.

You go to just about any SE Asian country (and I've been to all of them except E Timor and Brunei) and you'll see that the economic and political elite tend to run disproportionately Chinese compared to the local ethnic populace. Very similar to Jews in the West and to a lesser extent, Lebanese and other Middle Eastern immigrants in Latin America. To me, it's no surprise that the only SE Asian country with a majority Chinese population is inarguably the pound for pound economic/social champion in the region.

This reminds me of what someone told me when he went down to help the Haitians after the earthquake down there. They had an attitude: "He's American. He knows what he's doing."

Post: #36

Watching the procession live now; thaan will be missed.