National productivity and IQ

Turns out they are highly correlated:

My colleague at the George Mason economics department, Garett Jones, has written an excellent new book, Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own.

The book’s primary and most important contribution is to document the following empirical regularity: Suppose you could a) improve your own IQ by 10 points, or b) improve the IQs of your countrymen (but not your own) by 10 points. Which would do more to increase your income? The answer is (b), and it’s not even close. The latter choice improves your income by about 6 times more than the former choice.

The only thing surprising about these results is that someone was actually allowed to publish them.

And on it goes

I wonder what Malcolm thinks about all this. As an actual plan of action, what do you suppose he has in mind?

8 SYRIANS CAUGHT AT TEXAS BORDER
ISIS threatens NYC in new propaganda video…
Times Square Attack…
US-bound Syrians detained in Honduras with fake passports…
‘Throngs’ of illegals crossing TX border…
Al Qaeda used refugee program to smuggle operatives into KY…
Report: 827 Somalis resettled in last 6 weeks, only 1 Christian…
Tennessee GOP leader: Round up Syrian refugees, remove from state…
Va. mayor suggests internment camps…
EUROPE ON EDGE: Terror scares across continent…
Nuns searched at Vatican…
POPE’S SECURITY DETAIL DOUBLES; ITALY BANS DRONES…
NBCNEWS: Paris Attacks Likely Cost $10,000 — or Less…
TSA fails to detect hidden weapons in 3 out of 4 cases…
Islamist terrorist attacks are new normal…
FEDS APPROVE CITIZENSHIP FOR 15 FOREIGN TERRORISTS…
HIDE HISTORIES FROM CONGRESS
First footage of Paris terror attacks shows diners diving for cover…
AK47-wielding jihadist sprays cafe with bullets…
Victim escapes as terrorist gun jams…
CRUZ CHALLENGES O TO REFUGEE DEBATE…
‘Insult me to my face’…
Iran uranium stockpile GROWS…

In regard to the last story about Iran, the news at the end is the best bit:

Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium had increased by 460.2 kg in the past three months to 8,305.6 kg, the report said. Under the deal with major powers, that stockpile must be slashed to no more than 300 kg.

The senior diplomat, however, said the increase was a normal fluctuation.

“There is nothing special in that. It’s the normal way,” he said.

If by normal we mean typical, I’m sure that’s true.

AND HOW COULD I HAVE MISSED THIS? Islamic State says ‘Schweppes bomb’ used to bring down Russian plane. The story comes with a picture.

A photo published in Islamic State magazine Dabiq shows a can of Schweppes Gold soft drink and what appeared to be a detonator and switch on a blue background

Just let that sink in for a bit.

The dumbest story on economic management I have read this year

This is the headline at The Oz: Wages growth risks sinking budget hopes. Over how many years did I see such headlines, and how many years did I spend trying to deal with the problem of wages growth? So I read through it all expecting to find an old story repeated, but found this instead:

Private sector wages are growing at the slowest rate in at least two decades, threatening both the ­Reserve Bank’s hopes consumers will power economic growth next year and the government’s budget that counts on rising personal ­income tax to narrow the deficit.

The average wage rise across the private sector over the past 12 months was only 2.1 per cent, just matching the underlying inflation rate, while public sector workers gained a 2.7 per cent rise.

The pace of private sector wage growth has fallen in the past year despite strong employment growth. Barclays chief economist Kieran Davies said that in the past wage increases of about 3 per cent had been associated with unemployment at the current level.

You do have to wonder some times. Employment growth has been good because of lower wages growth, not in spite of. But even that’s beside the point so far as all of this goes. The RBA now sees low wages growth as a problem because tax revenues will be lower than projected and higher wages are needed to increase demand. It’s even stupider than this because we then find this:

The public sector traditionally has had faster wage growth than the private sector. The wage price index, compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, suggests some of the restraint shown early this year is being lost. In the 12 months to March, public sector wage increases were only 2.4 per cent.

The figures would not yet reflect the early decision of Malcolm Turnbull’s new Employment Minister Michaelia Cash to abandon the 1.5 per cent cap on wage increases that had been pushed by her predecessor Eric Abetz. The government has said it will allow agencies to negotiate enterprise agreements with increases of up to 2 per cent.

If I get the point, our new Employment Minister, so worried is she about falling tax revenues, has decided to lift the cap on public service wage increases! But it is these tax revenues that are used to pay our public servants. If you pay them more, you will have to raise even more taxes.

Am I missing something, or are they really this stupid?

