8 ms·

Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2024

97 points by hdvr 2y ago

kome 2y ago
Terrible decision. Very bad and sloppy economics, a simplified version of what sociology and political science have been doing much better for over 40 years, as if before these crucial contributions we had no idea that institutions, forms of power and social conflict affect economic outcomes. Branko Milanovic has aptly and rather amusingly defined Acemoglu's naive theorizing as "Wikipedia entries with regressions" https://glineq.blogspot.com/2014/08/my-take-on-acemoglu-robinson-critique.html https://glineq.blogspot.com/2014/08/my-take-on-acemoglu-robi... and he is right. Acemoglu's strand of institutional social science is known to be painfully racist and clueless about realities on the ground https://africasacountry.com/2016/09/africa-why-western-economists-get-it-wrong https://africasacountry.com/2016/09/africa-why-western-econo... The narrative that you can get economic growth with "good institutions" is a fable, and cases like China are also completely outside their narrative. Not only is their narrative historically inaccurate, if not ideological, it can't explain why Western economies like the US have prospered despite being as corrupt as China is today.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > defined Acemoglu's naive theorizing It sounds like you are parroting arguments without explaining those arguments. "Wikipedia entries with regressions" is a facile argument that can be applied to Picketty and Milanovic as well. Plus, Milanovic congratulated AJR and agreed to a number of their initial works in the space (which are the ones that won them the Nobel) > The narrative that you can get economic growth with "good institutions" is a fable Bullshit. We don't invest in Uganda or Kenya because we know we won't be able to get a contract enforced. A major reason FDI to PRC skyrocketed in the 2000s was because individual provinces worked on building SEZs with ease of contract enforcement, as well as a number of harmonizing business regulation reforms (eg. the Guiding Cases Project). And that same FDI outflow from China that we are now seeing is due to the opaqueness that now permeates the judicial and regulatory environemnt in China after a number of backwards reforms in 2018-22. > it can't explain why Western economies like the US have prospered despite being as corrupt as China is today. Over a century of major reforms and regulations. This was a major reason why the PRC began the Guiding Cases project.
- nabla9 2y ago
  Here is what your boy Branko Milanovic says: https://x.com/BrankoMilan/status/1845850368221032590 https://x.com/BrankoMilan/status/1845850368221032590 > Good decision. They deserve it. Obviously, there is a lot to disagree with in their work, but AJR initial papers were excellent, and broadened economic work to include politics and economic history. Congratulations!
- blackhawkC17 2y ago
  There’s nothing racist about stating that strong institutions and rule of law lead to economic success. It’s an obvious truth, which many Africans reject for some reason. I’m Nigerian, and my country is a clear example of how excessive corruption and dependence on a natural resource (oil) makes a country mediocre.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    Dan Rogger published an interesting paper 13 years ago digging into this from a Civil Service standpoint [0] Some of the recommendations were implemented, but it's still very much a work in progress. [0] - https://www.danrogger.com/files/survey%20reports/Nigeria%20CSS%20-%20Official%20Report.pdf https://www.danrogger.com/files/survey%20reports/Nigeria%20C...
AlbertCory 2y ago
The "Nobel Prize in Economics" was not one of the original ones endowed by Alfred Nobel. As the name implies, it was created by a bank. Is there any reason Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk can't endow a Prize in Computer Science? That would end the controversy about whether AI is "Physics."
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  It's not even a non-original Nobel. It's simply "Not a Nobel Prize". The headline should read "Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson won Not a Nobel Prize in Economics." We shouldn't validate the idea that one can earn a Nobel in economics. It's simply not possible because such a prize does not exist. Shame on economists for attempting to legitimize economics using the memory of Alfred Nobel. It is low, even for them.
- jldugger 2y ago
  We already have the Turing Award, and a prize sponsored by Google.
- doe_eyes 2y ago
  > Is there any reason Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk can't endow a Prize in Computer Science? Even without searching, I'm sure they back a number of organizations that do endow various awards, scholarships, and so on. I doubt they could come up with a "flagship" one that would be as prestigious as the Nobel Prize, though. Our attitudes toward modern-day "industrialists" and their pet projects are quite different today. Whatever controversies surround the Nobel Prize, they would be many times worse for the Bezos-Gates-Zuck-Musk Medal of Merit.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    This seems kinda confused. The Nobel is now controversial because after all, Nobel invented dynamite and he wanted to expunge his guilt. Yet you said it was "prestigious" -- but you want to cancel that, regardless? But somehow the Nobel Prize in Computer Science would be too controversial even given all that. OK, I get that you don't like Bezos-Gates-Zuck-Musk. Maybe you're just jealous.
