What is Reddit's opinion of
Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
51 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
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.
Make sure to read <em>Why Nations Fail</em>. Your first book report is due in two weeks.
Your characterizations of the economic, social, and foreign policy tenets of neoliberalism are overtly incorrect. Here 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.
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:
Wait is this actually the extent of your understanding of what institutional health means?
Because a rigorous and trusted news media is very much an important democratic institution
And 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???
Trump 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
Anyways if you want to learn more about the concept of democratic institutional health i recommend this reading by renowned economist daron acemoglu:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227
Historically speaking, that is not true. All throughout the Middle Ages all material goods belonged to God and/or the king.
This 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.
One source: Why Nations Fail by the well-respected economist Acemoglu
>make them SEZ
Zero federal taxes and zero federal regulations? Cause I’d be okay with this. Mmmhmmm that capital inflow would be so hot.
>redistribute those votes to new immigrants
Lol wow here you need this
>limit the civil rights
Like what exactly?
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.
Ironically 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)
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.
If you're interested in the subject, I recommend Why Nations Fail: the origins of power, prosperity and poverty by the economist Daron Acemoglu.
> os EUA?
> Não tinham recursos nem nativos suficientes para explorar?
Não, não tinham. Não existiam grandes civilizações com governos centralizados facilmente reaproveitados no norte. Nao existem minas de ouro na virginia.
Enquanto 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.
> E a Austrália e NZ foram colonizadas centenas de anos depois do Brasil e américa do norte, o que também influenciou muito.
200 anos. Assim como tantas outras colónias fundadas depois de 1800. Mas curiosamente, so a NZ e a Australia são países 100% ocidentalizados. Porque será?
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.
Within 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. 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.
I 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.
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).
On 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.
Yet, 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.
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.
To 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.
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.
If 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.
For general recommendations, Why Nations Fail 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, a fantastic book I would recommend over and over.
If 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.
> countries inadvertently rely on the exploitation of poor workers in poor countries (like sweatshops).
Your 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.
In terms of evidence the benefits of trade on both poverty and labor conditions is pretty overwhelming. This 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).
The usual follow on question is usually "but don't multinationals exploit workers in developing economies?" which is also an overwhelming no.
The 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.
> when a country invests enough in its human capital (like education, healthcare) and infrastructure, a poor country can transition to a rich country
Absolutely 100% correct. The word for this, as well as the more intangible things, is institutions. This 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).
> I heard from a socialist
Final 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.
People usually mean mixed & 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.
We 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.
Liberals on why inclusion is important:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227
Conservatives on why Islam is bad:
https://youtu.be/AWQCVQUveZA?t=8
Loosely.
It's a term from this sub's favorite book: Why Nations Fail
You only need the part after "dp". Check this out:
Will take you to the same page as:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307719227/
Good URL hygiene is important!
Here's a tip for sharing an amazon link:
Find the ISBN-10 in the Product information section and then put it behind amazon.com/dp/
Like this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307719227
Economics isn't a book discipline, but Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu and Robinson nevertheless has 14k citations.
/u/Alecmo1999
Read Why Nations Fail. It is a good read.
Made me realize why countries ruled by Spain tend to lag to those ruled by the English.
This is a huge topic people debated for centuries and wrote many books on. I would actually recommend this nice book about the topic of how some empires rose and then fell. This other book discusses your question exactly, but I have some reservations about it.
I have no simple opinion of my own to express though.
Well the obvious answer is Why Nations Fail. I might be able to dig up a few other titles when I have a moment though lol.
"The reduction of extreme poverty and hunger was the first Millennium Development Goal (MDG1), as set by the United Nations in 2000. Specifically, the target was to reduce the extreme poverty rate by half by 2015, a goal that was met five years ahead of schedule.[15] In the Sustainable Development Goals, which succeeded the MDGs, the goal is to end extreme poverty in all its forms everywhere. With this declaration the international community, including the UN and the World Bank have adopted the target of ending extreme poverty by 2030."
