World, Writing, Wealth discussion

Has anyone read this? What was their reaction?
My own, for what it is worth. The book's good and has lots to tell us, but it needed to be more multidisciplinary; these guys missed some evidence. https://mikerobbinsnyc.blogspot.com/2...

Haven't read the book, but enjoyed reading your presentation thereof as well as its critique. Share your concern that we might be witnessing formerly non-extractive countries becoming extractive with behemoth economic players and monopolization of certain industries. On top of that, the scale becomes global and a major failure in one place may result in a global failure, as demonstrated by 2008 crisis.

Nik wrote: "Haven't read the book, but enjoyed reading your presentation thereof as well as its critique. Share your concern that we might be witnessing formerly non-extractive countries becoming extractive wi..."

That is what really freaks me out Nik - that we are sliding backwards into an extractive polity in which we will be very vulnerable to poor economic and financial leadership, and another 2008 - or 1929 - doesn't seem at all hard to imagine.

You're familiar with Eastern Europe. How do you feel about their thesis that a country's trajectory is path-determined - that's to say, once they get stuck with extractive institutions, things won't change much? Do you think the last 40 years in Eastern and Central Europe bear that out, or do they disprove it?

I would need to give it some thought. If to take USSR not sure that 70 year long history is long enough to be representative. However it managed to pass so many stages in that short period that it's hard to evaluate. From one of the most backward European country, it managed to build robust industry, partially by coercion and partially by sincere belief, win in some areas of space race, defeat maybe the best Western economy and most fearsome army of that time, stagnate and disintegrate.
China succeeded much more in what Gorbachov failed miserably.
You can take Poland and Ukraine as very comparable countries by area, population, industry and all. Poland is probably in top 6 if not 4 of Europe now, while Ukraine having a much better potential, is trailing at the last place among so many European countries. Poland is more inclusive and Ukraine is much more extractive, so seemingly it confirms the theory, however these are not the only things to be factored in.
Russia and China. Russia is extractive. Don't know enough how things work in China. China builds times more infrastructure than Russia and its economic growth is nothing but amazing, yet most of their population is impoverished. However, it's dynamic. May still prove the concept.
However, in the West too - we have entire industries falling to monopolization or cartelization. I guess the US in times of great depression wouldn't be evaluated the same as in times of the peak of its glory.

China is difficult to evaluate. Yes, it has some impoverished population, BUT it always did. With about 1.3 billion poor, it was difficult to build up a good standard of living for everyone. There are an awful lot of rich Chinese, and property prices in Beijing are astronomical, so a lot must be rich enough to pay the prices. Similarly, it is hard to pin much on Russia. The old USSR made a lot of progress in some fields, then a decaying party let the whole lot fall apart, and then Gorby went about things in totally the wrong order, and Yeltsin partied and gave it all away.

The US is currently on top economically, yet it also has some quite serious poverty, e.g. on Skid Row, LA

Yes, very difficult to evaluate China. On the face of it, it's what Acemoglu and Robinson would define as an extractive polity, but the reality is much messier; after all it's a country that does permit entrepreneurship, and has dragged tens of millions of people out of poverty over the last few decades. Likewise hard to define the US; as Ian says, there is a lot of poverty, with some communities in the South lacking basic drainage, and suffering from giardia. But it's hard to call it an extractive country when it does provide a ladder up for many people with brains and enterprise. I wonder if Acemoglu and Robinson were simply too definitive in their theory. But that's OK in a way; I thought they were too prescriptive, but also thought they had something to tell us.

Mike wrote: "Yes, very difficult to evaluate China. On the face of it, it's what Acemoglu and Robinson would define as an extractive polity, but the reality is much messier; after all it's a country that does p..."

I think that trying to summarise nations with one concept is always going to be littered with difficulties. I agree the concepts are worth thinking about, but not something to live by.

I have not read the book in question, but find it highly suggestive that the two nations mentioned as most difficult to categorize are two of the largest, as well, and any time you start trying to describe thousands of miles and millions of people under any one heading, things are likely to become difficult! I also recall reading that the Roman Empire fell (and there is, I admit, much debate about the cause) because its leaders lost the ability to differentiate between real, external threats and internecine bickering, and in that light I kind of wonder about the antics of the U.S. Congress and its President!