The Irish, the Italians, the Polish, the German...Made it!

Hey, before I continue on, could you do me a favor and just start quoting the whole thing, instead of just snippets of it? It's getting kind of annoying.

"The Briggs Plan was multifaceted, with one aspect which has become particularly well known: the forced relocation of some 500,000 rural Malayans, including 400,000 Chinese, from squatter communities on the fringes of the forests into guarded camps called New Villages. These villages were newly constructed in most cases, and were surrounded by barbed wire, police posts and floodlit areas, meant to keep the inhabitants in and the guerrillas out. People resented this at first, but some soon became content with the better living standards in the villages.[citation needed] They were given money and ownership of the land they lived on."

Now combine this with the population increase of the 1940's-50's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Chinese

And also the fact that they pay most of the taxes, they're going to get what they want. Not cultural, just political.

You are aware that's not what Booker T. Washington actually did right? He favored subjecting blacks to whites for economic gains. It worked to some extent for a minority of African Americans, but not all of them. It's one of the reasons why we're in this position today.

So then. Let's look at the 1900's then. That's what progressive reformers did. They went to settlement houses and taught middle class virtues. What happened? It turns out trying to install that work ethic/middle class culture is actually more of an insult. It says you're not working hard enough, when that's not necessarily true.

Source please for the first part.

You don't think the Romans, Ottomans, Chinese didn't divide the powers between local and national? They did. Ottomans divided it into fiefdoms. Romans have governors, Chinese I'm not too sure, but I do know they placed governors in the hands of Confucian scholars. If anything the reason they collapsed was that the central power became too weak to stand up to outside influences, who were more centralized.

You do know who the Byzantines were right?

1. If I'm correct, Europeans have had a higher standard of living than the US since the 1970's.
2. Of course Eastern Europe is lagging behind. They had to support a country that failed.

Because we grow and have babies.. More consumers, more demand. Tech increases, supplies increase.

Source.

Higher birth rates is a sign that a country isn't doing all that well overall. It says that there isn't much of a middle class there. And source.

No, it was about either serving the French kind, as if you were a noble of the sword, or a way to avoid taxation, the nobles of the robe.

For this, we're going to do something. Turn off the lights It's 1349, New Years and the Medieval era. Now it's 1350. Turn on the lights. It's the Renaissance. That's not how it works.One or two things might change, but overall it's the same. The Scots were still being oppressed by the English. We can see this through the essays of Dr.Samuel Johnson.

You don't understand this time frame very well do you?

Could you rephrase?

You are aware the Native Americans, at least Plain Indians mostly sold the land they got?

Now I see, and the problem is obvious. You're proposing another Dawes Severality act. It failed miserably the first time. That's because Native American culture is overall more communal. The notion of private property isn't there, and thus it will fail. This is a lack of cultural understanding.

If 2=2, then it doesn't matter what you define it as, it will be the same. If the only difference is if it's a lady 2 or a man 2, then that's not something that should take part in determining a pay check.

Yes. Women choice to have a lack of rights. They choice not to be able to have a business, or have divorce laws. It was all them.

Oh really? Tell me more.

And what do you think the husband captain or the Colonel here said to the wives? Five bucks says that women's place, in the home.

And what determines those?

Because men can't take care of kids because.....

You are aware men also have maternity leave as well correct? And that they can also perform the same jobs as a women can?

Yeah, that's discrimination. If anything, an employer can't do that, it's illegal. It opens the way to discriminating against women.
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiving.html#male

"This section illustrates various circumstances under which discrimination against a worker with caregiving responsibilities constitutes unlawful disparate treatment under Title VII or the ADA. Part A discusses sex-based disparate treatment of female caregivers, focusing on sex-based stereotypes. Part B discusses stereotyping and other disparate treatment of pregnant workers. Part C discusses sex-based disparate treatment of male caregivers, such as the denial of childcare leave that is available to female workers. Part D discusses disparate treatment of women of color who have caregiving responsibilities. Part E discusses disparate treatment of a worker with caregiving responsibilities for an individual with a disability, such as a child or a parent. Finally, part F discusses harassment resulting in a hostile work environment for a worker with caregiving responsibilities."

(Section II)

Got a different source?

1. Yeah, it was economic and political.
2. Can you tell me why after WWII there was a flush of female workers?

Maybe. When he said Industrial Revolution, I knew I felt secure enough in my knowledge.

Okay.

Okay, now I see the problem. You're denying a fact. I'll have to try harder.

And that doesn't make it any discriminatory.

Who said that? It's 1920 when the US surpassed Great Britain.

1. The Commonwealth, still bigger then the US if I'm correct.
2. What list?

Sources for all the claims here.

Then what is your point? That stuff I already know. If anything this proves it wasn't cultural, it was political changes that affected people, and that would be my point.

And I agree. That was my point. It's what the culture says you can do, and then what you have.

Then there's the Ethnic Malays, who have every advantage, subsidies for food housing and education, land-relocation's, a Government that responds to them on populist terms.

And yet, it's the discriminated Chinese who just 50 years ago were brutally suppressed re-located by their Government, that are the more successful. You have done nothing to explain this, and it's becoming clear to me, you likely don't have one.[/QUOTE]

 

"Citation needed", and for good reason, as look what I found on the article for the Briggs Plan:

Further, the struggle didn't end with that "Emergency":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Insurgency_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarawak_Communist_Insurgency

They were dealing with the aftermath and the crackdowns for decades.

... What increase?

The article specifically lays out three waves of the Chinese, none of which occurred in the middle of the 20th century, and the latest one, in the 1990s, being the smallest. The Chinese portion of the Population has shrunk since the 1950's, and is projected to continue to shrink as China starts to become an attractive place to live.

They aren't subsidized, they aren't given special treatment by their government. They were poor, continued to be poor, yet somehow wound up on top.

We honestly don't need to discuss anything else right now, either you explain why the discriminated, brutally repressed Chinese wound up on top, or this debate is already decided.

Yes, and how did they get there? You fail to see what you've taken for granted. For them to be paying he highest taxes, they first had to earn their way into the position to be paying them.

So, how did they get there?

It was revoked. Centralization of power is implied when Rome went from a republic, to an empire with an emperor. The Cities who once set their own laws, now were absolutely answerable to Rome and its Emperor's whims.

China sealed itself off from the rest of the world, sunk their own ocean-going fleet and negated an industrial revolution they were having in 10th century. All because, the emperor didn't like seeing his power challenged.

If you wish to learn more, this is a good book.

Unless you want to cite micro states/the smaller European nations, you would be wrong.

No, they're catching up, and set to overpass. Check out GDP growth, whose on top?

... Stop the patronizing.

You clearly never heard of the Malayan Emergency before I brought it to your attention. You did not know Germans were a significant portion of the Russian population until I brought it up. You were also unaware that Eastern Europe is out pacing the west in Growth.

This entire time, I have been setting the pace of the discussion, I have been creating the talking points. You have offered nothing but the standard narrative offered in High School history classes, nothing I haven't already come across.

No need to ask the question, I know everything you do, because I got those same history courses pal. So just presume I know of it.

True, but that's only if were talking about comparing stable populations with those with birth rates in the 3rd world. If you're birth rate has fallen below 2.1, chances are your economy is stagnant, if not receding. Nations have fallen because they couldn't maintain continuity. Russia is going through it right now.

Splitting hairs. I'm not really interested in furthering this point.

Except, it wasn't the same, the Scotts continued their prosperity until the modern Age, where they've now just sucked the rest of the U.K. dry in public funds.

The Scotts, for a time, were unique, and that uniqueness defined the Scottish Enlightenment separately to historians from other cultural enlightenments. If you don't believe me, read the article, but further discussion is really moot at this point.

Per head = per capita.

And Native Americans off the reservations perform just the same as other Americans economically, so I don't see you point. In either event, the question of poverty was cured.

No, I already explained this. Dawes required a threshold be reached before handing the land over in fee-simple. It then failed because this created a bureaucratic bottle-neck most Native Americans couldn't get through.

What I'm saying is, no thresholds, no bottle necks, just turn it all over.

... What are you, Chakotay's Native American cultural adviser?

Concept of ownership depends among Native Americans the same as it does for any other culture, ergo, did they have a use for land?

If they were like the Iroquois, who built entire forts, and individually managed lands for growing crops, property rights did indeed exist. If we speak to the Aztecs who built entire empires, again, property rights did exist. But If we're speaking to a plains Indian tribe, the primarily survived by moving place to place, property rights weren't as rigid.

But even the latter is academic, because Native Americans number little more then 2 Milllion in the U.S., and do, on whole, live with Property rights the same as most other Americans. This isn't confusing, it's something they lived next door or within the system of for 200 years now.

They haven't been living sheltered life, innocent of all of what goes on, many native Americans even own property off the reservations. There's just too many holes I can poke in that assumption.

No, women choose to be mothers and put the responsibilities attached on higher priority.

Whether your respect that choice or not, or think that it's in their self-interest is irrelevant, because, news flash, women do it.

And this is nonsense.

This is the real point:

1. Women choose not to further their careers

2. Women choose to put their kids ahead of other concerns.

3. Women choose different areas of work which do not result in the same compensation as the areas men choose.

These three things, explain 98% of the gap all on their own.

... She's a co-captain who has kids. Pilots are notorious for being jobs where you're just gone for 6 months out of the year. She didn't want that, so she chose a job with more time flexibility, where she could be home on the weekends at the least.

Not sure what else I can tell you.

Oh, not "think" I know, because unlike the former, I'm related to this women.

Something else:

She stayed in Korea for another year, just to show up her CO who tried to deny the position for her. Had he not that, she would have come back to the States

Instead she put all of her other life plans on hold, putting off buying a house, their honeymoon, other career plans... just to say "F*ck you".

She's also the only women ever to patrol the DMZ between North and South Korea.

The man, telling her what do? Please...

They both retired in GA, following HER Battalion command, the Husband had to switch Corps in order to follow, and had what amounted to an advisory position.

No no, not "can't", just don't.

I'm not saying whether men should or shouldn't play more of a role, I'm just saying, they don't. That's a fact.

If either spouse is going to make sacrifices, put family before career, or their spouses career before their own, statistically speaking it's more likely to be the wife.

If you plan on going around lecturing the millions of women who make that decision, and give us that trend, as to why their choices are bad, be my guest. But for now the fact remains: Choice is why Women's incomes are lower. For women who made the same choices as men, as I already said, who don't have children or periods of unemployment in their work history, they actually have the edge.

 

Thank you.

What? A pro-capitalist government somehow didn't install people in the values of communism. Instead they gave them the means to be economically self sufficent.

I see a few hundred, maybe a thousand. This doesn't speak for all Malayan Chinese. If anything, it only shows extremism on one part, but overall it's nothing. These would have been poor Chinese that defies the current system.

1947: 38.4%, 1957: 45.0%. That's a population increase.

Actually they've been on top since the 15th century.

"Since early settlement during the 15th century, Chinese Malaysians are considered one of the wealthiest ethnic groups in Malaysia and have been more prosperous than other ethnic communities in Malaysia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Chinese

Now I'm taking a good guess, but the Portugesse, Dutch and British would have had to deal with them, seeing as how they were rich and could have afforded to lead rebellions. So they put them positions of power. That cycle would have continued all the way to indepedence. Add that with the British's Brigg plan, that's why they're still on top, even to this day. They were the ones with money and that means political influence. Given it was a third world country, it's no real surprise. This stuff happens all around the world. A small elite class that had capital, and the masses don't. It's basically South America, minus the US's massive influence.

Yeah, and once they had it, they could stay there for a very long time.

See above.

Not really. A much better way is saying there were the 12 tables, or Rome after the Second Punic war. And even in the Empire they were still divided into provinces.

What are you talking about? It wasn't 10th century China decided to close its borders. It's more 14th and 15th. I am well aware of who Zheng He was. And it wasn't the emperor, it was the Confucian gentry that didn't want to go see the world.

Yeah, I'm not going to be spending much money nowadays.

So in other words, yes, you know I'm right there.

"Much of that growth is coming from developing nations, prompting a boom in new construction in emerging markets while business travel in the United States recovers at a slow pace and Europe, mired in the euro crisis, remains stagnant."

Tell me, what's going to happen after there's no more need to build stuff? All that investment and growth is going to stagnant. Same thing is going to happen in the former Yugoslavia. War, blockades all caused a lack of capital in the area. So it's only natural they're going to grow, as investement is going to come in. But the same is going to happen. It's going to cap, they're too many other problems as well.

And...... Trends are what we need to look at. That's what history is.

1. You took AP world?
2. Do you know why we look at the big things and not details? Because in the big scheme of things those matter more then anything else.
3.Then don't say stupid things like that. Byzantines were Romans, just under a different name.

And the opposite is also true.

Yeah, I meant to say King. Does that change much?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/history/union_and_jacobites/ That's what the English did to the Scots. They made them into lesser people, why not they won and they've been causing enough problems. Just because one or two things happen, doesn't mean the world changes. When gunpowder was first invented,

Yes. It's a dichotomy. It helps to look at things geographically sometimes. And the fact is, that instead of calling it the British Enlightenment, might say something rather important about the way Scotland was treated by Great Britain.

Per head = per capita.

Thank you.

Do you know what happened to most of the Plain's Indians after they sold that land? They went to the reservations. One or two people who succeded doesn't mean anything. We need to look at the group to define culture.

Actually, it was pretty easy to get through it. The bureacracy was there to make sure the Indians were actually adjusting. They weren't supposed to sell the land, and they did. Incompetent? Yes, choking the life out of businesses? No. In other words, we had an unoffical fee simple system, and it didn't work.


... What are you, Chakotay's Native American cultural adviser?

Question. We have police officers. Does that mean we live in a socialist state? Of course it doesn't. Just because they have certain aspects doesn't define the society. Aztecs, everyone give food and sacrifices to the Gods to ensure the sun rises each day. Communal, everyone is pitching in to help. Iroquois, longhouses and the betterment of the community. They might have property rights, but that doesn't define it. If there's a disaster, what do you do with your supplies? Do you give it out to the group out of necessity or sell it off?

"Many of them refused to leave this professional life and in response to this phenomenon the government launched a campaign to convince them to return to their role of housewives. On television and on the radio, official campaigns encouraged them to. dumas-00680821, version 1 - 2 Apr 201212According to them, the patriotic duty of women was to give men their place back in the
professional world. Most certainly women were put under an immense pressure to return to their traditional role as mothers and housewives, completely dedicated to their children and dependent on their husbands. Some women felt the government was going too far when it started
to promote the idea that women should be happy washing dishes, preparing meals, cleaning the house and be the “ideal” woman

The Ladies’ Home Journal’s slogan during the decade was “Never Underestimate the
Power of a Woman”, a slogan that showed how women wanted to be recognized as an
active part of society, not only as mothers or housewives. At a time when it was almost
impossible for them to have access to power and to recognition some great women
succeeded in breaking the limits and to show that women’s place was also outside of the
household. They were a way to show society that women were not fulfilled with the role
of the “perfect housewives” and that they were capable of achievements, especially in
social and cultural fields, that would transform women’s reality and ambition

http://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/68/08/21/PDF/V_Martins_Lamb_-_Civi_2011.pdf

1950's mothers didn't want their daughters to be like them. What does that tell you?

So riddle me this. Why?

Why wasn't the husband willing to stay behind, sacrifice his career?

I may not be fully aware of the details here, but if he was able to get that switch, why not she? No matter how you, the husband, or she tries to explain, it's going to boil down to cultural norms. It's going to boil down the wife's place is at home. In effect, discriminatory.

So then let's figure out why. It's probably got something to do with the notion of a women's place is at home.

I'm not planning on doing anything like that. I'm here to simply tell you, that a minority of women does mean anything for the majority.

1. I asked you to quote the whole thing. Do you know why? So I don't keep losing my place when I try to figure what I was talking.
2. Really? Because I have the law saying it's discriminatory, and you not even touching the talking points I brought up.

1.Why did you single out women? This is true of anyone.
2. Did you just admit what's happens when discrimination happens? Lack of job oppurtinites, job pay, etc. All those things that lead women to say "You know what, I don't like these discriminations that in effect make a cycle. Let's do something about it."

Makes sense. Businesses don't want to pay for extra money. Doesn't mean it's any less discriminatory. The ADA allows for discrimination based on money, so they now have a legal loophole. All it would take is a redefinition and it will go up on its own.

"Because of the life-cycle pattern of both income and consumption, children may not necessarily be worse off for their entire lifetime. The trends over the 1981–2001 period, however, suggest that successive cohorts of children are moving down the relative consumption distribution of the general population. Although the average well-being of children had begun to improve slightly in the later 1990s, chart 6 suggests that we are finding increases in the relative numbers of children in both the bottom and top quintiles, suggesting that this increase may be being unequally shared."

Your source.

Now I remember what I was refering, Great Britain was a creditor country before, now I see.

It's the Industrial Revolutions, just a different name.

And sports is dominated by African Americans. That doesn't mean everyone is going into sports.

Political. They were the victims of political change.

Yeah, hence why the change is political, not cultural.


Not "can", rather, what it motivates you to do. And the Chinese, are simply more motivated than the Malays, the Germans more than the Russians, the Japanese more than other Brazilians, the Jews more than Christians or Muslims in the Middle East.

What you have doesn't matter, if you know what to do to make it grow. The success of industrious cultures that were once impoverished, and are surrounded by cultures who remain as such, shows us that.

Yet another case in point, Botswana v. Zimbabwe. Botswana is mostly desert, it doesn't have anything resource-wise Zimbabwe doesn't, nor the same supply, but it is categorically the more successful.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

It is what motivates you. And guess what motivates you as well? Political, economic, what you do with other cultures. All these things motivate you. So culture couldn't have come first then, it would have had to been the pressures there. Think of it like this, you can't go outside in shorts like you would in a warmer climate when it's the middle of winter in Alaska.

 

They didn't give anything that lasted, the Chinese people made their own wealth.

The Government favors the Malays, not the Chinese:

http://thediplomat.com/2013/06/03/malaysia-splits-as-umno-cracks-down-on-dissent/

They are capitalist, but they are not free, nor do they promote an equal footing. They take from others, and give to the Ethnic Malays. Yet, it's the Chinese who are on top. You seem to have no explanation for this.

It's a cultural attitude that the Chinese would be more willing to deal with foreigners in Malaysia than others, it's a cultural attitude that they en mass go after highly trained, high paying professions. It's a cultural attitude, that they succeed, even when the Government itself favors someone else.

You also said 1960's, but you now know by looking at that chart that the population fell.

They started out as a minority, and now, they are becoming more of a minority than ever before. And a still discriminated minority at that.

That means... nothing. I never said provinces ceased to be, what I said, is that Power was consolidated into Rome, the Emperor and his functionaries were the ones dictating tax rates, trade routes, exchange values, to all the other parts of Rome in its last 400 years. That was not the case when Rome was a Republic, each of the provinces had far more autonomy.

Power was consolidated more and more towards Rome, and as they did so, they economically and politically stagnated. Historical fact. You're just going to have to concede here.

Yes, it was the 10th century that they preempted their own industrial revolution. That was the reason for the large Iron pipes they've recently re-discovered in their mountains.

The Emperor and the other nobles felt threatened, and got in the way. No different than when they called back all their merchant ships 400 years later.

My intention was to underline the common obfuscation of progress in both instances (The Emperor), not the time frame, I apologize for the confusion.

Still no, for if you average us against the EU, we're ahead.

Britain? France? Spain? We're ahead of them all. Small microstates get a pass because their standard of living is artificially boosted by being tax havens for their surrounding nations, or in the case of Norway, simply staying out of the EU, or even in the case of Switzerland or Netherlands, because they are more economically free than we are.

But really, why can I dismiss the small nations? Because if we include them, then we can also include Hong Kong, who beats everyone. And it's large in part because, they are the most economically free society on Earth.

That's a purely academic question, and I'm not interested in discussing it. Reason being, it's not reality, it's merely a "what if", and this discussion has has too many tangents as it sits.

Truly? I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. I've seen the Czech Republic President talk, he seems to think his nation would be doing even better, if they weren't surrounded by EU members states that were making such poor choices.

Patronizing, I know you're aware that you're doing it, so quit it please. Badgering members is against the rules.

And most of that history is before the Scottish Enlightenment, so it's moot, or even if it's not, just further underlines the magnitude of the success.

Your own source (the wiki article) doesn't paint that picture, so you'd have to show me what you're quoting.

True, but moot. We aren't talking about whether their societies were capitalistic, but whether if they simply acknowledged ownership along relational or individual lines. To that end, Native Americans did have property rights, so your generalization of them was erroneous.

Native Americans differed in their societies just as much as societies did across the Ocean, it's as big of a mistake to homogenize in our conception as we did with the actual Indians.

Higher priorities, as you mistakenly think careers should be the highest one. For many women, it's not.

A large portion become mothers and made that their top priority, others just like relying on their husbands so they can devote their attention to non-income earning activities, sometimes charitable, sometimes recreational.

Whatever the reason, it was their choice.

Because she wanted to be by her kids, she wanted to be the ones to raise them, while "Dad" earned the money in his advanced career that they still needed. Her husband has made his own sacrifices to stay based in the same area, but he is a full captain.

... No no, I think you've misunderstood something. It's better to stay in the same corps throughout your career, as you have better opportunities that way (More people know you, you have likely have more skills in that area, you have a long standing reputation, etc.). He also switched twice, first from Armor to Acquisitions, and then from Acquisitions, to Signal.

That's not saying it's never better to switch, some corps are limited in their advancement. But on whole, it's better to stay put.

Not interested. And, moot, this doesn't in anyway go towards the issue of Discrimination, it would only go to explain why women make the choices they do. I'm simply bringing attention to the choices as the cause of the gap, that the choices exist is all my point requires.

And I'm here to tell you, that the majority make choices that effect their marketable skills negatively. If you don't acknowledge this, then you're not being objective.

Between ages 20-33, women and men keep pace, neither is earning more than the other (though there are exceptions in particular professions). After that, Women splinter off, as that's about the time women have gotten married and will have likely started having children.

And whereas for men, getting married tends to augment their income, for women, it's typically the opposite.

And I have a court case saying it's not. You just said "okay" to that.

We know what they can do about it. We see the evidence in women who made the same decisions as men, out earning the latter.

All women need to do to earn the same or more as men, is never have kids, be willing to work overtime, and chase after optimal professional opportunities, the same as men.

When the effort is equal, the outcome is equal, so by effect, we have already achieved equality. The only women in the gap, are those who decided, for whatever reason, that career advancement wasn't their top priority.

