8 ms·

MIT economists Acemoglu and Robinson wrote a book "Why Nations Fail" that analyzes why countries at similar starting points can have extremely divergent paths i

MIT economists Acemoglu and Robinson wrote a book "Why Nations Fail" that analyzes why countries at similar starting points can have extremely divergent paths in terms of economic development. One example is South and North Korea. Their conclusion is that some countries have established extractive institutions, while others inclusive. The extractive ones exclude the population from the decision making process and seek to divvy up and redistribute the scarce available resources, while the inclusive ones seek to involve the broadest possible strata of the population in the decision making and wealth-producing activities. Looks like Reddit is turning into the North Korea of social websites.

boring_twenties 6y ago
You have been banned from /r/pyongyang
maerF0x0 6y ago
What does it say about the United States?
- dimitar 6y ago
  The extractive rent-seeking (slavery being the most extractive economic and political institution possible) South was significantly lagging even before the rebellion, which was crushed by the United States whose other regions had more inclusive economic institutions. In more recent times the authors compare two towns across the US-Mexico border: Nogales, AZ to to Nogales, Mexico. Even thought the language and ethnicity is mostly the same (95% Hispanic), with same climate and what not - Nogales in the United States has three times the GDP per capita of Nogales, Sonora. The difference is more inclusive economic and political institutions in the United States - while Mexico has suffered under one party rule for decades.
  - monoideism 6y ago
    > while Mexico has suffered under one party rule for decades Yet now we suffer under two-party rule.
    - nickalaso 6y ago
      Which has been the case since almost the inception of the country, as it is a direct consequence of the First-past-the-post voting system that the US government has implemented.
      - monoideism 6y ago
        You're correct, and I've love to have something other than first-past-the-post. However, throughout our history, our two-party system has generally (with some notable exceptions) been able to work and work together. That's no longer the case. As such, it's hard to tell if the political polarization is a reflection of society, or if society is just adopting the polarization of our political elites. So I stand by my original statement.
        viridian 6y ago
        This is a tremulously rose colored portrait of history. The most openly hostile, contentious election in American history didn't happen in 2016, or 2008, or 2000, it happened in 1828. Many American institutional families would say that Jackson being a jackbooted thug was the very least damning of his odious traits. Meanwhile Jackson's largely populist supporters would go on to accuse the current poltical body of being wholly corrupt, and hellbent on creating a new feudal aristocracy, where the people's wills and desires were controlled through the national bank. Honestly 2016 just reads like a rerun of 1828, except Clinton wasn't publishing articles about how Trump was likely to gun her down in cold blood if he lost.
        monoideism 6y ago
        I suggest reading more carefully. I wrote “with some notable exceptions” very deliberately. I had exactly the Jackson presidency and the 1850s-1860s in mind. But I figured that HN is an educated audience, so no need to specify the few exceptions I had in mind. BTW, 2008 and 2000 don’t even compare with 1828, or 2016. The election of 2016, and the (only partially merited) furor that has followed it will unquestionably stand out in US history, quite possibly as a prelude to our descent into another civil conflict. And what’s rose-colored is making an oblique claim that our current political situation is nothing more than business as usual.
amelius 6y ago
Yes, they used crowd-sourcing to build their empire, yet they seem surprised that the crowd wants to have a say in how things work.
eirini1 6y ago
Is this a real book someone wrote? Incredible to me how you can call yourself an economist and just write basic observations and conclude they are the root cause of everything without even taking a cursory look at the history of things.
- resu_nimda 6y ago
  It's kind of like how you can read a post on the internet that mentions two economists and draw any kind of conclusions about the work they've done without even taking a cursory look at it.
  - onemiketwelve 6y ago
    I felt that
  - rumanator 6y ago
    Ouch.
- leotaku 6y ago
  I would imagine the book contains a bit more justification for its arguments than what was presented by the person you are responding to. What makes you believe that the author just "wrote basic observations and concluded they are the root cause of everything"? Most ideas are easy to dismiss when you assume that a blurb posted to HN is all there is to them.
- askafriend 6y ago
  Here's a 1hr talk by the author of the book. Knock yourself out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcUKP1sAto8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcUKP1sAto8

boring_twenties 6y ago

You have been banned from /r/pyongyang

maerF0x0 6y ago

What does it say about the United States?

dimitar 6y ago
The extractive rent-seeking (slavery being the most extractive economic and political institution possible) South was significantly lagging even before the rebellion, which was crushed by the United States whose other regions had more inclusive economic institutions. In more recent times the authors compare two towns across the US-Mexico border: Nogales, AZ to to Nogales, Mexico. Even thought the language and ethnicity is mostly the same (95% Hispanic), with same climate and what not - Nogales in the United States has three times the GDP per capita of Nogales, Sonora. The difference is more inclusive economic and political institutions in the United States - while Mexico has suffered under one party rule for decades.
- monoideism 6y ago
  > while Mexico has suffered under one party rule for decades Yet now we suffer under two-party rule.
  - nickalaso 6y ago
    Which has been the case since almost the inception of the country, as it is a direct consequence of the First-past-the-post voting system that the US government has implemented.
    - monoideism 6y ago
      You're correct, and I've love to have something other than first-past-the-post. However, throughout our history, our two-party system has generally (with some notable exceptions) been able to work and work together. That's no longer the case. As such, it's hard to tell if the political polarization is a reflection of society, or if society is just adopting the polarization of our political elites. So I stand by my original statement.
      - viridian 6y ago
        This is a tremulously rose colored portrait of history. The most openly hostile, contentious election in American history didn't happen in 2016, or 2008, or 2000, it happened in 1828. Many American institutional families would say that Jackson being a jackbooted thug was the very least damning of his odious traits. Meanwhile Jackson's largely populist supporters would go on to accuse the current poltical body of being wholly corrupt, and hellbent on creating a new feudal aristocracy, where the people's wills and desires were controlled through the national bank. Honestly 2016 just reads like a rerun of 1828, except Clinton wasn't publishing articles about how Trump was likely to gun her down in cold blood if he lost.
        monoideism 6y ago
        I suggest reading more carefully. I wrote “with some notable exceptions” very deliberately. I had exactly the Jackson presidency and the 1850s-1860s in mind. But I figured that HN is an educated audience, so no need to specify the few exceptions I had in mind. BTW, 2008 and 2000 don’t even compare with 1828, or 2016. The election of 2016, and the (only partially merited) furor that has followed it will unquestionably stand out in US history, quite possibly as a prelude to our descent into another civil conflict. And what’s rose-colored is making an oblique claim that our current political situation is nothing more than business as usual.

amelius 6y ago

Yes, they used crowd-sourcing to build their empire, yet they seem surprised that the crowd wants to have a say in how things work.

eirini1 6y ago

Is this a real book someone wrote? Incredible to me how you can call yourself an economist and just write basic observations and conclude they are the root cause of everything without even taking a cursory look at the history of things.

resu_nimda 6y ago
It's kind of like how you can read a post on the internet that mentions two economists and draw any kind of conclusions about the work they've done without even taking a cursory look at it.
- onemiketwelve 6y ago
  I felt that
- rumanator 6y ago
  Ouch.
leotaku 6y ago
I would imagine the book contains a bit more justification for its arguments than what was presented by the person you are responding to. What makes you believe that the author just "wrote basic observations and concluded they are the root cause of everything"? Most ideas are easy to dismiss when you assume that a blurb posted to HN is all there is to them.
askafriend 6y ago
Here's a 1hr talk by the author of the book. Knock yourself out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcUKP1sAto8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcUKP1sAto8