It has been long observed that Orientals are unscrutable, bio!

Hungary would be positioned in the same place if it became almost empty and was recently repopulated from the neighboring countries. Fascinating.

The demographic history of Hungary is not so simple as you presume. The conquest of the area by the Hungarian tribes meant drastic depopulation, as was usual when Asiatic nomads conquered settled territories. The country suffered a short Mongol invasion in the 13th century, causing the loss of about 30% of the population and the extermination of the warrior classes, that is, the Hungarians. Between the 15th and 18th centuries the country was in permanent war. After the liberation from the Turkish occupation, the country was almost empty with a tiny group of large Hungarian speaking landowners. The country was opened up to immigration, with hundreds of thousands Eastern Germans (and Jews from Galitzia) settling in the 18 and 19th centuries. The current population is descended, in its mass, from these immigrants and not from the original native pre-Hungarian population.

"Look at these pictures of broken-down cars. Isn't that terrible! Please give me $500 so I can do some different kinds of fixin'." 
 
You are misrepresenting the message. The pictures show hungry, diseased children, and the message is got donate money for feeding and caring for them.  
 
Food (rice, wheat, dry milk) is very cheap, so the actual feeding of large populations can be done with little expense. Most of Gaza and many in the Third World are living from charity for generations.  
 
People should be fed in emergencies like drought or war, but creating bureaucratic institutions (UNRWA is now 60 years old) is wrong.

The medical profession always had the smartest people around. When the Black Death epidemy hit Italy, the King asked the University of Paris for a report about what it was and what to do. The doctors of philosophy produced very sensible and practical recommendations and the illustrated classes mostly escaped the plague.

Of course you are right and the flow of genes becomes general as organisms get smaller and "simpler". At the bacteria or virus level they exchange genes as we exchange ideas. What is fantastic why there are so many different recognizible organisms when everything is in flux. It is the environment of course. Isnt it all so depressing?

gee cee  
 
Chimp and man are quasi identical but four inversions make the intercross difficult/impossible. I too heard that explanation in Mensa years ago.

the magazine cover indicator has been improved on by google search word count and other data mining indices. Not that it did any good in recent housing bubble case.

agnostic, 
 
Retards DO rejoin suckers all the time, because they retired with money from the market, that is, they feel good about their chances to do it again.  
 
Be kind enough to "allow" them to rejoin.

How steady state passes into the bubble phase?

Bubbles are supposed to be cyclical. Presumable, before the bubble there is a steady state situation, what causes the bubble mechanism to start? On the light side, your model does not take into account that a new sucker is born every minute.

Israel is missing from the list. May be it is the exception.

David B, 
 
Then we are not talking about one population, but two dissimilar populations that produce hybrids when they mix.

I am familiar with logistic growth (S curve) where the rate of increase is related to the distance to the level of saturation. How is that related to differential reproduction and the velocity of diffusion of advantageous characters? An empty space will stop diffusion, agreed, but a sparely populated space will not.

Unclear. How low or high population density may stop the advance of advantageous genes?

The kids played with Israeli kids and soon were chatting in fluent Hebrew 
 
Yes, playing with the natives is the best way to pick up a language. Then you have to learn the grammar.

While the thesis is reasonable, that succesful working people leaves more living children than the scum of the society, the methodology seems to me weak. My opinion is that of a man of the street, it may have no academic value.  
 
1. The selective value of social position seems to last for one, or maximum two generations. In our days no fortune survives more than two generations, except the highly endogamic Rothschilds. If so, one two generations of ¨bad luck genes¨ should not be perceivable after 7 generations.  
 
2. The lumpen proletariat is not known to have less children than rich people, on the contrary. Malthus and Galton all talked of a dysgenic effect, which worries people today more than ever. People who spends most of their life in prison seem to leave the same number of children, or more, than rich people. Could it be that everybody has the wrong impression? 
 
3. English names are very stable and sticking, but not immutable. People is known to have changed names voluntarily to avoid identification with known criminals, and/or to fake identification with famous people somehow related. When wills are in play, people takes the names of the rich relative. Sometimes the childless rich uncle demands change of name. I cannot quantify the effect of this thing but we are talking of small differences where everything may matter.

mencius 
what is dog? kutya ?

mencius,  
 
Colonial life was beautiful. Firstly, the pay was the double than in the metropoli for a similar position. Help was abundant and had a very good attitude. Since good people was generally unavailable for God forgotten places, all hands were welcome, alcoholics, deviates, etc. The social life was extreemely tolerant for excentrics. Ambitious people had opportunities that only middle aged people received in the metropolis. A young architect could build original government buildings, he could experiment, he was alone. people had time for reading and writing. Colonies were paradise, and they worked very well.

TGGP 
 
The monies spent fighting communism were well spent and the world thanks your parents for it. About "the irrelevant load of nukes, good only for movies", please read something about what they are. Or are you being sarcastic?

Perhaps you're aware that "exploitation" is a word generally used, at least in the context of the modern American university, to conjure up the image of oppressed minorities slaving cruelly for the delight of top-hatted fat cats.  
 
Interesting, Mencius. I wonder how anyone could believe in that infantile caricature. In an university! By exploitation I meant the appropriation of the plus-value.

It might be fun if you could name one country to which the US-imposed termination of "colonialism" brought any improvement in the quality of government. Just one. It's okay - I'll understand if you can't. 
 
Mencius, I fail to understand what are you going at. Where did I said a word about US-imposed termination of ¨colonialism¨? What are you talking about? Whom are you talking to?  
 
Regarding the recently fashionable idea that colonialism was not worth it, that colonies were too expensive and a constant drag on colonial countries, it is nonsense. Just one example: The Congo made very rich a Belgian King. Talking about something I know: I happened to live in Nigeria not long after "liberation", and the annual budgets (under the British there were such things) registered no deficits. The British left well run and profitable colonies, I still wonder why. Argentina, which was a de facto colony, paid Barclays and other British banks (that are no more) fantastic interests and rents. Colonies made rich many individual Englishmen, and made England industry viable. It is naive to imagine that the permanent competition for colonies was driven by anything that profits.

link. 
 
Yes, there was ferocious colonial competition for the Persian markets, including capital markets. The British, razib, did everything they could to manage Persian loans and to build Persian railways, but they were checked for a long time by the German led alliance. In the end, Persia was occupied militarily by the British to exploit its natural resources.

No razib, if you had read my note, you would have learnt that the German industry was based on its very substantial market in Central and Eastern Europe, including Russia, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Chechia, Turkey, Persia, etc. English capital and manufactured products barely penetrated these markets, the elite studied in German universities, the Armies relied mostly on German weapons and instructors.

a host of colonial wars a century or so ago; none did the metropole any good, none won anything of value. 
 
That is certainly not what Karl Marx and all the Victorians thought. Manchester for example was built on foreign captive markets. If not for English inhibition of the Indian, Chinese, Japanese textiles industries during the 19th century, Manchester´s textile industry would have died a century and half before it did, mortally hurt by the Japanese and given the coup-de-grace by the Chinese. The English barely built a railroad in Central Europe, they could not penetrate the market and had to sell their wares in South America, India and the Middle East. It appears that Greg Cochran thinks that colonial exploitation was a myth. Not one of the real people who experienced the thing - as colonizer or colonized - thought so.