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

31–40 of 119 posts

Re: Why nations fail

#31

Post by pm90 »

Camillo wrote: post #19
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."

That sentence is perfectly clear to me, and English is not my first language. I don't even perceive the style as pretentious or "wordy": it seems the appropriate register for a magazine like the Economist.

it seems the appropriate register for a magazine like the Economist. I guess that may be true, but why should it be that way? It could have been restated as 'the theory's good, I had expected more predictions'.

Re: Why nations fail

#33

Post by awakeasleep »

bertm wrote: post #27
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 info…

Along those lines, the best predictor indicator for state success could be success during the period you're concerned with.

Re: Why nations fail

#34

Post by entangld »

cynicalkane wrote: post #22
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.

Geez. I'm not on a soapbox here. Don't accuse me.

If you're going to say I'm wrong, at least point out how I'm wrong. There isn't a big difference between what I said and:

>>corrupt governments siphon wealth into privileged hands at the expense of the public good.The effect is the same. Too much money in too few hands. Countries don't only need the rule of law to protect us from violence. We also need it to protect us from semi-legal forms of theft.

Monarchs gathered wealth and provided protection, and they've been going out of business for quite a while now. Mexico has the richest person in the world along with a lot of corruption and lots of very poor people. How can a place be viable enough to support multibillionaires, and still have people living in shacks?

I'm trying to understand the truth.

Re: Why nations fail

#35

Post by zipdog »

bertm wrote: post #27
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 info…

Acceptance by the art community is a key factor, possibly the most important. Other factors include artistic intention, aesthetic qualities, and being considered based on what is already considered art.

Re: Why nations fail

#36

Post by hristov »

moldbug wrote: post #23
hristov wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: h…

Thank you for the Google link. There I learned that Lewontin's fallacy is a fallacy because "Richard Lewontin is a Marxist Jew who has dedicated his career to attacking genetics as an explanation for human variation." That explains so much.

It is really cute how you think you can tell an Englishman from a German. Do you know, by the way, the genetic make up of the Englishman? Do you know where the word "England" came from? Here is a clue -- it came from the Anglo-Saxons a group of GERMAN tribes that conquered England after the Romans left and later became the people you now call English. So your ability to tell apart the English and Germans based on their look is most likely a figment of your imagination.

Anyways lets not get carried away and stick to the topic at hand. Here is another example from the article -- the economic difference between the southern US and the rest of the US. Could you explain that one. Please tell me how the southerners developed a statistically different genetic make up than northerners in the 400 year period since colonization. I would love to hear about the split between the grits and pizza genes.

Re: Why nations fail

#37

Post by moldbug »

hristov wrote: post #36
moldbug wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: h…

Thank you for the Google link. There I learned that Lewontin's fallacy is a fallacy because "Richard Lewontin is a Marxist Jew who has dedicated his career to attacking genetics as an explanation for human variation." That explains so much. It is really cute how you think you can tell an Englishman from a German. Do you know, by the way, the genetic make up of the Englishman? Do you know where the word "England" came…

Thank you for the Google link. There I learned that Lewontin's fallacy is a fallacy because "Richard Lewontin is a Marxist Jew who has dedicated his career to attacking genetics as an explanation for human variation." That explains so much.

You're really good with teh googles! I guess you read the A.W.F. Edwards paper too:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstra...

You also seem interested in European population substructure:

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...

Re: Why nations fail

#38

Post by rubashov »

bertm wrote: post #27
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 info…

These hard to prove theories, such as Jared Diamond's and in the reviewed book, exist in large part to counter the highly convincing and data driven eugenic theories. The eugenic and IQ based theories are politically unacceptable. "A Farewell to Alms" and "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" lay out very convincing and heavily researched cases that explain different national economies very well. The explanations are just not PC.

Re: Why nations fail

#39

Post by ImprovedSilence »

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?

Some would argue that art is something that exists for it's own sake. Some would argue quite the opposite, or somewhere in the middle.

Re: Why nations fail

#40

Post by anigbrowl »

pm90 wrote: post #31
Camillo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sentence is perfectly clear to me, and English is not my first language. I don't even perceive the style as pretentious or "wordy": it seems the appropriate register for a magazine like the Economist.

it seems the appropriate register for a magazine like the Economist. I guess that may be true, but why should it be that way? It could have been restated as 'the theory's good, I had expected more predictions'.

It could not, because the theory as presented in the book is flawed (according to the reviewer). One could restate the ideas more simply, but to do so accurately would require many more words.
Post reply on HN