Cultural individualism and businesses

https://www.ecfed2018.unican.es/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Empreendedorismo-20180530-Daisy.pdf
Individualism, Culture and Entrepreneurial Opportunities*

brb altering history

The present paper evaluates the effect of living in an individualistic society on
entrepreneurial opportunities, using cross-country data from the GEDI. Individualism
is one of the five cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede (2001) and it is considered
by intercultural psychologists the main dimension of cultural variation. For individualism is a cultural trait that emphasizes freedom and rewards one’s own personal
achievements, it increases the propensity to open new businesses and realize own ideas,
despite the possibility of failure. So as to prevent reverse causality between individualism and entrepreneurial activity, we use the frequency of blood types and other
genetic data as instruments. The data show a positive and highly significant effect
of individualism on entrepreneurship, even after controlling for education, religion,
fertility, unemployment, the ease of doing business, networking, among others.

Economists try to pretend the race-culture connection isn’t important but….

I screencapped.

Look at ‘lil Venezuela down there, I wonder what will happen to them?

This is why Trump doing the trade war is a genius move. THIS.

In countries with more individualistic cultural characteristics, they have a predominance of individuals seeking potentially better opportunities to conduct an initial business, as well as characteristics with a greater perception of entrepreneurial opportunity. Similarly, Figure 5 suggests that countries with
more individualistic cultures often have greater opportunities to start a business. As for example, Canada, United States, Great Britain and Australia. The ten countries with the highest GEI index in 2017 were: the USA, Switzerland, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands.

I wonder what THEY have in common.

1950s GDP: not race (only) but cultural individualism.

Therefore, it measures the quality of entrepreneurship, as we are concerned with the quality of entrepreneurship: the entrepreneur driven by opportunities that generate commercial success. The definition of entrepreneurship that we will adopt is related to job creation and growth through innovation.

aka GDP, real ingroup gains

No, Asians can’t take over capitalism. That can literally never happen.

They’re collectivists, they get crony capitalism, they’ll fuck it up.

We just have to survive that.

I wonder what this figure indicates…

Yes.

You’ve got me.

Yes, this is definitely my opinion.

My educated opinion.

As you can see, I am very jelly.

Thus, the most appropriate model for the analysis of the effect of entrepreneurial activity on individualism is that of column (5).

Considering the above-identified situation of a possible endogeneity between the variables, instrumental fractional variables were included for the econometric analysis. This process requires variables that are related to individualism, but not to entrepreneurial activity.
This hypothesis is sufficient so that the causal relation can be established in the proper direction. Thus, for individualism we use the blood distance of Mahalanobis and the pathogenic genes according to Gorodnichenko and Roland (2017). In table 2, the individualism and each possibility of instrument: distM-UK and mean of pathogens, which are, respectively, Mahalanobis blood distance between the country in England and the mean of the presence of the nine genes pathogens considered relevant to Murray’s individualist collectivist analysis: leishmaniasis, trypanosomes, malaria, schistosomiasis, filaria, leprosy,dengue, typhus and tuberculosis.

My opinion, clearly.

I magically altered their blood, to lie.

I can do that.

The relationship is negative, because it suggests that the closer to the entrepreneurial country, the more individualistic the culture will be.

Table 3 includes some more control variables, particularly related to institutions and their long-run effect on development. Precisely due to their persistence, it is important to separate the effect of culture from institutions as good as possible, although this it is a difficult matter and still an ample field of research (Gorodnichenko and Roland 2017; Spolaore and Wacziarg 2013)

Muh opinion, clearly.

I’m just jealous of cultures that enslave their children to make my phone.

Table 4 repeats our preferred estimation, the fractional probit instrumental variable model,
for a number of subsamples. On the one hand, the sample is divided into countries that
experienced European colonization and those that did not. The former may have suffered
a mixture of cultures that is not captured by the genetic data. Therefore, if any, we expect
the effect of individualism to be stronger and more precise in the latter subsample.

To sum up, we find remarkably few differences in the magnitude of the individualism index
across the estimations in tables 3 and 4. In fact, the point estimate is not statistically
different from the baseline regressions in table 2 and in all of the seven estimation do
we obtain a positive and significant effect of individualism on the opportunity to start a
business.

