Archive

Posts Tagged ‘reasons’

On the Difference in Outcomes for China and India in Post-1945 Era: 3

February 16, 2019 10 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about how post-1949 Chinese leadership put in a lot of effort to improve the conditions of its people, even if their motivations were not purely altrusitic. Then again, the same is true of every government which has every existed in human history and the present. In sharp contrast, the Indian leadershit has remained mired in their self-chosen role as darker white sahibs carrying the “white mans burden” and lording over an allegedly hopeless bunch of subhumans. One commentator in the previous post of this series made a comment to the effect that it sounded like how things work in south and central american countries- where an incompetent whiter elite (with the assistance of dying white countries) mismanage and lord over less whiter people, who they see as less than human. Yep.. that is about right.

In the previous post, I also wrote about how the Chinese leadership took a pragmatic approach to improving literacy through a variety of reforms and programs. They also built, and in some cases rebuilt, institutions and bureaucracies to function for them and their people. Sure.. they had to break a few hundred thousand eggs to achieve that- but you cannot deny that the results are quite impressive and functional. More importantly, these institutions now either do what they are meant to do, or do not interfere in what other institutions are doing. In other words, the Chinese leadership was able to build and maintain a unitary and coordinated governmental system with a pretty decent level of accountability. And all this within first three decades after 1949. So why were they able to achieve something which their Indian counterparts thought to be impossible.

Conventional explanations for this, usually put forth by allegedly “credentialed” white idiots, try to paint this as some sort of exception or aberration. However that is not the case, as some version of this had been previously implemented in Japan and the Koreas. For example, modernization of Japan starting in Meiji era and its rebuilding after WW2 was achieved by implementing a watered-down version of what China started doing after 1949. The same is true of South Korea after the early 1960s. You might have noticed that all these examples have something else common to them- other than being east-asian. Ready.. they were, or are, mostly single-party systems.. yes, even Japan. But didn’t India also have effectively have a single party system for first 2-3 decades after 1947? Yes, they did and the Congress party won most elections as the state and federal level for 2-3 decades after “independence”. So why did it work in east-Asia but not in India?

Which brings us to the part about accountability- for elected officials as well as bureaucrats. As I mentioned in previous parts of this series, almost every single Indian politician and elected official came from families who collaborated with the British colonizers of India. They had risen to their positions without facing any real challenge, struggle or conflict. Most had no real skills beyond regurgitating what they learned in British universities and they saw themselves as darker whites rather than Indians. As I said in previous part, they believed anything some white guy in an expensive suit would tell them. The Indian bureaucracy was no better and filled with sad excuses for human beings who enjoyed abusing and screwing over their own people by using rules and regulations written up for that purpose by their erstwhile colonial masters.

Long story short, both the political class and bureaucracy of India was made up of incompetent losers who saw themselves as lesser whites rather than Indians. And there is one more thing.. the bureaucracy and political system continued to exist as two independent and antagonistic centers of power. Contrast that to successful east-asian countries where the political leadership and bureaucracy are different faces of the same system. There is a good reason why I used the words such as unitary and coordinated to describe the Chinese system. But why does any of this matter? Also, does it matter that much? Well.. let me show you with a couple of examples.

Very few of you know that India was first Asian country to build its own supersonic combat aircraft. Ya.. India built the HF-24 Marut and successfully tested it in the early 1960s. While the team leader of the project was Kurt Tank, almost everybody else in the project was Indian and they went from nothing to flying prototypes in about 6 years. So what did the Indian political leadershit and bureaucracy do in response to this success? The sabotaged it in every way they could- from denying funding for better imported engines to crippling the organisation setup for developing indigenous engines. Even worse, they spent a lot of effort trying to make sure that all the knowledge and expertise gained through that project was lost. But why?

