Acemoglu and Robinson set out to answer the question why are some nations rich and others poor? The book begins by analyzing Nogales Arizona and Nogales Mexico. In essence this is a city with a national border that divides one portion of the city from the other. The United States side of Nogales is far more prosperous and safe than the Mexican side. The authors attempt to explain why this is the case. Another example given is North and South Korea.
The authors next go through a few theories regarding why some nations succeed and others fail and explain why each of those theories is wrong. They included the geography hypothesis, the culture hypothesis, and the ignorance hypothesis.
The authors state “to understand world inequality we have to understand why some societies are organized in a very inefficient and socially undesirable ways.” They continued “poor countries are poor because those who have power make choices that create poverty. They get it wrong not by mistake or ignorance but on purpose.”
The authors outline numerous historical examples of successful and unsuccessful nations. They argue that successful nations have inclusive political and economic institutions and that poor nations have extractive political and economic institutions. One of the ways to secure inclusive institutions is to have secure property rights. They note that communism is extractive and it’s abhorrence of private property will always lead to poverty.
Innovation is necessary for wealth generation. Inclusive institutions allow for the creative destruction necessary for innovation and countries that are extractive stifle creative destruction.
This was a well researched book with numerous examples. At times it seemed repetitive. The book jumped from time period to time period and might be in Ancient Rome on one page and 18th century Europe on the next. I found their conclusion weak but overall it was a good book.
Overall I give this book 4 stars out of 5.
William Wilberforce has been called an agitator for his commitment to ending the slave trade. One of his well known speeches on the subject was given on May 12, 1789.
Cardinal Richelieu has been hailed as a great statesman and as a subversive authoritarian. Depending on who you talk to he was a man needed to strengthen the monarchy in France, or he was a tyrant seeking personal power. Next week I will have a book review that may shed more light on Cardinal Richelieu.
When Lenin was working on his major writing projects he would often pace across the room formulating the ideas that he would write down by saying them out loud. Once he had the idea for what he wanted to write he would often repeat the idea to Nadezhda Krupskaya, who would provide feedback. Once this process was complete he would then write the ideas down.
Here is an AI rendering of what that might have looked like when he was drafting What is to be Done.
This month this community will focus on political subversion. What is subversion? When is it justified? What is the interplay between subversion and agitation? These are some of the topics to be discussed this month.
“You get used to the despot’s shortcomings, when they are not great vices, and the change of an autocratic ruler leads to involuntary fear.”
Sergei Trubetskoi
