Why nations fail


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

>everything is because of institution bro !!!! LE heckin open - political and economic institution , aslo democracyRinoooo
>my questions after read it : so what's make political and economic institution good ?
>DON'T ask like that !!!!!!!! it's good JUST BECAUSE it is !!!!!!!!!! race , culture and climate are completely irrelevant !!!!!!!

I don't know it's seem most reddited book i've ever read , can someone explains me about this shit ?

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    just get good institutions bro its not rocket science

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Damn that book really makes you seethe

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >DON'T ask like that !!!!!!!! it's good JUST BECAUSE it is !!!!!!!!!! race , culture and climate are completely irrelevant !!!!!!!
    Who said this?

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >you need to open your asshole for liberal "democracy" to not "fail"
    >NOOO DONT LOOK AT CHINA STOP LOOKING CLOSE YOUR EYES

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      The book literally goes over china and explains that dictatorships too can have short term growth, chang

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        it's right about china though

        authoritarian is good for very poor nation but actually bad for long term development and china already exposed its problems , anyway i don't agree that any culture and society can make a good institution as that book says

        >it WILL fail
        >anyyy day now
        you homosexuals are chanting the same mantra since 1949

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Just like China will be the next world hegemon in two more weeks?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Uh, ok? What's the point you are trying to make?

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              The point is that China is never going to be the world hegemon because of the type of growth autocracies can achieve, as outlined in the book. But as history has shown a declining empire can take decades and sometimes centuries to actually fall.USSR might've techically collapsed in 1991 but the russian empire is only now truly at it's deathbed

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              >statistical projection
              >line go up means world more gooder
              t. neoliberal

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            They practically are now since Saudis and Russians are selling them all their oil.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              If China is the world hegemon they'd support Russia openly in the war on Ukraine but they dont because they dont want to piss the americans off

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                israelites are the world hegemon and they never do anything publicly you retard

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      it's right about china though

      authoritarian is good for very poor nation but actually bad for long term development and china already exposed its problems , anyway i don't agree that any culture and society can make a good institution as that book says

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        It is bad for long term development, but liberal democracy's tendency toward stupid shit like identity politics and negative immigration would impede it even more.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      China is a degenerate shithole where people have barely any kids anymore, whore themselves and do porn.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        The west is a degenerate shithole where people have barely any kids anymore, whore themselves and do porn.

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    You've posted this exact post before, and everyone savaged you. Read the part where Acemoglu explains what open institutions are again.

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Confusing nations with states on the title page should be enough to dismiss these rumblings without even reading them. The author is obviously absolutely clueless.

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    let's be real. every failed state is its own case. you can't make generalizations and there are a ton of factors

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    The main problem is confirmation bias. He does put in a lot of effort to gather data, however it is still skewed by his desire to prove that "inclusiveness" is the key to a successful state.

    For example he lavishes praise on Napoleon like a shill for tearing down "remnants of medieval times, empowering kings, princes, and nobility and restricting trade both in cities and the countryside", then shortly afterwards dismiss Napoleon putting his own family members in charge of conquered territories as necessary to impose the magnanimous Napoleonic code "Napoleon was first and foremost interested in establishing firm control over the territories he conquered. This sometimes involved cutting deals with local elites or putting his family and associates in charge, as during his brief control of Spain and Poland.".

    This is in the context of serfs and israelites being mistreated, I am not from /misc/ so I sympathise with their suffering and abhor the cruelty imposed on them, however the real world is not nice. It is wishful thinking to assume that being a good person and being nice will lead to prosperity. In reality nice things like "inclusiveness" are an effect of peace and prosperity, or at the very least they never bother to address this possible error. It seems deliberate, you don't spend years in academia without encountering this mistake, it seems as though they were hoping the filthy casual who has this on their coffee table won't catch on and it seems as though they were right to do so.

    So yes, it is complete fucking r*ddit. It is like the brainlet midwit genius meme, brainlet /misc/ will shriek at "inclusiveness", the midwit will say "hey, he has a point", the genius (me, naturally) will realize he actually makes some key errors and is indeed motivated by r*ddit virtue signalling.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      ok retard

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >INCLUSIVITY IS THE ONE DECIDING FACTOR IN EVERYTHING, HOW DARE YOU EVEN IMPLY TECHNOLOGY, GEOGRAPHY, TRADE, ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, SECURITY AND OTHER SUCH FACTORS ARE REMOTELY RELEVANT
        >NO I DON'T HAVE AN ARGUMENT, U R STOOPID AND WRONG JUST BECAUSE, OK
        well you think that because you are a fanatic, you prefer wishful thinking to reality and get offended when others don't play along, as explained

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          who are you quoting

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            you said "ok retard" with no argument, that gives me the privilege of filling in the blanks

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >For example he lavishes praise on Napoleon like a shill for tearing down "remnants of medieval times, empowering kings, princes, and nobility and restricting trade both in cities and the countryside", then shortly afterwards dismiss Napoleon putting his own family members in charge of conquered territories as necessary to impose the magnanimous Napoleonic code "Napoleon was first and foremost interested in establishing firm control over the territories he conquered. This sometimes involved cutting deals with local elites or putting his family and associates in charge, as during his brief control of Spain and Poland.".
      I feel like pointing at Napoleon's hypocrisy is missing the point. After the fall of Napoleon, many of his reforms, such as those concerning israelites and sexual freedoms, were rolled back in the former occupied countries. Clearly Napoleon was doing some things over the line. Pointing at hypocrisy doesn't change the point because the hypocrisy is not equally proportioned; Napoleon put his family in power and worked with locals, which makes him at worst in this standard as bad as the people he replaced (for they did those things too). When taken with the good he did in the same standard, the balance necessarily swings to that direction from the center. This is evidenced as much by the conservative reaction after his downfall, which would not need to happen if there was not some general sentiment among the conservative powers of Europe that Napoleon had swung the pendulum too far.

  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Inclusive states work. that's why poo ass countries where the people have a say in shit do better than ones with labyrinthine bureaucracies or all the politicians are trying to get their piece of the pie.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong, it is largely irrelevant, if a country is dirt poor and unstable it can't be "inclusive" and even if they were exceptionally inclusive it wouldn't make much difference. Likewise if a country develops its economy and is exposed to western values it might start to become ostensibly "inclusive", though in reality many countries still have a lot of nepotism and corruption.

      It is kind of like expecting Afghanistan to become a stable democracy, it is an incredibly naive western attitude. They inflate the relevance of this factor completely out of proportion and their bias is obvious.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's kind of the point of the book's argument though. Places that achieve truly modern, functional state institutions almost always outperform countries that don't.

  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: OP posts like the tenth seethe thread of the week because he doesn't like hearing the truth.

  11. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Good institutions create good times

    Global events, technology, and political developments lead to new circumstances for which past institutions are no longer good but outdated, or in other words, bad

    Bad institutions lead to bad times

    Bad times offer the opportunity for political upheaval and the rise of institutions more fitting for the current circumstances

    Only issue is neolibs assume democracy is the eternal peak institution that will never meet a problem it can’t solve. Until it does

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      It is not that simple. "Good" institutions can be worthless in certain situations while older "bad" institutions can work better.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        In the case of Afghanistan, the problem is that it was a kleptocracy that had no incentive to crack down on corruption or improve its own institutional capacity to wage war or provide services to the population.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *