fabio wrote:
2) The real question is whether the current distribution of wealth is
typical or not. If you did the same study 1000 AD, would you get the same
picture?
This is indeed the right question to ask. There seem to be just too
many possible explanatory variables and too few
So my question is: Are normative and positive issues (believing in
differences and supporting racist policies) more confused and mixed
in the debate on race than what we find in other debates? And if so,
why? Is there a "rational" reason for this?
I think normative and positive issues get
I would not like to use dirty words but this line of thought could take
you directly to some kind of racism. That's why your question is just
stupid. But you probably know it.
It sounds as though you are saying one of two things:
1. The belief that race is important is, by definition, racism,
Thinking and writing analytically about race is certainly a good and
important thing to do.
As far as I know, the "race problem" has been analytically treated in
two ways. One, to consider human homogeneity (there is one human race).
Two to consider human heterogeneity (there are different human
The second answer is of course the good one. As Maria said, there is
only one human race.
What we call human races are just artifacts. We all come from so mixed
background that if there ever was something like different human races
they disapeared long ago.
But all this thread started with a
The second answer is of course the good one.
The second answer was:
"2. The belief that race is important is known to be false with such
confidence that considering the alternative is a waste of time, hence
stupid. "
As Maria said, there is
only one human race.
There is only one canine
: Alexander Guerrero [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 1:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Growth, Wealth, and Race
I think that Aztecs are nearer to the north than to the equator!!!
Alexander Guerrero
fabio guillermo rojas wrote:
Question: What would
Alexander Guerrero wrote:
I think that Aztecs are nearer to the north than to the equator!!!
Alexander Guerrero
Mexico City is around 20' N, putting it on the northern part of the
tropics.
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan
Department of Economics
fabio guillermo rojas wrote:
Observation: A lot of cultures close to the equator seem to have been
wealthy compared to Europe before the rise of the West aftyer 1500. The
conquistadors compared Technotitlan to Cordoba (the wealthy Spanish
coastal city) and various Arabic cultures close to
Coincidentally enough, i just finished reading _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ as
well, it made for some interesting hours on the exercycle. I thought his
overall thesis was useful--the importance of existing plant and animal
resources and topography on the growth of early cultures--and he did
make
I was under the impression that there was at least another equatorial
civilization - that which arose in West Africa - Benin which, while somewhat
fluid, covered the delta and Edo States and stretched to Lagos and beyond in
present-day Nigeria. Like the Aztecs they certainly produced quite
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:53:34AM -0500, Bryan Caplan wrote
Sachs has popularized a strong finding: Distance from the equator
explains a great deal of the variation in income *levels* between
countries. The further from the equator, the richer countries are.
There are also some parallel
I would not like to use dirty words but this line of thought could take
you directly to some kind of racism. That's why your question is just
stupid. But you probably know it.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Bryan Caplan wrote:
Sachs has popularized a strong finding: Distance from the equator
Interesting response, wouldst appear to be an instance of threatening
personal destruction for a "thoughtcrime." To even think about race
analytically is apparently evil which must be eradicated, in this writer's
view.
john
At 07:27 PM 2/16/01 +0100, you wrote:
I would not like to use
John Cunningham wrote:
Interesting response, wouldst appear to be an instance of threatening
personal destruction for a "thoughtcrime." To even think about race
analytically is apparently evil which must be eradicated, in this writer's
view.
john
Thinking and writing analytically
Sachs has popularized a strong finding: Distance from the equator
explains a great deal of the variation in income *levels* between
countries. The further from the equator, the richer countries are.
So how do you explain the ancient Mayan, Azctec, Inca, Egyptian,
Zimbabwe, and East Indian
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Bryan D Caplan wrote:
Circle the globe. The only civilization I can see that ever emerged
around the equator was the Inca. And their effective climate was not
equatorial due to high elevation, as far as I understand.
Most of the equator crosses water, but if you expand
Girard wrote:
I would not like to use dirty words but this line of thought could take
you directly to some kind of racism. That's why your question is just
stupid. But you probably know it.
Normally I remove people from the list when they start making these
sorts of replies, but as the
Fred Foldvary wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Bryan D Caplan wrote:
Circle the globe. The only civilization I can see that ever emerged
around the equator was the Inca. And their effective climate was not
equatorial due to high elevation, as far as I understand.
Most of the equator
One of the pieces where Sachs talks about the latitude, wealth, and
growth correlation is:
Geography and Economic Development
Gallup, John Luke ; Sachs, Jeffrey D. ; Mellinger, Andrew D.
National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper: 6849. 1998.
Abstract:
This paper addresses the complex
Alexandre wrote:
Caro(a) Girard,
i agree with Girard and if the stupid question is what really
meant , groelandia is the richest place in the world.
Ditto my previous remarks about list civility.
Substantively, the Sachs correlation between income and latitude is of
course
"Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
Sachs has popularized a strong finding: Distance from the equator
explains a great deal of the variation in income *levels* between
countries. The further from the equator, the richer countries are.
There are also some parallel findings for growth -
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Bryan Caplan wrote:
Sachs has popularized a strong finding: Distance from the equator
explains a great deal of the variation in income *levels* between
countries. The further from the equator, the richer countries are.
There are also some parallel findings for growth
Question: What would controlling for racial composition do to these
results? Clearly there is high collinearity between race and latitude,
though modern transportation is weakening the connection. If you do
both latitude and racial composition, what would happen? Does anyone
have hard
I think that Aztecs are nearer to the north than to the equator!!!
Alexander Guerrero
fabio guillermo rojas wrote:
Question: What would controlling for racial composition do to these
results? Clearly there is high collinearity between race and latitude,
though modern transportation is
25 matches
Mail list logo