As a footnote, I might mention that I discovered Say’s Law for myself when I had to formulate an argument on why higher wages would not stimulate demand. Now, apparently, an idea as economically illiterate as it is possible to be, is part of the thinking at the RBA. No punishment would be harsh enough for anyone with such beliefs.

Afghan asylum seekers in Indonesia

asylum seekers in indonesia

This is a photo essay on asylum seekers who were not admitted into Australia and are now building their lives in Indonesia. This is the farthest thing I can imagine from a life of deprivation, as the home pictured ought to suggest. If you are endangered, as an asylum seeker, you stop at the first place that will harbour you. Trying to move on from there turns you into an economic migrant. It’s an instructive story, but the story it tells may be different from the one that was intended.

How have they been able to afford all of this is the kind of question I would really liked to have seen answered.

C’mon, seven days from now it will all be last week’s news

Everyone lives at a moment in time which vanishes even as a new present arrives. Don’t worry. Be happy. This is today.

TERROR SCARE HITS GERMANY: COPS WARN ‘NOT TO WALK IN GROUPS’
MERKEL DEATH KNELL: RISE OF THE ANTI-IMMIGRATION PARTY…
‘420 DANGEROUS ISLAMISTS LIVE IN GERMANY’…
Video: Turkey fans boo moment of silence for Paris attacks, then chant ‘Allahu Akbar’…
Syrian ‘Refugee’ Already MISSING IN LOUISIANA…
Resettlement group admits: We don’t track them…
WHITE HOUSE WON’T TELL GOVS WHERE SENDING REFUGEES…
Planeload arrives in Britain…
Speaker Ryan calls for ‘pause’ on program…
CZECH PRESIDENT ADDRESSES RALLY AGAINST MUSLIMS…
Israel Outlaws Domestic Islamic Movement as Police Raid Offices…
WASH TIMES WEDS: FBI FEARS HOLIDAY SEASON…
Extensive ISIS plotting, political indifference from Obama raises concerns…

Is this tomorrow?

REUTERS 5-DAY ROLLING POLL: TRUMP 36%, CARSON 14.6%, RUBIO 11.2%, CRUZ 7.9%… MORE…
Trump Rides Blue-Collar Wave…

The value of free speech demonstrated once again

That letting everyone have their say on any matter of public importance is so evident as the best way to manage differences within a community was never better seen than in the last few days. There are some who, for example, think Australia’s Mufti ought to be sacked or censured for this:

mufti statement on paris

If you can read what he says, you can see which side he is on. Why shouldn’t he be on his own side. He mourns the loss of innocent lives rather than condemning the attacks. Such is as it is. What is important is for us to understand what he believes. His plain speaking has set everything straight. Whether the knowledge we have has any practical value is something else again, but at least we know.

Or take Waleed Aly and his own reaction. All you need is love, apparently:

“If you are a member of Parliament or a has-been member of Parliament [who do you suppose he means by this?] preaching hate [and who’s doing that?] at a time when what we actually need is more love — you are helping ISIL. They have told us that. [Who is “they” and when did they say it?] If you are a Muslim leader telling your community they have no place here [and who has said that?] or basically them saying the same thing — you are helping ISIL.

It’s our fault and not theirs. They may have been savages but they were provoked, and if we condemn their actions, we are playing into their hands. But the value in hearing it is that you start to understand who and what we are up against. They do not condemn these attacks in anything more than a perfunctory way, since they see themselves as more sinned against than sinning. You may not think so, and I may not think so, but they think so, and that’s what letting them say their piece allows us to understand.

What is the best simple intro to market-based economics?

I have been asked by John A what I think of Freakonomics to which I have given this reply:

Dear John

Thank you for your note which has caused me to go into quite a bit of thought. Freakonomics is as others have said, a storybook of interesting observations on this and that which never comes to anything much at all. It is not what I think you are looking for, which is an easy-to-read set of tales which would allow you to absorb economics by osmosis while also being entertained. The book that is supposed to do that is Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson which I have read a couple of times but which has never done the trick for me. And when you ask it just like that, I don’t really know of anything like it, which is either because it can’t be done – which is possible – or because no one has done it – which strangely is also possible – or because it has been done but I am unaware of the book. I would say that I have done it, sort of, but my version comes in at 400+ pages so that’s not what you mean either. And I am possibly not a very good judge of this anyway, since I bring a lot of background knowledge so what I am looking for is different from what you are looking for.

An interesting and useful question. I would be interested in any thoughts on any brief, easy-to-follow intro to economics that goes over the basics, but would really like to know of one that takes a non-Keynesian, non-interventionist approach to how a market economy really works.

