{"product":{"product_id":"0307719227","title":"Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty","price":"17.99","image_url":"https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51E6WiDFSHL._SL500_.jpg","url":"https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307719227"},"comments":[{"body":"I think you will be surprised to learn that what you have come to understand about neoliberalism and the positions supported by this sub are not always in alignment. \r\n\r\nMake sure to read [*Why Nations Fail*](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227). Your first book report is due in two weeks. ","subreddit_name":"neoliberal","author":"disuberence"},{"body":"Your characterizations of the economic, social, and foreign policy tenets of neoliberalism are overtly incorrect. [Here](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_dls\u0026amp;dplnkId=561039c1-8967-4578-9f3b-bcf4c71e0458) is one of the defining works on neoliberal economic--and, in a more indirect way, foreign policy--thought. I would read that and then evaluate what you think neoliberalism is.","subreddit_name":"pics","author":"highlyquestionabl"},{"body":"Workers generated wealth is just marxist slogan. Economic growth is generated with good government polices that create conditions for long term growth and one of those polices is message to entrepreneurs \"we won't size all your wealth\" if many people want to buy your products and services and you become very rich. Only reason that handful of billionaires have much wealth then the poorest are dictators and corrupt elite  economic polices are not set up for growth but for keeping their power. Read this book:  \r\n\r\n\r\nhttps://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227/ref=sr\\_1\\_1?ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1487670315\u0026amp;sr=8-1\u0026amp;keywords=Why+Nations+Fail%2C","subreddit_name":"television","author":"uninspired99"},{"body":"Wait is this actually the extent of your understanding of what institutional health means?\r\n\r\nBecause a rigorous and trusted news media is very much an important democratic institution \r\n\r\nAnd if you want to destroy democratic institutions, weakening the ones I listed and making them political or making them your own personal bodies of power when they’re meant to be independent is how you do that. Lmfao that doesn’t mean he’s depleting his own power???\r\n\r\n\r\nTrump has really weakened our democratic institutions and yeah I agree he wasn’t that good because he’s a fucking idiot. If someone smarter was in his place we’d be in a different situation \r\n\r\nAnyways if you want to learn more about the concept of democratic institutional health i recommend this reading by renowned economist daron acemoglu: \r\n\r\nhttps://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227","subreddit_name":"PoliticalOpinions","author":"AnthonyTops"},{"body":"Historically speaking, that is not true. All throughout the Middle Ages all material goods belonged to God and/or the king. \r\n\r\nThis is well-documented by historians and economists. The combination of formalizing and democratizing property rights is one of the things that economists have linked to the increase in wealth and ingenuity that began during the industrial revolution. \r\n\r\nOne source: [Why Nations Fail](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227/ref=nodl_)  by the well-respected economist Acemoglu","subreddit_name":"JordanPeterson","author":"kiwifuel"},{"body":"\u0026gt;make them SEZ\r\n\r\nZero federal taxes and zero federal regulations? Cause I’d be okay with this. Mmmhmmm that capital inflow would be so hot.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;redistribute those votes to new immigrants\r\n\r\nLol wow [here you need this](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227)\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;limit the civil rights\r\n\r\nLike what exactly?","subreddit_name":"neoliberal","author":"LoseMoneyAllWeek"},{"body":"Xi is everything Trump wishes he could be: an autocrat who answers to no one. This is why the US cannot win a trade war with China... Xi pays no political price for tariffs or anything else, where as a 2020 loss looms large for Trump and handcuffs him at the negotiating table. Soy Bean tariffs from China would be a critical political blow to the american heartland that holds (somewhat undemocratic) outsized political power. Xi will effectively be the leader of China for as long as he wants regardless of what happens. \r\n\r\nIronically this short term disadvantage is really a long term advantage for the US. There is a reason that China has to steal American IP and not the other way around. Ultimately our politicians are answerable to us.... the economic prospects of the Average American and the Country as a whole are intricately linked due to our institutions ([hat tip Daron Acemoglu](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227))","subreddit_name":"Economics","author":"thedaveoflife"},{"body":"Catalonia doesn't have to be \"so much better than Spain\" to flourish. It just needs a different economic system, run by institutions that favour the creation of wealth versus institutions that don't. Look at South Korea versus North Korea: same culture, same people, same language, etc. Yet one country has flourished and become technologically advanced, while the other struggles to keep the lights on. \r\n\r\nIf you're interested in the subject, I recommend [Why Nations Fail: the origins of power, prosperity and poverty](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1507644946\u0026amp;sr=8-1\u0026amp;keywords=acemoglu) by the economist Daron Acemoglu. ","subreddit_name":"worldnews","author":"nationcrafting"},{"body":"\u0026gt; os EUA?