The argument for muh civic nationalism, muh brain drain immigration is a pack of lies.

They are not the same as us.

The present paper evaluated the hypothesis that individualism can influence the entrepreneurial activity, accounting for cross-country differences in education, religion, fertility, unemployment, ease of opening a company and networking. The data shows a strong and remarkably robust relationship between living in an individualistic culture and entrepreneurship.

Things libertarians pretend to give a shit about.

The West is WEIRD – nobody else.

Although one should be careful in interpreting our results as causal, our estimates of fractional probit instrumental variable approach suggests a plausible interpretation of this relationship. We explored other potentially important channels in determining entrepreneurial activity.
The effect may potentially be confounded by geography, climate conditions, or through European colonization, as well as through persistent institutions, such as the risk of expropriation. In addition, the influence of the culture dimension of individualism was tested separately for each group of countries belonging to the OECD or not. It was concluded that the effects remained positive and significant, confirming the validity of the results and of the instruments.
Finally, the perceptions of the opportunity to start a business are different from society
to society, so the origin of these differences and their influences is important. Thus, this
article thus complements the studies on entrepreneurship (Pinillos and Reyes (2011), Liñán
and Fernandez-Serrano (2014), Dheer (2017), Doepke and Zilibotti (2014), Laskovaia et al.
(2017) and Nikolaev et al. (2018).

Ya snooze, ya lose.

Top-ranked IQ nations by continent

I decided to fool around with numbers again, see what turns up.

Source, first to pop up when I looked.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

I stopped at a ranking of nineteen because I’m lazy.
Taking the scores as approximately writ….

it varies greatly, little self-report and few biased metrics so I believe it.

ASIATIC
Singapore 108
South Korea 106
Japan 105
Mongolia 101
China 100 This, I believe. Based on their actual performance, not transcript.
Israel (I checked) 95
Armenia 94
Kazakhstan 94
Vietnam 94
Malaysia 92
Brunei 91
Cambodia 91
Thailand 91
Kyrgyzstan 90
Turkey 90
Laos 89

108+106+105+101+100+95+94+94+94+92+91+91+91+90+90+89 / 16

1531 / 16 = 95.6875.

Okay, let’s look at the top 16 nations in Europe.
For fairness.

EUROPE
Italy 102
Iceland 101
Switzerland 101
Austria 100
Luxembourg 100
Netherlands 100
Norway 100
UK 100
Belgium 99
Estonia 99
Finland 99
Germany 99
Poland 99
Sweden 99
Andorra 98
Czech Republic 98
Denmark 98
France 98
Hungary 98
Latvia 98
Spain 98
Belarus 97
Malta 97
Russia (because it’s basically White) 97
Ukraine 97
Moldova 96
Slovakia 96
Slovenia 96
Portugal 95
Georgia (checked) 94
Romania 94
Bulgaria 93
Greece 92
Ireland 92
Cyprus 91
FYROM 91
Lithuania 91
Albania 90
Bosnia and Herzegovina 90
Croatia 90
Mauritius 89
Serbia 89

102+101+101+100+100+100+100+100+99+99+99+99+99+99+98+98 / 16

1594 / 16 = 99.62500

AMERICAS, two continents joined by land borders
Canada 99
USA 98
Uruguay 96
Argentina 93
Chile 90
Costa Rica 89
Suriname 89
Ecuador 88
Mexico 88

OCEANIC
New Zealand 99
Cook Islands 89
Samoa 88

AUSTRALIA
Australia 98

AFRICA
Sierra Leone 91

I am surprised.

I’m leaving these numbers up so I can come back to them but the averages by continent (and presumably, race) are not impressive.

It’s sort of shoots the Asian supremacy myth in the foot when the most basic descriptive data handling debunks it.
None of you bothered to do this?

Remember, these differences are genetic, you can see them on MRI.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/Race-differences-in-average-IQ-are-largely-genetic.aspx

Le Pen’s loss and the death of civic nationalism

It simply isn’t enough to appease the workers anymore.

http://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/darkstream-no-vindication-for.html

Le Pen didn’t win among her core for cucking to the EU on the Euro (look it up) and softening up her father’s policies before taking the title in nepotism (ew), that’s why she left her party shortly before the election. If they knew she didn’t win for being too soft, the Guardian et al would NOT be celebrating. She represented civic nationalism, and its day is done.

