cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4157628
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4157529
James Robinson, along with Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, has been awarded this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics for his research on the critical role institutions play in fostering national prosperity. In [this Q&A session]l with EL PAÍS, he explains that his work also seeks to highlight how the legacy of colonialism has impeded economic development in certain regions, particularly in Latin America and Africa.
James Robinson: […] we make a simple division, focusing on the presence of inclusive institutions or extractive institutions. Inclusive institutions create broad incentives and opportunities for all people equally, while extractive institutions concentrate benefits and incentives in the hands of a few. Many economists say that development comes from entrepreneurship and innovation, but in reality it comes from people’s dreams, creativity and aspirations. To be prosperous, you have to create a series of institutions that can cultivate this talent. However, if you look at countries like Colombia or Nigeria, talent is wasted because people do not have opportunities.
[…]
Institutions can be an obstacle to competitiveness. However, one should consider the impact that European integration had on countries such as Spain, Portugal or the former Soviet countries. These are remarkable success stories. There has been an almost unprecedented transition. It is true that there may be too much regulation or inefficient rules, but broadly speaking the effects of European institutions has been largely positive over the past 50 years.
[…]
[Immigration] is one of the big questions we have to solve. […] it can be difficult. It is not easy to quickly incorporate the millions of people who cross the Mediterranean [trying to reach Europe]. One of the possible ways is to help them develop in order to improve the terrible situation in their own countries. However, one of the biggest complications is that the policies recommended by Western institutions are not in tune with what is happening in these [developing] countries. At the World Bank, for example, you cannot talk about politics. How do we expect them to solve real problems when you cannot talk about them? Frankly, it doesn’t make sense. If we really want to change the world, we have to have honest conversations. I see that as a long way off.
[…]
The reality is that democratic countries have shown that they are better at managing public services and achieving rapid growth. You can find impressive examples like China among autocratic countries, but you cannot achieve an inclusive economy with an authoritarian regime and a model like the Chinese one.
[…]
I don’t think the Chinese model can continue. If you look at other authoritarian regimes, like Iran or Russia, they are incredibly weak economically and technologically. The economy cannot flourish in an authoritarian regime. Right now, technological dynamism is concentrated in one such country and in the Western world. However, one has to consider that, with Donald Trump, the institutions that have made the United States great are being seriously questioned. This could affect the context, and that is why the European Union and NATO are so important.
[…]
[Populism is linked to the growing disconnect between governments and citizens] and an example of this is Latin America. Democracy promised too much and did not always deliver. People’s lives did not change, and they sought new alternatives. There are various factors why democracy has not achieved transformations, such as clientelism and corruption. […] Venezuela was governed in a deeply corrupt manner, and Hugo Chávez was clever in taking advantage of it. You also see this with Donald Trump, who has gone far because he realized there was widespread dissatisfaction with traditional politics. The failures of democratic institutions are real, and that is why we have to think about how to make them more empathetic to what people need.
[…]
Artificial intelligence can be wonderful, but like all technologies, it depends on how it is used. If artificial intelligence is used to create replacements for humans, that could be devastating. […] It is all about how it is used, and that depends on our governments. I think that these decisions should not be left to the tech gurus. They only think about what makes them the most money, even if this is not related to the general well-being of society. In the case of artificial intelligence, it is very important, because it could have a tectonic impact on the world.
I wonder what that person who I talked to yesterday who was telling me that monarchies were superior to democracies would say about this?
I asked them who got to be king if the democracies were replaced with monarchies, but they wouldn’t tell me.
Hopefully not a Habsburg.
DIBS!!!
Can we please see your resume?
https://youtu.be/1LaSzmbtgIE?t=20
“Maybe Zoidberg could be king now, yes?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUM3HscxbnM
Did they give you any reasoning?
Not reasoning I could understand. It was in the context of saying that democracy was a bad thing. They originally said that UBI was, somehow, the alternative to democracy. After pointing out more than once that you need people in charge to keep things running, even just to distribute the UBI, they settled on a king.
Curtis yarvin is a slime
Cool. Who gets to be king? You?
Edit: sorry, I thought you were agreeing with the monarchist. My mistake.
Ah yeah he’s a bit obscure but he’s been pushing this American Monarchism angle for a long time. Absolutely bizarre entry into the culture wars, decades later I can’t tell if he’s a really an American monarchist or just providing cover and beliefs to help totalitarian fascists.
Normally I’d apologise for making people aware of him but as you’re a mod on a big forum you sadly probably do need to know who he is
I always appreciate learning new things, so thank you!
I’ve been watching The Great on Hulu. It’s an explicitly fictionalized account of Catherine the Great in Russia, and I generally recommend it as long as you keep its subtitle of “An Occasionally True Story” in mind.
Anyway, the actual Catherine the Great was one of the Enlightened Despots of Europe. For the sake of argument, let’s say everything she did was absolutely amazing, and raised millions of people out of serfdom and into education and opportunities that were completely closed off before. Basically, the absolute best case you can ever make for the monarchy.
6 generations later, Russia is ruled by Czar Nicholas II, and there’s no other way to put it: it’s a fucking disaster. Russia hadn’t been industrializing the way other powers had in the 100+ years between then and Catherine, but Nicky drags the country into a war against a country that had. The inevitable happens, and it gets so bad that Nicky gets shot by revolutionaries in a basement along with the rest of his family. As brutal as that execution was, it’s hard to say the Bolshoviks were wrong for doing so.
So even in the absolute best case scenario, better than any monarchy could ever do for real, it doesn’t last. It can’t last. You may get a good one once in a while–and even that is a stretch–but the next one could easily be a monster that undoes everything.
We can also look at the Habsburgs to see why bloodline rule leads to serious inbreeding.
Here’s Charles II of Spain.
Since this is a portrait, not a photo, this is the best they could make him look.
And his issues went beyond the physical. He was also significantly intellectually disabled. But he was part of that royal bloodline, so…
The last Hapsburg wasn’t much better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEG9IZpc8
The problem is that there was a glimmer of democratic hope between the time Tsar Nick was dispensed and when Lenin seized power. A lot of Lenin apologists like to gloss over this part when they pretend like the stuff he did was necessary. Yes, it was “necessary” because he positioned himself as tyrant from day 1.