#Why Nations Fail

[kemetic-dreams]

[bohemianarchaeologist]

Review: Why Nations Fail

I’m not sure how Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson managed to use 400 or say pages to say so little, but they managed it nevertheless. Beyond an endless list of anecdotes and superficial case studies, the only key points seem to be that institutions are important to economic success, that they work by influencing economic incentives, that these institutions which create success are those broadly associated with classical and neo-liberal economics, and that elites are often scared by the prospect of creative destruction. All of which could probably be summed up in a Financial Times article.

Each prosaic chapter seems to repeat the same theme as the last, with little substantive analysis. They repeatedly state the importance of inclusive institutions and secure property rights and reiterate the dangers of extractive economic institutions seemingly in every second paragraph. However, there is no substantial analysis of how these institutions work. If you want a book of anecdotes, this is for you.

[agora-bishoy]

الفوارق بين الولايات المتحدة والمكسيك تُعدُّ بدورها ضئيلة بالمقارنة مع الدول الأُخْرَى الموجودة في بقاع شتى مِنَ العالم، حيث إنَّ متوسط دخل ومستوى معيشة المواطن الأمريكي العادي يعادل سبعة أضعاف دخل ومستوى معيشة المواطن المكسيكي العادي، وما يزيد عن عشرة أضعاف مستوى معيشة الأشخاص الذين يعيشون في بيرو أو أمريكا الوسطى. غَيْر أنَّها في الوقت ذاته يعادل ازدهارها قرابة عشرين ضعفاً بالنسبة لمستوى معيشة سكان إفريقيا جنوب الصحراء، وقرابة أربعين ضعفاً بالنسبة للأشخاص الذين يعيشون في الدول الإفريقية الأكثر فقراً مثل مالي وإثيوبيا وسيراليون. ولا يقتصر الأمر على الولايات المتحدة فقط حيث إن هناك مجموعة صغيرة، ولكنها متزايدة، مِنَ الدول الغنية – التي يوجد معظمها في أوروبا وأمريكا الشمالية وينضم إليها أستراليا واليابان، ونيوزيلندا وسنغافورة، وكوريا الجنوبية وتايوان – التي يتمتع مواطنيها بمستويات معيشة مُخْتَلِفَة بدرجة كبيرة عن أولئك الأشخاص الذين يقطنون دول العالم.

دارون أسيموغلو، جيمس روبنسون | لماذا تفشل الأمم : أصول السلطة والازدهار والفقر

[afabstract]

Reading Why Nations Fail

Sneha Jaiswal (Twitter | Instagram) Phew! That was a long read. And I cannot bring myself to rate ‘Why Nations Fail’ by Daron Acemoğlu, James A. Robinson because despite being quite tedious and repetitive at times, it’s also a wealth of knowledge, with several intriguing theories, all accompanied by fascinating historical anecdotes and real tales. I began reading ‘Why Nations Fail: The Origins…

[ijustlive]

Actually, as proven by the 2024 Nobel Prize of Economics winners after decades of research: good, fair, and reliable institutions are not just correlated to a country being richer, they *create* increased wealth in nations. Institutions create value in many ways, from ensuring good business practices to allowing the specialization of labour, which in turn allow the economy to boom which gets returned to the government in the form of tax.

Therefore, it's not just that the leading party is making decisions "for the economy" at the expense of silly things like "ethics" and "humanity". The leading party is HURTING THE ECONOMY. They are actively destroying the U.S.' wealth by dismantling these institutions.

So why would they do this? Are they stupid?

Well first of all, yes: they are stupid. And the causational link between institutions and nation wealth is not as well-known as it should be. But politicians are also individuals who can directly benefit from an unfair economy.

But most of the times, they also genuinely believe it to be true. American culture (a lot of cultures actually) thoroughly believes individual wealth is synonymous with success, and the economical systems are structured around short-term profits. These two factors make "cutting costs in government expenditure" sound like a great idea, when it has already been proven to really not be.

[sencilla-mentelibros]

Por qué fracasan los países

Este libro fue publicado ya hace once años, y sin embargo sus palabras aún hacen sentido. En él, Aemoglou y Robinson proponen una teoría para explicar por qué algunos países son prósperos y otros no lo son tanto, no solo por el nivel de renta ―que juega su papel en toda charla económica― sino también por su nivel de alcance en cuanto a servicios públicos y la presencia/provisión del Estado en el territorio. No designan un espacio para definir estrictamente el término prosperidad, pero a lo largo del libro el rango del concepto se hace notar.

El pilar principal de su teoría ―de por qué los países fracasan― es básicamente la adopción de instituciones inclusivas o extractivas, entendiendo que «mediante el proceso político la sociedad elige las reglas que la gobernarán y que las instituciones políticas estipulan quién tiene poder en la sociedad y para qué fines puede utilizarse». Los autores denominan instituciones inclusivas «aquellas que están suficientemente centralizadas y que son pluralistas. Si no cumplen esta condición, serán extractivas». Básicamente dicen que las instituciones extractivas son aquellas que sirven para extraer renta por parte de las élites políticas. Las instituciones inclusivas son benignas e incentivan el pluralismo y la igualdad de condiciones.

Pero antes de continuar, me gustaría hacer la aclaración que cuando ellos hablan de «instituciones», lo hacen desde una aproximación sociológica ―entiendo que el concepto proviene de esa disciplina―, donde las «instituciones» tienen que ver con estructuras o asociaciones que están relacionadas o implican normas regulatorias del comportamiento, ya sean leyes o costumbres, por ejemplo, alrededor de ciertos valores ―desde que nos aclararon este concepto en clase hace ya varios años, no volví a ver pa’tras ni pa’parquearme, como dicen―. Entonces, dentro de este concepto, entiendo yo, se encuentran instituciones políticas/económicas como el Estado y la familia. La esclavitud y la servidumbre como instituciones económicas, el sistema impositivo vendría a ser otra, el libre mercado, el sistema de contratos, juntas comerciales, enconmiendas…, y así.

El libro desarrolla la teoría anterior descrita con una variedad de ejemplos comprendidos en un amplio periodo de tiempo y en diferentes espacios para, no solo explicar y defender su postura, sino también para refutar otras explicaciones académicas de por qué hay tanta desigualdad en el mundo. Argumentan por qué ellos piensan que tres hipótesis: la de la geografía, la de la cultura y la de la ignorancia, no funcionan para una descripción general de lo que sucede y por qué sí, la teoría de las instituciones funciona.

Tenemos una variedad de ejemplos en este texto, desde dos territorios fronterizos entre EE.UU. y México, una comparación entre las Coreas, algunos países de américa, hasta los territorios africanos y de medio oriente. Así mismo, los autores hacen un viaje en el tiempo para retomar los temas que atañen dentro del imperio romano, los imperios indígenas de América y los imperios/dinastías que se establecieron en Asia. Creo que cada caso ejemplifica a través de la historia en qué momentos se adoptaron ciertas instituciones y muestra cómo éstas interactúan con coyunturas críticas, es decir, eventos de grandes magnitudes como la peste negra o la revolución industrial, y cómo a su vez esto hace que las sociedades diverjan en cuanto a la adopción de otras instituciones.

Los autores no brindan una aproximación determinista de la historia, tomando en cuenta que las decisiones dentro del devenir histórico pueden ser contingentes. Sin embargo, enfatizan en un ciclo virtuoso y un ciclo vicioso en los cuáles las instituciones inclusivas refuerzan e incentivan comportamientos que propician la prosperidad o que la detienen. Del texto se infiere que mucho está relacionado con los incentivos dentro de la sociedad, provistos por las mismas instituciones, y que afectan la voluntad política, tanto de los gobernantes como del público en general.

