Western World Inc.; Malpractices, Coverups and Controversies

hit&run

United States of Hindu Empire
Mod
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
14,104
Likes
63,369
Please use this thread to highlight all the frauds, malpractices, accusations, extractive trade activities, political and media patronage given to public or private Industries, Start Ups, amalgamates and institutes owned and operating from Western countries in Americas, Europe and Oceania.

Currently Pfizer, Facebook, Microsoft etc., are being called out by experts and watchers for their unexplained lay-offs and mal-practices. Twitter is about to breakeven after being rescued by Elon Musk.
 
Last edited:

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
2,753
Likes
9,020
Country flag
Here is a good study for India


Some highlights.
says good study, then quotes westoid mindset conclusions.
Brilliant.

The numbers are falling because India is falling prey to western liberal ideology nonsense, where society becomes so poor that women MUST work or starve.
The main driver for this societal poverty is fiat money - something that is coming to an end actually.

The western liberal claim that as society gets wealthier and develops, birth rates fall and women's education leads to societal development is objective nonsense. As i said, the literal proof is history of western civilisation: they LITERALLY went from having no roads and throwing their shit in the streets to clean drinking water & aeroplanes without any women's education, the industrial revolution was completely independent of women's education and thus, women's education is not a driver for societal development. Not to say that women's education is wrong ( it isnt) or that women shouldnt get educated ( they should), but the conclusion of the article and your claim is objectively false.
 

Blood+

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
2,641
Likes
4,169
Country flag
says good study, then quotes westoid mindset conclusions.
Brilliant.

The numbers are falling because India is falling prey to western liberal ideology nonsense, where society becomes so poor that women MUST work or starve.
The main driver for this societal poverty is fiat money - something that is coming to an end actually.

The western liberal claim that as society gets wealthier and develops, birth rates fall and women's education leads to societal development is objective nonsense. As i said, the literal proof is history of western civilisation: they LITERALLY went from having no roads and throwing their shit in the streets to clean drinking water & aeroplanes without any women's education, the industrial revolution was completely independent of women's education and thus, women's education is not a driver for societal development. Not to say that women's education is wrong ( it isnt) or that women shouldnt get educated ( they should), but the conclusion of the article and your claim is objectively false.
The whole human civilization and everything in it were built by men, the trend continues to this day and will be so until everyone is replaced by bots. So of course, women's education had virtually no effect on the advancement of our civilization.
 

spikey360

Crusader
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
3,417
Likes
6,303
Country flag
If birth rate is falling, and that too in India, and that too after 9 years of Modi govt, the laughably "progressive" missions of this government of putting women speaker, women president, women this women that makes it worse.
Ardent Hindutva-badis will never forgive Modi for the fact that he is pushing female disempowerment and slavery by making it easier for corporates to hire and fire them at will, that too at the cost of educated unemployed men.
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
2,753
Likes
9,020
Country flag
If birth rate is falling, and that too in India, and that too after 9 years of Modi govt, the laughably "progressive" missions of this government of putting women speaker, women president, women this women that makes it worse.
Ardent Hindutva-badis will never forgive Modi for the fact that he is pushing female disempowerment and slavery by making it easier for corporates to hire and fire them at will, that too at the cost of educated unemployed men.
Indian birth rates in cities are the problem. Indian birth rates in rural areas are perfect. We don't want a growing population, we want a population that will hold steady. IMO, the falling birth rate in the Indian cities are less to do with working women, more to do with overcongestion and lack of living space.
 

Love Charger

चक्रवर्ती
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2021
Messages
12,731
Likes
34,171
Country flag
If birth rate is falling, and that too in India, and that too after 9 years of Modi govt, the laughably "progressive" missions of this government of putting women speaker, women president, women this women that makes it worse.
Ardent Hindutva-badis will never forgive Modi for the fact that he is pushing female disempowerment and slavery by making it easier for corporates to hire and fire them at will, that too at the cost of educated unemployed men.
Kek pradahn mantri awas yojna has a rule whre the house should be registered in name of woman of the house .kek.
1/3 seats on sarpanch post of gram panchayat are reserved for women ( or is it 1/2) kek .
Women sarpamchans perform better than men sarpamchans in realising the central government welfare schemes kek
 

spikey360

Crusader
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
3,417
Likes
6,303
Country flag
The whole human civilization and everything in it were built by men, the trend continues to this day and will be so until everyone is replaced by bots. So of course, women's education had virtually no effect on the advancement of our civilization.
It is too late for the present generation, but make sure your children, if you have them, when you have them, know this truth.
Educate and enlighten them, regardless of gender, but do indoctrinate them against the pseudo feminist, anti human ideologies which plague the modern world today.
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
This thread has been derailed so much I think I can make an OT post. I request Mods to shift this to an appropriate thread or merge several of the related OT posts.

First off I agree partially with most of the view points presented by my respected fellow DFIans. However, there are a few things I do not agree with completely.

Firstly the West did not transition from a bunch of backwater nations whose people lived without roofs to a nation with aeroplanes and automobiles. Knowledge transmission and preservation of ancient methods and techniques by the use of writing meant that the West never really lost past discoveries unlike India where a lot of knowledge had been lost due to Islamic invasions, colonial maltreatment of the native population , poor record keeping and oral transmission of ancient knowledge. The pre-modern West may have lagged behind ancient China and India in a lot of fields but the civilization that gave us Plato, Diogenes, Archimedes, Pythagoras and Aristotle was in no way an inferior civilization. It was the rediscovery of mainly Hellenic texts after the Fall of Byzantium that reinvigorated Western rational thinking and led to the Enlightenment.