It’s either another Revolution or bust, quite literally. They have no money.
They’re spending like a billionaire on a middle-class income.

They deserve to fall.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/frances-long-stalemate-is-on-the-verge-of-a-complete-breakdown/#

“In short, precisely because of its turbulent political history, France has developed a series of barriers against radical change. A leading sociologist, Michel Crozier, described it in 1970 as a ‘société bloquée’ — a ‘stalemate society’. Of course, much in France does change: but the price of political stability is that certain fundamental rights and privileges remain untouched. Advantageous retirement rights and pensions. Certain influential professions. Farmers, sheltered by the Common Agricultural Policy. People in permanent employment, protected by laws penalising redundancy and limiting hours of work. The public sector — in French le service public, significantly in the singular — is the core of this system: schools, public hospitals, railways, universities, local government, the post office. All are arms of the state. Think of le service public as the NHS multiplied by five. The politics of its workforce, combining a real sense of public service with a jealous defence of rights and privileges, explains why France is the most anti-capitalist country in Europe.”

They deserve what they get.
Politics isn’t enough to reverse their damage anymore.

Their pensions are basically the most indulgent in the EU behind Greece and Italy and aren’t they doing well?

“Even in the 1980s President Mitterrand lamented national ‘moroseness’. Bookshops have long been piled high with works by economists, politicians and academics warning that France was in accelerating decline. Young people emigrate, over 200,000 to London alone.
On top of this chronic malaise has come the tension between republican secularism and Islam, sparked off three decades ago by a row about girls wearing headscarves in a provincial secondary school. It is a fraught mixture of cultural difference, social deprivation and historic mistrust, but none can doubt its brooding presence, hugely inflamed by a series of terrorist attacks. Had I risked forgetting this, I would have been dramatically reminded a few weeks ago when in a quiet street in Paris I walked into a 25-man military patrol in full combat gear.
None of these observations is unique to France. Characteristic of France, however, is the seeming inability of the political system to do much about them, even over many years.”

People get the Government they deserve. The French people now know that the Left is the enemy and will rally against their false opposition to prevent democracy, if it doesn’t go their way. This is valuable information for the fall of the EU. If the new French citizens didn’t have a vote, Le Pen would’ve probably won. Again, useful information on how the Left engages in racial replacement.

“Marine Le Pen thunders against free trade and ‘unfair’ competition. The very word ‘liberal’ has long been a political kiss of death: we shall see whether Macron is immune. So there is widespread dissatisfaction, but no accepted solution.”

She’s a socialist, no wonder the bitch wasn’t endorsed by her own father. Corruption is rife, they’re like Greece. French culture’s been dead for decades.

They cannot survive outside the EU without a capitalist.

She has added to her nationalist agenda vehement denunciation of the European Union as a foreign capitalist plot. Nearly the whole French establishment unquestioningly accepts the EU as France’s historic destiny. The Front National’s denunciation makes support for it a shibboleth of progressive values.”

They deserve this.

The EU is full of Communists. Literally, European Parliament is stuffed with former Commies.

“Polls indicate that two thirds of conservative voters still support him. How many of the other third might defect to Le Pen?”

Her final polling? About a third.

Lower turnout than the last election. Workers on strike.

Many of the right abstained because she could only be considered right-wing in France.

“Emmanuel Macron, will win in the second round. This would gain him goodwill and authority — for a time. But his, and France’s, problems would not be over. He is committed to liberal economic reforms likely to arouse widespread and even turbulent opposition. He is a one-man band, and established politicians of right and left have an interest in his failure. He himself will have won only because people who dislike him have seen him as a barrier to Le Pen. She will probably get a higher vote than ever and will continue working inexorably towards the next election. A French friend recently said to me, ‘I am not voting for anyone. I’m only voting against.’ This is the depressing mantra of French politics today.”

Don’t bother with the flag filters, they need a few more enrichments before the reality kicks in.
This is their new normal.
They are Malmo 2.