I’m like a partial libertarian. I’m libertarian on market issues, neocon on fed and fiscal policy, and right of center on social and foreign policy issues. I also consider myself to be a utilitarian pragmatist, meaning I believe in policy that maximizes the creation of wealth, which is why I’m both a supporter fed (and government intervention during crisis) and free markets, or what some would call a Night-watchman state, with a well-educated, moneyed elite at the top. Besides interceding during crisis, the government can help maximize the creation of wealth by allocating resources in ways that private sector cannot or is unwilling to, for example, such as giving a loan to Tesla in 2008 or through the creation of a high-IQ basic income. The problem is we cannot simply abolish the welfare state all at once, which is why I recommend slowly introducing a eugenics program to help curb entitlement spending. I believe in social Darwinism and biological determinism. Analogous to a wildlife photographer not interceding when a lion ambushes prey, society and policy makers shouldn’t go out of its way to help those who are cognitively ‘unfit’ for survival. Although low IQ people make poor decisions, that doesn’t mean we have a moral obligation to prevent them from digging their own graves. If we let them fall between the cracks, the ground will seal and they will disappear. Like the Progressives of the 19th century, we believe science can make society better, but contemporary liberals who call themselves progressives, in their religious-like denial of individual cognitive differences, bear little to no resemblance to the Galtons of yesteryear. Unlike the progressives, we oppose the state regulating social justice or social welfare unless it’s in a manner that maximizes resources (such as the high-IQ basic income, defense spending, tax cuts, or bank bailouts during crisis), and we seek minimum regulation in the free market. Some of this may seem contradictory, and maybe that’s the way it should be. The enduring success of America – when others empires such as the Soviet Union have failed – is because of it’s flexibility compared to the more rigid and absolutist systems of government.
You know you’re in the slow news zone when the biggest story is about deflated footballs. 2015, like 2014, promisses to be another soporific year, with lots of of contrived outrage over things that aren’t that big of a deal. I long for a return of the IQ wars, like we saw in 2013. I want a great debate about the role of IQ vs. nurture in success, HBD, and all that stuff. The economist threw us a bone, with that article about the America’s new aristocracy, but I want more. Every year it’s the same type of stories – Islam, finance, immigration, politics, wealth inequality and the rich, etc- and we go in circles in this unending debate.
The left, having long abandoned Clinton-era pragmatism for anti-establishment radicalism and class warfare, have joined the paleocons in their distrust of the creative class, longing for a simpler era when people ‘produced stuff’ instead of dabbling in hypotheticals.
Decades ago, liberals were the self-actualizers, now self-actualization has become appropriated by conservatives, in particular by neo conservatives. Like the agrarians of the Old Right, welfare liberals and civil libertarians (as opposed to neo liberals) want to cling to the old ways of life in the face of unrelenting prosperity and innovation. When you have some cool technology like Tesla or Facebook, without fail, it’s the left that has the most vocal criticism over the potential displacement of overpaid jobs, alleged crony capitalism, pollution, loss of privacy, etc. For everyone who creates, there’s a lib wanting to tear it down. The tradeoff between improved living standards and more productivity versus disruptions of the old ways of doing things is worthwhile one.
Related to the left’s war on ‘nerd culture’, the welfare left begrudges the overwhelming post-2008 success of the creative class. Teddy Roosevelt was the original ‘trust buster’; now the left wants to break up Silicon Valley by imposing diversity quotas and raising taxes.
Pumpkin Person, a commenter, writes:
It’s amazing America is as successful as it is when so many of its most educated citizens just sit on their ass self-actualizing all day. It’s even more amazing that such parasitic behaviour brings status instead of shame & the people who are actually useful are looked down on as philistines
The trades are fine if you want to lead a modest lower-middle class life, but the cognitive elite – who fill the ranks of the Ivy League, MIT, and Caltech; the founders, VCs and early employees of the most valuable web 2.0 companies; the daytraders, quants, and fund managers; prestigious physicists, scientists, economists, and mathematicians; well-paid coders and engineers; and the wealthy owners of stocks and expensive real estate – are all self-actualizers and constitute our new ruling class, or at least fill the upper echelons of society.
