4 ms·

I haven't read those books, but a priori it sounds like cherry picking. Mexico for example had a revolution which gave the land to the people and is a country

by pier25 5y ago

I haven't read those books, but a priori it sounds like cherry picking. Mexico for example had a revolution which gave the land to the people and is a country that, over a century later, is still struggling with corruption, ignorance, superstition, etc. I've been living in Mexico for 12 years and IMO it all comes down to poor education like the grandparent comment by belval suggested. As an example, take the current Mexican government who was largely put in power by the lower classes. Instead of investing into education and social programs, is putting all its eggs into the oil basket. Edit: BTW I'm not arguing that more expenditure in education results in better education.

rm_-rf_slash 5y ago
Systems of exploitation tend to be durable and adaptable over time, producing similar outcomes even if the overall shape appears to change drastically. For example, the U.S. Constitution’s 13th Amendment freed the slaves, but included an exception on forced labor for those convicted of a crime. Surprise surprise, former Confederate states make up crimes (like loitering) that are only enforced on Black people, and the cheap, no-choice labor force is back at work, even if under a structure that only barely resembles prewar chattel slavery.
- pier25 5y ago
  > Systems of exploitation tend to be durable and adaptable over time, producing similar outcomes even if the overall shape appears to change drastically. Yes, because the fundamental problem is changing the culture, not the "shape". In Mexico (the example I know first hand) corruption is definitely a cultural problem. It happens at all levels because it is culturally acceptable to bend/ignore the rules for personal gain. There's even a saying in Mexico which is "el que no transa no avanza". It translates to something like "the one who doesn't cheat, doesn't move forward in life".
  - rm_-rf_slash 5y ago
    A film you may find interesting if you haven’t seen it is the Brazilian crime thriller “Tropa de Elite 2 – O Inimigo Agora é Outro”, which not wishing to spoil anything, was a fascinating exploration of how systems of corruption can remain even as everyone involved gets moved out; the vacuum is filled as quickly as it’s made. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_Squad:_The_Enemy_Within https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_Squad:_The_Enemy_Withi...
    - pier25 5y ago
      Thanks for the recomendation!
    - yesenadam 5y ago
      That is the sequel to Tropa de Elite (2007), by the same director, Jose Padilha. I strongly recommend watching Tropa de Elite first. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0861739/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0861739/ The same director's documentary Bus 174 (2002) is even much more intense and unforgettable. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0340468/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0340468/ He also created the amazing series The Mechanism (2018-), based on the Operation Car Wash investigations, during the last 10 years, into corruption in Brazil. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6873658/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6873658/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash
gamegoblin 5y ago
The book has sections about Mexico as well. The basic gist is that the fundamental institutions that result in the inequality have persisted, even if the government has been overturned several times. The overarching theme of the book is about what types of incentives result from various types of institutions, and how positive and negative feedback loops can form therein. Ultimately, Mexico has suffered significantly from the government granting monopoly rights to particular businesses (friends of the government) and by not respecting property rights. Both of these trends have spanned governments and go all the way back to the Spanish colonialists. There is little incentive in Mexico to innovate and invest, because if you are too successful, you will likely run afoul of some wealthy friend of a politician who will use his power to ruin you. From the point of view of the political elite, this makes sense, because they are all rich and in charge. But this behavior impoverishes society on average. Concrete examples in the book include the banking industry, which was effectively monopolized by 2 banks with government support in the 19th century. Contrasted with hundreds of banks with fierce competition in the US in the same time period. This resulted in high interest rates in Mexico (and thus little incentive to invest) and low interest rates in the US (which was rapidly industrializing). A more modern example is comparing Bill Gates vs. Carlos Slim, who were vying for the title of the world's richest person when the book was written. Bill Gates made his fortune by founding an incredibly successful company. When it was engaging in monopolistic behavior, it was successfully prosecuted by the government. Contrast this with Carlos Slim who made his fortune largely by being granted favorable monopolistic deals by the Mexican government.
- pier25 5y ago
  I would like to read more about this. Which of the two books has this chapter on Mexico?
  - gamegoblin 5y ago
    Here is a pdf of Why Nations Fail. Ctrl+f for "A tale of two constitutions" and read until you see the next chapter title "Theories that don't work". https://www.bau.edu.jo/UserPortal/UserProfile/PostsAttach/33254_3521_1.pdf https://www.bau.edu.jo/UserPortal/UserProfile/PostsAttach/33...
azernik 5y ago
Revolutions are not as effective as they claim at overturning the basic structure of society - not without some very serious application of coercion at a grassroots level. For the Mexican case specifically, the revolution did not replace the landowning political elite, but installed a different subset of them. A succession of presidents from the landowning class slow-walked land reform (we're talking single-digit percentages of land redistributed per decade), mostly motivated by the fear of Zapatista rebels rather than commitment to equality. Cárdenas was probably the first seriously pro-reform president (mid- and late-30s), but the old landowners remained wealthy and preserved a good chunk of their holdings. (For political reasons, he focused on foreign landholders.) This meant that the next landowner-friendly president a few years later created a land-leasing system that de facto returned control of large collective farms to the landowning class. See also how the (non-revolutionary) emancipation of serfs in the Russian Empire didn't change much, since serfs had to take out loans to compensate their former masters. Social hierarchies and power balances remained, despite a change in form.
- pier25 5y ago
  Anything I can read to learn more about this? BTW there are still plenty of ejidos all over Mexico which are not owned by the political elite.
  - azernik 5y ago
    Emmm. Most of this is from my college courses, with Wikipedia for recalling names and dates. From a quick Googling, this seems like a good overview: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147642277.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147642277.pdf If you're interested in a really deep dive into related Eastern European examples (not Russian) of the limits and successes of land reform, I'd suggest this textbook: https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=372 https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=372 And yup! The reversion of Cárdenas's reforms was not complete; reformers in positions of power do make some difference, even if it's less than you'd guess based on short-term results. Though note that many ejidos owned by the intended local peasant's collectives are de facto controlled by a large landowner or business. (The political elite of the early-/mid-20th century was a subset of the landowning elite, not its entirety.)
RhodoGSA 5y ago
Mexico is the 9th largest economy by GDP and dwarfs all other countries in the regions. I think you proved is point, rather than negated it. Also, as a counter point, Mexico's proximity to the US had alot to do with the corruption and current regime in mexico. Drugs across the american border is very lucrative giving power and money to alot of bad people in Mexico. Watch Narcos Mexico to get a wiff of the proximity to the US creating cartels.

