> defined Acemoglu's naive theorizing It sounds like you are parroting arguments without explaining those arguments. "Wikipedia entries with regressions" is a

> 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.