I'm still laughing over a recent Friedman column praising Singapore for how they've adapted to the flat world.
But today its per capita income is just below U.S. levels, built with high-end manufacturing, services and exports. The country’s economy grew last year at 14.7 percent, led by biomedical exports.
Singapore probably has the freest market in the world
So what's similar between Singapore and the United States?
Singapore is tiny and by no means a U.S.-style democracy. Yet, like America, it has a multiethnic population — Chinese, Indian and Malay — with a big working class.
HAHAHAHA. You're kidding, right? Friedman is essentially saying that being ethnically diverse is a characteristic in and of itself, and the type of diversity means nothing.
Singapore ethnic breakdown:
United States ethnic breakdown:
White: 60% (80-15% hispanic)
So, the Singaporeans have the Indians and Malays to work with, we have blacks and hispanics. Let's compare:
According to the wikipedia article
Today, Indians earn higher average monthly incomes than the Chinese or Malays and are more likely to hold a university degree than these groups.
Hmmm.....not exactly the equivalent for a minority group, eh?
this article speculates on why Malays haven't done as well as Chinese:
What is of particular in this subject is the way that Malays tended to retain their traditional social forms and many of their occupational patterns despite urbanisation, while the Chinese have embraced the whole process more wholeheartedl
Come on....do you really need to know the answer?
Here is the link: average IQ in Malaysia: 92. Average IQ in China? 100.
Even assuming that the average Malay has an average IQ of 90, African Americans have an average IQ of 85. Hispanic IQ is in the low 90's.
Therefore, Singapore has 14% minority population dragging it down, while the United States has 27.8% Black + Hispanic. Significant difference. This is in addition to a Chinese IQ higher than white IQ.
Thank god we have the jews
Yet another example of Thomas Friedman ignoring racial implications of his flat world theories.
The rest of his column, though, has good pointers about how to reform the government in the US.