El libro tiene alrededor de 539 páginas de contenido explicativo y no es mi intención tampoco trasladar cada razonamiento del libro. Sí considero, por otro lado, que si lo leen pueden adquirir nociones sobre cómo la política y la economía van de la mano, y de cómo los sistemas políticos pluralistas son preferidos por sobre los sistemas autoritarios para establecer contrapesos y restricciones que incentivan la participación de los diferentes sectores de la sociedad. Porque si bien nos explican que cierto nivel de prosperidad puede ser alcanzado en sociedades con instituciones extractivas durante cierto periodo de tiempo, éste no es sostenible.

Una observación que añadiría es que, en realidad, en este libro no se habla mucho del relegado rol que la mujer ha tenido a lo largo de la historia en temas de política y economía y, además, juzga con conceptos modernos ―como la inclusividad― tiempos anteriores; sin embargo, le hago la concesión de que habla de inclusividad como un espectro, donde según el tiempo, unas sociedades fueron más inclusivas que otras. Otra observación es que algunos países como Estados Unidos y Reino Unido quedan reflejados como sociedades idílicas, un poco, cuando sabemos que todos los países enfrentan sus propios problemas. Y la última observación que tengo es que nos brinda pocas estadísticas o números detrás de las conclusiones. Si bien se entiende que hubo rigor a la hora de concluir, a veces algunos aspectos se visualizan mejor con una comparación estadística.

Aprendí mucho leyendo este libro sobre la historia de algunos países. Me pareció muy ilustrativo en el sentido de que detrás de cada argumento hay situaciones reales que justifican el mismo y que si bien, las ciencias sociales tratan de ser positivas hasta donde pueden, generalizando sobre fenómenos humanos, creo que incluye muy bien las variables incontrolables y no medibles ―aleatorias, por decirlo así― que hacen que la historia tome diferentes rumbos. A mí esta teoría de las instituciones inclusivas que, en conjunto con un sincero respeto al Estado de derecho, ayudan a los países a ser prósperos me hace mucho sentido. Le doy cinco estrellas.

Fecha original de publicación: octubre 28, 2023

[the-sol-eater]

(x) David - bisexual with a strong female lean. but he describes himself as “straight but also not opposed to any random impulses that may arise”

I kind of overlooked this for a very long time admittedly, as I assume a lot of people did because I rarely appear to see this discussed in depth minus one, but like. I know this is an Andrew Garfield quote, but the actual prospect of David being fifteen feet in the closet makes so much sense. He is an incredibly notable figure in the universe of DRDT, his whole character is basically built upon that fact. Something else that's pretty obvious is that David is someone who cares a lot about how he's perceived by others. He works hard to make himself as palatable and uncontroversial as possible to other people. It's no wonder that he would hide and/or sugarcoat his attraction to men when describing his sexuality to the public, or even begin repressing it himself. And not only that, but it makes the inappropriate way he responded to Nico being forcefully outed make so much more sense

(x) David: So then, revealing your secret was a good thing, right? That way, you won’t have to be misgendered anymore. Nico: … Nico: I wasn’t ready. David: This is definitely an improvement. It’s good for everyone to be open with their secrets.

Like no wonder this man cannot be trusted to handle queer identity in a respectful way, he's repressing his own so far that it's going to come out of his ass.

[triglycercule]

MTT NATION!!!! LOOKIE!!!!

@what-have-i-unleashed @multiversewatchpost guys its THE COUNCIL!!!!! ITS THE COUNCIL!!!!! totally amazing secret mtt nation member drew this :3333333 i look so beautiful (as always)

[agora-bishoy]

إن الفوارق الكبيرة في حجم اللامساواة الموجودة في هذا العالم تُعدُّ واضحة، حَتّى بالنسبة لأولئك الذين يعيشون في الدول الفقيرة، على الرغم مِنْ أن الكثيرين منهم يفتقدون الوصول إلى شاشات التلفاز أو الإنترنت.