Secondly about women`s education and development of a society, while most Western nations developed when women had little literacy, the West or westernized nations like Japan have seen far greater levels of prosperity when women entered the work force and got more rights. The claim that women`s education has no effect on the holistic development of a nation is weak and at best arguable.

Having got all that out of the way, the points I agree with are the decline of the West due to loss of traditional values and adoption of poor policies.

The Western civilization(the USA , France ,Britain and her colonies) was mainly built on the bed-rock of a few core values:

1. A spirit of scientific inquiry and rational outlook which was further supplemented by a spirit of entrepreneurship and wealth making.
2. Strong family values based on Judeo-Christian principles that promoted a sheltered nuclear family with a father and mother figure but still left enough room for individualism which in turn led to the fostering of discipline and self-actualization goals.
3. A fair judiciary and a relatively non corrupt, liberal society based once again on liberal Judeo-Christian ethos.

The reason why the East fell behind the West was:
a. Policies of inward perfection and promotion of status quo as seen in Qing China where the Emperor was more worried about concubines rather than development of his nation. In Japan the same thing was observed during the Edo Period with a stratified feudalistic society.
b. An unhealthy stress on religious dogma as seen in the Middle East, Mughal India.
c. Finally this is a point I have mentioned earlier, the lack of passing down of knowledge of previous generations due to various factors.

As a consequence the West thrived and the East had to suffer from colonialism and humiliation. However the world has seen a great shift in the value systems after 1950 or the post-religious society in the West.

If you analyze the past century`s scientific and societal achievements you will find that the West thrived due to strong(often Puritanical) family and religious values and most achievers in the West,barring a few exceptions, came from well established families. Now those very things that made the West great are changing. Most people in the West today have abandoned God,given in to debauchery and hedonism, adopted materialistic neo-capitalist agendas and accept the diktats of oligarchs without any resistance.

Now I admit that no one wants to live in a superstitious society where God and after life has to be the be all and end all of existence. Rather it is the preservation of family values which are more important. Without family values, the future generations come from poor broken families without father figures and lack of opportunities to rise up in society. A good example of this phenomena is the case of African American communities after 1960s. The points 2 and 3 that I had put as the reason for development of the West depends on the existence of a religion that promotes family values which in turn creates a stable, sustainable society. Nearly all religions promote procreation within the bounds of marriage so a religious society should never face a population decline as seen in the Westernized nations. Even in Japan and China which are much more conservative than the West it is the erosion of religious beliefs and a stress on personal satisfaction that has led to decline in fertility.

Now only point 1 remains which in my opinion is still dependent on points 2 and 3. For science to flourish, you need a stable society where family and societal values are respected. Without them it is hard to uphold a society that promotes wealth making and scientific enquiry. Fertility rates and stable marriage rates are ultimately related to the religiousness of society. We are yet to reach a level of Utopian human consciousness as promoted by Osho or Krishnamurti which would allow such traditional societal mores to be discarded and instead every kid would grow up peacefully in a commune.

Just take a look at the number of out of wedlock births in the US and Europe today.


Comparison-Europe-US.jpg


The fertility rates in US and Europe:
nur0005ztia71.jpg


To address out of wedlock births and falling birth rates the western countries( driven by oligarchs of neo-capitalist organizations) promote immigration to shore up growth and keep their population at stable rates.
Now if the incoming population is receptive to the values of the host country things work out well, otherwise the consequences are far more devastating.
ksnip_20230627-004458.png


At the end of the day everyone needs to believe in something. Removal of religion does not solve anything but only creates more problems. A society based on rationality and common good is ideal but which nation has been able to do that. Most importantly the Western nations are even failing to force their cultures or assimilate their incoming population to their native customs and mores which has created a host of problems for them.
 

Suryavanshi

Cheeni KLPDhokebaaz
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
16,330
Likes
70,162
Japan have seen far greater levels of prosperity when women entered the work force and got more rights
I Mean I don't think just educating women directly causes fertility rate to plummet but I think women entering a work force does.
You see most IT couples who work 9 to 5 cannot raise more than 1 children. Imagine If it was a more demanding factory jon of 9 to 5 which was the case of Japan from 50s to the 90s.
In Japan's case it had to be a factory of the world hence why its fertility rate took a nose dive during that period. And during the 1970s when the economic stagnation came for a bit the fertility rate sustained for a bit.

But blaming women's education simply does not do it.
You have to see how expensive living is right now.
A person working in India with an aversge salary of 5.5 lakhs in the IT sector Will require 50 years to buy a small flat. The education cost per child is 5000 per month minimum for a decent private school, not to mention saving up for college fee.

Ideally one should be able to afford a flat by paying 5 years of loan that was the case in America in the 1950s.
America dream:-
Job by the age of 20 to 22.
Married by the age or 26
2 to 3 white kids.
House that can be paid of in 5 to 8 years.
A car that can be paid off in 2 to 3 years.
Holidays twice a year.
Savings enough to educate both kids.
Emergency funds in case of health issues.