\r\n\r\n\u0026gt; Não tinham recursos nem nativos suficientes para explorar?\r\n\r\nNão, não tinham. Não existiam grandes civilizações com governos centralizados facilmente reaproveitados no norte. Nao existem minas de ouro na virginia.\r\n\r\nEnquanto no sul, os espanhois basicamente reaproveitaram os sistemas existentes para explorar os nativos, no norte, os ingleses tentaram explorar os nativos e nao conseguiran; depois tentaram explorar os colonos e tambem nao conseguiram. No norte, so conseguiram ter sucesso na colonizacao com programas de colonizacao baseados em incentivos que deram aos colonos um nível de autonomia completamente diferente do que os mesmos ingleses deram a toda e qualquer colonia que tenham conseguido explorar. \r\n\r\n[source](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227)\r\n\r\n\u0026gt; E a Austrália e NZ foram colonizadas centenas de anos depois do Brasil e américa do norte, o que também influenciou muito.\r\n\r\n200 anos. Assim como tantas outras colónias fundadas depois de 1800. Mas curiosamente, so a NZ e a Australia são países 100% ocidentalizados. Porque será?","subreddit_name":"portugal","author":"stuffirianz"},{"body":"I get where you're coming from, but there are fine examples of the best the West hast to offer too: Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, et al. There are multiple high points in the cultural landscape. Japan may lay claim to one peak, but there are other (perhaps taller) ones out there.\r\n\r\nWithin America too, there are regions and groups that stack up more favorably on a hypothetical \"culture-index\". For instance, Minnesota seems to be working better than Mississippi for reasons beyond location and history. If I were to speculate as to why, it'd rely heavily on the theses found within [Why Nations Fail]( https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227). Namely, how *inclusive* the local economic/political/social strucures are. That's heavily dependent on culture. Thus, my earlier comment was suggesting that the fraction of America that vehemently supports Trump is more than likely identifying with an entirely different culture than the other 60%. And (in my opinion) there's no contest as to which of the two cultures tends to produce better results. Alas, that is a bias as to what factors we value and include in our \"culture-index\". Those differing priorities are at the heart of our nation's lamentable cultural divide.\r\n\r\nI don't think we need to adopt a Japanese culture to improve overall. We're a young and ignorant country... baby steps. Just a nudge toward Minnesota and away from Mississippi would yield significant long term results. \r\n\r\n","subreddit_name":"politics","author":"veringer"},{"body":"Those types of changes-- psychological and sociological-- aren't something economists are necessarily interested in. And that's perfectly fine. The problem is when people that *are* interested in those types of changes make the illicit inference that it will change the economy in some drastic way (e.g. the neo-Luddite belief I see mentioned elsewhere in this topic that automation will replace labor, despite the fact this has been empirically falsified historically again and again, and that there are good theoretical reasons to think it's false).\r\n\r\nOn the other hand, asking about things \"beyond capitalism\" isn't something economists are really interested in either. The reason is most economists simply don't see a viable alternative. Marx might still have some truck in philosophical circles, but he's considered an intellectual dead end in academic economics for a variety of reasons. \r\n\r\nYet, there are still economists that do comparative institutional analysis, i.e. study different institutions, how they structure human behavior, and so forth, and see what that implies vis-a-vis the information and incentives faced by people working within those institutions. That's probably the closest thing you'll find to mainstream economists looking at alternative arrangements and the like-- look up new institutional economics. Recently a lot of people have won Nobel prizes for looking at those questions, e.g. you might find Douglass North, Elinor Ostrom, and Ronald Coase interesting. Also Daron Acemoglu, who wrote a [good popular-level book](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227).","subreddit_name":"askphilosophy","author":"classicalecon"},{"body":"The Zuma Government is showing exactly the same hallmarks every other African Liberation movement that came into power showed. Unless there is a substantial change in the extractive government institutions and a return to plural democracy, its unlikely the outcome can be averted. One of the only African exceptions is Botswana, an example of good governance and an inclusive economy.\r\n\r\nTo understand the modus operandi of Zuma type governments, you should read https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227 . A real eye opener and explains more or less why the current SA government has little interest in uplifting the South African people...they are not there for the people, they are there for themselves. Its a simple case of ignoring what the say and paying attention to what they do.","subreddit_name":"southafrica","author":"Saltysacksagain"},{"body":"I think that question is very complicated to answer.  It really depends on what *you* want to learn about.  A lot of people want to learn about Political Theory, the philosophical side of Political Science, and get the two confused.  If it's Political Thought you want to learn about I would be happy to offer some recommendations.  \r\n\r\nIf you actually are meaning Political Science, let me tell you that I do not read very many books nowadays (I am an aspiring Political Scientist), I spend most of my reading browsing and reading articles from [JSTOR](https://www.jstor.org/).\r\n\r\nFor general recommendations, [Why Nations Fail](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227) is a good book that tries to answer the question it's named after.  Another book I love and would recommend is less about Political Science and more about thinking like a Lawyer.  The book is [The Legal Analyst](https://www.amazon.com/Legal-Analyst-Toolkit-Thinking-about/dp/0226238350/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1\u0026amp;keywords=the+legal+analyst\u0026amp;qid=1619145639\u0026amp;sr=8-1), a fantastic book I would recommend over and over.\r\n\r\nIf you're serious about looking for books, or just literature, to read add some detail so I and others can help point you in the right direction.","subreddit_name":"PoliticalScience","author":"MasonJarrett"},{"body":"\u0026gt; countries inadvertently rely on the exploitation of poor workers in poor countries (like sweatshops).\r\n\r\nYour socialist friend isn't familiar with the last 50 years then. International trade is the bedrock of reducing extreme poverty, the trade treaties developing economies eventually sign with advanced economies as part of this improve worker rights significantly (see Vietnam for a recent example, a good one for your friend too, Indonesia too both under TPP). \"Capitalism\" is responsible for the enormous fall in extreme poverty worldwide and why chronic extreme poverty will cease to exist within the next generation.\r\n\r\nIn terms of evidence the benefits of trade on both poverty and labor conditions is pretty overwhelming. [This](https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/globalization-and-poverty) is an excellent book which covers both the evidence for the benefits of trade as well as considering the areas policy has to focus on to ensure a strong distribution of gains (pretty much exactly what your friend claims can't be done in mixed or market based systems). \r\n\r\nThe usual follow on question is usually \"but don't multinationals exploit workers in developing economies?\" which is also an overwhelming [no](https://www.nber.org/papers/w9669).\r\n\r\nThe gap that usually exists when people think about this is that development follows a natural progression in both working conditions and pay. China has shown this can be accelerated greatly with the benefit of perspective but no country has to date managed to skip any steps. Naturally we find the idea of sweatshops repugnant but the alternative to sweatshops in these countries is not better working conditions but the absence of jobs. You eliminate sweatshops through further development.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt; when a country invests enough in its human capital (like education, healthcare) and infrastructure, a poor country can transition to a rich country \r\n\r\nAbsolutely 100% correct. The word for this, as well as the more intangible things, is institutions. [This](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227) is a phenomenal book on the topic if you are interested in reading more (hell even if you are not, its a really good book).\r\n\r\n\u0026gt; I heard from a socialist\r\n\r\nFinal bit of the answer here is that in economics we don't have socialism or capitalism, they are meaningless words and the entire concept of capitalism was invented by Marx to critique the system he observed 140 years ago.\r\n\r\nPeople usually mean mixed \u0026amp; market economies when they say capitalism (as opposed to command economies). China transitioned from a command economy to a mixed economy which led to the massive reduction in poverty they have seen, Cuba look ready to do the same thing.\r\n\r\nWe also have no current examples of market economies, almost the entire world is mixed. Thinking about policy in terms of socialism or capitalism tends to lead people to ideological solutions instead of good solutions. Some government intervention is unambiguously good. Having a well functioning market is unambiguously good.","subreddit_name":"AskEconomics","author":"he3-1"},{"body":"Liberals on why inclusion is important:  \r\n[https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227)\r\n\r\nConservatives on why Islam is bad:  \r\n[https://youtu.be/AWQCVQUveZA?t=8](https://youtu.be/AWQCVQUveZA?t=8)","subreddit_name":"neoliberal","author":"MikerDarker"}]}