دارون أسيموغلو، جيمس روبنسون | لماذا تفشل الأمم : أصول السلطة والازدهار والفقر

[burningcheese-merchant]

Ok fuck it. Fuck it I need to rant. I'm disappointed to the high heavens. This just looks like X and Y again. It just looks like they finally bothered to get off their asses and make Pokémon Z like everyone begged for 10+ years ago and they're trying to relabel it as a Legends game. You know what the word "legend" means? It means OLD!!! It's a fantastical tale of days long past! PAST! NOT FUTURE! Why are we in the future!!! There are no legends about the damn future, only the past!!!

How cool would it have been if we were in the Pokémon equivalent of Napoleonic France? If the protagonist was from a lower-middle-class family (maybe even lower, a genuinely struggling protagonist would be interesting, especially within this time period), who set out with their Pokémon to earn money to help out, only to end up caught in the middle of a nationwide shitstorm? What if you ventured throughout the region, through the beaches and mountains and beautiful French/Kalosian countryside, all the way to Paris/Lumiose, where the societal rot is at its most obvious and damning? What if the "evil team" wasn't evil at first, just a band of revolutionaries with their hearts in the right place, seeking change and justice for the broke and starving public against the laziness and corruption of the self-absorbed elite? What if the villain was the king at first, because he and the other royals really are as awful as they're stated to be? What if there were (optional, because not everyone was against the French monarchy) side quests to help spread revolutionary propaganda or help the rebels earn money, gather resources, toughen up their Pokémon in preparation for future battles against the royals? Hell, what if there was a rival group of royalists who acted as the rebels' foil, whom you can also help and hinder as much or as little as you liked?

What if there was an honest-to-God violent coup where people and Pokémon stormed the royal palace and destroy everything in sight (and you could be there, battling guards or something)? What if the king was challenged to a battle and lost miserably, proving once and for all how weak and pathetic he is, and thus overthrown and exiled (can't execute him, this franchise is too cowardly to evolve past being milquetoast kiddie shit)? What if the rebel leader, with his dear Empoleon beside him, took his place and crowned himself emperor right then and there, to the overwhelming joy of his followers and sympathizers, dismay of his opponents, and whatever it is the player chooses to feel, because there should be a genuine undercurrent of historical, political and philosophical discussion about all of this throughout the story that encourages us to form our own thoughts and opinions about the situation?

Only for the rebel leader, the Napoleon figure, to turn out worse than the king ever was, and his close subordinates immediately going mad with their newfound power and practically destroying the country. Then they really ARE the evil team for real this time, because they became the tyrants they sought to destroy, and depending on the player's past actions, it might partially be their fault that they succeeded. Imagine the Pokémon equivalent of the fucking Reign of Terror. People and Pokémon being attacked, imprisoned, exiled (again, they're too chickenshit to kill people. Tens of thousands died during the REAL Reign of Terror). Imagine your new mission going from trying to flee Lumiose and go home (only to fail, because they won't let anyone leave outside of being formally exiled out of fear/paranoia about uncontrolled dissidents) to taking an active role against the new regime, battling police to bust innocents out of jail, reuniting families and friends torn apart by fear and force? Imagine a heated battle against the stand-in for Maximilien Robespierre to help put an end to the madness!!! What if you went to libraries and picked up newspapers and listened to the telegraph and discovered everything has been censored in some way? What if you went into houses and found depressed wives and mothers and sisters and daughters, and opened letters from the men in their families (and their Pokémon, too) who were conscripted into the Kalosian army because the Emperor is trying to wage wars against neighboring regions to fulfill territorial ambitions (which actually did happen, Napoleon's France was constantly at war, which majorly tanked the economy because all the men were sent off to die or be horrifically injured. Remember when they tried to invade Russia? Over half a million troops went, barely 1/6 of them came back)? The climax of the story + defeat of the Emperor in battle can be a nod to the Battle of Waterloo!!! The post-game can have the player looking for runaway rebels like how you hunted for the Sages in post-game Black and White! What if there was a limited time mystery gift event where you could win a ferry ticket to the island the former Emperor is imprisoned on, JUST LIKE THE ACTUAL NAPOLEON, and there was a final cutscene between you and him where you discuss everything that happened and he asserts that he did what he had to and he still believes that he was acting in Kalos's best interest!!! Because many of the revolutionaries really did think that way, they believed they were doing right by France!!! Even when they jailed and murdered thousands of innocent people!!!

But no, we don't get cool shit like that, we get AZ running a fucking inn for whatever reason and an "urban redevelopment plan" that's literally just "let the Pokémon trash half the city with zero repercussions or any consideration for the homes and businesses in the areas they overrun". What the fuck man

[littlelav107]

i keep getting shot - when i find i cannot help but be wrong.

i keep getting shot. arrows do not fly in all directions, nor do they aim at me alone. no, somehow i end up where the arrows fly past.

i keep getting shot. i look at every screen i hold in my hands just before each one becomes a portal. a portal? yes, one that lets arrows pass through, pierce my heart, then disappear without a trace.

i keep getting shot. a friend hands me a note in good faith yet every word my eyes fall on become icy daggers that leave me frozen. she would never mean to hurt me. she gave me the note to support me.

i keep getting shot. i stumble across a story and every word calls out to me. i hear the calling - "what does each of us mean?" i scramble to analyze every word but they cut deeper, too deep that i fear i cannot find all their secrets

i turn and face the crowd - "i do not understand what any of you mean!" and their knives, their swords, they glisten with disdain. it's as if they dream to tear me to pieces! i blink once. twice. i open my eyes. but the crowd isn't there.

they were never there.

so i laugh, i know not whether it is genuine or sarcastic, yet i hold no malice to the arrows. i keep stepping into the battlegrounds; i know what i am doing.

do not even dare tell me to step out. what good is avoidance? i know what to choose! the rich crimson (it now drips from my heart) the controversial green (we share the same fate) the mixes of purple (should i follow the crowd) every wound is worth the sliver of reward!

i choose to get shot. i do not need your armor nor do i need your peace. i have to remain, for the words call me. the imaginary crowds demand this of me.

i'll keep getting shot.

[deci-doodles]

This was originally a request from a friend but I figured I might as well post here coz I think it’s too funny

Audio: Berlioz, Symphonie Fantastique Mvt. 4. March to the Scaffold

Would highly recommend listening to the whole track coz it’s a banger but also it’s literally the composer having an opium-induced fever dream about him getting his head lopped off at the guillotine so

[zaggyzoo]

every day that passes i hate my student's math teacher more and more

[lesbianseaweed]

me remembering that I originally wanted to study robotics and that I can still get a masters degree in it once I finish my current course but I have no idea if I'd actually want to study it and I have no way of "trying it out" beforehand

[officialromaniantranslatiuni]

why go out when you can binge watch disparuti fara urma on youtube?

[putri900]

Even i was hoping trump was just going to be only slightly worse than biden but then lo and behold! Out of fucking nowhere, they want to persecute and put every "illegal" in CONCENTRATION CAMPS. And they want to invade mexico. They're still persecuting trans people via legislation. They still had that fucking batshit crazy plan to DISMANTLE the entire democratic process.

So remember that even when your Democrat is basically satan himself, Republicans still figure out how to be satan times 10. Always. They're always going to be worse.

On another, sadder note, i think satan times 10 will win. Because progressives have broadly given up on this new, increasingly shitty status quo, theyll let in something significantly worse. Its not that i even necessarily blame voters when the Democrats themselves make themselves irredeemable, but itd be nice to just hope... that things couldnt get significantly worse.