by pier25 5y ago

rm_-rf_slash 5y ago

Systems of exploitation tend to be durable and adaptable over time, producing similar outcomes even if the overall shape appears to change drastically. For example, the U.S. Constitution’s 13th Amendment freed the slaves, but included an exception on forced labor for those convicted of a crime. Surprise surprise, former Confederate states make up crimes (like loitering) that are only enforced on Black people, and the cheap, no-choice labor force is back at work, even if under a structure that only barely resembles prewar chattel slavery.

pier25 5y ago
> Systems of exploitation tend to be durable and adaptable over time, producing similar outcomes even if the overall shape appears to change drastically. Yes, because the fundamental problem is changing the culture, not the "shape". In Mexico (the example I know first hand) corruption is definitely a cultural problem. It happens at all levels because it is culturally acceptable to bend/ignore the rules for personal gain. There's even a saying in Mexico which is "el que no transa no avanza". It translates to something like "the one who doesn't cheat, doesn't move forward in life".
- rm_-rf_slash 5y ago
  A film you may find interesting if you haven’t seen it is the Brazilian crime thriller “Tropa de Elite 2 – O Inimigo Agora é Outro”, which not wishing to spoil anything, was a fascinating exploration of how systems of corruption can remain even as everyone involved gets moved out; the vacuum is filled as quickly as it’s made. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_Squad:_The_Enemy_Within https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_Squad:_The_Enemy_Withi...
  - pier25 5y ago
    Thanks for the recomendation!
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    That is the sequel to Tropa de Elite (2007), by the same director, Jose Padilha. I strongly recommend watching Tropa de Elite first. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0861739/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0861739/ The same director's documentary Bus 174 (2002) is even much more intense and unforgettable. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0340468/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0340468/ He also created the amazing series The Mechanism (2018-), based on the Operation Car Wash investigations, during the last 10 years, into corruption in Brazil. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6873658/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6873658/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash

gamegoblin 5y ago

The book has sections about Mexico as well. The basic gist is that the fundamental institutions that result in the inequality have persisted, even if the government has been overturned several times. The overarching theme of the book is about what types of incentives result from various types of institutions, and how positive and negative feedback loops can form therein. Ultimately, Mexico has suffered significantly from the government granting monopoly rights to particular businesses (friends of the government) and by not respecting property rights. Both of these trends have spanned governments and go all the way back to the Spanish colonialists. There is little incentive in Mexico to innovate and invest, because if you are too successful, you will likely run afoul of some wealthy friend of a politician who will use his power to ruin you. From the point of view of the political elite, this makes sense, because they are all rich and in charge. But this behavior impoverishes society on average. Concrete examples in the book include the banking industry, which was effectively monopolized by 2 banks with government support in the 19th century. Contrasted with hundreds of banks with fierce competition in the US in the same time period. This resulted in high interest rates in Mexico (and thus little incentive to invest) and low interest rates in the US (which was rapidly industrializing). A more modern example is comparing Bill Gates vs. Carlos Slim, who were vying for the title of the world's richest person when the book was written. Bill Gates made his fortune by founding an incredibly successful company. When it was engaging in monopolistic behavior, it was successfully prosecuted by the government. Contrast this with Carlos Slim who made his fortune largely by being granted favorable monopolistic deals by the Mexican government.

pier25 5y ago
I would like to read more about this. Which of the two books has this chapter on Mexico?
- gamegoblin 5y ago
  Here is a pdf of Why Nations Fail. Ctrl+f for "A tale of two constitutions" and read until you see the next chapter title "Theories that don't work". https://www.bau.edu.jo/UserPortal/UserProfile/PostsAttach/33254_3521_1.pdf https://www.bau.edu.jo/UserPortal/UserProfile/PostsAttach/33...

azernik 5y ago

Revolutions are not as effective as they claim at overturning the basic structure of society - not without some very serious application of coercion at a grassroots level. For the Mexican case specifically, the revolution did not replace the landowning political elite, but installed a different subset of them. A succession of presidents from the landowning class slow-walked land reform (we're talking single-digit percentages of land redistributed per decade), mostly motivated by the fear of Zapatista rebels rather than commitment to equality. Cárdenas was probably the first seriously pro-reform president (mid- and late-30s), but the old landowners remained wealthy and preserved a good chunk of their holdings. (For political reasons, he focused on foreign landholders.) This meant that the next landowner-friendly president a few years later created a land-leasing system that de facto returned control of large collective farms to the landowning class. See also how the (non-revolutionary) emancipation of serfs in the Russian Empire didn't change much, since serfs had to take out loans to compensate their former masters. Social hierarchies and power balances remained, despite a change in form.

pier25 5y ago
Anything I can read to learn more about this? BTW there are still plenty of ejidos all over Mexico which are not owned by the political elite.
- azernik 5y ago
  Emmm. Most of this is from my college courses, with Wikipedia for recalling names and dates. From a quick Googling, this seems like a good overview: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147642277.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147642277.pdf If you're interested in a really deep dive into related Eastern European examples (not Russian) of the limits and successes of land reform, I'd suggest this textbook: https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=372 https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=372 And yup! The reversion of Cárdenas's reforms was not complete; reformers in positions of power do make some difference, even if it's less than you'd guess based on short-term results. Though note that many ejidos owned by the intended local peasant's collectives are de facto controlled by a large landowner or business. (The political elite of the early-/mid-20th century was a subset of the landowning elite, not its entirety.)

RhodoGSA 5y ago

Mexico is the 9th largest economy by GDP and dwarfs all other countries in the regions. I think you proved is point, rather than negated it. Also, as a counter point, Mexico's proximity to the US had alot to do with the corruption and current regime in mexico. Drugs across the american border is very lucrative giving power and money to alot of bad people in Mexico. Watch Narcos Mexico to get a wiff of the proximity to the US creating cartels.