[pizzasynthesis]

This self-fellating cultural revisionist drivel is exactly the sort of meta-analysis I'd expect from someone who has spent too long codependent with academia and thusly suffers from an irrational self-hatred and tunnel vision and a lingering feeling that their qualifications are much narrower than they'd like to believe. The author only once cites an external party (three links to the very same blog along with a link to their colleague's book). Even that study says:

> The proximate cause of inefficiency in at least some cases was the workers' refusal to accept more machinery, but the choices of workers correlated with the local real wage. Whatever constrained the choices of workers in cotton textiles, or whatever determined their preferences, must have applied to all of the local labor force. Unfortunately the sources on the textile industry do not allow me to go with any confidence beyond this limited ascription of responsibility to local influences.

So workers in Bombay, who were being payed less than workers in England, refused to take on more responsibilities until they received higher wages. Sounds pretty fair to me. Given the information at hand, we could posit that Western countries were more successful at organizing labor instead of assuming, like the author does, that it can be fundamentally attributed to culture, and that less-developed countries like India should just adopt Western culture. Maybe if they adopted Western culture, they could come colonize Western nations, then they'd be really successful. /s

I can't see this as anything more than some sort of strange philosophical flexing, and the author could stand to get another degree--perhaps this time in history.