 

Roshan

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Messages
2,277
Likes
8,007
Country flag
I Mean I don't think just educating women directly causes fertility rate to plummet but I think women entering a work force does.
You see most IT couples who work 9 to 5 cannot raise more than 1 children. Imagine If it was a more demanding factory jon of 9 to 5 which was the case of Japan from 50s to the 90s.
In Japan's case it had to be a factory of the world hence why its fertility rate took a nose dive during that period. And during the 1970s when the economic stagnation came for a bit the fertility rate sustained for a bit.

But blaming women's education simply does not do it.
You have to see how expensive living is right now.
A person working in India with an aversge salary of 5.5 lakhs in the IT sector Will require 50 years to buy a small flat. The education cost per child is 5000 per month minimum for a decent private school, not to mention saving up for college fee.

Ideally one should be able to afford a flat by paying 5 years of loan that was the case in America in the 1950s.
America dream:-
Job by the age of 20 to 22.
Married by the age or 26
2 to 3 white kids.
House that can be paid of in 5 to 8 years.
A car that can be paid off in 2 to 3 years.
Holidays twice a year.
Savings enough to educate both kids.
Emergency funds in case of health issues.

One must not put the cart before the horse when doing a root cause analysis. This high cost of living due to inflation - which is caused by unlimited money printing and the petrodollar among other things - is the reason why woman are being told to pursue higher education and work in their most fertile years. People are most disingenuously trying to pass off a necessity as the exercise of an enlightened and liberated choice.
I think as far as living standards go the 50s in America was the absolute peak and represented that time period when you could have a very good lifestyle and raise a family on 1 income. It's been a steady decline since then. It's another debate on how sustainable that actually is/was though.
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
2,753
Likes
9,020
Country flag
Firstly the West did not transition from a bunch of backwater nations whose people lived without roofs to a nation with aeroplanes and automobiles. Knowledge transmission and preservation of ancient methods and techniques by the use of writing meant that the West never really lost past discoveries unlike India where a lot of knowledge had been lost due to Islamic invasions, colonial maltreatment of the native population , poor record keeping and oral transmission of ancient knowledge. The pre-modern West may have lagged behind ancient China and India in a lot of fields but the civilization that gave us Plato, Diogenes, Archimedes, Pythagoras and Aristotle was in no way an inferior civilization. It was the rediscovery of mainly Hellenic texts after the Fall of Byzantium that reinvigorated Western rational thinking and led to the Enlightenment.
Both the statements are true :
1. West didn't see destruction of knowledge as India and China did in its history
2. West transitioned from a backwards poor place 500 years ago to undergoing the greatest technological revolution in the history of mankind ( industrial revolution) and inventing aeroplanes with little to no womens'education.

Secondly about women`s education and development of a society, while most Western nations developed when women had little literacy, the West or westernized nations like Japan have seen far greater levels of prosperity when women entered the work force and got more rights. The claim that women`s education has no effect on the holistic development of a nation is weak and at best arguable.
Japanese women, like western women, entered the workforce en-masse during the second world war (for the west, it was the first world war). Remember, for Japan, the 2nd world war started in 1934.

The claim that women's education is irrelevant to development of a nation can be proven mathematically, since again, the greatest leap in japanese wealth & technology came during the Meiji restoration of 1880s, where in the 1880s-1930s period, women in japan had little to no education or participation in the workforce.

Ie, in BOTH the case of west & Japan, economic & technological development has been an exponential curve (mostly, with some stagnation in recent decades), where the y-axis is development, x-axis is time and women's participation & education in the workforce LITERALLY comes halfway or near the end ( in the case of the west) of the exponential graph on the x-axis. Ergo, it can be mathematically proven that women's participation in the workforce & education is NOT a driver for societal wealth or technological development.

Having got all that out of the way, the points I agree with are the decline of the West due to loss of traditional values and adoption of poor policies.

The Western civilization(the USA , France ,Britain and her colonies) was mainly built on the bed-rock of a few core values:

1. A spirit of scientific inquiry and rational outlook which was further supplemented by a spirit of entrepreneurship and wealth making.
2. Strong family values based on Judeo-Christian principles that promoted a sheltered nuclear family with a father and mother figure but still left enough room for individualism which in turn led to the fostering of discipline and self-actualization goals.
3. A fair judiciary and a relatively non corrupt, liberal society based once again on liberal Judeo-Christian ethos.
Correct, however, nuclear family is more of an anglo saxon family model- one does not need the nuclear family model to succeed, as the East Asian family models have shown. The core problem with the west is, it abandoned scientific enquiry and rationalism in favour of postmodernism, begining in the 70s and spread like wildfire in the 90s, while destroying their family model and not replacing it with any other proven successful family model, instead glorifying single parenthood- which is proven to be the LEAST successful family model.

The reason why the East fell behind the West was:
a. Policies of inward perfection and promotion of status quo as seen in Qing China where the Emperor was more worried about concubines rather than development of his nation. In Japan the same thing was observed during the Edo Period with a stratified feudalistic society.
b. An unhealthy stress on religious dogma as seen in the Middle East, Mughal India.
c. Finally this is a point I have mentioned earlier, the lack of passing down of knowledge of previous generations due to various factors.
The east fell behind the west for two reasons:
1. Destruction of knowledge during the Islamic & mongol invasions - Song China stood at the cusp of industrial revolution before the mongol devastation.
2. Europeans accidentally discovering the printing press, thus able to raise literacy massively in the society (from historical 5-7% to almost 30% in just over 150 years), allowing for a far greater actual intellectual prowess to be harnessed in scientific enquiry.