And yes, I’ve heard stories of plumbers and electricians who make good money, but this tends to be the exception than the norm. You need certification, which can be expensive and time consuming to acquire. Often times you need connections such as family members. And then there is a lot of competition in this line of work. Look in the phone book and there are dozens of plumbers, for example. Before you can start a plumbing business you typically must first work under the tutelage of an experienced plumber, and I can’t imagine the pay is nearly as good as being an engineer at Google, nor are the working conditions as nice. Then there’s the fact that blue collar jobs, such as construction, mining and energy, tend to be very sensitive to macro factors. Between 2006-2010 we saw the upheaval of the home building sector and just recently the energy and commodities sectors, costing millions of blue collar workers their jobs and putting many thousands of companies out of business. With the exception of a brief blip in 2000, STEM has been impervious to pretty much everything, especially now with the post-2008 biotech and web 2.0 boom.
In contract to manual labor, self actualization – which typically requires a high-IQ – is what leads to innovation and, subsequently, rising standards of living. Without self-actualization there would be none of the modern inventions we have today. Economic value is created either indirectly or directly; self-actualizers, in contrast to laborers, create value indirectly. Mark Zuckerberg created billions of value indirectly through Facebook. Tesla, through his invention of AC power, created trillions of dollars of economic value indirectly.
To parents, have your kid skip the crappy summer job and instead encourage him to code, learn finance, learn writing, daytrade, do website design, or any skill that involves the creation of indirect value.
In response to Andrew Sullivan’s retirement from blogging, a poster on iSteve writes:
Not sure how I feel about this. Sullivan is easily amongst the sanest liberal bloggers/pundits (a couple months ago he marked the 20th anniversary of The Bell Curve by re-endorsing the idea of racial differences in IQ, then doubled down when denounced by Ta-Nehisi Coates). HBD as a popular idea owes quite a bit to Sullivan for giving The Bell Curve publicity and (initial) legitimacy in the pages of The New Republic. Remember, for every Sullivan, there are 20 “Jezebel”-type deranged Marxists waiting to take his place in the popular media.
While I don’t care for his position on gay marriage, Andrew Sullivan, to his credit, took unpopular, but important and – what would later be proven – correct positions on issues such as IQ, and recently – as part of the post-2008 HBD awakening – people are starting to realize he was ahead of his time not just about IQ and human differences, but many other things. He stood steadfastly in the face of overwhelming political correctness, possibly alienating some of his own friends in his unwavering pursuit of the truth, but never backing down from a good fight when he knew that he was right.
Of course, there are the expected cries of ‘scientific racism’ from the peanut gallery, despite the abundant evidence showing a positive correlation between IQ (and it’s proxy the SAT) and a myriad of outcomes such as income, educational attainment, and likelihood of being published. Other evidence links low IQ with a greater propensity for being on welfare and incarceration for violent crime. Again, it’s not racism; it’s just the facts based on years of studies by professional, impartial researchers. From a meta-study: The relationship between lower intelligence, crime and custodial outcomes: a brief literary review of a vulnerable group
A body of research has also demonstrated that individuals with lower IQ levels are more likely to commit more severe (and violent) offences (Crocker & Hodgins, 1997; Hayes & McIIwain, 1988; Martell, 1991). Additionally, evidence exists which demonstrates that criminal offenders have lower IQ’s than non-offenders (Feldman, 1993; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985). In fact, a large body of early research found clear links between lower intelligence and criminal behaviour (Hischi & Hindelang, 1977; McGarvey, Gabrielli, Bentler, & Mednick, 1981; Culberton et al., 1989). This may be because of deficits in the “executive functions” of the brain, which are thought to be associated with abstract reasoning and concept formation,..
… sex offenders have lower levels of intellectual functioning than non-sexual violent offenders, particularly in the areas of vocabulary, comprehension, arithmetic, mathematics, letter-number sequencing, performance IQ and total IQ (Guay et al., 2005). In fact, Guay et al. (2005) examined a cohort of incarcerated sex offenders and reported that 35.7% of the sample had IQ scores below 75, with 25.1% scored below 70. It is noted that an IQ of below 70 is often considered indicative of cognitive impairment or retardation (Flynn, 1985). The researchers concluded that sex offenders may have 10 times the percentage with IQ scores below 70 when compared to the normal population (Guay et al., 2005). This finding has more generally been confirmed with other research that has indicated that sex offenders have lower IQs than non-sex offenders …
We can whine all we want, but it won’t change the facts.
The question is what will become of The Daily Dish? There will probably be a lot of cancellations, although I can’t imagine it costs too much to run the site. It would have been interesting as an experiment if he secretly quit or only made one post a week and then had staff made the other posts, and then see if anyone detects his absence.
Was it really that terrible? Let’s look at the positives: America solidified its position as a global economic and military superpower, with China in second place. We saw the rise of web 2.0, Google, Apple, Uber, Tesla, and Snapchat. Combined, these companies are worth over $1.5 trillion. As part of Social Darwinism 2.0, we’re seeing the ascent of STEM and nerd culture, as these are the individuals who are most fit for prosperity in today’s competitive economy. We saw Microsoft shake off its anti-trust woes. The 2000′s was the decade of the iPhone, the iPad, Netflix, the iPad, Drones, 3D printers, and entertainment on demand. The Higgs Boson was found. We had no less than a hundred mega blockbuster movies based off superhero and book franchises. Thanks to the intelligence efforts of the Bush administration and the war on terror, Bin Laden is dead and further terror attacks have been thwarted. TARP was a huge success, the US dollar is rallying, and treasury yields keep falling as America becomes the world’s safe haven. The Ivy Leagues are prestigious than ever, with record number of applications from all over the world. America’s tech companies are the envy of the world and, like the Ivy Leagues, are inundated with foreign applications. The real estate market all over the world boomed; home prices in Manhattan, Silicon Valley, Seattle, London, Vancouver, Washington DC are all up over 100% since the turn of the millennium. Earnings for the S&P 500 have more than doubled.
We saw the free market and the US consumer rise above the wealth destroying efforts of the Obama administration. I can go on; but there are so many reasons why this has been a great decade.
In an earlier article, The Abortion Plan, I discussed how abortion can be justified from a utilitarianism/pragmatist perspective, without necessarily turning it into a left/right issue.
From slatestarcodex.com comments, this issue came up again.
“parents who get abortions are parents who can’t afford children, so it’s saving them from a bad life” or the Freakonomics argument that abortions lower crime rates sound creepy and eugenics-y, and not at all in line with Blue/Grey values as I understand them.
This echoes what I wrote in second article, Public Outrage Getting in the Way of Good Eugenics Policy:
Eugenics offers the opportunity for parents to do what’s in the best interests of their offspring, and possibly society as a whole. By self-selecting for high-IQ, for example, we can possibly speed up technological progress and reduce entitlement spending and crime. Prenatal screening is commonplace among high-risk individuals to check for genetic or chromosomal disorders. Carrier testing is used to identify people who carry one copy of a gene mutation that, when present in two copies, causes a genetic disorder. Such screening saves taxpayers billions.
As a utilitarian conservative, I agree with abortion on the grounds of the Freakonomics argument. I’m tired of the stark left/right divide on this issue and I do think there is room for middle ground. Prenatal screening for potentially lethal genetic diseases already occurs in high-risk populations; we argue that this can be extended to screen for desirable traits like high-IQ and as a way to potentially reduce entitlement spending and crime. Since crime, income, educational attainment, and IQ all seem to have evidence of heredity, there are probably genetic markers that can be found for these traits and behaviors.
In the comments, someone proposes a plan,
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that an unwanted/unplanned poor child has a significant cost to society in terms of welfare, crime and possibly a whole lot of things I haven’t thought about. Let’s fix that cost to an arbitrary number, say 1/5th the cost of bringing up a child, or for the US roughly 50k USD.
Now, let’s offer 1/10 of that cost as a direct monetary incentive to have people sterilised. For maximum effect, we would offer this only to women.
If you are rich enough to actually bring up a child, 5000 USD is a trivial sum and not worth the hassle. If you are too poor to bring up a child, 5000 USD is a substantial sum, and if you want your tubes tied anyway, today you probably can’t afford it.
If you have taken the money and your financial situation changes from winning the lottery or whatnot, well these things are reversible now, and I suspect that the cost of a reversal operation is higher than the 5k.
Why isn’t this the obvious solution to a LOT of problems related to poverty?
It’s a good solution, but one that farces major hurdles being implemented because it evokes fear of Nazism and compulsory sterilization, even if such comparisons are unfounded. Politicians like to talk about poverty of a social problem, not a biological one. Scientists have to tread this water carefully. This censorship, whether self-imposed or imposed by society, hurts potential progress that can be made on these issues. Our eugenics problem would involve:
1. prenatal screening and early term abortions (this is already done for high-risk populations such as the Ashkenazim, but it would be extended to the general population)
2. monetary compensation for undergoing sterilization for high-risk populations.
3. lesser monetary compensation for abstinence for high-risk populations
4. education/increased public awareness about the benefits of eugenics
Financial incentives would help sidestep the boogeyman of mandatory sterilizations, a red herring that torpedoes any possibility of a productive public discourse on this issue.
With over 74 million iphones sold in a single quarter, Apple reports it’s biggest earnings ever, proving once and for all that there is no recession or crisis in large cap technology.
The people who are buying iPhones, uploading pictures to Facebook, tweeting, and take selfies with Snapchat are not only creating economic value, but they don’t care about Greece. They don’t care about soft Caterpillar earnings or about weak durable goods numbers. They don’t care too much about the national debt, about QE creating artificial asset bubbles, or about wealth inequality being too high. Economically, in the grand scheme, those things aren’t important, despite all the attention the left devotes to those subjects. The whole web 2.0/Silicon Valley technology space is pretty much impervious to everything. As the homebuilding and energy markets are mired in a perpetual funk, STEM is not only booming, but taking over the world. Now more than ever, Silicon Valley is the center of the universe, followed by the financial capital of the world, Manhattan. And it’s got much further to go – stocks will keep going up and web 2.0 valuations will keep rising – and as hard as the left tries to dig in their feet, technological innovation is unstoppable, culminating in transhumanism, the singularity, a unified theory of everything, and the transition to a type 1 civilization. The future of America and the world isn’t of war and despair, but unending prosperity – if only for a few.
Few of them can forget the backlash after then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in 2009 that it was strange to talk about climate change without mentioning population and family planning. Critics immediately suggested that she was calling for eugenics, thus shutting down the conversation and pushing the issue back into the shadows.
That echoes how Larry Summers, a liberal, also got into hot water by the welfare left for suggesting that biology, not white male privilege, is the cause of a social problem (lack of women in STEM). Same for Steven Levitt, who was censured by the left for positing a link between abortion (a biological solution) and the reduction of crime (a social problem).
It seems like INTP & INTJ people are wired for success in the super-competitive post-2008 economy. In our new era of Social Darwinism 2.0 where coding is the new literacy, they, the INTP & INTJ people, have a biological advantage in an economy and society that increasingly rewards creativity, authenticity, introspectiveness, wealth, financial independence and analytical skill versus the obsolete, old-economy liberal ideal of collectivism, social skills, and equality.
INTP & INTJ people, being that they tend to be smarter than everyone else, are more likely to make a lot of money and therefore own stocks and expensive real estate, neither of which is a bubble, sorry libs.
— Nicole Lapin (@NicoleLapin) January 7, 2015
Since end of 2009, S&P 500 generated annualized total returns (yes, including dividends) of roughly 16%. Impressive average.
— Nicole Lapin (@NicoleLapin) December 8, 2014
On the other hand, Myers-Briggs personality types have a lot of overlap and some of these qualities are hard to quantify. That’s why IQ is a much more accurate/objective measure of potential individual success than personality tests.
Bush and Romney are marquee names in U.S. politics and the Republicans haven’t nominated an anti-establishment candidate since Barry Goldwater more than a half century ago.
Yet there is an equally interesting, and perhaps as important, struggle for the movement-conservative or non-establishment crown. There is a sizable segment of Republican voters who believe it’s time to break that 50-year run.
There’s no shortage of liberal whining about how the GOP always nominates ‘establishment candidates’, notable examples being Romney, McCain, or George W. Bush. But contrary to popular leftist myth, there is no secret ‘cabal’ that convenes before a pyre to anoint the chosen one; we do – though the nomination process. No candidate was suppressed, either. Ron Paul got to debate along with Mr. Moneybags Mitt Romney, and everyone got to answer questions. Although Romney did get more face time during the New Hampshire debate, how much of an impact this made on the nomination process is hard to ascertain. It could be because Romney gave longer answers and interceded more often.
The nomination process for GOP candidates does a good job of weeding out the candidates that aren’t viable and or are unqualified, leaving only the ‘establishment’ candidates. There is nothing wrong with this; why do we want the inept in the world’s most important position of power? As we said before, most of the 2012 candidates were awful, and it was a miracle many of them got as far as they did. For example:
Herman Cain: No policy experience whatsoever and entirely reliant on advisers to formulate his economic and foreign policy. Palin in 2008, to her credit, showed initiative but Herman Cain seemed lackadaisical, and then there was the whole sex scandal that put the nail in the coffin.
Santorum: Too religious. The most successful GOP candidates aren’t too obsequious to the religious right. Voters care more about policy than religion. unless you’re the anti-Christ, being thr GOP front-runner pretty much guarantees the religious right voting bloc; there’s no need to waste too much time and money on them.
Newt Gingrich: Doomed by baggage, prevaricating on Fannie and Freddie consulting fees, weak debate performance.
Rick Perry: Naive on important issues, suffered a catastrophic brain freeze on a nationally televised debate, threatened a public official (Bernanke) with violence.
Michele Bachmann: Too religious, not enough policy experience, like Ron Paul seemed to subscribe to weird conspiracy theories, weak performance during debates.
Ron Paul: Endorses economic policy that would plunge the economy into a recession, destroying trillions of dollars of wealth. Endorses foreign policy that emboldens and appeases our enemies.
So what does that leave us with? Establishment candidates. If the establishment is as patently awful as the whiners on the blogs insist it is, voters would have given a non-establishment candidate enough delegates to win the nomination, but they didn’t.
But what about Obama? He was an ‘establishment’ candidate, and he is incompetent. He’s an outlier, a product of the convergence of extreme political and economic events of the likes never seen before. You had Bush leaving office with the lowest outgoing approval rating of any president in Gallup’s polling history, combined with the worst financial problem since 1929, combined with Obama being the most charismatic democratic candidate ever. Brainwashing millions of youth didn’t hurt, as well as the liberal media’s bias against the more qualified Hillary, and the media over-hyping the overblown financial problem to get Obama in office. Hillary did get the hard-working white vote, but that wasn’t enough to compensate for Obama getting the ignorant, low-information youth vote and the ‘white guilt’ vote. Fast forward to 2016, the strategy that worked so well for Obama in 2008 won’t work again, especially given the disillusionment many young people feel with Obama (and the democrats in general), the fact that Obama cannot run again, and that there is no financial crisis to blame republicans for. Therefore, to the disappointment of the far-left, Hillary, another establishment candidate, will get the nomination. And as bad as Hillary is, she can’t possibly be worse than Obama.
We’re living in crazy, weird, more unequal times. Theoretical physics, IQ, coding, finance and economics is more important than ever. The left said Instagram was a bubble when Facebook acquired it in 2013 for $1 billion; now Instagram is worth $30 billion. But web 2.0 valuations, the stock market, and Silicon Valley real estate are not in a bubble and have much more upside.
The fact stocks surge on QE announcements should lend some hint as to the efficacy of QE versus ineffective Keynesianism. QE is helping, even if we cannot exactly quantify how. Fed policy works, in contrast to fiscal policy (except tax cuts), because it directly (in contrast to fiscal stimulus, that is indirect) stops the deflation of asset prices. A major compliant is that QE contributes to wealth inequality because most people don’t have boatloads of stock or expensive real estate. If some people get left behind in the recovery, tough luck. Sometimes in a recovery not everyone participates at once, or even at all. That’s why you need to major in STEM or at least learn marketable skills. The Obama stimulus didn’t work because it was only artificial; instead, you have to create economic environments that are conducive to the long-term creation of wealth and the creation of jobs. Stimulus and other gimmicks don’t work. Businesses can’t make long-term capital investments when they know that within a year the stimulus spigot will be turned off. And because the stimulus projects themselves are not appropriated by market forces but by politics, they are inefficient.
The rise of economics coincides with the rise of HBD, as part of a broader post-2008 American Intellectual Renaissance. Compared to sociologists, psychologists, historians and anthropologists, economists won the debate because economists (except for far-left ones) use cold hard facts, logic and reason to construct policy that helps the economy, and ultimately all the individuals that comprise it (although there are some sociologists, psychologists, historians and anthropologists who don’t fit into the leftist mold). The social sciences, with the exception of economics, tend to have a decidedly liberal bias, are wishy-washy (subjective) and advocate haphazard policy that, if implemented, would cause society to regress, not advance. Economists (except the far-left ones) know that wealth inequality is a byproduct of an economy that rewards talent and merit and, therefore, while wealth inequality is possibly undesirable, trying to force more equality and egalitarianism would hurt the economy and lower living standards for everyone. As one of the squares of the quadrantsphere, many economists are at least receptive to the un-PC idea that maybe IQ is correlated with socioeconomic success (biological determinism) or that perhaps we can abort our crime and entitlement spending problem. Economists give empirical, data-driven answers to the stubborn problems facing society, formulate policy – while unpopular with large portions of the population – that is necessary (bank bailouts, Reaganomics), and overall improve our understanding of the world and the rational actors that participate in it.
Heredity of intelligence doesn’t preclude the possibility of poor families having smart children and those children succeeding, but assortative mating means that high IQ tends to be clustered among certain families. The economist article isn’t an attack on the poor, it’s simply describing how biology, especially as it pertains to the heredibility of IQ, seems to have an inextricable role in American society, especially in the post-2008 hyper-competitive winner-take-all economy.
To help the gifted poor escape poverty, the best standardized test would one that measures academic readiness, but where preparation has a minimal impact on scores. Analogies satisfy both, being both a predictor of learnedness and are hard to ‘game’. There are thousands of words to choose from and each word has a specific meaning unlike math concepts, which tend to be fungible and interchangeable, of which there are fewer total math concepts to learn than number of words to memorize.
In the purist of equality over the meritocracy, the left is trying to make the SAT less like an IQ test and more like a knowledge assessment test, for example by removing the notoriously hard analogies section, which benefits those who have the most money for tutors and special classes. The analogies section, unlike the math section, it harder to study for because the pool of words to choose from is seemingly limitless, and the only way one can score exceptionally well is to do a lot of extracurricular reading over many years; but not only read a lot, but be smart enough to read difficult books and infer and retain the definitions of the more rarefied words as they arise. Not surprisingly, vocabulary, not math, has the the highest correlation with IQ “of any individual measure of intelligence.”
Economic and demographic factors are blame for the chronic sluggishness of Europe and Japan. America has the huge baby boomer and millennial population whereas Japan has shrinking population and poor demographics. Americans consume more. American monetary policy more proactive and aggressive. America has much less regulation regarding how business can fire employees, resulting in a more dynamic business environment. It’s cheaper and easier to start a business in America. America has lower income taxes. America pioneered QE and because of its success, now everyone is copying us. This is more evidence of American exceptionalism and having the best and the brightest policy makers. Smart people save the world, again.
From BloombergView: Housing Weak Even With Government Programs and Big Bank Interest
Housing bashers, like college bashers, are so pathetic. Yeah, I love making the landlord rich with nosebleed prices, month after month to no end. Homes in many neighborhoods are up 300% or more in the past 15-20 years, debunking the left’s belief that housing is a always poor investment.
Just like the stock market being a bubble, the left also wants to believe housing is a bubble because they want the rich, smart, successful people who own expensive homes to lose money. Real estate is all about location. Housing is weak in the crappy areas that were overbuilt in the 90′s and 2000′s, while housing is booming in the expensive, scarce areas that have economic activity such as the Bay Area, Washington DC, Long Beach, Orange County, Aspen, Seattle, Manhattan, etc. We can’t let facts and counterexamples get in the way of the liberal ‘we are doomed/everything sucks because of rich people’ narrative. According to the left’s logic, if housing is weak in some crappy, overbuilt area, it must be weak for the entire country. Just like, according to the left, the entire economy must be weak and it’s rich people’s fault if some people cannot find jobs.
Home prices in 94705 (Berkeley) for example keep going up despite the insistence by the left that the housing market is weak:
From the article:
Don’t blame the Chinese, who are showing an abundance of interest. Their share of foreign purchases leaped to 16 percent in the year ending March 2014, from 5 percent in 2007. They paid a median price of $523,148, higher than any other nationality and more than double the $199,575 median price of all houses sold.
The value of home sales to all foreigners rose 35 percent last year to $92 billion, up more than 50 percent since 2007 and accounting for 7 percent of all existing home sales. Foreigners view U.S. homes as safe investments and U.S. schools as good places to teach their children English.
This is why the left wishes China’s economy were a bubble, and is why the libs keep predicting China’s doom, to no avail. Just like failed liberal predictions of a college bubble/crisis, a Google search yields thousands of failed leftist predictions of a China crisis/crash landing, going as far back as 2004. The left wants China to be a failed state like Zimbabwe. The left resents how China’s millionaires and billionaires aren’t buying into the leftist ‘we are doomed/America is in decline’ screeds and how the Chinese, in buying up American real estate and treasuries, have faith in American exceptionalism. The wealthy Chinese, unlike the libs who comment on the NYT, don’t subscribe to the left’s ‘let’s spread the wealth’ or ‘IQ is not important’ message, and this makes the left livid.