3 ms·

>Singapore is the sole exception to the rule historically democracy is the exception and plenty of kings and dictators have had success. Arab golden age was th

>Singapore is the sole exception to the rule historically democracy is the exception and plenty of kings and dictators have had success. Arab golden age was the result of a string of 4 straight solid rulers in a row who prioritized science. Pretty similar period for Rome with the 4 good emperors. Democracy is more stable, finding a good successor worthy of all that power is the main challenge to non-democracies

namlem 4y ago
Historically all those kingdoms were also quite poor, and societies that adopted norms that favored larger governing coalitions, such as the Republic of Venice, tended to flourish.
- picsao 4y ago
- CrackerNews 4y ago
  I think that's more rather the difference in economies with kingdoms traditionally extracting taxes from their fiefdoms and Venice being able to broadly trade. The difference in economy led to the difference in governance.
  - namlem 4y ago
    It's bidirectional and difference in governance absolutely produces differences in economies. After all, the economy is based on incentives, so when incentives change, so do economies. In Why Nations Fail there was a great example of how certain sub-Saharan African peoples didn't use plows for agriculture. The Europeans assumed it was because they were unsophisticated but actually it was because their king taxed them in such a way as to leave them with the same amount of grain regardless of how much they produced. They had zero incentive to be productive and therefore had no use for plows. As soon as the tax system changed, they began to use plows. Likewise, in highly corrupt systems, there is no reason to start a business, since the incentive monopolists will not permit it to compete anyway. That's why Ukraine, a country with relatively high levels of infrastructure and education, is so poor.

3 ms·

>Singapore is the sole exception to the rule historically democracy is the exception and plenty of kings and dictators have had success. Arab golden age was th

by ren_engineer 4y ago

namlem 4y ago
Historically all those kingdoms were also quite poor, and societies that adopted norms that favored larger governing coalitions, such as the Republic of Venice, tended to flourish.
- picsao 4y ago
- CrackerNews 4y ago
  I think that's more rather the difference in economies with kingdoms traditionally extracting taxes from their fiefdoms and Venice being able to broadly trade. The difference in economy led to the difference in governance.
  - namlem 4y ago
    It's bidirectional and difference in governance absolutely produces differences in economies. After all, the economy is based on incentives, so when incentives change, so do economies. In Why Nations Fail there was a great example of how certain sub-Saharan African peoples didn't use plows for agriculture. The Europeans assumed it was because they were unsophisticated but actually it was because their king taxed them in such a way as to leave them with the same amount of grain regardless of how much they produced. They had zero incentive to be productive and therefore had no use for plows. As soon as the tax system changed, they began to use plows. Likewise, in highly corrupt systems, there is no reason to start a business, since the incentive monopolists will not permit it to compete anyway. That's why Ukraine, a country with relatively high levels of infrastructure and education, is so poor.