Graph that development with the spread of inclusive institutions and free trade, and you'll see a more or less 1 to 1 relationship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty
​
Great reading on the subject:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227
You bring up extremely cherry-picked examples.
The left are the ones who advocated for policies to amazon getting richer while small businesses died during covid. The democratic party also gets absurd donations from hedge funds, military complex, and huge companies like amazon. Many of the republican party members do as well. There are only a very small number of politicians who don’t, hence why “uniparty” is such a common meme. And guess what you probably will never vote for the few people running for office that don’t get these donations because they are hyper-targeted by the media and suppressed by any means necessary.
You bring up teacher unions but the left are the ones who absolutely hate school choice. School choice tends to help the poor and vulnerable minority groups the most. Also unions aren’t guaranteed to be implicitly good, they are a monopoly on workers, and while usually they help bring balance to the worker vs employer battle, they can also do things that hurt everyone as well. Like teacher unions who have INCREASED the number of requirements to teach and now require all sorts of certifications, licensees, mandatory training etc. Not to mention teacher unions are one of the biggest forces against school choice. If a teacher union has to make a decision that positively affects teachers but hurts the students/community, they have proven again and again they will choose the former.
In general proper policy requires looking deep into issues individually and not resort to taking shortcuts like “toeing the party line” or listening to the news or "always side with the unions". But, the boomers are too technologically incompetent to properly investigate, and the youth are too impatient or tend to naively follow the celebrities they worship or catchy taglines.
In general the youth is exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger affect hardcore. They read some nice rhetoric and they think they have it all figured out "just vote for the nice guy" and think villains can be spotted easily. Not realizing the people they worship are villains themselves. Look at Andrew Yang. Says he's all for the people but then advocates for a VAT-tax which dis-proportionally affects the poor more than the rich because it isn't a income-based graduated tax. Meanwhile he has no spine and again and again has bent over to appease the mainstream candidates so that he can get a spot on their cabinet.
Anyway, the only advice I have to the youth at the scale of a reddit comment read the below books/audio books. Then maybe you will see the tyranny disguised as "being nice" that the politicians keep selling you.
"Why Nations Fail" https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227
"Dictators handbook" https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845
"The Righteous Mind" https://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Jonathan-Haidt-audiobook/dp/B008OEMNNQ
>Taiwan, another two-party presidential regime.
Taiwan is and has been a semi-presidential, with multiple political parties. Not sure what you are talking about here.
>Notice that the only country where this system works is the US. South America tried to mimic the US political system which has lead to periodic downfalls into authoritarianism and massive corruption.
You should consider the fact that Latin America didn't have institutions built for democratic rule and that democratic countries tend not to survive for very long without either of them.
Surprised no one has recommended Why Nationals Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. It lays out in great detail the various societal rots that contribute to nations failing. I'm pretty sure there is a chaptor on Rome. The Brothers by Stephen Kinzer is an excellent book. It talks about brothers John Foster and Allen Dulles. Allen was head of the CIA in the 50s and 60s, John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State under Eisenhower. It is an account of how the brothers, working together, destroyed governments and societies around the world. All the Shah's Men by Kinzer is amazing too. The Brothers talks about the 1953 coup in Iran also, but this books is WAY more detailed. But if you want an overview of all the coups America carried out, Overthrow by Kinzer is the way to go.
I am also recommending the Behind the Bastards podcast. It is a podcast that summarizes why all the evil people in history and contemporary discourse are evil. He has done episodes on Trump's cronies, dictators past and present and just weird bastardic events of history. It is hosted by a journalist named Robert Evans. He is recognized nationally in the U.S. as an expert in white supremacists and home-grown terrorists. He talks about how cultural forces breed extremism and can create groups like the proud boys and Atom Waffen. He is an amazing reporter who talks about exactly what you are looking for. Fascism is all we talk about in the subreddit.
https://voxeu.org/article/economic-impact-colonialism as a jumping off point. If you are interested enough to drop a few dollars on a book read https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227
> especially by Britain
British rule was less bad than others (particularly Belgian which was basically genocidal) but still ultimately rent seeking in nature.