Now I admit that no one wants to live in a superstitious society where God and after life has to be the be all and end all of existence. Rather it is the preservation of family values which are more important. Without family values, the future generations come from poor broken families without father figures and lack of opportunities to rise up in society. A good example of this phenomena is the case of African American communities after 1960s. The points 2 and 3 that I had put as the reason for development of the West depends on the existence of a religion that promotes family values which in turn creates a stable, sustainable society. Nearly all religions promote procreation within the bounds of marriage so a religious society should never face a population decline as seen in the Westernized nations. Even in Japan and China which are much more conservative than the West it is the erosion of religious beliefs and a stress on personal satisfaction that has led to decline in fertility.
The problem facing the west, is the same problem facing Japan and the same problem middle east would face, if they abandoned Islam : A very totalitarian society with rigid belief system that is enforced harshly will regress : either through stagnation ( like Islamic golden age coming to an end) or through casting off of the fundamentalist shackles and throwing out the baby with the proverbial bath water.
For the west, its the militant and cruel abrahamic religions, with Japan it was the Bushido code that permeated all aspects of their pre-WW2 society. The effect is the same.


At the end of the day everyone needs to believe in something. Removal of religion does not solve anything but only creates more problems. A society based on rationality and common good is ideal but which nation has been able to do that. Most importantly the Western nations are even failing to force their cultures or assimilate their incoming population to their native customs and mores which has created a host of problems for them.
All religions are not made the same. Or rather, more to the point, Abrahamic religions are the broken, evil religions in the basket of religions and as their history has proven, they have dubious claims towards generating scientific & technological progress,where they've created a LOT of barriers towards science (such as anti-evolution or geocentrism etc) yet have been able to produce significant outbursts of scientific enquiry.
Most likely reason the west beat out arabia is due to christianity being a less extremist and more flexible of the abrahamic totalitarian credo,coupled with the printing press but while everyone needs to believe in something, the non abrahamic religions have proven themselves to be far superior in terms of virtually every aspect of life except for warfare: they are far more receptive towards sciences, they walk the fine balance of evolving ideals and conservatism and provide a template for a conservative, yet tolerant society.
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
2,753
Likes
9,020
Country flag
One must not put the cart before the horse when doing a root cause analysis. This high cost of living due to inflation - which is caused by unlimited money printing and the petrodollar among other things - is the reason why woman are being told to pursue higher education and work in their most fertile years. People are most disingenuously trying to pass off a necessity as the exercise of an enlightened and liberated choice.
I think as far as living standards go the 50s in America was the absolute peak and represented that time period when you could have a very good lifestyle and raise a family on 1 income. It's been a steady decline since then. It's another debate on how sustainable that actually is/was though.
America in the 50s-70s was a goldilocks zone that is simply unsustainable as an economic model : gold backed currency, meaning very little currency inflation, coupled with being the ONLY manufacturing power in the world, with the whole WORLD being their export market or investment market.

I am not making this up- i know people personally, who's parents made 35 dollars an hour in 1960s and 1970s- back when movie tickets were 2 dollars and a McDonald's meal for two was 5 bucks. The kind of jobs these people did ? screwdriver-giri in a car assembly line. Electrician. Data entry at an accounting firm.

You could raise kids on 1 income in USA all the way up to the 1980s. The only difference is, the boomer generation got to be millionares by today's standards doing average jobs, instilling this idea in their children and grandchildren, that all they have to do, to buy a house & a cabin, go to hawaii every year for vacation, retire at 60 and send both kids to university is finish high school and show up regularly to their job that takes 2 months training to get decent and maybe 1 year training to get masterful at.

And when this goldilocks period ended, the westerners simply couldnt reconcile them with reality. Hence so much angst and frustration in the western youth today, along with the towering entitlement towards stuff.
 

Roshan

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Messages
2,277
Likes
8,007
Country flag
I am not making this up- i know people personally, who's parents made 35 dollars an hour in 1960s and 1970s- back when movie tickets were 2 dollars and a McDonald's meal for two was 5 bucks. The kind of jobs these people did ? screwdriver-giri in a car assembly line. Electrician. Data entry at an accounting firm.

You could raise kids on 1 income in USA all the way up to the 1980s. The only difference is, the boomer generation got to be millionares by today's standards doing average jobs, instilling this idea in their children and grandchildren, that all they have to do, to buy a house & a cabin, go to hawaii every year for vacation, retire at 60 and send both kids to university is finish high school and show up regularly to their job that takes 2 months training to get decent and maybe 1 year training to get masterful at.
Yea It is quite believable. When you watch Hollywood movies or shows from the 50s or even early 60s it is replete with a certain sort of prosperity which more or less reflected the economic and social conditions of that halcyon period which was when supercharged consumerism began.
Beyond that the Vietnam war period saw the civil rights movement and sexual liberation movement comprising the 70s hippy 'counter culture movement' which is where you see identity politics enter the public consciousness in an irrevocably significant way whose effects are being felt even today and this was followed by them gradually deindustrializing to cut costs along with a transition toward becoming a service based economy.
Over the decades something else that happened was that the bar for admissions to most courses was lowered in even Ivy league universities which began this trend of acquiring degrees - often useless ones which won't help you get gainful employment anywhere - as a form of conspicuous consumption but it somehow went onto make education way more expensive than it ever was even when most people didn't get/needed University degrees.
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
Japanese women, like western women, entered the workforce en-masse during the second world war (for the west, it was the first world war). Remember, for Japan, the 2nd world war started in 1934.

The claim that women's education is irrelevant to development of a nation can be proven mathematically, since again, the greatest leap in japanese wealth & technology came during the Meiji restoration of 1880s, where in the 1880s-1930s period, women in japan had little to no education or participation in the workforce.

Ie, in BOTH the case of west & Japan, economic & technological development has been an exponential curve (mostly, with some stagnation in recent decades), where the y-axis is development, x-axis is time and women's participation & education in the workforce LITERALLY comes halfway or near the end ( in the case of the west) of the exponential graph on the x-axis. Ergo, it can be mathematically proven that women's participation in the workforce & education is NOT a driver for societal wealth or technological development.
I agree with a lot of your points but I have to disagree with some.

The thing is the process of women attaining higher education and entering the work force and its effect on the economic and technological development of a society can never be ascertained comprehensively. Every data is era based. We simply do not know what would have happened if women had attained higher levels of education and entered the workforce at an earlier date.

The only thing we can say for certain is that after women entered the workforce the Western nations have continued to enjoy their prosperity. In other words women`s workforce participation did not have a negative impact on the trajectory of the Western progress or even contributed to the Western progress in the modern era(1950`s to 1980`s).

On the other hand the examples of Meiji Japan or industrial revolution era Europe/US only show that women were not needed for the giant leap in the economic progress of these nations in that particular era(1700-1950`s). Woman`s participation was not required for these countries to achieve Industrial era growth but we can deduce nothing about the modern era. Also we simply do not know what would have happened if women did enter the workforce back then.

In fact you can replace WOMEN with non-white IMMIGRANTS and you would see where your argument is going. By the logic you have presented even immigrants are or were not needed for the West or Japan to grow and prosper. Most Nobel Prize winners in science in the 1900`s were men of White descent(mainly Germans from Weimar Republic till 1950s).

Let us take a step back and apply the scientific method to the argument. For us to fairly analyze and discern the impact of women`s workforce participation on the economic prosperity of a nation we have to take 2 sets of historical data. One where Western and Japanese women did not enter the workforce in 1700-1900 period(our real world data) and another one where Western and Japanese women did enter the workforce in 1700-1900(a parallel universe). The problem is where are you going to get the data of the parallel universe and compare the results of the two. It would simply be disingenuous to compare the data of two different eras and arrive at a conclusion. That is the reason why I said that the effect of women`s participation on the growth story of a nation is not so easy to determine.

If you only base your judgement on the data of two different eras where women entered the workforce then you are indirectly agreeing with the white racists on Storm-front and Ren who keep on bashing legal immigration and non-white people like us and claim that immigration never contributed to the Western growth story. In fact their arguments are as valid as the claim of women not affecting the Western growth story. The similar parallels can be drawn about black emancipation,positive discrimination in the West/India/Brazil and basically any phenomena where a minority group did not participate in the nation building process. The templates of the past are not applicable to those of the present and the future.

There is a reason why economists are never taken seriously by a lot of people in the world. They too end up
making future predictions and forecasts based on past historical data which often end up contradicting the actual outcomes in the present era. Let us not tread the path of white racists and shallow economists and make similar judgement about women and the workforce.
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
Yea It is quite believable. When you watch Hollywood movies or shows from the 50s or even early 60s it is replete with a certain sort of prosperity which more or less reflected the economic and social conditions of that halcyon period which was when supercharged consumerism began.
Beyond that the Vietnam war period saw the civil rights movement and sexual liberation movement comprising the 70s hippy 'counter culture movement' which is where you see identity politics enter the public consciousness in an irrevocably significant way whose effects are being felt even today and this was followed by them gradually deindustrializing to cut costs along with a transition toward becoming a service based economy.
Over the decades something else that happened was that the bar for admissions to most courses was lowered in even Ivy league universities which began this trend of acquiring degrees - often useless ones which won't help you get gainful employment anywhere - as a form of conspicuous consumption but it somehow went onto make education way more expensive than it ever was even when most people didn't get/needed University degrees.
The thing is Americans are richer and more prosperous than they have ever been. Their poverty levels have been the lowest since 1950`s and probably beyond. Personally I do not trust the numbers and I believe it was the early 1970`s before stagflation hit America when the US was truly the 'shining city on a hill'. However from what I have observed till now in my stay here I have not seen any levels of abject poverty here barring a few spots in Black neighbourhoods or illegal immigrant(Latin X or Venezuela-Paraguayan) ghettos.



On the other hand in the 1930s and even in 1950s, we have

their-mother-was-pregnant-when-she-sold-her-kids-and-later-sold-the-baby-she-birthed-photo-u2.jpeg




migrant_mother_nypl_1920x1080.jpg



In the 60s we had the Hippies.

Members-Road-Hog-commune-Fourth-of-July-July-1968.jpg


The thing is anyone who claims America of 1930`s and early 1950`s was an Utopian paradise compared to America now is bonkers. I do not think we are arguing for what America is presently but what it is going to be in the FUTURE(say 50-100 years) till now if things stand in this way. Obviously the future can never be predicted and there may be disruptive technological progress that changes everything. The thing we have to see is how happy and satisfied Americans were in the past compared to the present.


However Americans of past generations despite being poor were happy as compared to the present generations. Americans today are basically extracting the benefits of what their great forefathers did and achieved. Sadly the current generation is slagging off way too much and their current Karma is bound to hit back on them. Real wages are falling off fast and out of wed lock births are giving rise to violent INCELs who carry out school shootings on a whim. Promotion of neo-capitalist ideals means America is soon going to end up like South Korea. The only saving grace would be the hardworking assimilating immigrants who may turn the tide around. Once again I would not predict the future but things surely do not look so hunky dore in Merica now.
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
2,753
Likes
9,020
Country flag
I agree with a lot of your points but I have to disagree with some.

The thing is the process of women attaining higher education and entering the work force and its effect on the economic and technological development of a society can never be ascertained comprehensively. Every data is era based. We simply do not know what would have happened if women had attained higher levels of education and entered the workforce at an earlier date.
But that is IRRELEVANT. As i said, if you take east Asia & Europe as benchmarks, with x-axis being time and y-axis being societal wealth & technological development, we get an approximate linear/exponential curve, with women's education and entering the workforce coming at mid/late point of the graph and yeilding no significant greater increase, as the highest rate of technological development still is the 1800s ( industrial revolution)for europe and 1900s-1970s for East Asia, a time when women were barely present in the workforce and had less than 25% literacy.

Mathematically, you CANNOT say variable Z has an impact on an exponential/linear equation, when Z enters the picture near the middle or END point of the graph and has no discernable impact on it. That is decisive, with zero room for debate.

The only thing we can say for certain is that after women entered the workforce the Western nations have continued to enjoy their prosperity. In other words women`s workforce participation did not have a negative impact on the trajectory of the Western progress or even contributed to the Western progress in the modern era(1950`s to 1980`s).
And that is why i haven't discouraged women's education & work force entry, because its IRRELEVANT to prosperity and progress, not a negative outcome.

On the other hand the examples of Meiji Japan or industrial revolution era Europe/US only show that women were not needed for the giant leap in the economic progress of these nations in that particular era(1700-1950`s). Woman`s participation was not required for these countries to achieve Industrial era growth but we can deduce nothing about the modern era. Also we simply do not know what would have happened if women did enter the workforce back then.
Ofcourse we can. We can deduce that women's participation is not required for technological & economic growth. Even in the modern world we have hyper-rich nations like gulf arab nations that are prosperous with near zero participation of women in the workforce.

In fact you can replace WOMEN with non-white IMMIGRANTS and you would see where your argument is going. By the logic you have presented even immigrants are or were not needed for the West or Japan to grow and prosper. Most Nobel Prize winners in science in the 1900`s were men of White descent(mainly Germans from Weimar Republic till 1950s).
They were not needed. But they are needed now because of two factors:
1. white people do not breed enough to maintain population, which is critical to economic growth
2. immigrants who are not conquerors, for the first time in recorded history, are outperforming natives of the land (whites) in virtually every positive benchmark known to man.

Let us take a step back and apply the scientific method to the argument. For us to fairly analyze and discern the impact of women`s workforce participation on the economic prosperity of a nation we have to take 2 sets of historical data. One where Western and Japanese women did not enter the workforce in 1700-1900 period(our real world data) and another one where Western and Japanese women did enter the workforce in 1700-1900(a parallel universe). The problem is where are you going to get the data of the parallel universe and compare the results of the two. It would simply be disingenuous to compare the data of two different eras and arrive at a conclusion. That is the reason why I said that the effect of women`s participation on the growth story of a nation is not so easy to determine.
Your argument is unscientific, because this is not an experiment with unknown controls, this is an actual analysis of data that is present. we can and most definitely say what are the drivers for societal growth/societal decay, provided that data is present and we can also say what factors are irrelevant to it.

Era is not relevant. There is zero relevance of 'era' to the notion of what societal factors influence growth/decay economically or technologically, since the factors are effectively the same. The same factors that lead to industrial revolution in England in late 1700s were present in Song China at the eve of Mongol invasion, Meiji Japan in 1880s, etc.
Because these factors are to do with societal organisation, literacy rates, ability to collate knowledge & ability to implement new technologies easily in the society as a matter of policy. Those don't change based on whether its 1700s, 1900s or 2500.

If you only base your judgement on the data of two different eras where women entered the workforce then you are indirectly agreeing with the white racists on Storm-front and Ren who keep on bashing legal immigration and non-white people like us and claim that immigration never contributed to the Western growth story. In fact their arguments are as valid as the claim of women not affecting the Western growth story. The similar parallels can be drawn about black emancipation,positive discrimination in the West/India/Brazil and basically any phenomena where a minority group did not participate in the nation building process. The templates of the past are not applicable to those of the present and the future.
No, their arguments are invalid because of the two factors outlined above.
If whites can attain 2.1 birth per woman and match non-whites in education, low crime rate, high family success rate, low substance abuse rates, then yes,immigration becomes unnecessary for western world.


There is a reason why economists are never taken seriously by a lot of people in the world. They too end up
making future predictions and forecasts based on past historical data which often end up contradicting the actual outcomes in the present era. Let us not tread the path of white racists and shallow economists and make similar judgement about women and the workforce.
I am not an economist. I am a mathematician turned code coolie, with a strong knowledge of history.
Data is data and the data is comprehensive - women's participation in workforce & women's education are irrelevant to societal development economically & technologically. That has been observed in multiple different societies in multiple different periods of time.
So the data is comprehensive in lack of impact of women's emancipation on these issues.
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
2,753
Likes
9,020
Country flag
The thing is Americans are richer and more prosperous than they have ever been. Their poverty levels have been the lowest since 1950`s and probably beyond. Personally I do not trust the numbers and I believe it was the early 1970`s before stagflation hit America when the US was truly the 'shining city on a hill'. However from what I have observed till now in my stay here I have not seen any levels of abject poverty here barring a few spots in Black neighbourhoods or illegal immigrant(Latin X or Venezuela-Paraguayan) ghettos.






The thing is anyone who claims America of 1930`s and early 1950`s was an Utopian paradise compared to America now is bonkers. I do not think we are arguing for what America is presently but what it is going to be in the FUTURE(say 50-100 years) till now if things stand in this way. Obviously the future can never be predicted and there may be disruptive technological progress that changes everything. The thing we have to see is how happy and satisfied Americans were in the past compared to the present.



However Americans of past generations despite being poor were happy as compared to the present generations. Americans today are basically extracting the benefits of what their great forefathers did and achieved. Sadly the current generation is slagging off way too much and their current Karma is bound to hit back on them. Real wages are falling off fast and out of wed lock births are giving rise to violent INCELs who carry out school shootings on a whim. Promotion of neo-capitalist ideals means America is soon going to end up like South Korea. The only saving grace would be the hardworking assimilating immigrants who may turn the tide around. Once again I would not predict the future but things surely do not look so hunky dore in Merica now.

The difference between America now and America in the 40s-70s, is that the American middle class was much, much bigger in the prior period, while being much, much richer comparatively.

What you effectively have in USA now, is a much stronger & richer plutocrat class ( enabled by Raeganism mainly), the impoverished class has been massively reduced, but at the cost of middle class wealth.

What you had in the US in the goldilocks period, is effectively a 15% class of dirt poor people, 5% class of very very rich people and 80% class of rich people.
What you have now, is 5% class of dirt poor people, 50% class of almost poor people, 40% class of average people and 5% class of ZOMFG 'can buy an entire country if i want' plutocrat people.

Oh and assimilation is slowly coming to an end and i see no reason to assimilate into the host cultures of anglosphere. Their values are inferior to ours, their performances are inferior to ours ( and by ours, i don't mean just Indian, i mean nearly ALL asian, which is 60% of humanity) and they can't sustain their numbers. So they should be culturally and ethnically replaced by us, not us turning into house negroes and trading in our superior values for their shittier ones.
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
But that is IRRELEVANT. As i said, if you take east Asia & Europe as benchmarks, with x-axis being time and y-axis being societal wealth & technological development, we get an approximate linear/exponential curve, with women's education and entering the workforce coming at mid/late point of the graph and yeilding no significant greater increase, as the highest rate of technological development still is the 1800s ( industrial revolution)for europe and 1900s-1970s for East Asia, a time when women were barely present in the workforce and had less than 25% literacy.

Mathematically, you CANNOT say variable Z has an impact on an exponential/linear equation, when Z enters the picture near the middle or END point of the graph and has no discernable impact on it. That is decisive, with zero room for debate.



And that is why i haven't discouraged women's education & work force entry, because its IRRELEVANT to prosperity and progress, not a negative outcome.



Ofcourse we can. We can deduce that women's participation is not required for technological & economic growth. Even in the modern world we have hyper-rich nations like gulf arab nations that are prosperous with near zero participation of women in the workforce.



They were not needed. But they are needed now because of two factors:
1. white people do not breed enough to maintain population, which is critical to economic growth
2. immigrants who are not conquerors, for the first time in recorded history, are outperforming natives of the land (whites) in virtually every positive benchmark known to man.



Your argument is unscientific, because this is not an experiment with unknown controls, this is an actual analysis of data that is present. we can and most definitely say what are the drivers for societal growth/societal decay, provided that data is present and we can also say what factors are irrelevant to it.

Era is not relevant. There is zero relevance of 'era' to the notion of what societal factors influence growth/decay economically or technologically, since the factors are effectively the same. The same factors that lead to industrial revolution in England in late 1700s were present in Song China at the eve of Mongol invasion, Meiji Japan in 1880s, etc.
Because these factors are to do with societal organisation, literacy rates, ability to collate knowledge & ability to implement new technologies easily in the society as a matter of policy. Those don't change based on whether its 1700s, 1900s or 2500.



No, their arguments are invalid because of the two factors outlined above.
If whites can attain 2.1 birth per woman and match non-whites in education, low crime rate, high family success rate, low substance abuse rates, then yes,immigration becomes unnecessary for western world.




I am not an economist. I am a mathematician turned code coolie, with a strong knowledge of history.
Data is data and the data is comprehensive - women's participation in workforce & women's education are irrelevant to societal development economically & technologically. That has been observed in multiple different societies in multiple different periods of time.
So the data is comprehensive in lack of impact of women's emancipation on these issues.
I believe we can keep on arguing about this till the end of time. I am also a computer science student with an interest/work ex in data science/AI/ML etc I think we are arguing about different things particularly whether women are needed in the workforce or if they should be encouraged to join the workforce.

