On Aug 19, 7:22 pm, Marcus Aurelius
hotmail.com> wrote:> RichAsianKidwrote:
>> On Aug 19, 12:46 am, Marcus Aurelius
hotmail.com> wrote:>>> On Aug 18, 8:19 pm,RichAsianKid
hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>>> Posted before - will post to these newgroups here.
>
>
>>>> I append the above reference to show that what he said the following
>>>> is perhaps more measured &
>>>> *critically* analyzed, and hence even more likely to be true:
>
>>>> Featured Audio Link. Fast forward to the 35 minute mark (Windows Media
>>>> Player) and then start
>>>> listening:
>
>
>
>>> "A nationwide study found that people of below average intelligence
>>> were, overall, just about as wealthy as those in similar circumstances
>>> but with higher scores on an IQ test."
>
>>> "Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth. And being very
>>> smart does not protect you from getting into financial difficulty..."
>>> ---
>
>>> Adi Anant
>
>> (1)
>> Saw that study before, it's not news, but you forgot to quote what's
>> also found in the same study and confirmed by many others:
>
>> "The one financial indicator in which the study found it paid to be
>> smart was income. Those with higher IQ scores tended to get paid more
>> than others."
>
>> AND
>
>> "This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ
>> score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of
>> society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year."
>
>> (2)
>> Besides the study's on a micro level. The link I gave was referring to
>> a macro level - you should not confuse the two - there's a difference,
>> hope you're not confused. I.e. one's between countries, the other
>> one's within a country. And as a matter of fact, in the second section
>> of the program, IQ and global inequality is precisely talking about
>> income (GDP) - and not net worth.
>
>> (3)
>> But since you brought up net worth/wealth albeit in a different
>> context, as a matter of fact, according to the UN-WIDER study released
>> in December 2006, Japan is the richest country in the world - an
>> average adult is worth roughly $180k US exchange rates (i.e. not
>> income, but net worth) -- that is: **** worth over 160 times that of
>> an average low IQ Indian in India.****
>
>> Bwahahaha!!!
>
>> Don't know about you; if you have just 1 million and your neighbor has
>> 160 million, hey hey, that's quite a bit of a difference don't you
>> think? I mean, would you rather be a rich average high IQ Japanese or
>> a poor low IQ Indian in India? (Second Place: High IQ Hong Kong, at
>> roughly $173K per person if you include countries with survey data)
>
>
>> It divides countries in the world according to high income, high
>> middle income, middle income, low middle income, and low income.
>
>> Look at where all the NE ASian countries (except China and NK of
>> course): all "high income" countries - HK, Singapore, Japan, SK,
>> Taiwan. Those SE Asian countries with lower IQ do worse.
>
>> But where is low IQ India? Not high income. Not high middle income.
>> Not middle income. Not low middle income. But LOW INCOME country, same
>> bracket as all those subsaharan African countries!
>
>> I.e. India can't really go any lower in this classification system!!
>
>> Bwahahah!!!! Low IQ India! Low IQ India! You're the laughing stock of
>> the world at your 60th birthday. Confirmed by:
>
>
>> AND
>
>
>> Even third world China is now low middle income, higher than India.
>> Sad.
>
>> (3) Book smart does not equal street smart; I'd be damned if I get a
>> professor job; greater opportunities lie elsewhere, cliche's true that
>> smart people don't work for money but make money work for them.
>
>> And yes, RAK's IQ percentile is actually lower than his socioeconomic
>> percentile. :(
>
>> But then perhaps that's why RAK's very happy and content. :)
>
> RetardAK is neither happy, nor content, nor smart either.
>
> Does the retardAK even know the difference between correlation,
> causation and coincidence?
> Does the retardAK even know correlations that change with time are
> coincidental?
> Does the retardAK even know that technology is a disruptive and
> asymmetrical force in wealth accumulation?
> Does the retardAK even know that comparing wealth generation to wealth
> accumulation is nonsense?
> Does the retardAK even know ANYTHING about the subjects that he spams
> the newsgroups with?
>
> No. The retardAK does not.
>
> RetardAK is like a hunchback who has built fantasies to avoid reality
> of his own shortcomings.
> RetardAK is a pathetic non-entity.
>
> Adi Anant
First, any poster will have to love your ad hominems as a way of
conceding that Adi Anant has no answer. Please call RichAsianKid even
more names. What a blatant concession that Adi Anant has absolutely no
reply of why low IQ India is still mired in abject poverty on its 60th
anniversary! Too bad so many Indians don't have an answer either. For
if they do, they'd probably be much richer by now.
Scream and yell and release your anger haha! It won't change the fact
that India is a very very poor country on its 60th birthday/
anniversary. Hate to burst your bubble. Why not just admit it and be
honest for once?
Besides, who's the one who *first* brought up a study on wealth
accumulation in this thread anyway? Hmmmm? And if comparing wealth
generation and wealth accumulation is nonsense, who's the one who
brought up a nonsense study in the first place? Hmmmmm???
In any case, let's forget about wealth accumulation. Let's talk about
income then. How will you explain the following to posters?
Why is India so pathetic that an estimated 836 million Indians (77%% of
the population) make less than US $0.50 per day according to the
latest study from the National Commission for Enterprises in the
Unorganised Sector (NCEUS)?????
From August 10th, 2007
http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/10/stories/2007081056671600.htm
How do you explain that?