aanet 2y ago
Absolutely chuffed to hear that Daren Acemoglu (one of my fav econ writers), Simon Johnson and Robinson won the Nobel memorial prize. Acemoglu has been a brilliant and prolific econ writer, and I enjoy his exposition. Many have commented on his "Why Nations Fail", and rightly so. More recently, he also wrote "Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity". I'm more interested in his thoughts on tech and development (than on instituions and democracy), and he doesn't disappoint. More topically for HN folks, he wrote on "The Simple Macroeconomics of AI" [1]. Unlike many contemporary researchers / writers (incl. Ethan Mollick) who are completely ga-ga over prospects of AI-driven economy over the next decade, Acemoglu is more reserved. His top findings: Modest Productivity Gains: Estimates suggest TFP growth from AI will be less than 0.55% to 0.71% over 10 years, limited by the complexity of tasks. Hard vs. Easy Tasks: AI's impact on "hard-to-learn" tasks, which lack clear metrics and are context-sensitive, will likely produce smaller gains than on simpler tasks. Wage Effects: AI's productivity benefits may not substantially raise wages, particularly for low-skill workers. Inequality Impact: AI is unlikely to reduce labor income inequality significantly and may widen the gap between capital and labor incomes. Task Complementarity: AI could enhance productivity by complementing human workers, though benefits may be limited if task prices fall. Role of New Tasks: New AI-enabled tasks could boost productivity, but some may also create negative social value, such as manipulative content. Automation Limitations: Extensive-margin automation may not lead to substantial wage increases if displacement effects outweigh productivity benefits. Consumer Welfare: Increases in GDP may overstate consumer welfare improvements due to investment's impact on consumption. Capital-Labor Dynamics: AI's use may increase the capital share of income, further shifting income away from labor. Investment Response: AI-related productivity gains will likely trigger only modest capital stock increases. [Caveat: above summary generated by ChatGPT, sorry!] I'm cautious -- neither too optimistic (although the engineer in me wants to believe in the AI-driven future) nor too pessimistic (but I'm also very, very realistic in broad adoption and benefits dissemination of AI). His recent chat with FT [2] is also illuminating (Sep 2024). --- [1] https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2024-04/The%20Simple%20Macroeconomics%20of%20AI.pdf https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2024-04/The%20... (Apr 2024) [2] FT audio interview - https://www.ft.com/content/e865a777-501a-4417-839e-dffd4b5206e7 https://www.ft.com/content/e865a777-501a-4417-839e-dffd4b520... (Sep 2024)
EugeneG 2y ago
Which is why the pro-Trump tech folks are playing with fire. Exchanging potentially faster approvals/lower regulation for favored projects, for an environment where rule of law and institutions are weakened.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pavlov 2y ago
  The pro-Trump tech folks are 90% about crypto. It's single-issue politics, like abortion or gun rights. Scratch the surface on a SV Trump supporter like Marc Andreessen, and you'll find a big bag of crypto that they want to keep dumping on retail investors.
  - lokar 2y ago
    It’s not really about crypto. It just self interest.
  - superidiot1932 2y ago
    Which crypto Bill Ackman is trying to dump on retail?
    - lern_too_spel 2y ago
      Ackman is not a tech folk.
- lokar 2y ago
  The slow and messy process of reaching consensus (or close) via a complex web of institutions help “western” (in the sense that Kotkin uses) societies avoid really bad policy and adapt to mistakes. Some people are frustrated by this and think it would be much better to substitute their judgment for this process. They don’t necessarily hold this view selfishly or maliciously, they are just short sighted.
  - 2y ago
hhs 2y ago
If interested, this page has context: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2024/popular-information/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2024/pop...
cjalmeida 2y ago
I strongly recommend Acemoglu, Robinson classic book "Why Nations Fail" https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227 https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/d... It's very accessible, no economics background required. Along with Krugman and Kahneman, one of the few economics scholars that take the time to write a book for layman.
- Eumenes 2y ago