The point I am making is very simple, we have data(historical data) that women`s lack of participation did not contribute to the economic growth of the West or Japan in the 1700-1950`s era. However we have no way of determining what would have been the case if women did join the workforce. I can simply make the claim that it would have led to faster growth and wealth generation that what happened in actual history. In fact America and the West are much wealthier with women in the work force than they were in the past. However I am very stingy to make such a conclusion.

As for the example of the growth curve you have given, one can easily raise a counterpoint that while the growth curve has remained the same(linear/exponential) it did so simply because women joined the workforce. Without women it would have nose dived. Every growth curve tends to plateau out at some point but since the last 2008 recession America has seen a annual growth in GDP before the pandemic hit. A feminist might simply point out that this was due to women having a greater role in the American workforce than they previously did.

As for Middle Eastern nations their success story is simply based on exploitation of oil resources and nothing else. Take that out of the equation and you would see everything falls apart. If renewable energy indeed becomes viable they would be poorer than sub-Saharan countries unless they miraculously diversify their economies.

Also `era' is relevant. The factors which drove industrial growth in the 1700`s were fundamentally different than that of 1900`s era. The world has become more tech oriented and desk jobs now contribute a significant portion to the GDP of a nation than it was in the 1700`s or 1800`s when brawns were more important than brains. Women can now work and stand on an equal footing in desk oriented jobs than they could previously do in earlier eras when winning wars with sheer masculine strength was more important. AI would fundamentally disrupt the future generations`s lives and we are yet to know what would happen in the future.

Just take a look at the science Nobel Prize Winners and you will observe how many Nobel Prize winners are women nowadays. A well trained female coder is as good as a male one in modern times. However would a female soldier be as effective as a male youth during the colonial era ?

Anyway we are talking about social sciences and data analysis works poorly on most of them We can keep on arguing till the sun cools off and we die a heat death.

I respect your opinions and values(I even agree with most of your points) but let us agree to disagree.
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
2,753
Likes
9,020
Country flag
The point I am making is very simple, we have data(historical data) that women`s lack of participation did not contribute to the economic growth of the West or Japan in the 1700-1950`s era. However we have no way of determining what would have been the case if women did join the workforce. I can simply make the claim that it would have led to faster growth and wealth generation that what happened in actual history. In fact America and the West are much wealthier with women in the work force than they were in the past. However I am very stingy to make such a conclusion.
1. The conclusion that is unavoidable from data is that women's participation in the workforce was irrelevant to economic & technological growth
2. Your claim that it would've lead to faster growth & wealth generation is unsupportable, since we DO have western data for nearly 100 years of women's participation in the workforce (as well as 40+ years for east Asia) and neither of these periods represent the fastest wealth & technological growth of these societies.

3. America & the west being much wealthier with women in the work force is again, a correlative observation. In the era of fiat money, wealth will ALWAYS increase (along with corresponding decrease in value of money), barring any real great depression-esque shocks.


As for the example of the growth curve you have given, one can easily raise a counterpoint that while the growth curve has remained the same(linear/exponential) it did so simply because women joined the workforce. Without women it would have nose dived. Every growth curve tends to plateau out at some point but since the last 2008 recession America has seen a annual growth in GDP before the pandemic hit. A feminist might simply point out that this was due to women having a greater role in the American workforce than they previously did.
This is mathematically absurd. If variable Z is introduced at X+T location in the X-axis ( representing time) and has no discernable effect on the Y-axis ( growth), then the conclusion that 'without Z, we would have felt an impact on Y-axis' is mathematically unsupportable.

As for Middle Eastern nations their success story is simply based on exploitation of oil resources and nothing else. Take that out of the equation and you would see everything falls apart. If renewable energy indeed becomes viable they would be poorer than sub-Saharan countries unless they miraculously diversify their economies.
Renewable energy becoming viable for the developing world is simply not going to happen in my grandkid's lifetime, nevermind mine. And whether they are exploiting oil or turning into a manufacturing hub is irrelevant. What is relevant, is that it sees near zero participation of women in the workforce.


Also `era' is relevant. The factors which drove industrial growth in the 1700`s were fundamentally different than that of 1900`s era. The world has become more tech oriented and desk jobs now contribute a significant portion to the GDP of a nation than it was in the 1700`s or 1800`s when brawns were more important than brains. Women can now work and stand on an equal footing in desk oriented jobs than they could previously do in earlier eras when winning wars with sheer masculine strength was more important. AI would fundamentally disrupt the future generations`s lives and we are yet to know what would happen in the future.
This is nonsense. Management & desk jobs are integral part of ALL manufacturing sectors. The legions of British clerks who were replaced by Indian clerks in the carribean plantation were all desk jockeys. Sure, with fiat money industry, the financial sector has expanded and there are more opportunities for desk jobs, but there are very very few industrial jobs that require brute force. The bulk majority of industrial jobs is fabrication, which is screwdriver-giri. men and women can do that equally just fine, yet women were not required for it.

Just take a look at the science Nobel Prize Winners and you will observe how many Nobel Prize winners are women nowadays. A well trained female coder is as good as a male one in modern times. However would a female soldier be as effective as a male youth during the colonial era ?
Soldier is irrelevant to industrial workforce. take a look at manufacturing sector and you will find less than 5% of jobs is ' muscular guy lifting 50kg iron chunks for work or hammering a sledgehammer like a blacksmith'. Most of it is joining little parts to other little parts on a conveyor belt.


I respect your opinions and values(I even agree with most of your points) but let us agree to disagree.
ok
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top