Razib, 
 
Although, I never respond much. I still feel I need to thank you for great daily news. Great blog. 
 
All the good to you and the other writers for the new year.

Mark, 
 
Why don't you blog anymore? It was an excellent blog.

Interestingly, Gabriel Kolko, a leftist historian, gave some contrary observations in his book "Triumph of Conservatism". He basicly stated that most antitrust legislation came into being because of intense lobbying by more established companies who don't like competition. He gave a lot of anecdotal and empirical evidence, you might want to check it out, if you're interested in exploring this topic. 
 
I am, thanks for the Microsoft pointer. I'm going to read Liebowitz' take on the matter, it sure sounds like a good book.  
 
Anyway, whatever the nature of companies to get antitrust legislation going -- big business winners or losers -- both Kolko and Liebowitz agree that antitrust legislation is a front for companies beating competitors by using governmental actions. It could be possible that both winners AND losers can manipulate government for their own purposes. It doesn't necessarily have to be "losers" beating "winners" or "winners" beating "newcomers". 
 
Anyway, smart people will always collaborate in interest groups to maximize their piece of the pie. C'est la vie.

I guess leaner people become more fixated on their own looks, they like to be attractive. This could increase extraversion. 
 
It also could lead to a different outlook on life, how to enlengthen your attractiveness: lower time preference. Though, low time preference could be only in this area and not spill over to other parts of life, like, say, saving more money.

Steve Hsu, 
 
One difference is that the US, at least, had a change of heart somewhere during its lifetime and feels genuine shame for some historic mistakes. The Chinese are committing crimes as we speak and they don't seem very much bothered by it all. That's a difference.

Actually, during my MBA, I don't think 1st mover advantage was 'The One Solution' to anything. It was presented as one of a few other strategies to outcompete competition. A strategic move, with emphasis on the latter not the first. Most Business Strategists these days are much more into 'creating markets' by being innovative, like, say Blue Ocean strategy of Mauborgne and Kim. If you can combine first mover advantage with a great new idea, you'll be in business. 
 
The idea of first mover advantage isn't an end in itself, that's mostly bizniz pundits talking their talking points in a similar vein most political pundits do. They just hammer it down their columns without reflection. OTOH, The first mover advantage isn't all stupid. It's just a first step to get your company out of zero-sum hypercompetitive situations with low margins and oligopolies.  
 
Anyway, what's your idea about innovation + first mover advantage? I've always thought it was the way forward for small/medium companies to keep economies fresh, youthful and growing.

Razib, 
 
There's a similar posibility to split these numbers out at PRB.org. At (the) datafinder it's possible to divide countries into fifths of fertility rates (FTR's) per relative wealth level/ class -- i.e. from poor to rich. Pretty illuminating stuff. Especially in the muslim world there's lots of differentiation.

Before reading Sailer and GnXp (and thereby getting introduced to lots of other info, writers and blogs) I was a libertarian. Now, that I understand how the world really works, not no more. It hurts to kiss a good ideology goodbye, but if science disproves it, we must. 
 
I don't know what Tyler Cowen is more opposed to, HBD an sich or its [HBD's] clear refutation of libertarianism in the Reason-Cato-Julian Simon sense. If people are different, extremely different -- i.e. unequal in abilities, temperaments, intelligence, time preference --, than ideas like the welfare state, affirmative action, taxes and immigration can not be reasoned with in an economist manner alone. It would create inequality on a massive scale and turn a society into, well, the Third World.  
 
It wouldn't surprise me if Cowen is more motivated to keep his libertarian dreams alive than possible negative consequences of HBD research. Research, btw, that will get out sooner or later and will be known widely. We all know it. Cowen, as a professor, does too. 
 
Tons of libertarians react similarly strange when they're confronted with the global warming these. Whatever evidence they may find, hear, discover, read or whatever, they refute it out of hand. You see, if global warming is real, it might mean carbon taxes, government regulation, institutions, etc, etc. -- can't have that! So, let's deny this stuff and keep our dream alive. 
 
So, it goes with HBD. 
 
PS Sailer, you're doing one hell of a good job.