  > Krugman Not sure I'd spend time on a Krugman book. He predicted in 1998 that the internet would cease having an economic impact by 2005 and that it would be no greater than fax machines. He's like the Neil deGrasse Tyson of economics.
  - CyberRymden 2y ago
    Krugman is controversial at times, but he is a serious economist. The quote is also taken out of two important contexts. 1. It was not a serious academic prediction but rather part of a fluff piece by the Times about future precitions. 2. The quote also exists in the context of a debate that was raging during the advent of the internet whether or not the internet would hyper charge productivity and economic growth. In hindsight, especially after the late 1990s, the truth is far closer to the fax machine rather than a new era of prosperity. The lack of visible productivity growth from a technology that has so visibly transformed our society is one of the bigger questions in economics today.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      The lack of visible productivity growth. In particular, it's not as visible as you expect in the GDP statistics. Take TV Guide, for instance. Now, if anybody watches broadcast television, they can use the internet to find out what's on when. Is that better or worse for users than having a paper TV guide? In many ways it's better. But it shows up in the GDP as a negative, because nobody's buying TV Guide any more. Or take Google. I can search for any information I want, for free. That creates immense value - immense in every sense except the GDP, where it doesn't show up at all, because it's free. Wikipedia. Linux. gcc. The Wayback Machine. Even HN. All this is available to us, whenever we want it, for whatever purpose we want, for free. There's great value to us. Just nothing that shows up on the GDP statistics, because it's all free. (Yeah, I know, RedHat sells Linux, and Wikipedia asks for donations. They aren't Microsoft selling Windows and The World Book, though. You can still use them for free, and not get sued or jailed.)
nabla9 2y ago
Well deserved. Acemoglu is the economist everyone respects. Very technical, but not for the sake of mathiness. His models have a meaning. They clarify thought and ideas. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=l9Or8EMAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=l9Or8EMAAAAJ&hl=en
- kome 2y ago
  [flagged]
NeutralForest 2y ago
Very cool to see public econ and history of economics represented! On top of the popular release, there's usually some advanced background info (https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2024/10/advanced-economicsciencesprize2024.pdf https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2024/10/advanced-economic...) which is admittedly pretty massive but gives a lot of background about the Prize.
doodlebugging 2y ago
Seems like one conclusion that can be drawn is that the indigenous people who get colonized should just shut up and enjoy their new reservations. The political, societal, and economic benefits of colonization were not intended to help them. Those changes were only to help those who did the colonizing build a new society that was free from the institutions that prevented them having a voice in how they were able to conduct their lives back in the old (European monarchy) country. Shit rolled downhill in the new country and the oppressed became the oppressor. It worked out in the end though for those who survived since they now have representative government with members elected who are beholden to the people and who remember the main lesson of the past - grassroots organization against oppression is the only tool that works to preserve freedom for the majority of the people in a country.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  In most settler-colonial situations during history, unless strict separation between races and nations was maintained, the conquerors intermingled with the conquered so thoroughly that you cannot tell them apart nowadays (Who is a Norman and who is an Anglo-Saxon? Who is a Roman and who is a Celt?). That included a lot of Amerindians in the US. This is pretty much the norm across the ages. You could probably say that it is wise from the vanquished to adapt at least partially the culture of the conquerors; after all, it might be better suited for victories in wars, and that was a major factor in survival until recently. (In some places, still is.)
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > Seems like one conclusion that can be drawn is that the indigenous people who get colonized should just shut up and enjoy their new reservations Colonial institutions ARE extractive. This is a fairly prominent point in Acemoglu, Simon, and Robinson's works.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- CyberRymden 2y ago
  Their seminal book literally opens with explaining how most colonial institutions were created to extract the wealth of natives and slaves, institutions that live on today through the authoritarian regimes that inherited them.
zxcb1 2y ago
I, for one, am waiting for the field of economics to be colonized by AI folks
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