The “conventional” explanation for this behavior is that USSR offered them decent inexpensive combat aircraft. However that is not true since the USSR which made such aircraft in multiple thousands was not really bothered by this indigenous effort. Moreover, it filled a role distinct from the aircraft they supplied to India at that time. The real reasons have far more to do with the Indian psyche, especially those of its white-worshiping idiot politicians and bureaucrats. The thing is.. they could not believe that people of their skin color could make world-class products. To make matters worse, they had no ability to understand concepts such as iterative development and using the insight gained in one project to advance others. But most fatally, they believed in what white scammers told them about the nature of money.

Now contrast this to what China did during the same time period. After getting all the equipment from USSR to manufacture Mig-15s, 17, 19s etc they first kept cranking out replicas. While not the best combat aircraft of that era (mid 1960s), they were good enough. But far more importantly, they used that opportunity to train a shitload of engineers who would then go on to improve these aircraft and eventually build far better ones. They did this at a time when they were as poor as India and in politically worse shape. They also did the same with soviet diesel-electric submarines, infantry weapons, artillery etc. Did you notice that they never stopped these projects or disbanded their experienced teams regardless of domestic upheavals and other issues. Why not? And where did they get the money to do all these things?

The answer to first part of those questions is that they, unlike their Indian counterparts, were not incompetent white-worshipping idiots. The second and related answer is that they saw money in a very different way to their Indian and white counterparts. To make another long story short, they implemented a form of what we today call modern monetary theory, which is fancy way of saying that they printed money and allocated resources as necessary to get important things done while making sure that this new money did not enter the general circulation at levels large enough to cause runaway inflation and currency devaluation. So ya.. they pretty much printed money and rigged their system to deliver what they wanted, which they could do because of the size of their country. Their Indian equivalents chose to believe “credentialed” white eCONomists.

In the next part of this series, I will show you (with more examples) how a unitary and coordinated government policy gave China a huge advantage over India in other sectors.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Difference in Outcomes for China and India in Post-1945 Era: 2

January 30, 2019 6 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote that India and China started from about the same level, and with a host of systemic problems, as nascent modern nation states in 1947 and 1949. While India might have initially seemed to be the more successful of the two, China slowly but surely outpaced it in almost every aspect from about the mid-1960s. The gap has now grown to such levels that the real difference between these two equipopulous Asian nations now appears unbridgeable. In the previous part, I also said that majority of difference in outcome between the two can be attributed to difference in quality of leadership and administration between them. For starters- Indian leaders, while superficially more erudite than their Chinese counterparts, came from families who had previously gotten rich by collaborating with British colonizers.

The majority of those who came to power in India had also never been tested under real life-and-death situations. In addition to displaying uncritical belief in whatever any white person wearing a suit told them, they had no real interest in improving the condition of their fellow country men and women. Indeed, most of them did not see themselves as part of India.. well at least not ‘that other’ India. They saw themselves as darker white sahibs carrying the “white mans burden” and ruling over a hopeless bunch of subhumans. Some of you might wonder as to how I reached this rather dim view about that allegedly “great” generation of leaders which India had in aftermath of gaining independence in 1947, from the now defunct British empire. Easy.. look at their behavior and actions, rather than their words- because the later is cheap unlike the former two.

1] Both India and China started life as modern nation states with very high levels (over 80-85%) of illiteracy. So how did Indian leaders go about trying to fix this problem? How about.. by doing almost nothing. That is right! While Chinese leaders put a lot of effort and force into projects such as simplifying the Chinese script, ordering translations of everything they could find into Chinese, improving primary school attendance and childhood literacy among its population by any means (including force)- their Indian counterparts gave speeches and raised slogans about removing illiteracy. While it is true that Indian leaders did fund a few elite universities and educational institutions (IITs, IIMs etc) earlier than China, they largely ignored the primary and secondary educational sector. But why? Well.. think about which educational institutions their progeny, and those of their flunkies, would attend. It is that easy.

So why didn’t the Chinese leadership behave in such an utterly selfish manner? The answer is.. because they were pragmatic. While creating elite educational institutions for your own children sounds like a good idea, doing so without creating an equally extensive non-elite educational system would almost certainly lead to them remaining a poor country. Chinese leaders were always interested in true global power and prestige. It is not possible to be powerful and feared (or respected) on the international level if your country is an un-industrialized and materially poor country full of illiterate people. Indian leaders, on the other hand, were incapable of visualizing themselves as anything other than second-rate ‘whites’ in charge of a country predestined to be poor because some white guy in an expensive suit told them so.