Like a bad Monty Python sketch

This is from the facebook page of Faisal Saeed al Mutar which has been posted at Instapundit:

It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic terrorist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them. Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the terrorists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility. It’s like a bad Monty Python sketch:

“We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”

“No you didn’t.”

“Wait, what? Yes we did…”

“No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”

“WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”

“No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so.”

“Huh!? Who are you to tell us we’re not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being.”

“Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that’s why you did this. We’re sorry.”

“What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians – disenfranchisement doesn’t even enter into it!”

“Listen, it’s our fault. We don’t blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out.”

“Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we’re not going to let you take it away from us.”

“No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame.”

“OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?”

I suppose it’s meant as satire but seems all too much like reality to me.

Face it – no one really wants to get tough

Two contrasting approaches both on the same day. First from the US and from an unexpected quarter: Rand Paul Calls for ‘Immediate Moratorium on Visas for Refugees’

Senator Rand Paul is introducing legislation to impose “an immediate moratorium on visas for refugees” in response to the Paris terrorist attacks.

“I think that the best way to defend the country from attackers, attackers that don’t really have an army but would come here as individuals, is to make sure we try to prevent their access into our country,” Paul told reporters on a Monday afternoon conference call.

Paul’s legislation would also block visas for students from countries that have a significant jihadist movement and restrict access to the United States even for people who hail from traditional allies and have not been required to obtain a visa before traveling. Paul offered the bill as a reiteration of his long-standing national-security views, but also used it to open fire on his Democratic and Republican rivals for the White House.

Meanwhile, back in the UK we have this, also from an unexpected quarter: UK Home Secretary: Paris attacks ‘have nothing to do with Islam’:

The Home Secretary Theresa May has said the attacks in Paris, “have nothing to do with Islam”. She said Islam was peaceful, whilst explaining that “appropriate security measures” will need to be taken at the England France football match tomorrow.

That phrase is so striking, and you hear it so often, that you really do have to think there is a private meaning for the words she uses that would make the concepts clear to normal rational people.

The war aims of the Islamic State

The choice between Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull is a choice between someone who gets the major issue of our time v someone who does not. I watched Tony’s interview with Bolt on Sunday and he must have used the word “evil” three or four times in discussing what we are up against. Malcolm is so out of the picture that it is offensive to have to listen to him. His party is worth electing only because of the people he chooses not to promote. Only a shallow fool would fail to appoint Peter Dutton to the National Security Committee.

I have an article at Quadrant Online that deals with the nature of the enemy we face. It was provoked by an editorial in The Herald-Sun which expressed bewilderment about the events in Paris, how could these people do such things, literally asking what would their mothers think. This is the kind of sentiment for which there is all too much of it at the moment, which as best I can tell, is a sentiment shared by the PM. My article is titled, The War That Shall Not Be Mentioned and attempts to clarify what is going on. This is the central point:

The Islamic State is at war with us because they wish to convert us to Islam. You may think that the way the war is being waged is cruel and monstrous, but it is no more cruel and monstrous than many a war in the past. What makes this war so bizarre is that the kinds of people who write such editorials do not even know we are in the midst of a war. It is a war for control of territory, in just the same way every other war in history has been fought. They are attacking us and our civilisation relentlessly. They are attempting to achieve the same result that Nazis and Soviet communists attempted. They are trying to change our way of life into their way of life through force of arms. They are trying to take our territory from us and replace our way of doing things with theirs.

You may imagine in your slumbers that they could not possibly succeed. So let me bring to your attention Niall Ferguson’s article in The Oz yesterday on The Fall of Rome. Here are the passages that count:

In five decades the population of Rome itself fell by three-quarters. Archaeological evidence from the late 5th century — inferior housing, more primitive pottery, fewer coins, smaller cattle — shows the benign influence of Rome dimin­ished rapidly in the rest of western Europe.

“The end of civilisation”, in Ward-Perkins’s phrase, came within a single ­generation.

This is the view of another historian, Peter Heather:

The Visigoths who settled in Aquitaine and the Vandals who conquered Carthage were attracted to the Roman ­Empire by its wealth, but were ­enabled to seize that wealth by the arms acquired and skills learnt from the Romans ­themselves.

“For the adventurous,” writes Heather, “the Roman Empire, while being a threat to their existence, also presented an unprecedented opportunity to prosper … Once the Huns had pushed large numbers of (alien groups) across the frontier, the Roman state became its own worst enemy. Its military power and financial sophistication both hastened the process whereby streams of incomers became coherent forces capable of carving out kingdoms from its own body politic.”

We are starting to wake to the danger, and you will know that we are finally starting to get it when even Malcolm Turnbull starts sounding the alarm. As for Barack Obama, that is something he will never do.