Reddit reviews The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor

Okay, I didn't want to have to come in here, but I just received my 6th dan in art-karate, and I feel like any good counter argument comes with a counter counter argument.

1. Nothing is ever a direct copy because the "copy" uses different atoms. Even if the atomic structure of the copy is identical to the original, there is still meaning in the specific atoms chosen.
   
2. If you only see 8 shading values you should consider further training in shading-value vision. I see 256 shading values, and I could see even more if I used an unsigned integer.
   
3. Words? Interpretations? These are meaningless sequences of sounds to which people who speak English have arbitrarily attached meaning. You could instead say that the syringe is awful so that the artist has a specific area of the piece to work on, but can interpret for himself how to improve it.
   
4. If you look at the dark area under an electron microscope, you will see that it is, in fact, an entire second piece of art. Art is like ogres, which are in turn like onions.
   
5. Welcome to r/gaming. They upvote things with pictures from games they like.
   
6. Assumptions != opinions
   
   What I feel is a bad thing for the world in general is that a lot of people just say nice things to everybody to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. However, people need constructive criticism in order to get better at what they do. You could read a nice book about economies around the world which is called The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, but it won't help you do good art or good art critiques.
   
   In short: stop writing flowery bullshit encouragement to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that you encounter in your life. Save the philosphy-major prose about "the will to thrive and create" for your support group.

These ideas are discussed in great detail in David Landes' book
The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393318885/ref=cm_lm_fullview_prod_3/104-7880136-1164720?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155


There are three major reasons for Wealth/Poverty: Geography, Infrastructure, and Culture.

Economists disregard culture as a economic artefact because it can't be quantified and its politically incorrect. The reason Economists distrust culture is because it is such a 'one size fits all' argument.

Nations are developed not because they are more intelligent but they 'work' better as a society - meaning the co-operate better in the macroeconomic sense (not corrupt, socially responsible, etc). Its cultural traits and values, rather than resources are what make or break a country.

Two parts, one is Gladwell's herders vs farmers ethnic theory (the descendents of scottish herdsman in the south are an honor based culture because if you didn't stand your own, you'd lose prime grazing spots and possibly your life & livlihood, vs descendents of English & Irish farmers who, despite disagreements, could always go back to their land and self-sustain.)

Second, a lesser known history book by Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, where he includes rice vs wheat as cultural indications of temperament (wheat farmers able to leverage vast swaths of land with scaling labor meant more free time, more aggressive attitudes and more resources to contribute to war efforts, i.e. the turbulent middle ages of Europe, vs Japan & southern China's rice cultures, where labor does not scale well, and maintaining a surplus crop is a dedicated task requiring disciplined and meticulous cooperation, creating cultures that were comparatively less hostile and confrontational than their Western counterparts.)

Nope. 100% have a B.A. in history a B.A. in education and a B.S. in health science. Currently in graduate school.

I didn't respond to your "facts" because you didn't list any. You went on some schizophrenic rant about race. You've completely failed to understand how geography influences the success and failures of societies. If I had handed in a paper with your line of reasoning my professor would have handed it back and said "start over, this is trash."


I'd suggest you read the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond or the "Wealth and Poverty of Nations" by David Landes

You're going to have to go into reading those books with an open mind, because they might not fit your predetermined narrative that societies are only successful because of skin color.

Seeing as I'm replying to you directly I should state that I am usually a big fan of your work, so please believe me that I'm giving this feedback in good faith. And I apologise for implying you ripped off someone else's video.

Bringing this up correlational data (at around 4:18 in the video) immediately begs the question why countries like Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Switzerland are all very prosperous countries with high percentages of mountainous land and very limited arable farmland. Further, Japan (73% mountains) and South Korea (70%) are the most prosperous countries in Asia. Chile (80% mountains) is the most prosperous country in South America.

The section on temperature was also really problematic for me. The way you brought it up appears to be to create distance between Greece and the other prosperous mountainous European countries, but you then dismiss the theory of how climate effects economies is "massively complex, controversial, and not yet well understood". Why bring this up at all if you're not going to flesh out the argument and then dismiss it? There are valid arguments to be made about climate but it adds no value to the video in its present form.

If you had just limited the scope of what you were saying, ie left it at how Greece's mountainous terrain and climate creates challenges for Greece alone it wouldn't have created these problems with correlation=/=causation.

Both geography and climate effect economic development. But economies are insanely complex and you do the topic a disservice by leaving viewers with the takeaway that you can simply explain it through these correlations between geography and climate. You don't need to paint yourself into that corner if you just focus on how it effects your subject country rather than the rest of the world.

For a more complete look on this subject I would recommend he book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by Harvard economic historian David S. Landes. It covers how geography, climate, culture, education economics and history effected the economic development of the world. It's also a treasure trove of content ideas.

At which point I know they haven't read the Wealth and Poverty of Nations. It goes into good depth about what happened when Algeria, an African country, socialized all their businesses and due to that are still in a shithole.

David Landes provides a good comparison of the effect of different European colonial masters in his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations.

Critics decry some of his comments re cultures, and point to Guns, Germs and Steel, but IMO this book picks up where Jared Diamond finishes, and also provides interesting commentary on the Japanese and Chinese situations too. The two make good reading together.

However, the main point here is the analysis of effects of the different European empires on their colonies' later economic development.

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations is a very good look at macro-economics. At least, as a non-economist, I thought so.

As already mentioned, The Map that Change the World is an excellent introduction to the early stages of geological science. Simon Winchester is a very successful and well regarded popular historian.

Oh boy, this is a biggie. It's kind of a combo of a lot of factors.

David Landes wrote a good book on the subject, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations

Some of it can be due to government leadership, some due to actual availability of natural resources. It's really a case by case basis, and some countries that are poor may actually be successful with some minor changes, or if certain things happened years earlier.

If you have a case you are interested in, ask away.

everything he says makes sense to me. I like his explanations better than the alternative, which are culture based (which is a typical conservative argument).

here's another book with different ideas, more cultural arguments:

http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Poverty-Nations-Some-Rich/dp/0393318885

stillandonly32 wrote:

The Middle East didn't develop at the same rate as other countries because of Islam. This is economic fact. Read about it here. Also read about it here.



-------
Deleted

For me, one of the most eye opening books was The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor - it really thought me to look at the less fortunate people in this world with the understanding of the root causes of their misery. It also explained the rise of America, failure of Argentina etc... A scholarly work...

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, attempts to answer the same questions as Guns Germs ans Steel, different conclusions, interesting to look at together and compare (took an entire course that did just this).

Read this

It really couldn't have. It was far away and had no ability to figure all that stuff out. It was hard enough for the other countries and they were right there and actively trying to get in on the action. France and other countries spied heavily and the Brits did whatever they could to deal in their knowledge advantage. I'm reading a book on it now: https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Poverty-Nations-Some-Rich/dp/0393318885

Indian colonization was horrible. To the extent anyone thinks it wasn't, its because the Brits could have been worse colonizers. They weren't Belgian foot choppers for example.

Still, the idea that railroads or, even more laughable, "civilized society" were contributions that made it all a wash, is some sacred cow level bullshit ;)

Actually Islam is the main problem. Read about it here and here.

There is a lot of literature about it. Do your own research.

Koffi Annan said that "And yet research is also clear that when girls reach their full potential, through improved status, better health care, and education, it is the most effective development tool for society as a whole. As a country's primary enrolment rate for girls increases, so too does its gross domestic product per capita." It also has to do with being able to control population growth, etc etc.

Of course "better income distribution" is a way of fighting poverty (srsly?). The point is that microfinance, and more specifically microfinance programmes that target women, have shown to be the most effective method of reducing poverty in communities where it is endemic.