2] It is no secret that the administrative system and bureaucracy in India, along with its laws and regulations, had been designed to exploit and abuse Indians for the benefit of the now extinct British empire. Any person with half-a-brain who was genuinely interested in improving conditions in India after independence would have liquidated everyone in the administrative system, except its junior-most employees, and built a new one- if necessary by copying from countries where things worked. That is, however, not the path taken by Indians leaders after ‘independence’. Instead they retained almost every single part of the incredibly abusive and dysfunctional system including its pathetic white-worshiping personnel. And this is how India ended up with a shitty and incompetent bureaucracy which benefits nobody other than its employees.

Their Chinese counterparts, on the other hand, went on quite the cleaning spree after 1949. They started by getting rid of bureaucrats who were, should we say, not sympathetic to the new order or problematic collaborators to previous regimes. They reformed laws, rules and regulations to make them more useful and internally self-consistent. Moreover, they were willing to reform their system as the situation changed- for example after 1971 and 1979. Some people say that it was helpful that China has a long history of competent bureaucracy, unlike India. However, after the ‘century of humiliation’ they had to start from scratch to build a modern secular bureaucracy and so their history is not especially relevant to what happened after 1949. Let me reiterate that the Chinese leadership did not educate their people and build a good bureaucracy because they were altruistic. They did so because they wanted to be leaders of a powerful and respected nation.

In the next part of this series, I will write about how the lack of imagination and ability displayed by Indian leadership over every single decade since ‘independence’ contrasts with the willingness of their Chinese counterparts to take calculated risks, persevere along initially suboptimal routes, keep thinking big and have a viable plan (or two) to get there.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Difference in Outcomes for China and India in Post-1945 Era: 1

January 20, 2019 15 comments

Approximately three months ago, I wrote about my plans for a couple of series on topics which I had either not tackled or done in a less-than-through manner. In case you are wondering, one series would focus on the reasons why China became the world’s largest economy (in real terms) almost a decade ago while India is.. well.. stumbling around in that general direction. While most of the blame for dismal post-1947 performance of India can still be assigned to the first-, second- and third- order effects of the ‘jati’ system, there are clearly other factors at work- some of which are ‘intersectional’ to the continued existence of that wretched system. Let us start this series by examining them- starting with a comparison leadership cadre of both countries.

But before we go there, let me reiterate a few relevant points and spend the next 3-4 paragraphs giving you some background on the topic. As I wrote in a previous post, the majority of informed outsiders looking at the situation in both countries in 1950 would have put their money on India ending up as the more prosperous of two in 50-70 years. Yet in 2019, the Indian economy is still only 1/4th or 1/5th of its Chinese counterpart in real terms, despite containing an almost identical number of people. Did I mention that they started out at almost the same level in 1950. Let us also be clear that things had not gone well for over a century in either country at that time. In the case of India, it was a heavily exploited colony of now defunct British empire.

In the case of China, it was well.. a whole host of other problems. We can start with the various large and highly damaging rebellions towards the end of the Qing dynasty. One of these, known as the Taiping Rebellion, resulted in about 20-30 million deaths over a period of 14 years. Then there was the problem of western countries such as UK and USA pushing Opium in China which resulted in probably 20-40% of the population becoming dependent on that drug. There is some irony about tens of thousands of mostly white people dying from synthetic opioid overdoses, each year, in contemporary USA- given the major source of that drug. Add into that the humiliation caused by numerous military setbacks against 19th century European colonial powers culminating in the Boxer rebellion. And it got even worse in the early 20th century.

It started with the formal collapse of the Qing dynasty and lead to the Warlord Era– which was much worse than it sounds. And then there was that other unpleasant period due to the partial colonization by Imperial Japan, which culminated in events such as the Nanjing Massacre in addition to many millions more deaths due to that invasion, including many thousands due to activities of Unit 731. And we are not even getting into all the problems caused by on-again off-again alliance between various factions of the nationalists and communists in pre-1950 China. There is a very good reason that the Chinese see the hundred odd years between 1839-1949 as the Century of Humiliation. Long story short, China started from scratch after WW2. And we have not even talked about the Great Famine of 1959-1961 and the Cultural Revolution.

My point is that the modern nation states of India and China started at almost the same time (1947, 1949) and from about the same relative situation. Both had low literacy rates (12-15 % and 15-20 %), not much of an industrial base, very few universities and technical schools etc. Both experienced chaotic conditions during and shortly after their formation (India-Pakistan Partition, final stage of civil war on mainland China). Neither country had experienced unitary self-governance for over a hundred years. Most of the lay people in both countries still believed in tons of superstitions and bullshit. Long story short, both nation states started under equally dismal conditions. And yet in 2019, the economy and global stature of India is a fraction of China.

So let us now start talking about the types of people who ended up in leadership positions in both countries, starting with those involved in their respective independence movements.

The Indian “independence” movement, at least its modern form, can trace its origins to the establishment of the Indian National Congress in 1885. Ironically, it was established by a retired British civil service officer- Allan Octavian Hume. Think about it for a moment, the organisation which came to lead the Indian “independence” movement was not started by an Indian. But it gets better, or worse. Here is something many of you might know about many of the subsequent important leaders of the Indian “independence” movement.. most were the sons of people who had grown rich and powerful from enthusiastic collaboration with the British colonizers of India. Ya.. all those “great” leaders of the Indian “independence” moment were almost exclusively the sons of greedy and treacherous collaborators.

And most did not demand total independence until the early 1940s.. just varying degrees of autonomy from the now defunct British empire. And now you know why I decided to use quotation marks for independence. Sad.. isn’t it? And it gets worse.. if that is even possible. Unlike their Chinese counterparts, most leaders of the Indian “independence” movement were oxbridge educated lawyers with close to zero ability or experience to do anything beyond giving stirring speeches and writing elaborate letters in protest. They had a serious inferiority complex vis-à-vis white people in general and the British in particular. But most importantly, they simply wanted to rule instead of the British and had no real desire to improve the condition of most people in the country, and just wanted to be seen as equal to British on an individual level.

Now let us compare this sorry bunch to their equivalents in the Chinese national movement of early 20th century. Note that I am not implying that their Chinese equivalents were any less power-hungry, double-dealing, generally corrupt and sometimes thoughtless. But there are some very important and relevant differences between the two groups. For starters, most of their leadership did not arise from a group of traitors who collaborated with colonizers. Neither were most of their leaders born in very prosperous families. Sun Yat-sen, Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek came from somewhat comfortable but not unusually rich or politically connected families. Even the second and third order leadership of the national movement was largely derived from people born into poor, middling to somewhat prosperous bourgeois families.

Furthermore, they all agreed that expulsion of foreign colonizers, restoration of unitary authority and building a new secular technological society was not negotiable. Compare this to their Indian counterparts who were fine with continuing caste divisions, widespread poverty, little to no economic development, low literacy, semi-independence etc as long as they were in power. Leaders of the Indian “independence” movement.. you see.. just wanted an equal seat at the table of their British masters so they could regale them with tales with how stupid and poor all those “other” Indian were and have a laugh about it. While it sounds harsh, this is how things went after 1947. The leadership of the Chinese national movement, on the other hand, understood that only leaders of powerful and prosperous nations wield true power.

This is why, for example, the government of post-1949 China put so much effort into improving literacy levels, setting up universities, funding research institutes, building their own weapon systems, investing in infrastructure projects etc- even when they technically did not have the “money” to do so. In contrast, multiple generations of Indian leaders used the excuse of “no money” to either not do those things or do them in an anemic and half-hearted manner. That is also why India retained the shitty colonial system of laws and administration which was designed to exploit and abuse Indians rather than build a new one to benefit them. The darkly comic part of all this is that most of them lack the ability to understand their own pathetic behavior.

Will write more about this issue in the next part of series.

What do you think? Comments?

Public Trust in Medical Profession, Especially in USA, Will Keep Dropping

September 14, 2018 10 comments

Long time readers, of this blog, know that I am highly skeptical and downright critical of anything pushed under the name of “science”, “scientific consensus” or “objective experts”. A good part of my skepticism and distrust on these issues comes down to the fact that I have a PhD in a STEM discipline, and have witnessed too many examples of people getting famous through what later turned out to be shitty or deceptive research. Furthermore, I have been around long enough to see multiple 2-4 year cycles of some new technology being hyped to the moon and beyond before being exposed as a very modest improvement over the previous status quo, at best!

Readers might also know that I have quite critical of what passes for research and standards of knowledge in medicine. In the past, I have also written a bit about why public trust in the medical profession (especially in USA) has taken a real beating since the mid-1990s. To summarize what I have said before: there are a number of interacting factors behind the significant and continuous drop in public perception of physicians (and surgeons) over previous two decades. Some of these are unrelated to the practice of medicine, per se.

For example, currently available drugs and medical technologies are that efficacious for treating chronic diseases in aging populations (USA in 2018) compared to acute and sub-acute conditions in younger populations (USA between 1950s and 1990s). Similarly, factors unrelated to practise of medicine such as financialism and managerialism in pharma sector has (permanently) ruined its ability to produce truly innovative drugs since mid-2000s. Not to mention the fact that most biomedical research published in top peer-reviewed journals, nowadays, suffers from poor reproducibility or is usually of dubious value- to put it charitably.

Having said that, some reasons are quite specific to the practice of medicine- especially in USA. And that is what I intend to focus on, in this particular post. But let me first talk a bit about conventional “explanations” for decline in public trust of the medical profession. These typically range from “dumb patients are looking up things on the internet”, “everyone thinks we are too greedy” to “I, alone, know the truth”. These so-called explanations are however nothing beyond reactive ad-hominem insults, for reasons that will soon become obvious.

So let us begin by talking about one of the most overlooked reason for decline in public trust in that profession. I bet many of you did not even consider this issue..

1] In a previous era (upto early 1990s), most people who went to medical school were clever nerds who wanted an upper-middle class lifestyle and some social respect. More importantly, they came from a far wider range of social classes than today. It was, for example, quite common to see people who grew up in working class or average middle-class families get into medical school and become doctors. Some accuse the older system of favoring a certain gender or race, and there is some truth to that- but because that is how everything else was during that era.

Somewhere in the 1990s, that changed.. a lot. Now it was no longer sufficient to be a fairly clever nerd. Now you had to be a self-promoter with a pretty big ego. Not sure what I am talking about? Well.. ask anybody in the know if you can get into medical school today without having done some sort of “volunteering to help the poor”, “extracurricular activities” or anything else which showed your “leadership potential”? But isn’t that a good thing, you might ask. Isn’t it good to have some “life experience”? Shouldn’t future physicians have a “more well-rounded personality”?

Well.. maybe in theory. In reality, only kids whose parents are already upper-middle class have the financial wherewithal to fund their kids useless volunteering work among some community, start some worthless and dishonest shell charity or get their into some unpaid internship through their own personal connections. This leaders to selecting people with an extra-large ego, penchant for bullshit and tendency for virtue signalling. In other words, you are now selecting dishonest and extra-shifty assholes instead of plain assholes.

This is why other well-educated and financially well off people are the most distrustful of medical profession. I mean.. they have grown up around those getting accepted in medical schools since mid-1990s and often know them in social settings. The fact that social and economic peers of physicians usually have the lowest opinion about their professional competence tells you a lot about the type of person graduating from medical schools since mid-1990s, especially in USA. And yes.. this is far less pronounced in west-european countries where medical schools still prefer the clever status-seeking plain nerd over an egoistical, bullshit-spewing fake persona.

But people will, you see, tolerate vain egoistical assholes- if they can deliver. And that brings us to the second problem.

2] Consider for a moment, how revolutionary the progress of medical science was between mid-1930s (introduction of sulfonamides) to the late-1980s (ability to cure almost any infectious disease, perform any surgery safely, a host of non-invasive imaging technologies and advanced life-support technology in ICU units). Since then, the pace of progress has been rather slow- to put it mildly. Sure.. there have advances related to better use of existing drugs and technology and a few major ones for uncommon diseases. But the ability to successfully treat common chronic diseases from osteoarthritis and chronic renal failure to Alzheimers and most forms of solid cancers is not significantly better than what it was in early 1990s.

Sure.. newer drugs are less toxic and our use of existing drugs and other treatment modalities has gotten better- but face it, we are as close to curing Alzheimers , Parkinsons, Type 2 Diabetes, most metastasized cancers and many other chronic illnesses as we were in the 1990s. To put it another way, we still suck at treating most chronic illnesses- which becomes a big issue since populations in developed countries are significantly older than they were in the 1960s and 70s. But why is that such a problem? After all, physicians are only human.. right?

Well.. it would not have been much of a problem if the “healthcare” system in USA resembled that of any other country in western Europe. But it doesn’t. More specifically, an important justification for the relatively high payscales of physicians in USA has been the implicit promise that they are the “best in the world” and “they will find a cure for X disease”. As many of you might have figured out by now, the lack of progress in those areas for almost three decades has pretty much demolished that justification. Even worse, the average life-expectancy in most European countries is 2-3 years longer than in USA.

But it gets worse..

3] Another way to justify the high pay of physicians in USA and cost of “healthcare” has been the obsession with endless tests, new drugs, new gizmos and pretty much anything which creates the appearance of doing something extra. As some of you might be aware, endless testing, use of the newest drugs and gizmos in the american system has not improved the outcome of treatment as measured by changes in life-expectancy. Indeed, in many chronic diseases such as most common cancers, there is evidence that the incidence of false positives in many early diagnostic tests lead to aggressive treatment which does not improve overall prognosis while costing a lot more than a conservative approach to diagnosing and treating such illness.

It certainly does not help that physicians have been associated with many other bad, but once fashionable, public health ideas in living memory. We all remember how the belief that dietary carbs were good while all fat was bad was the default dietary advice for many decades. Who can forget the ceaseless promotion of aerobic exercise over muscle-strengthening for better cardiovascular and overall health? Or what about the aggressive promotion of extra-low sodium diets based on dubious data? I could write an entire series or book about the bullshit promoted by physicians in USA for last few decades, but we have to move on.

We cannot also forget how drugs of questionable efficacy but high costs have been prescribed since the late-1980s. Just think of how easily doctors prescribed SSRIs to anybody with even mild reactive depression or anything resembling depression (regardless of whether it helped them) or how newer anti-psychotics were prescribed for everything from atypical depression, agitation in patents with senile dementias and children with ADHD- even if made them worse. Or what about prescribing anti-hypertensives without paying much attention to co-morbidities? Or statins for primary prevention of heart attacks in people at low risk at such an event. Once again.. I could go on and on about this sub-topic.

But we have to move on to what I think is the real clincher or proverbial straw..

4] Physicians, for better or worse, are the public face of “healthcare” in USA and everywhere else. To put it another way, most non-physician related problems within a healthcare system will cast an aura over public perception of physicians. So.. for example, surprise costs caused by being treated by out of network doctors will cause hurt their public perception. Similarly, the unwillingness of insurance companies to pay for certain drugs or surgeries will color public perception of them. Long story short, most of the problems caused by the peculiarities of what passes for “healthcare” in USA will hurt public perception of physicians.

And then there is the ghost of 2008, or more specifically what happened to job and income stability for most people in USA after the 2008 global financial crisis. Once again- to make a long story short, physicians were among the few well-known professions which did not suffer significant loss of income or job precariousness since 2008. It is as if the party continued for them- despite their questionable behavior, habit of promising too much, inability to deliver, being wrong on major issues and being associated with other groups than average people hate.

In other words, most people in USA now see physicians in the same light as banksters who totaled the economy in 2008 and got bailed out, corrupt pharma executives who incessantly raise price on old drugs resulting in suffering of patients or middle management in large anonymous corporations who facilitate daily abuse and humiliation of average workers to satisfy their superiors. That is not good company to be seen in.. Anyway, I might edit this post a bit later and insert a few links if necessary.

What do you think? Comments?

Using Children as a Front for Deceptive “Causes” is No Longer Viable

March 26, 2018 21 comments

By now, most of you have seen or read something about the new astroturfed campaign to ban guns known as “March for Our Lives”. Leaving aside a host of inconvenient facts such as school shootings are less common today than during the 1990s, most “gun deaths” in USA are suicides, many countries with strict gun control have a higher incidence of suicide than USA and so on, we are still left with the reality that there is co-ordinated campaign by democrats to use non-black children as a front to ban private ownership of guns in USA.

So what do I think about the chance for this campaign to succeed in achieving its objective? The very short version of my answer is that this campaign will fail in a spectacular fashion- especially if the corporate media attempts to keep on pushing it over the next few months. In fact, it might very likely end up costing democrats their potential victory and control of the house in the mid-term elections of 2018. The much longer version of my answer and explanations for my predictions can be found in the rest of this post.

So, let me start by pointing out something that is obvious but appears to have forgotten by most people. Using children as a front for advancing deceptive “causes” has ceased to be a successful electoral strategy in USA since the late-1990s. However, establishment democrats dependent on their highly paid and out-of-touch political “consultants” seem to believe that we are still in the 1990s. Even worse, they have not learned anything from recent history. You might recall that HRC campaign in 2016 ran an unbelievably large number of TV and internet ads which were some version of “Trump is a bad, bad man” and “Oh.. won’t somebody think about the children”.

We all know how that one ended.. and while many “pundits” and “experts” were shocked by the election results- it was clear to observers on the ground that the 2016 election was always far closer than “official polls” predicted. One might think that such a humiliating loss might have caused establishment democrats to go through a process of introspection and analysis. However it is hard to see problems when your paycheck or sinecure depends on pretending that there are no problems. Consequently, establishments democrats just doubled down on the “Trump is a bad, bad man” theme with the addition of “Russia hacked the election for Trump”.

As I have said in previous posts (link 1, link 2 and link 3), blaming Russia and “Putin” for why a candidate such as HRC lost to a reality show clown like Trump is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy and rapidly approaching irrelevance on the part of accusers. This is not to say that Trump is a competent president. As some of you might recall- after predicting his victory in the 2016 election, I wrote a short series about how he was almost certain to fuck up badly regardless of whether he tried to keep his election promises or not.

Now, let us turn to how all of this and more is linked to the futility of using children as fronts for pushing deceptive “causes” after the late 1990s. Which brings us the question.. why was using children as a front for pushing deceptive “causes” a workable strategy until the late-1990s? Also, why did it start losing effectiveness after that and become virtually useless by 2016?

To understand what I trying to explain you next, ask yourself the following question- would you kill and eat a dog or cat unless you were in some extreme circumstances? If not, why not? And how is killing and eating a dog or cat different from doing the same for pigs or goats- two animals that are as intelligent as dogs and cats. The simple answer to that question is that dogs and cats are widely kept as pets unlike pigs and goats. In other words, extensive familiarity with dogs and cats is what allows most people to humanize and care about them. Now apply the same logic to understand why most people USED to care about the future welfare of children as a group.

Long story short- it comes down to the fact that in previous eras, most people had their own children with whom they had better-than-decent relationships. Empathy and caring for children is not instinctual for most people, especially men. The flip side is that people without their own children or those who have little contact with them simply don’t have an deep-seated desire to care for them or their future prospects. While they may be perfectly competent baby-sitters or otherwise normal in their interactions with the children of other people, they do not have any real attachment to them.

Perhaps more importantly, they are unwilling to sacrifice something which matters to them with the vague expectation that it might “help the children”. With that in mind, think about how many 30- and 40-something men today have a biological offspring with whom they enjoy a good and strong relationship. More importantly, how many men in those and younger age groups have a reasonable expectation of having children with whom they will enjoy a good relationship. And now think about how much this has changed since the 1990s.

The same is true, to a lesser extent, for women. How many highly educated women have maybe just one child in their late-30s to show others that they are “normal”? How many either postpone it indefinitely or just choose to have none? To be clear, I am not pushing traditionalism or any similar bullshit ideology. My point is that the percentage of people with kids of their own is directly proportional to how many would give a flying fuck about some “cause” which might “help the children”. And that, you see, is why deceptive advertising campaigns based on “won’t somebody think of the children” have failed so miserably after the late-1990s.

What do you think? Comments?

Musings on the Growing Sterility of Suburbia: Apr 29, 2017

April 29, 2017 15 comments

Let me begin this post by telling you that I first considered writing it about 2-3 years ago. However for a number of reasons, it got bumped down the list of what I ended up actually posting. It is based on a peculiar observation I have made over the years. However to explain the context of those observations, I have to first tell you where I live- very vaguely.

I live (rent) in a pretty affluent and nice but somewhat established suburb built in the late-1960s and 1970s. The time of its construction is important for three reasons relevant to this post. Firstly, unlike many suburbs built later on which contain only detached houses, this one does actually have a decent number of condos and apartment buildings. Secondly, it is within walking distance of multiple malls which are still busy and profitable. Thirdly, it has a much more balanced age structure than many other suburbs which are either predominately young or old. It is also worth mentioning that I lived in that area for over a decade.

So, what changes did I notice over those years which led me write this post. Well.. it is an observation about long-term changes in the number (or percentage) of people in that area who have children. It is also about the demographic characteristics of people who still have children.

Ever since the suburb in question was built, it has been one of the more desirable and affordable residential areas of that city. Consequently, it always had a fair number of younger couples with children. I noticed that on moving there almost 12 years ago- largely because of the noise of kids playing outside their houses, which could be a bit too much sometimes. Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that younger couples with children had no problems being able to afford buying houses there from the time it was built up to 2007-2008.

Then something changed.. You see, house prices in that area increased by almost 300% in the 2006-2014 time span. Curiously, rents did not go by anything close to that percentage within the same time span. To make a long story short, it appears that many younger couples with children who owned their houses cashed out and moved further away from downtown. But houses can be sold only if somebody is willing to buy them and this brings me to issue of who bought them. Once again, to keep it brief, these houses were bought by somewhat older people and more affluent but often childless couples. The change in type of people buying houses in that area can account for a part of the decrease in percentage of people with kids in that area- but not most of it.

As I mentioned earlier, the area in question has a pretty decent number of renters- of both houses and condos. Also, many people renting houses and condos in that area had kids. So was there any change there? Well.. no and yes. The percentage of people renting in that area remained very constant, however the newer renters were far less likely to have kids in the first place. But why? Did they have less money than the previous groups of renters? As it turns out, that was not the case and the newer renters were just as affluent or more so than the group they gradually replaced. It is just that they did not have as many, if any, kids.

Curiously, there is an interesting exception to this general trend. It seems that younger non-white families (Asian, Indian, inter-racial etc) in that area still have kids. In other words, the general reduction in the number of kids per couple (if they have any in first place) is largely a white phenomena. To put it another way, over half the children in this relatively affluent and desirable area are now of non-white ancestry. Of course, nobody is having more than two kids but a majority who have any in that area are non-white. So what does that mean for the future? Well.. lets just say that it depends on what you consider desirable.

But coming back to the question of why the “majority” in that area now have far fewer kids than before- even when you adjust for age. In my opinion the answers are as follows: 1] The risk of getting ruined by divorce, alimony and child support is very relevant if you have enough money to lose. 2] Most people who lived in that area used to have stable and well-paying jobs. Now their jobs are just well-paying. 3] Perhaps it is getting even more expensive to raise children? I cannot be sure about that, but it appears to be the case. Let me know if you can think of any more reasons.

What do you think? Comments?