97 points by hdvr 2y ago

kome 2y ago

Terrible decision. Very bad and sloppy economics, a simplified version of what sociology and political science have been doing much better for over 40 years, as if before these crucial contributions we had no idea that institutions, forms of power and social conflict affect economic outcomes. Branko Milanovic has aptly and rather amusingly defined Acemoglu's naive theorizing as "Wikipedia entries with regressions" https://glineq.blogspot.com/2014/08/my-take-on-acemoglu-robinson-critique.html https://glineq.blogspot.com/2014/08/my-take-on-acemoglu-robi... and he is right. Acemoglu's strand of institutional social science is known to be painfully racist and clueless about realities on the ground https://africasacountry.com/2016/09/africa-why-western-economists-get-it-wrong https://africasacountry.com/2016/09/africa-why-western-econo... The narrative that you can get economic growth with "good institutions" is a fable, and cases like China are also completely outside their narrative. Not only is their narrative historically inaccurate, if not ideological, it can't explain why Western economies like the US have prospered despite being as corrupt as China is today.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
alephnerd 2y ago
> defined Acemoglu's naive theorizing It sounds like you are parroting arguments without explaining those arguments. "Wikipedia entries with regressions" is a facile argument that can be applied to Picketty and Milanovic as well. Plus, Milanovic congratulated AJR and agreed to a number of their initial works in the space (which are the ones that won them the Nobel) > The narrative that you can get economic growth with "good institutions" is a fable Bullshit. We don't invest in Uganda or Kenya because we know we won't be able to get a contract enforced. A major reason FDI to PRC skyrocketed in the 2000s was because individual provinces worked on building SEZs with ease of contract enforcement, as well as a number of harmonizing business regulation reforms (eg. the Guiding Cases Project). And that same FDI outflow from China that we are now seeing is due to the opaqueness that now permeates the judicial and regulatory environemnt in China after a number of backwards reforms in 2018-22. > it can't explain why Western economies like the US have prospered despite being as corrupt as China is today. Over a century of major reforms and regulations. This was a major reason why the PRC began the Guiding Cases project.
nabla9 2y ago
Here is what your boy Branko Milanovic says: https://x.com/BrankoMilan/status/1845850368221032590 https://x.com/BrankoMilan/status/1845850368221032590 > Good decision. They deserve it. Obviously, there is a lot to disagree with in their work, but AJR initial papers were excellent, and broadened economic work to include politics and economic history. Congratulations!
blackhawkC17 2y ago
There’s nothing racist about stating that strong institutions and rule of law lead to economic success. It’s an obvious truth, which many Africans reject for some reason. I’m Nigerian, and my country is a clear example of how excessive corruption and dependence on a natural resource (oil) makes a country mediocre.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  Dan Rogger published an interesting paper 13 years ago digging into this from a Civil Service standpoint [0] Some of the recommendations were implemented, but it's still very much a work in progress. [0] - https://www.danrogger.com/files/survey%20reports/Nigeria%20CSS%20-%20Official%20Report.pdf https://www.danrogger.com/files/survey%20reports/Nigeria%20C...

AlbertCory 2y ago

The "Nobel Prize in Economics" was not one of the original ones endowed by Alfred Nobel. As the name implies, it was created by a bank. Is there any reason Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk can't endow a Prize in Computer Science? That would end the controversy about whether AI is "Physics."

kelseyfrog 2y ago
It's not even a non-original Nobel. It's simply "Not a Nobel Prize". The headline should read "Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson won Not a Nobel Prize in Economics." We shouldn't validate the idea that one can earn a Nobel in economics. It's simply not possible because such a prize does not exist. Shame on economists for attempting to legitimize economics using the memory of Alfred Nobel. It is low, even for them.
jldugger 2y ago
We already have the Turing Award, and a prize sponsored by Google.
doe_eyes 2y ago
> Is there any reason Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk can't endow a Prize in Computer Science? Even without searching, I'm sure they back a number of organizations that do endow various awards, scholarships, and so on. I doubt they could come up with a "flagship" one that would be as prestigious as the Nobel Prize, though. Our attitudes toward modern-day "industrialists" and their pet projects are quite different today. Whatever controversies surround the Nobel Prize, they would be many times worse for the Bezos-Gates-Zuck-Musk Medal of Merit.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  This seems kinda confused. The Nobel is now controversial because after all, Nobel invented dynamite and he wanted to expunge his guilt. Yet you said it was "prestigious" -- but you want to cancel that, regardless? But somehow the Nobel Prize in Computer Science would be too controversial even given all that. OK, I get that you don't like Bezos-Gates-Zuck-Musk. Maybe you're just jealous.