The divergence between North & South America that Acemoglu often notes demonstrates this point perfectly; there wasn't an abundance of native labor in North America (as non-native disease wiped out much of the native population) so the colonies could not develop the locally extractive institutions that developed in the South. In places that are not North America there was plenty of natives to exploit.
While it could be argued that the British (and the French) left behind very valuable institutions how many of these would have developed absent colonization? Countries like India which already had great institutions and had the population density to allow for industrialization its basically impossible to argue that colonialism was a net positive.
Atât Wikipedia cât și politicalcompass.org sunt resurse bune pentru a înțelege per ansamblu cu ce se mănâncă o astfel de ideologie.
Pe de altă parte, cred că conceptele astea nu trebuiesc analizate în izolare, desprinse față de implemtarea lor în anumite țări sau imperii. Pentru o astfel de analiză recomand cărți de genul Why Nations Fail
Gonna copy paste from a comment I made on a similar post not too long ago, with a few modifications.
In regard to the first part of your question, there's a great book by Daron Acemoglu called "Why Nations Fail" that examines this question and provides well sourced histories of many nations on every continent. Now his focus wasn't explicitly on the institution of democracy itself, but rather, "what are the common threads of nations that fail, regardless of their political institution?"
The short explanation is that nations with politically and economically "inclusive" institutions will prosper, while those with politically and economically "extractive" institutions will suffer. It's possible to have a mix of inclusive and extractive instituions as well, and while those countries may prosper over a short time, Acemoglu argues that they eventually fail because they lack inclusivity on the other front (see Soviet Russia, or China).
What I found most interesting was the comparative analysis of countries founded by various European colonizers. Like why did the US and Australia prosper, while many Central and South American countries struggled? The difference, according to Acemoglu, was that spanish and portuguese colonizers had an extractive colonization model, in which they attempted to subjugate and extract gold and ither precious resources from existing peoples with relatively established societies. English colonizers, however, landed in places that were more sparsely inhabited by less established societies, so there wasn't anyone to subjugate, and hardly any precious resources to extract. In turn, their colonial policies involved finding ways to incentivize the colonists to be productive, such as offering wages to Australian colonists.
It's absolutely worth the read and I think would be helpful for you in having a better understanding of the first part of your question.
As for the second part of your question, I'm not sure, hope someone else might chime in with some insight!
> Many nations have more citizens than America, what is their excuse for not excelling economically?
China spends 2.1% of its GDP on R&D, considerably less than the United States. It also has extractive institutions.
India is a poor country wracked by colonialism and regional violence.
> Innovation, free market principles, individual liberty, a Constitution that holds government and people with power accountable for abuses.
Actually, it has much more to do with inclusive institutions and managed competition. I’d recommend reading Why Nations Fail and How Asia Works.
> If you don't believe in anything you believe in nothing. It's only a matter of time before the most talented pursue their dreams where they are free to do so.
It’s not “dreams” so much as higher wages and strong government investment in STEM.
Well, there's the problem. You've interpreted birthrates as a result of ethnicity and race, as opposed to the reality of existing institutions. The fact is, native birthrates do not sustain themselves when people are placed into first-world environments. After the second generation and beyond, immigrant birthrates tend to drop, as they have in the United States. My ideology is not hell-bent on importing war and starvation, my ideology acknowledges the value of human life and livelihood, and we seek to improve conditions in third-world countries, through, for example, trade. Since the institution of liberal and neoliberal policies like welfare (domestically,) free trade (globally,) and globalization as a whole, (beginning with the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, the Marshall Plan, and other methods of outreach to struggling countries in Europe and elsewhere,) global poverty has taken a steep dive.
Poverty, birth rates, and famine are based off of the extractive nature of economic and political institutions, not ethnicity, culture, or geography. Look at the difference between Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sorona.
The two used to be the same town, now divided by a border; they have the same geography, culture, and ethnic makeup. But Nogales number one is rich, and Nogales numero dos is poor. Genetically, they're the same, but one has economic and political opportunities for all, including a safety net for those less well-off, and the other is rife with municipal corruption and economic instability. Take a guess at who's more successful.
