Brown economists: Ancestral history explains roots of income inequality • Hacker News Board

Re: Brown economists: Ancestral history explains roots of income inequality

#11

Post by rsheridan6 » Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 4:36 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #2

Interesting results, wrong conclusions. Plus they didn't separate cause and effect. "He demonstrated tht [sic] the number of years since a society made the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture is highly correlated to the level of income in the country today. That is, the earlier the agriculture development, the higher the income." Or exactly the other way around - the better the person is at producing…

>Or exactly the other way around - the better the person is at producing, the earlier they managed to switch to agriculture. Or in less politically correct terms, the smarter the people, the more they make today, and the earlier they managed to figure out agriculture.

It might have more to do with when they first had to switch to agriculture. Paleolithic hunter-gatherers had a better lifestyle and better nutrition than early farmers, so why start farming if you don't have to? Farming is tedious, backbreaking labor which gives you grass seed to eat, while hunting is something men do for fun even when they don't have to, and gives you meat.

I don't really see the connection between farming and intelligence. Which would you rather trust a stupid person to do: plow a field or kill a lion with a spear?

My first thought was that adapting to the tedious, persistent labor of farm life would lead to useful traits in a modern economy, unlike hunting, which is more like a leisure activity.

Re: Brown economists: Ancestral history explains roots of income inequality

#12

Post by kingkongrevenge » Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 4:50 PM UTC

msluyter wrote: post #8

gaius wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhh, dude, if you read your history then pretty much everywhere has invaded everywhere else at some point, and populations that aren't being invaded are just as often killing each other. So while it happens, it's not a data point here.

Uhh, dude, if you read your history then pretty much everywhere has invaded everywhere else at some point Not really. Europeans essentially invaded and colonized the western hemisphere, Africa, India, Australia, etc... and yet none of the reverse happened. The Aztecs did not land on the shores of Spain. The Zulu did not invade France. (About the closest you can point to is the Turks besieging Vienna.) If you've ever…

Guns, Germs, and Steel falls apart if you examine the world after 1800. Why did economic growth go geometric in Europe and European colonies while many societies did not grow at all? It is not a matter of animals or steel or resources, because by the 19th century all this was widely disseminated.

A Farewell to Alms is a much better book with way more hard data than Guns, Germs, and Steel. It builds a solid and excruciatingly researched case that beginning in the middle ages unique demographic forces shaped the European genome and culture (eugenic forces). Diamond's conclusion that it was geography and nothing else pales in comparison to Gregory Clark's case.

Re: Brown economists: Ancestral history explains roots of income inequality

#13

Post by gaius » Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 5:52 PM UTC

m_eiman wrote: post #7

gaius wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhh, dude, if you read your history then pretty much everywhere has invaded everywhere else at some point, and populations that aren't being invaded are just as often killing each other. So while it happens, it's not a data point here.

Sure, but I'd guess that there's a difference if resources are transferred back and forth within a small region, i.e. neighboring countries warring for a few hundred years, compared to some other country far away taking the resources with them after a successful invasion. And then continue to take everything they can get their hands on for the next few hundred years... It pools the resources in a single place, and as…

Consider Zimbabwe. Its wealth was well, wealth, not money that's easy transferred, but fertile farms and abundant mines. Stuff that's inherent to the country itself. But Mugabe has brought it from the "breadbasket of Africa" to the brink or ruin (in fact, perhaps given the latest news from there, over the brink). Where did that wealth go? It wasn't transferred out by fleeing Europeans. It didn't even go into his Swiss bank account. It was simply destroyed.

Re: Brown economists: Ancestral history explains roots of income inequality

#14

Post by ars » Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 5:54 PM UTC

rsheridan6 wrote: post #11

ars wrote: post #2

Interesting results, wrong conclusions. Plus they didn't separate cause and effect. "He demonstrated tht [sic] the number of years since a society made the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture is highly correlated to the level of income in the country today. That is, the earlier the agriculture development, the higher the income." Or exactly the other way around - the better the person is at producing…

>Or exactly the other way around - the better the person is at producing, the earlier they managed to switch to agriculture. Or in less politically correct terms, the smarter the people, the more they make today, and the earlier they managed to figure out agriculture. It might have more to do with when they first had to switch to agriculture. Paleolithic hunter-gatherers had a better lifestyle and better nutrition th…

"Paleolithic hunter-gatherers had a better lifestyle and better nutrition than early farmers"

I don't think that is true. Early farmers also hunted plus they had the grown food, so they did better.

"I don't really see the connection between farming and intelligence. Which would you rather trust a stupid person to do: plow a field or kill a lion with a spear?"

Kill a lion with a spear would be my answer - that requires strength and agility - but not much in the way of intelligence (witness animals that hunt).

Farming does require intelligence, when to water, when to plant, what to plant, when to harvest. The calendar was invented specifically to help with those.

After a while anyone could do it (which is why you think it's for stupid people) - but at the start? That took quite a lot of thinking, and experimenting.

Re: Brown economists: Ancestral history explains roots of income inequality

#15

Post by ars » Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 5:56 PM UTC

msluyter wrote: post #10

ars wrote: post #2

Interesting results, wrong conclusions. Plus they didn't separate cause and effect. "He demonstrated tht [sic] the number of years since a society made the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture is highly correlated to the level of income in the country today. That is, the earlier the agriculture development, the higher the income." Or exactly the other way around - the better the person is at producing…

I again recommend Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel," for the refutation of "they were just smarter" argument.

We aren't talking about europe anymore though. Nor are we talking about colonialism, this is much more basic, and those argument don't work as well.

Re: Brown economists: Ancestral history explains roots of income inequality

#16

Post by joe_the_user » Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 6:41 PM UTC

So the idea is: 1. Find a correlation around a bit of data relating to a very broad tendency in history. 2. Draw an unwarranted conclusion 3. ??? 4. Profit

Re: Brown economists: Ancestral history explains roots of income inequality

#17

Post by cambellg » Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 6:51 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #6

cambellg wrote: post #3

Or, just postulating here, maybe the capital that is transmitted is just that. Capital. That and tribalism/nepotism could explain these results as well.

Singapore would disprove that theory.

What aspect of Singapore's history gives lie to the theory that a tribe w/ portable resources will recirculate those resources within itself as it expands globally?

Re: Brown economists: Ancestral history explains roots of income inequality

#18

Post by gaius » Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 7:14 PM UTC

cambellg wrote: post #17

gaius wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singapore would disprove that theory.

What aspect of Singapore's history gives lie to the theory that a tribe w/ portable resources will recirculate those resources within itself as it expands globally?

Singapore had no resources other than the brains of its people; they were the underclass who were booted out of Malaysia with just the shirts on their backs.

Re: Brown economists: Ancestral history explains roots of income inequality

#19

Post by m_eiman » Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 7:46 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #13

m_eiman wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but I'd guess that there's a difference if resources are transferred back and forth within a small region, i.e. neighboring countries warring for a few hundred years, compared to some other country far away taking the resources with them after a successful invasion. And then continue to take everything they can get their hands on for the next few hundred years... It pools the resources in a single place, and as…

Consider Zimbabwe. Its wealth was well, wealth , not money that's easy transferred, but fertile farms and abundant mines. Stuff that's inherent to the country itself. But Mugabe has brought it from the "breadbasket of Africa" to the brink or ruin (in fact, perhaps given the latest news from there, over the brink). Where did that wealth go? It wasn't transferred out by fleeing Europeans. It didn't even go into his Swi…

I don't see a connection. You're saying that the only people capable of constructing a functioning society are us Europeans? I really hope I'm reading you wrong.

Re: Brown economists: Ancestral history explains roots of income inequality

#20

Post by m_eiman » Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 7:50 PM UTC

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #12

msluyter wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhh, dude, if you read your history then pretty much everywhere has invaded everywhere else at some point Not really. Europeans essentially invaded and colonized the western hemisphere, Africa, India, Australia, etc... and yet none of the reverse happened. The Aztecs did not land on the shores of Spain. The Zulu did not invade France. (About the closest you can point to is the Turks besieging Vienna.) If you've ever…

Guns, Germs, and Steel falls apart if you examine the world after 1800. Why did economic growth go geometric in Europe and European colonies while many societies did not grow at all? It is not a matter of animals or steel or resources, because by the 19th century all this was widely disseminated. A Farewell to Alms is a much better book with way more hard data than Guns, Germs, and Steel. It builds a solid and excruc…

Maybe it had something to do with the Europeans controlling much of the resources in the world since their successful invasions, and we're now seeing the rest of the world catch up at last?

I guess we'll know in a few decades if the balance of power has shifted over to Asia or not.