aanet 2y ago

Absolutely chuffed to hear that Daren Acemoglu (one of my fav econ writers), Simon Johnson and Robinson won the Nobel memorial prize. Acemoglu has been a brilliant and prolific econ writer, and I enjoy his exposition. Many have commented on his "Why Nations Fail", and rightly so. More recently, he also wrote "Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity". I'm more interested in his thoughts on tech and development (than on instituions and democracy), and he doesn't disappoint. More topically for HN folks, he wrote on "The Simple Macroeconomics of AI" [1]. Unlike many contemporary researchers / writers (incl. Ethan Mollick) who are completely ga-ga over prospects of AI-driven economy over the next decade, Acemoglu is more reserved. His top findings: Modest Productivity Gains: Estimates suggest TFP growth from AI will be less than 0.55% to 0.71% over 10 years, limited by the complexity of tasks. Hard vs. Easy Tasks: AI's impact on "hard-to-learn" tasks, which lack clear metrics and are context-sensitive, will likely produce smaller gains than on simpler tasks. Wage Effects: AI's productivity benefits may not substantially raise wages, particularly for low-skill workers. Inequality Impact: AI is unlikely to reduce labor income inequality significantly and may widen the gap between capital and labor incomes. Task Complementarity: AI could enhance productivity by complementing human workers, though benefits may be limited if task prices fall. Role of New Tasks: New AI-enabled tasks could boost productivity, but some may also create negative social value, such as manipulative content. Automation Limitations: Extensive-margin automation may not lead to substantial wage increases if displacement effects outweigh productivity benefits. Consumer Welfare: Increases in GDP may overstate consumer welfare improvements due to investment's impact on consumption. Capital-Labor Dynamics: AI's use may increase the capital share of income, further shifting income away from labor. Investment Response: AI-related productivity gains will likely trigger only modest capital stock increases. [Caveat: above summary generated by ChatGPT, sorry!] I'm cautious -- neither too optimistic (although the engineer in me wants to believe in the AI-driven future) nor too pessimistic (but I'm also very, very realistic in broad adoption and benefits dissemination of AI). His recent chat with FT [2] is also illuminating (Sep 2024). --- [1] https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2024-04/The%20Simple%20Macroeconomics%20of%20AI.pdf https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2024-04/The%20... (Apr 2024) [2] FT audio interview - https://www.ft.com/content/e865a777-501a-4417-839e-dffd4b5206e7 https://www.ft.com/content/e865a777-501a-4417-839e-dffd4b520... (Sep 2024)

EugeneG 2y ago

Which is why the pro-Trump tech folks are playing with fire. Exchanging potentially faster approvals/lower regulation for favored projects, for an environment where rule of law and institutions are weakened.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pavlov 2y ago
The pro-Trump tech folks are 90% about crypto. It's single-issue politics, like abortion or gun rights. Scratch the surface on a SV Trump supporter like Marc Andreessen, and you'll find a big bag of crypto that they want to keep dumping on retail investors.
- lokar 2y ago
  It’s not really about crypto. It just self interest.
- superidiot1932 2y ago
  Which crypto Bill Ackman is trying to dump on retail?
  - lern_too_spel 2y ago
    Ackman is not a tech folk.
lokar 2y ago
The slow and messy process of reaching consensus (or close) via a complex web of institutions help “western” (in the sense that Kotkin uses) societies avoid really bad policy and adapt to mistakes. Some people are frustrated by this and think it would be much better to substitute their judgment for this process. They don’t necessarily hold this view selfishly or maliciously, they are just short sighted.
- 2y ago

hhs 2y ago

If interested, this page has context: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2024/popular-information/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2024/pop...

cjalmeida 2y ago

I strongly recommend Acemoglu, Robinson classic book "Why Nations Fail" https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227 https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/d... It's very accessible, no economics background required. Along with Krugman and Kahneman, one of the few economics scholars that take the time to write a book for layman.

