• 4 months - 33 posts - Latest - RSS
• OP: 21 Goods vs 9 No Goods
• Thread: 0 Goods vs 0 No Goods

1. Economist
   8c09
   

   http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16zhk7/as_a_historian_what_is_your_opinion_of_daron/

   "Why Nations Fail" is airport reading libertarian fan-fic in the mold of Victor Davis Hanson: They cherry-pick examples to match their prejudices.

   From a historian's POV, the book has two main flaws: Firstly, there are enormous numbers of basic errors that could/should have been avoided by a cursory Wikipedia check. These two just don't know much about history. e.g. they speak about a Roman princep (instead of a princeps), they imagine medieval Strasbourg to be a French (instead of an Imperial) city, they are baffled about the existence of the university of Cracow - Poland-Lithuania probably does not ring a bell. The number of howlers make it a painful read for a historian.

   The more important flaw is their total neglect of context (and thus history!). It is deeply wrong to notice that black farmers in South Africa are not as productive as white ones without mentioning Apartheid/colonialism (worse: all their examples fit the pattern of good behavior by white people, not so good behavior by non-whites).
   Methodologically, their book is flawed by not defining/operationalizing "extractive societies". Their I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach lets them subsume very different cases under their term. The book is also politically biased (e.g. holding the highly questionable view that unions today are too powerful in the US). Overall: Avoid.

   4 months ago # QUOTE 21 GOOD 9 NO GOOD

2. Economist
   aafa
   

   "I have only read selections of this book for an anthropology course and when the professor asked for our thoughts and impressions I told him it read like a Capitalist Manifesto."

   4 months ago # QUOTE 18 GOOD 2 NO GOOD

3. Economist
   6e89
   

   If those historical mistakes are in fact present in the text, then that is quite embarrassing.

   4 months ago # QUOTE 16 GOOD 4 NO GOOD

4. Economist
   4ff2
   

   So they made some spelling mistakes ergo no good?

   The criticism is kinda retarded. The whole point of economics is to generalize out of the context and find the underlying patterns at work. Of course historians aren't going to like that when their bread and butter is nauseating detail.

   Don't they formally define extractive society in an earlier book? I forget, but I would expect there to be a formal definition.

   4 months ago # QUOTE 22 GOOD 8 NO GOOD

5. Economist
   6e89
   

   So they made some spelling mistakes ergo no good?
   The criticism is kinda retarded. The whole point of economics is to generalize out of the context and find the underlying patterns at work. Of course historians aren't going to like that when their bread and butter is nauseating detail.

   I haven't read the book. However, if the book doesn't consist of regressions (I assume it doesn't, since it's supposed to be for popular audiences) then they are arguing by anecdote. Therefore the accuracy of the anecdotes matters. If they don't understand the stories they're telling well enough to get basic facts right, then why should anyone believe their narrative?

   4 months ago # QUOTE 11 GOOD 4 NO GOOD

6. Economist
   4ff2
   

   http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16zhk7/as_a_historian_what_is_your_opinion_of_daron/
   (worse: all their examples fit the pattern of good behavior by white people, not so good behavior by non-whites).

   One last point. Aren't AJ trying to explain economic growth? Since the industrial revolution and econ growth occurred first in Europe, and then to its 'export' nations wouldn't it make sense that growth was predominantly a 'white people' phenomenon in the early going? Further more in the Origins book (I have not read "Nations") they talk quite a bit about Singapore and its adoption of certain institutions originating, yes, from Eurotards.

   I have my gripes with the AJ work. (In fact I am the why can't AJ explain Detroit troll.) But after clicking on that reddit link I feel dirty.

   4 months ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 2 NO GOOD

7. Economist
   4ff2
   

   I haven't read the book. However, if the book doesn't consist of regressions (I assume it doesn't, since it's supposed to be for popular audiences) then they are arguing by anecdote. Therefore the accuracy of the anecdotes matters. If they don't understand the stories they're telling well enough to get basic facts right, then why should anyone believe their narrative?

   valid point.

   4 months ago # QUOTE 5 GOOD 3 NO GOOD

8. Economist
   882e
   

   Yea, the historical mistakes are howlers.

   4 months ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 0 NO GOOD

9. Economist
   e2ef
   

   The book still sucks though, and those details only make it worse

   4 months ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 2 NO GOOD

10. Economist
    882e
    

    A quick Google indicates that the specific criticisms come from this passage:

    In Western Europe, the importance of the printing press
    was quickly recognized. In 1460 there was already a
    printing press across the border, in Strasbourg, France. By
    the late 1460s the technology had spread throughout Italy,
    with presses in Rome and Venice, soon followed by
    Florence, Milan, and Turin. By 1476 William Caxton had set
    up a printing press in London, and two years later there
    was one in Oxford. During the same period, printing spread
    throughout the Low Countries, into Spain, and even into
    Eastern Europe, with a press opening in Budapest in 1473
    and in Cracow a year later.

    - They do say Strasbourg, France, when in fact Strasbourg was an imperial city in 1460, and thus more German than French.

    - They are condescending about eastern europe at a time when Poland-Lithuania was one of the most succesful and liberal nations in Europe.

    4 months ago # QUOTE 8 GOOD 1 NO GOOD

11. Economist
    8eb4
    

    I don't think they ever properly define extractive institutions beyond a vacuous catch-all notion of "whatever works must not be extractive" . I was actually excited to read the book but was very disappointed in the end

    4 months ago # QUOTE 8 GOOD 0 NO GOOD

12. Economist
    ebc6
    

    Should I troll them with my econjobrumours account?

    4 months ago # QUOTE 9 GOOD 0 NO GOOD

13. Economist
    ebc6
    

    More in that thread from the same historian:

    "The basic flaw of political science (and economic history/economics) is that it tries to think of itself as science which it is not. It can be an applied art like law, a way of developing a structured thinking about a topic. That political science is anything but a science is best exemplified by Francis Fukuyama's statement in the foreword to his most recent book where he says that he comes to valuable conclusions even if these conclusions may be based on false facts. That is contrary to how science works."

    Oh God.

    4 months ago # QUOTE 17 GOOD 1 NO GOOD

14. Economist
    a28c
    

    All books are biased, even the bible Macroeconomics in Emerging Markets by Peter Montiel is.

    4 months ago # QUOTE 8 GOOD 2 NO GOOD

15. Economist
    67b8
    

    this historian needs to learn some econometrics so he can understand the evidence is irrefutable.

    4 months ago # QUOTE 8 GOOD 1 NO GOOD

16. Economist
    911d
    

    WNF is not intended for a sophisticated audience. If reddit historian has beef, tell him to read the actual academic research the book is loosely based off of.

    4 months ago # QUOTE 11 GOOD 2 NO GOOD

17. Economist
    3f69
    

    people on reddit are so f*cking retarded. i hope all of these people die in a fire

    4 months ago # QUOTE 8 GOOD 1 NO GOOD

18. Economist
    6b9a
    

    When one writes "In 1460 there was already a printing press across the border, in Strasbourg, France", I assume that they mean today's France, for the benefit of the US-centric reader who might not know which Strasbourg is meant (there are Strasburgs in CO, IL, MO, ND, etc...).

    I wouldn't take a sentence as this one as proof that they think that back then Strasbourg (or rather Straßburg) was part of France. (Neither as proof of the opposite).

    4 months ago # QUOTE 8 GOOD 2 NO GOOD

19. Economist
    9639
    

    WTF
    Acemoglu as a Libertarian?
    I guess anyone that defends private property is some kind of ultra neoliberal for some people.

    4 months ago # QUOTE 21 GOOD 0 NO GOOD

20. Economist
    ebc6
    

    econjobrumors trolling has commenced

    4 months ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 0 NO GOOD

Reply »