Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why nations fail

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 119 posts

Re: Why nations fail

#21

Post by tatsuke95 »

moldbug wrote: post #11
hristov wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, this thread just became some kind of magnet for racists, didn't it. Since you are apparently very proud of your IQ, perhaps you can read the actual article and try to comment on something related to the article's substance, and not just give us a knee jerk reaction based on the title.

The implicit comment is that the article's substance is of no conceivable relevance, because it fails to mention the most obvious possible cause - human genetic diversity - for the pattern it purports to analyze. It's one thing to refute or qualify the null hypothesis. It's another to ignore it. Why shouldn't it be the null hypothesis that genetic diversity is the cause of global inequality? Human beings have been th…

The situation is bad enough that I'm a little sensitive to agreeing with what you've said here. According to a few posts up, that makes me a racist, I guess.

The problem is, I never really understood why it's a stretch to believe that in all of the messy soup of chromosomes and culture (variables of a magnitude beyond what we could ever possibly research) that there are tangible differences between human beings. And once you start acknowledging differences, you have to acknowledge that those differences are going to give rise to advantages and disadvantages to things so random that they might not ever matter. But sometimes they do.

Are these differences, this genetic diversity, the root cause of global inequality? Based on my understanding of economics, I don't believe so. But that doesn't mean the conversation should be off the table.

Re: Why nations fail

#22

Post by cynicalkane »

entangld wrote: post #20

The author's main point seems to be that corrupt governments allow too much money in too few hands. Maybe this isn't the grand theory to support them all, but it reminds me a lot of why cancer is so destructive. One part of a large community using far too many resources. There could be a cluster theory to support the causes of cancer as well, but cluster theories are very hard to find solutions for. We don't just nee…

No it isn't. The author's main point is that corrupt governments siphon wealth into privileged hands at the expense of the public good. This isn't same as "allowing" wealth inequality. You can try to elide these things into being the same, but now you're misrepresenting things to make a politically charged point.

Re: Why nations fail

#23

Post by moldbug »

hristov wrote: post #15
moldbug wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implicit comment is that the article's substance is of no conceivable relevance, because it fails to mention the most obvious possible cause - human genetic diversity - for the pattern it purports to analyze. It's one thing to refute or qualify the null hypothesis. It's another to ignore it. Why shouldn't it be the null hypothesis that genetic diversity is the cause of global inequality? Human beings have been th…

This is the most obvious cause only if you are a racist. Genetic differences between races are very minor as compared to the genetic differences between individuals within a race. Furthermore, it is very doubtful that you can find any statistically significant genetic differences between some of the countries mentioned in the article (e.g., England and Spain).

Genetic differences between races are very minor as compared to the genetic differences between individuals within a race.

In case you're posting from a different dimension, these "minor" differences can change the color of our skin, the shape of our bones, and even (gasp) the size of our brains. If these are minor organs, what are major ones?

In case you're posting from the same dimension, your fallacy has a name:

https://www.google.com/?q=Lewontins%20fallacy

Furthermore, it is very doubtful that you can find any statistically significant genetic differences between some of the countries mentioned in the article (e.g., England and Spain).

You've been keeping up with the latest genomic research, I see! Ha. I jest, of course.

Again, your own eyes are a great start - they really never lie. Have you been to England? Spain? Would you be confident in saying: "Englishmen look just like Spaniards?" Or if there's a difference... what's the cause? The weather, perhaps?

Personally - call me crazy, I know - I feel I can tell an Englishman from a German with much better than random accuracy. If I note that English weather is pretty similar to German weather, does that make me... oh, noes... a racist?

Re: Why nations fail

#24

Post by tatsuke95 »

hristov wrote: post #15
moldbug wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implicit comment is that the article's substance is of no conceivable relevance, because it fails to mention the most obvious possible cause - human genetic diversity - for the pattern it purports to analyze. It's one thing to refute or qualify the null hypothesis. It's another to ignore it. Why shouldn't it be the null hypothesis that genetic diversity is the cause of global inequality? Human beings have been th…

This is the most obvious cause only if you are a racist. Genetic differences between races are very minor as compared to the genetic differences between individuals within a race. Furthermore, it is very doubtful that you can find any statistically significant genetic differences between some of the countries mentioned in the article (e.g., England and Spain).

>Genetic differences between races are very minor as compared to the genetic differences between individuals within a race.

So do you agree or disagree with people being "born-that-way", for lack of a better term? That's what's being argued here (at least by me). Not whether "all whites are born that way" or "all blacks are born that way", which is where you seem to be trying to steer it.