Eumenes 2y ago
> Krugman Not sure I'd spend time on a Krugman book. He predicted in 1998 that the internet would cease having an economic impact by 2005 and that it would be no greater than fax machines. He's like the Neil deGrasse Tyson of economics.
- CyberRymden 2y ago
  Krugman is controversial at times, but he is a serious economist. The quote is also taken out of two important contexts. 1. It was not a serious academic prediction but rather part of a fluff piece by the Times about future precitions. 2. The quote also exists in the context of a debate that was raging during the advent of the internet whether or not the internet would hyper charge productivity and economic growth. In hindsight, especially after the late 1990s, the truth is far closer to the fax machine rather than a new era of prosperity. The lack of visible productivity growth from a technology that has so visibly transformed our society is one of the bigger questions in economics today.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    The lack of visible productivity growth. In particular, it's not as visible as you expect in the GDP statistics. Take TV Guide, for instance. Now, if anybody watches broadcast television, they can use the internet to find out what's on when. Is that better or worse for users than having a paper TV guide? In many ways it's better. But it shows up in the GDP as a negative, because nobody's buying TV Guide any more. Or take Google. I can search for any information I want, for free. That creates immense value - immense in every sense except the GDP, where it doesn't show up at all, because it's free. Wikipedia. Linux. gcc. The Wayback Machine. Even HN. All this is available to us, whenever we want it, for whatever purpose we want, for free. There's great value to us. Just nothing that shows up on the GDP statistics, because it's all free. (Yeah, I know, RedHat sells Linux, and Wikipedia asks for donations. They aren't Microsoft selling Windows and The World Book, though. You can still use them for free, and not get sued or jailed.)

nabla9 2y ago

Well deserved. Acemoglu is the economist everyone respects. Very technical, but not for the sake of mathiness. His models have a meaning. They clarify thought and ideas. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=l9Or8EMAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=l9Or8EMAAAAJ&hl=en

kome 2y ago
[flagged]

NeutralForest 2y ago

Very cool to see public econ and history of economics represented! On top of the popular release, there's usually some advanced background info (https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2024/10/advanced-economicsciencesprize2024.pdf https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2024/10/advanced-economic...) which is admittedly pretty massive but gives a lot of background about the Prize.

doodlebugging 2y ago

Seems like one conclusion that can be drawn is that the indigenous people who get colonized should just shut up and enjoy their new reservations. The political, societal, and economic benefits of colonization were not intended to help them. Those changes were only to help those who did the colonizing build a new society that was free from the institutions that prevented them having a voice in how they were able to conduct their lives back in the old (European monarchy) country. Shit rolled downhill in the new country and the oppressed became the oppressor. It worked out in the end though for those who survived since they now have representative government with members elected who are beholden to the people and who remember the main lesson of the past - grassroots organization against oppression is the only tool that works to preserve freedom for the majority of the people in a country.

inglor_cz 2y ago
In most settler-colonial situations during history, unless strict separation between races and nations was maintained, the conquerors intermingled with the conquered so thoroughly that you cannot tell them apart nowadays (Who is a Norman and who is an Anglo-Saxon? Who is a Roman and who is a Celt?). That included a lot of Amerindians in the US. This is pretty much the norm across the ages. You could probably say that it is wise from the vanquished to adapt at least partially the culture of the conquerors; after all, it might be better suited for victories in wars, and that was a major factor in survival until recently. (In some places, still is.)
alephnerd 2y ago
> Seems like one conclusion that can be drawn is that the indigenous people who get colonized should just shut up and enjoy their new reservations Colonial institutions ARE extractive. This is a fairly prominent point in Acemoglu, Simon, and Robinson's works.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
CyberRymden 2y ago
Their seminal book literally opens with explaining how most colonial institutions were created to extract the wealth of natives and slaves, institutions that live on today through the authoritarian regimes that inherited them.

zxcb1 2y ago

I, for one, am waiting for the field of economics to be colonized by AI folks

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]