If applicant A is more experienced than applicant B, Applicant A, barring some other negative, will likely be the one hired, unless Applicant B is willing to work for less... which still might not earn them the job.

The fact that women are more likely than men to be Applicant B is incidental. The consideration is objective value "What can you offer to this company?".

If you have less to offer, you are objectively worth less than your peers who have more. It's simply the competition of human capital.

No, if you had actually watched the video, you would know why employment has gone down.

Employment has gone down, because it costs more to hire disabled people start with, and because with the ADA, they are even more expensive liability if they, for whatever reason, decide to sue. Companies intentionally avoid them for this reason, and there's no law against that, nor should there be. You can't command employment after all.

And to be honest, the Federal Government does it too. If someone has a dysfunction that doesn't fall into the specifically outlined program they have for people with disabilities, they can and will refuse to hire them.

Yes, and so is this:

And even that exception, isn't much of an exception, as they give reasons for it while stating that the real disposable income for this group has increased.

You're not going to get anywhere by isolating one point, while ignoring their conclusions.

No, these are not inter-changeable terms. Read the article or watch the video, either way, it's more than just "we built factories".

Industrial revolution focuses primarily on just the technology, market revolution focuses on how all advancements came to effect all faucets of society. If the man was just reiterating 5th or 8th grade history, he wouldn't be teaching this same course at West Point.

Not every German was a soldier or an Engineer, but it does demonstrate a cultural emphasis for some professions over others, African-Americans included.

Yes, very true, much destruction occurs because of politics, but their prosperity was the result of cultural values.

Yes, I'm willing to grant that environment can have a hand in shaping cultures, but that doesn't change cultures being a key motivation to success.

I also don't think, given your other beliefs, that you really want to cite geography as deterministic. That sort of thinking has an unfortunate history, the kind that goes "Africans are lazy, because they live in a region that's very hot".

 

Businesses, money, property, short term, make good choices and they lasts a lifetime. Education, lasts even longer. It lasts a lifetime.

Now by the relatively strong sense of democracy, and the British presence prior to indepedence, there is a strong tradition of democracy. That means the constitution has probably been the same, some changes, but the race based policies overall, still the same. So that means that the Chinese would have had to be rich prior to that.

Ignore everything I've said, sure. My explanation has always been, they got an economic boost, and it stuck with them. Proving that they've been wealthy from the start, my guess the British using them as leaders, and the hearts and minds campagain, well they're going to be on top even to this day.

It's not cultural. It's economy reasons, no one wants to be in the gutter.

I think I said 40's and 50's, but my finger might have slipped.

Being a minority isn't a bad thing. You also have to look a lot of other things as well.

They had more autonomy yes, but that doesn't mean anything. Since the days they were expanding across all of Italy, the power was based in Rome. It was the capital for a reason.

"When the empire ceased to expand around 180 C.E., a period of crisis set in. The end of conquest limited new supplies of labor and economic growth at a time when military requirement continued to increase. The Italian economy continued to suffer, as exports from abroad cut into agricultural profits. Estates began to practice subsistence rather than commercial production. Devastating epidemics also killed off much of the population"

Think about something now. It was either Trajan or Hadrian that stopped expanding, I forget which. That was in the late 200's. They lasted a long time after that. And you're also forgetting Diocletian. He divided the empire up. If political consilidation was the problem, they would have been able to recover.

The Song Dynasty? Think, they lost to the Mongolians for a reason.

When he said "China never went out again" didn't that feel odd? It's simply not true. Now for the emperor being scared yeah that's understandable. There are traces of an industrial revolution starting, but not enough. An industrial revolution, simply didn't happen.

A better one would be fear of change, but it's good.

Alrighty then.

Your argument is resting on that notion that it will continue to improve isn't it?

Czech republic and Yugoslavia are two different areas of the world.

You are doing the same thing to me. I therefore suggest you knock it off.

History is a series of causes and effects. What happened then matters to the Scottish Enlightenment.

Taking a good guess.

Using that same logic, you could say Lenin wasn't communal. After all you could plot your own land, and after you gave your share to the state, you could sell the rest as surplus. I acknowledge they had property rights, but were for being together. And then ownership is also based upon who gets what as well. You may have had your own plot of land, but it was your responsibilty to the tribe to share. Afterall, food spoils.

Of course.

Economic security isn't something women don't strive for?

Let's think about that for awhile, why?

"Women's place is at home." maybe?

So why did she want that? Culture. That told her to stay behind.

Irrelevant. The problem isn't whether or not it's a good idea, but whether or not you can.

Motivation for something doesn't matter? Since when?

You've shown me effects of why. Let's examine why. Let's look at why culture said this.

Yeah, now let's think why.

Women's place is the kitchen....

1 court case out of how many? Doesn't really mean much to me.

So unpractical as your suggestion is, let's using the reverse, if men took the same stance as women, wouldn't they by default be in the same boat?

You slap some law down, doesn't mean discrimination goes away. 1965 saw voting rights for minorities, a year ago the SCOTUS found Texas gerrymandering discriminating against them.

So then let's think about something, these things the person has relative control over. Gender isn't. You can't control what your body does, and means you have no grounds for discriminating against someone over it.

I did. I know you offered me an edited video. Show me the original clips.

So in otherwords, what I just said?

And........?

You are aware I took that from the conclusion correct?

Fun fact of the day, when you take three AP courses in history, you're going to learn lots.

It's just another name for that time period, it just matters what lens you look it through.

No, it just means a lot became engineers. It doesn't mean anything cultural, it was simple economics. The state needs engineers for industrialization. So engineering.

No, it was a result of economics.

And you don't think political and economic challenges change a culture?

So ignore geography as determining culture? That's just silly.

 

Under British rule, non-Malaysians were not even allowed to own land. Ethnic Malays were given employment preferences in colonial offices and businesses, and free schooling. All other ethnicity were expected to fend for themselves.

But you are right, these practices (save land ownership) did continue after gaining independence. Malays in Governmental, Educational, or administrative positions were given hiring priority, and then after the New Economic Policy following the 1969 riots (where 100s of Chinese were killed), they were then given preference in the technical jobs that the Chinese and Indians had and continue to dominate.

The Policy also started requiring all schooling to be taught in the Malays native language, causing enrollment by Chinese and Indians, who for the most part can't speak it, to fall dramatically.

They weren't wealthy from the start, in 1911 more than half of the Chinese in Malaysia were simply laborers in either Agriculture or in the mines. The average Chinese was poorer than the average Malays, who got a free education provided by the British, and could even own a house built by the Colonial overseers.

However, despite not having those advantages, 20 years after 1911, only around 10% of the Chinese were still in those professions.

The Chinese, as a group, systemically targeted high-value, high-paying work, and went after it. The Chinese were also very frugal, scrimping, saving whatever money they had, living well within their means.

The Malays meanwhile, who are awarded over half of all Scholarships, have quotas for them in their high schools and colleges, do not act like this. They act like they're entitled, will gladly go into debt for local celebrations, while the "bumiputeras" or "Sons of soil" policy ensures they get work ahead of any competing Chinese or Indian.

Despite all of these advantages, despite the quotas, despite the land and free speech controls on other ethnicities, despite the head start they got under the British, it's the Chinese who are ahead.

And now, knowing all of this, what say you? Why are the Chinese better off?

This isn't an answer. America (for instance) has always had a capital, but we were more decentralized 100-200 years ago than we are today. Having a Capital doesn't preclude decentralization.

The Empire was divided because it was weakening and became too large for the existing power structures to defend, so they cut their losses. This a part of the trend of too much consolidated power, as the empire itself through this became too inept to answer emergencies. The Soldiers from the top down needed orders, and so long as they weren't getting them from the Consuls, they stood idly by as provinces were invaded. Worse yet, Generals and Consuls were appointed for their political connections, not battlefield prowess, and the Romans lost battles they should have won.

What you are focusing on is the aftermath of Consolidation, where the entire empire began to disintegrate. You aren't speaking what would have "saved the empire" but rather delay tactics that would have staved death. The end was inevitable the moment they rejected what made them successful to begin with.

The fact of the matter is, Rome's might waned under the tyranny of its Emperors. With Nero onward, it engaged in Raubwirtschaft, a plunder economy sustained by taking riches from others, and taxes that drove the farmers of their tributaries into destitution. Once the tributaries dried up, the full cost of their over-stretched armies then fell upon their own citizens. Rome, as an Empire had few exportable goods, so to finance much of the wars at the start, they debased their currency so they could just "print" more to pay for the war effort. This however lead to inflation, which in turn lead to them engaging in price controls.

When the prices of food sky rocketed, threatening food riots, Rome fixed prices across the empire so they would stay low. But this predictably lead to shortages, and people in the cities starving. So, even despite the other laws passed to prevent migration from the cities to the countryside, urban areas gradually depopulated and their citizens abandoned their specialized trades to practice subsistence farming. This, coupled with oppressive and arbitrary taxation, lead to the death of Roman Entrepreneurship, trade, and technological innovation. As years went by, they found themselves outmoded by the very people they once called "barbarians".

The decrepit social order, made most noteworthy by the Emperors and their flagrant abuse of the public purse for their own ends, offered so little to the average citizen that many saw didn't see the oncoming Germanic invasions as conquerors, so much as liberators. At least then they were finally free from the pomp and decadence of their incompetent rulers.

They had the tin, the iron, the coal, and the forges, they had the population, the stability, and were even developing the know-how, but they were blocked by their own short-sighted rulers, who were weighing-in what seemed to them good for the short-term, but was terrible in the long-term.

China was on the edge of an industrial revolution, but stopped it through edicts and taxation, that's the history.

Right, I admit I did confuse them, but that's not really true either, they're neighbors.

I will as long as you do. Agreed?

True, and like I said, it only makes the Scottish Enlightenment that much more of a triumph. Out of this, for nearly two centuries, the average Scott was richer than the average Brit. The Scotts became synonymous with thrift, frugality, and entrepreneurship. To go from the butt end of Europe to that in little more than a generation? That is success in no uncertain terms. They're the inspiration for Scrooge McDuck afterall.

... I don't know, the only source I recall you've given me for the Native Americans is the wiki article, and as I said, it mentions the very history I've been reciting.

If there was another source, please re-post it, or post whatever other source you may actually be quoting from.

Once again, we're not talking about Systems or what made their economies tick, were talking about cultural practice.

In case you forgot, the original point was that they had no conception of private property rights, and that the very notion was incompatible with their culture. But I've just shown that thus was wrong, they did have private property even before they ever had contact with Western cultures, the practice was not and is not alien to them. So, I'm not continuing this tangent any further, at this point you're just moving the goalposts.

If they have a spouse or a well-off child/ other relative they can rely on? No.

And optimal career opportunities hardly equals Economic security, we're talking 50% gravy, not survival.

Or biology. Or, values. Or any number of things, at this point, you're just flat out saying she has the wrong priorities.

To which I ask, who made you the judge of her life? If that's the way she wants to live it, where her career has equal importance to her family so she balances the two, if that's how she finds happiness in her own life, then why be a hater?

No no, you're being inane and you don't even know it.

Yes, she could transfer, but that would have worsened her opportunities. You're getting hanged up on "transfer" for nothing.

Her husband by transferring, voluntarily took a worse opportunity, switching corps to stay in the same general area and retire at the same time as his wife. The tail end of their military careers, revolved around her opportunities.

We're talking about whether discrimination exists in substantial form, not why women make the choices they do.

Again, there's been enough tangents, so can we please wrap a few of them up before you open yet another? If we do that, I promise you you'll find it quite a deal easier to follow the discussion.

It's not just one. Or two. Just the prime example to show that you can't measure discrimination on the basis you outlined. You were in fact, missing something, just as the EEOC was, which was the choices women tend to make.

Hardly unpractical, women who value their careers that way, are successful. Women who don't, aren't. I don't see any reason why it should be any other way. If you aren't aiming for the top, why should you hold down an income like someone who does? Again, worker compensation is based on what you can objectively offer to the company. If you made decisions that made you less valuable than your peers, you are rewarded less for it.

Let's be clear, it is a trade off, people on the upper ends of the work hour scale are noted to have lackluster social and family lives. Their emphasis on their careers rewards them economically, at the cost of other things.

Women are no different. A women who went through their lives bearing no children, focusing exclusively on their careers, and towards the end getting within the top 5 if not 1% of income, vs the Women who got married, had kids, let their spouse be the breadwinner, worked on their career between raising their family, and at the end got to enjoy her golden years as a grandmother with maybe a nest egg from her old work.

Who is truly the more successful? It's in the eye of the beholder, and the individual values of the person being examined.

They would be, and they are. Men who allow women to be the breadwinner in the family, earn less income then men of the same age/career placement. It's just, men don't typically choose to do that, so statistically, it's just noise.

But I can honestly name a man who fits into that mold.

Discrimination has gone away, we know that. What's left are the effects of the choices women themselves make.

Fine, here you go.

Only if you're saying "Yes, the ADA made employment for the disabled even more infeasible on a pure cost basis".

Adding a new rule, won't change anything, because Government cannot alleviate costs other than the ones it itself imposes... which here would mean gutting much of what's in the ADA.

And what you quoted talks about kids. What I quoted underlies it as a exception, and one they themselves qualified to say "They have more money/will get more money, they just aren't spending it."

So, sorry, but this supports what I said, Consumption has gone up. It's because that's what it says, that Paul Krugman has ranted against it, as, Keynesians, they're never satisfied that consumption has gone up enough.

That they went after these positions almost exclusively? That they alone took the math courses, the physics, the chemistry, so they could garner the success it brought?

The impetus had to come before the economics, the economics would only come after they put in the effort, not before.
And just like the Chinese in Malaysia, they didn't start out wealthier, they merely became it after decades of work.

And if they didn't start out wealthier, it would appear something drove them to become so, something the Russians didn't have.

 

Source. Because I have another one saying that the Chinese were involved in commerce. "The British rulers also created an artificial occupational segregation on ethnic lines (Malay in agriculture, the Chinese in commerce, and Indian in plantation); reinforced a sense of interethnic divisions, economic imbalance, and therefore prohibited any kind of solidarity between these major ethnic groups"

http://aadcice.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/e/reseach/paper_no7-1.pdf

And let's think. What other group in world history wasn't allowed to own land and as a result developed a strong tradition of commerce? Jews in Europe during the Medieval ages. Because feudalism also required a religious undertone to it, Jews weren't allowed to participate. So they went to the towns and began a commercial tradition there.

Yes they were.

"For instance, the continued discourse amongst the Malaysian leaders about the standards of English in Malaysia declining in terms of English language proficiency, even compared to other countries in Southeast Asia (Omar, 2000) has influenced the state action to enhance the standard of English amongst Malaysian. Singapore has perhaps been a significant reference society for Malaysia here. While the state’s campaigns for national language is based on emotion (Omar, 2000), and to promote such language for national identity and dignity, the policy implementation emphasis given to English is based on pragmatic-reasons. Hence, discourse on the importance of Malay in developing the nation was surrounding by the politics of emotion, and on the other hand for English, was the politics of reason."

"For pragmatic reasons, there is a growing recognition by the state to regard the multiethnic character of the Malaysian education system as an attractive advantage and asset in an increasingly globalised world. For now, indications are that the state generally has recognised the value of preserving Chinese education in the country. An important factor is perhaps because the of the pragmatic concern that the Chinese-educated Malaysian Chinese, and Malaysia in general, would be a valuable human resource in developing and strengthening the commercial links between China and Malaysia, since China would be a major economic force in the 21st century (Guan, 2000). This can be seen in such policy action allowing medium of instruction other than national language in some educational institutions. In this sense, the state will be more pragmatic in determining which languages are appropriate for such educational institutions, particularly in relation to English as the medium of instruction, or other languages of instruction, influenced
explicitly by economic and global interests (Gill, 2002)."

"Thus the discourse of multiculturalism in theschooling system means the state and the society are beginning to recognise the different
types of school system. This change in perception has also directly benefited Chinese education in the country and helps generate the state policy orientation for preferringmultilingual education."

http://aadcice.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/e/reseach/paper_no7-1.pdf

Source.

Everyone does that.

A lot of things you say here need sources. And wikipedia isn't a good one.

Sure, if you ignore the heart and minds campagain, the fact they had a strong commerce tradition, the increase of Chinese immigration following the communist's victory yeah, you might have something.

You haven't brought anything to my attention I can't explain. 20 years afterwards working as a common laborer, of course. What do you think the chances for improving your life would have been if you do the same thing over and over again in a racist society? The few that did come over wouldn't have been enough to work the plantations. So the Malays would have had to do it too. The fact that only half worked in the fields when they made up 8% of the population also tells me 4% would have had to gone elsewhere. Commerce. These would have been educated, good jobs the British needed to have filled. Afterall, you can make a product, but you still need someone to make the advertisements. So what about the Chinese already there? They were around since the 14th century, given that Malyasia is important as a route for trade, they would have been merchants. Hence we have a tradition already. Combine this with the Portuguese factories, they would have been able to coast along pretty well, well into the modern day.

And you don't think the power of the federal government was supreme across the land? We had a civil war confirming that.

Consuls? Of course the Consuls weren't giving orders, they were nothing, some emperors did have the title of consul as well, but most were imperators, which means general. And this when done over 100 years later. What does that mean? Despite the problems, Rome had an incredibly strong army, economy and foundation for ruling with bad leadership.

A strong army? They had that.

1. Screw the Five good Emperors? Got it.
2. You're really talking about the 3rd century here, if anything Rome was incredibly successful at taxation.
3. Inflation is always a problem, and has been going on since pretty much Trajan or Hadrian, I can never remember which.

Edict of Ultimate Prices is 4th Century, a good 200 or so years after Nero.

Diocletian again, and if anything that's what made Rome last another 100 years. And no, it didn't lead to subsitence agriculture, slaves were there for that. You had to follow in the same trade as your father. Bad overall? Yes, but it helps to deal with unemployment.

Taxes, yeah there was corruption, but the Barbarians were always a problems. And Rome was still innovative, we just don't seem to hear much about it during the fall of Rome.

1. Colosseum, and the massive public works projects.
2. Huns sacking Rome "The end of the world."

It was a proto-industrial revolution. It was simple mass production using numbers, not technology. The population doesn't seem to be there either, as most of them would have been needed to fight against the Mongolians when they attacked later on.

And your source says this:
"Bao's complaint to the throne was that government laws against private smelting in Shaanxi hindered profits of the industry, so the government finally heeded his plea and lifted the ban on private smelting for Shaanxi in 1055.[42][43] The result of this was an increase in profit (with lower prices for iron) as well as production; 100,000 jin (60 tonnes) of iron was produced annually in Shaanxi in the 1040s AD, increasing to 600,000 jin (360 tonnes) produced annually by the 1110s, "

Under two different situations. The Czech Republic has been indepedent since the fall of the USSR, former Yugoslavia has been at war in the mean time, having to rebuild it's economy due to war and blockade in the case of Serbia.

Sure.

By singling out a few Scots? The Scottish Enlightenment didn't change Scottish society, it just made a few of its members stand out. It's like my comparsion with the Medieval ages and the Renaissance. It didn't all of a sudden change just because it became 1350. The reason why they were able to recover, was because both Scotland and England are protestant, thus after a generation or so, people don't hate them as much.

Your video seems like an American made one, who just used decided to use a Scottish accent.

My old US history textbook says they weren't supposed to sell land, and then they sold it. So that's the picture that has been painted.

And you don't think that was the Soviet's idea too? Produce enough for everyone, so none starve? There culture was built off of equality, and that would be equality right there.

I made the original point. It was this (Post 30):
" Native Americans in the US. The relief efforts, were poor and didn't account for the differences between the cultures."

The notion isn't about whether or not they had private property rights, but could the Native Americans survive in a new environment that disrespected their culture?

So women don't want to be economically secure?

Higher paying jobs doesn't mean increased economic security?

Both sexes feel a certain need to look after their children. Values and pretty much everything else comes from culture. And I'm not sure you're getting what I'm arguing about. My argument isn't what are the priorities, but why does she have them? Culture, is the answer. And once again 1950's mom. Did the 1950's mom want her daughter to be like her, or grow up and make something of her life?

Oh here we go. What was that about being more respectful to me?

So once again, it's not about whether its or a good or bad move. Just why was it made. Think of it like this. If I told you a lie, would it matter what I said, or the reason why I lied in the first place?

And how does that form arise? From the choices women make.

If you answer mine, then it will end sooner. Simple as that.

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20130228/NEWS07/130229795#
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/25/raf-nurse-damages-sexual-discrimination

The problem with Walmart was that the the number was too big. If anything, that decision discrimated against women. Someone making minuinuim wage isn't going to be able to fight a long drawn out legal battle. They simply don't have the resources too. 1.5 million saying they suffered from discrmination, that's a trend, and a big sign of discrimination. If that many are saying they're being discriminated against, then chances are discrimination is still happening.

Hence why it's unpractical. The average age of someone getting pregnant in the US is around 25. You can't build a career in that time frame, from college to then. When you add in cultural values, it's going to be the women who get's left behind.

Problem is, that's not the way to go. It's simply impractical for a women who's had to halt her career due to the thing that pretty much every single family has, a baby, to get it started again.

Hence why we're talking about careers, otherwise we would be having a philosphical argument on that.

So then, if the same thing happens no matter, and a society tells women to do to stay at home, then the culture is discriminating against women. Because it's not seen as being cultural acceptable for the women to be the breadwinner, they can't go along with a career.

But I can honestly name a man who fits into that mold.[/QUOTE]

That's not a breadwinner, that's conflict of intreset.

No it has not gone away. It also goes to the mindsets of people as well, not just the actions. When the culture says women can't do something, but men can, that's discriminatory.

Thank you. I watched all of it. No source. Just opinions. If anything the logic is shaky at best.

Yeah pretty much.

Or just simply redefining the law.

Who do you think the next generation of people is? Those people from the 1980's are grown up.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Daily-Reckoning/2011/1022/The-new-American-standard-of-living

Per capita disposal personal income – a key indicator of the standard of living – peaked in the spring of 2008, at $33,794 (measured as after-tax income). As of the second quarter of 2011, it was $32,479 – almost a 4 percent drop. If per capita disposable income had continued to grow at its normal pace, it would have been more than $34,000 a year by now.

And I'm not a Keynesian. I support what works, and using it.

No. People took those courses and used them to do different things. Germans decided to be engineers.

Of course they became wealthy after work, when you serve the state that needs to industrialize, it's going to get you wealthy.

In a conservative society such as Russia, do you think the notion of a common man rising to the top is expected? Of course not, they had to be wealthy in order to be these jobs. Nobility dictated these positions.