Can we not talk about genetic diversity without associating it with race?

Re: Why nations fail

#25

Post by moldbug »

tatsuke95 wrote: post #21
moldbug wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implicit comment is that the article's substance is of no conceivable relevance, because it fails to mention the most obvious possible cause - human genetic diversity - for the pattern it purports to analyze. It's one thing to refute or qualify the null hypothesis. It's another to ignore it. Why shouldn't it be the null hypothesis that genetic diversity is the cause of global inequality? Human beings have been th…

The situation is bad enough that I'm a little sensitive to agreeing with what you've said here. According to a few posts up, that makes me a racist, I guess. The problem is, I never really understood why it's a stretch to believe that in all of the messy soup of chromosomes and culture (variables of a magnitude beyond what we could ever possibly research) that there are tangible differences between human beings. And…

The 20th-century scientist probably most influential in bringing about this change of perspective: Franz Boas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boas

You can evaluate Boas' logic yourself, by reading his The Mind of Primitive Man (1911) - free online:

http://archive.org/stream/mindofprimitivem031738mbp#page/n10...

Fascinatingly, in the introduction to the 1938 edition (copyright police missed this one), Boas writes:

"Still worse is the subjection of science to ignorant prejudices in countries controlled by dictators. Such control has extended particularly to books dealing with the subject matter of race and culture. Since nothing is permitted to be printed that runs counter to the ignorant whims and prejudices of the governing clique, there can be no trustworthy science. When a publisher whose pride used to be the number and value of his scientific books announces in his calendar a book trying to show that race mixture is not harmful, withdraws the same book after a dictator comes into power, when great encyclopedias are rewritten according to prescribed tenets, when scientists either do not dare or are not allowed to publish results contradicting the prescribed doctrines, when others, in order to advance their own material interests, or blinded by uncontrolled emotion, follow blindly the prescribed road, no confidence can be placed in their statements. The suppression of intellectual freedom rings the death knell of science."

Indeed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson

Re: Why nations fail

#26

Post by maaku »

derleth wrote: post #16
zipdog wrote: post #10

The author's key argument is that extractive institutions lead to state failure. Like most theories of state failure, there's some good examples but enough weak or counter examples to discredit it as 'the' answer. At best, I'd argue that extractive institutions are a block to success: countries with them have one fewer barrier to overcome. I recently researched the thorny issue of what consititutes art, and the leadi…

Realistically, art is whatever the art community considers art, either at the time or after the fact. That's why John Cage can be an artist for being quiet whereas I'm just being quiet.

That's simply avoiding the question. For what reasons does the art community consider some things art and others not?

Re: Why nations fail

#27

Post by bertm »

zipdog wrote: post #10

The author's key argument is that extractive institutions lead to state failure. Like most theories of state failure, there's some good examples but enough weak or counter examples to discredit it as 'the' answer. At best, I'd argue that extractive institutions are a block to success: countries with them have one fewer barrier to overcome. I recently researched the thorny issue of what consititutes art, and the leadi…

I often wonder about these types of theories. They are often hard to prove or disprove. It is fun to try and come up with a theory that is equally as plausible given the information provided.

To your theory on art, could art be defined as anything which a group of people would define as art? Or potentially anything valued by a group seemly without functional value? It seems to be a balance between simplicity and informational content.

Re: Why nations fail

#28

Post by vacri »

maaku wrote: post #26
derleth wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, art is whatever the art community considers art, either at the time or after the fact. That's why John Cage can be an artist for being quiet whereas I'm just being quiet.

That's simply avoiding the question. For what reasons does the art community consider some things art and others not?

You're not going to get an answer to that question, because it's the classic unanswerable: what is art?

Pretty much it boils down to 'if someone calls it art, it's art'

Re: Why nations fail

#29

Post by rrhm »

fragsworth wrote: post #6

I can't get past how needlessly wordy this article is. It's as if someone is trying to flaunt their language skills and it distracts me from the actual content; I must admit that I read the whole thing and did not catch wind of the author's point. Sentences like these just read as nonsense to me: "The intuition behind the theory is nonetheless compelling, which makes the scarcity of policy prescriptions frustrating."

I got the same feeling and was reminded of this essay by G. Orwell. http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/index.cgi/work/essays/language.htm.... The wordiness adds pomp and circumstance to the article, which I guess the authors take to mean that it makes it sound authoritative.
Post reply on HN