Liberals and Democrats (aside from Sanders and some members of the Progressive wing,) are in possession of an actual understanding of economics. "Brown people aren't good," isn't economically sound.
(Also, "useless eaters" is literally Nazi terminology. I'd recommend you drop it from your vocabulary. I would also recommend that you read <u>Why Nations Fail,</u> if you get the chance.)
Eu tou lendo esse livro: https://www.amazon.com.br/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227 e gostando bastante. Ele dá uma visão do porque alguns países prosperaram mais que outros.
Yes, definitely! But at least at the beginning, it seems like the release of these disease was unintentional (versus the plague blankets that came later). From what I read, the initial plague vectors were fishermen off the coast of New England (possibly Brits or Portuguese) and from early Spanish explorers. Further, the original British plan for colonization was similar to that of the Spanish in the south- conquer, put the natives to work, extract resources back to the UK. But that fell apart due to the plunge in native populations and their decentralized governments (compared to South America).
Anyway, I'm not an expert on this subject, this is just what I remember reading in Why Nations Fail (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227).
Great as always, Prof. Heydarian!
Here's a set of great blog posts from the authors of that great book, <strong>Why Nations Fail</strong>, applying their thoughts on our country:
- <strong>300 Years in the Convent, 50 years in Hollywood</strong>
- <strong>A Damaged Culture?</strong>
- <strong>Good Culture? On Vote Buying and Reciprocity</strong>
- <strong>The Politics of Utang na Loob</strong>
- <strong>Cacique Democracy</strong>
- <strong>Marcos versus Park</strong>
- <strong>Political Dynasties in the Philippines</strong>
- <strong>How (not to) Break Political Dynasties</strong>
- <strong>No More "Wang-wang" in the Philippines?</strong>
I've been reading a book that presents a different viewpoint on the same questions. (also having nothing to do with mormonism) Why Nations Fail
> It is allowing people to exercise their free will and liberty. How does denying a service harm another?
Its not just a service, its a public service.
> How does denying a service harm another?
One incident can be declared as the most minimal of harms, just go to the next shop down. Its the systemic denying of service which is the concern. It results in creating Social Classes which the US was designed to reduce or avoid. If you are seriously looking for understanding may I suggest a book; Why Nations Fail
Why Nations Fail is a great, apolitical book that encompasses some of these theories. I'd say Samuel Huntington's 'Clash of Civilisations' is as well, but Reddit doesn't like him and usually end up likening him to Ayn Rand.
Not so. Geography helps a little, but geographic determinism as a broad method for explaining prosperity has widely been discredited. Really it's about institutions such as the rule of law, property rights, contract enforcement, political accountability, voting rights and general enfranchisement. Acemoglu and Robinson's "Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty" is a good read on the subject that reflects the current state of thinking on the subject among economists.
Economic growth is possible under authoritarian governments, but not sustained growth. That is why the PRC is destined to stagnate. Unfortunately, I don't have time to write a massive comment teaching you about the relationship between inclusive political institutions and economic growth, you'll have to go educate yourself. This book will explain everything if you care to read it. South Korea, Taiwan and PRC are all used as illustrative examples.
There's this book called 'Why nations fail'
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227
it has an important part in it about institutions. You should check it out.
If such an event looked like it was to occur well.....I have dual citizenship with Ireland so i'd be watching the dissolution of the united states from dublin.
But these young 'progressives' on the sub who....don't like to think about possible worst case outcomes...don't really care. Like bernie boys they just want their 'muh revolution'. Who needs to think about things when your ideas make you feel good.
Think I'm more of a centrist/neoliberal myself. This is all the sort of stuff you will read in this book by a Turkish born MIT economist: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227/
Feel free to offer arguments instead of ad hominem attacks. I'm a big believer in changing my mind in response to new arguments & evidence. Why do you think it is that people from Honduras want to come to the US? Why is it that America seems so much more functional?
Popular alternatives to Why Nations Fail: The Origi...
Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics
