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

61–70 of 119 posts

Re: Why nations fail

#61

Post by Retric »

nirvana wrote: post #55

There is fundamentally sound economics behind the authors theory, but there's also really easy to understand logic: IF you have a strong state that controls the economy, then everything that is done must be authorized by the state. This is necessary if the purpose of the state is to extract the nations wealth to profit an elite few. If you have a weak state, then experiments can be tried, and while many experiments w…

There are several problem with your theory. Most importantly those in power don't know how long they will stay in power. Dictators don't last that long on average and if you assume there is a 50/50 shot your going to last 10 years investing in the economy may not actually benefit you. Secondly taxes are just one of many ways that the connected extract resources from society, often favors or bribes are an easier target for those with some but not total power.

Finally, the state's real power has little to do with direct force. Functional society's run on softer forms of coercion. Such as propaganda, tribal allegiance, religion, or even entertainment. Consider, over 10 million people live and work in america without permission from the government to do so. And even those with citizenship the largest crop in many states is marijuana and such income rarely makes in on the old tax forms.

Re: Why nations fail

#63

Post by hazov »

moldbug wrote: post #37
hristov wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Eur…

What's your problem? Apparently from all your submissions and comments you are really fascinated by IQ and Race stuff, besides politics, and you just bring the topic each time you can.

You always create flamewars with people that disagrees with you, this is not Digg if you're old enough to know what this mean.

I also have my motives to believe that you're not a psychometrist, population geneticist or whatever could and that you're probably someone sitting your ass in class each day at Uni.

I am jewish and it always sad to see people acting this way, like you, saying they are jewish.

You probably never read the Shas, as the majority of American jews are not brought up in a religious environment, but Rabbi Shimom ben Gamaliel used to say that the best thing for a man is silence. You can learn a couple of things with the Bavli, what about giving it a try?

Re: Why nations fail

#64

Post by ktizo »

dredmorbius wrote: post #54
ktizo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best answer to this question I have ever found is in the book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It takes a look at the question of why one group of people ended up with the tech first and largely comes to the conclusion that it is part of a complex interaction involving the environmental availability of species and geography neccessary for the development of sedentry existence and then also a maximally hete…

An even better answer specific to the "Why Nations Fail" question is in Jared Diamond's Collapse . Which specifically explores the manifold reasons nations and cultures fail. Highly recommended.

Will look into it.

There is also the elephant in the room with this subject, which is when you look which cultures might be at risk from collapse in the future. Or perhaps I have just read Snowcrash too many times.

Re: Why nations fail

#65

Post by moldbug »

barrkel wrote: post #42
tatsuke95 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Keeping the conversation off the table removes oxygen in which racists with less noble goals thrive. Human nature being what it is, they make judgements based on first appearances. When people are highly invested in having opinions on people based on things that come from first appearances, they are very likely to mistreat people on an individual basis - i.e. prejudge them, literally, and unfairly , because individua…

Wow - I've literally never heard anyone be this frank before. I disagree with the position but I upvote the candor.

I wonder, though, how you feel about all the violence we've seen committed in the name of egalitarianism, in the lives of those now living? For instance:

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

Blokhin initially decided on an ambitious quota of 300 executions per night, and engineered an efficient system in which the prisoners were individually led to a small antechamber—which had been painted red and was known as the "Leninist room"—for a brief and cursory positive identification, before being handcuffed and led into the execution room next door. The room was specially designed with padded walls for soundproofing, a sloping concrete floor with a drain and hose, and a log wall for the prisoners to stand against. Blokhin—outfitted in a leather butcher's apron, cap, and shoulder-length gloves to protect his uniform—then, with no procurator present and no reading of the sentence or any other formalities, pushed the prisoner against the log wall and shot him once in the base of the skull with a German Walther Model 2 .25 ACP pistol. He had brought a briefcase full of his own Walther pistols, since he did not trust the reliability of the standard-issue Soviet TT-30 for the frequent, heavy use he intended.

If we're going to excommunicate 20th-century philosophies on the grounds of their association with this sort of thing, we find quite quickly that we have to excommunicate everyone - right and left, fascist and communist, nationalist and universalist, racist and egalitarian. And then what's left?

Re: Why nations fail

#66

Post by aptwebapps »

quanticle wrote: post #50
ImprovedSilence wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't necessarily have to exist for its own sake. Plenty of furniture is considered art, and is exhibited by art museums, but that furniture was designed to be used.

> ... that furniture was designed to be used.

If you mean, was _primarily_ designed to be used, then I don't think that is necessarily the case. For example, certain pieces of furniture are sometimes designed by an architect to complement their overall design. Of course, they want the furniture to be used just as they want the building to be used, but for many I think the art comes first.

Re: Why nations fail

#67

Post by aptwebapps »

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."

It was not the best-written Economist article I have read, but I didn't find it that bad. I don't really have a problem with the sentence you quoted either.

Re: Why nations fail

#68

Post by FD3SA »

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.

The only satisfactory definition of art I've found is the following:

http://youtu.be/KQ35zNlyG-o?t=7m11s

More detail for those interested:

http://youtu.be/sa65t1fVsNA

(You will have to watch all 4 parts)

Re: Why nations fail

#69

Post by moldbug »

hazov wrote: post #63
moldbug wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Eur…

What's your problem? Apparently from all your submissions and comments you are really fascinated by IQ and Race stuff, besides politics, and you just bring the topic each time you can. You always create flamewars with people that disagrees with you, this is not Digg if you're old enough to know what this mean. I also have my motives to believe that you're not a psychometrist, population geneticist or whatever could a…

You seem interested in reading my comments. You'll read quite a few before you see me flame someone who hasn't already flamed me - usually twice.

It's everyone else who's obsessed with "IQ and Race stuff." They're just obsessed in the other direction. Worse still, they don't know it - because everyone they know has the same obsession. Fear is a kind of obsession, too. Don't we think of the Victorians as obsessed with sex?

And I'm not Jewish, just partly of Jewish descent. I know what "mitzvah" means, however. I'm willing to be downvoted a little because I hate to see smart, thoughtful people stumbling around in the darkness, when they could just turn on the light. At least, from my perspective. I know I spent quite some time stumbling in the darkness - don't you think I used to believe what everyone here believes?

I am not a psychometrist or a population geneticist, but I know some. Also, while not Israeli or even (properly) Jewish, I'm a big fan of Moshe Feiglin:

http://jewishisrael.org/

Perhaps you'll change your mind and I'll change my religion, and we'll see each other at a Korban Pesach on the Temple Mount. Shalom!

Re: Why nations fail

#70

Post by aptwebapps »

nirvana wrote: post #55

There is fundamentally sound economics behind the authors theory, but there's also really easy to understand logic: IF you have a strong state that controls the economy, then everything that is done must be authorized by the state. This is necessary if the purpose of the state is to extract the nations wealth to profit an elite few. If you have a weak state, then experiments can be tried, and while many experiments w…

Not really disagreeing with you, but I think it is important to remember that these governments or companies are comprised of individuals following their individual incentives. Those incentives cover a huge range of things beyond simple financial gain.

So while 10% of something 1000 times bigger is definitely better than 50% of the base, that isn't really the issue. It is not as though in an extractive government the loot is divided at the end of the year according to rank or something. It's a bit more catch-as-catch-can.

Basically, and I guess this is what the book is arguing, in the absence of the kinds of institutions that enforce or engender inclusive policies and practices, people do whatever they can get away with.

Post reply on HN