Prof. James Robinson, author of Why Nations Fail, The Narrow Corridor, Prof at University of Chicago
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- The Oxford Economics Society is proud to host James Robinson, Professor at the Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, to present his recently published book and international bestseller "The Narrow Corridor" and its applications to the current pandemic. The book provides a high-level framework focused on institutions and the contingent nature of major change to explain why some countries allow for more freedom while others fall into authoritarianism.
Synopsis from Penguin Books:
"By the authors of the international bestseller Why Nations Fail, based on decades of research, this powerful new big-picture framework explains how some countries develop towards and provide liberty while others fall to despotism, anarchy or asphyxiating norms - and explains how liberty can thrive despite new threats."
Read more of the synopsis at:
www.penguin.co...
Does not get to the point. So much said ,so little meaning.
you know, the british have a house of lords. in fact, that's what the magna carta actually _was_ - representation by clan. and, i certainly couldn't suggest, with good conscience, that that kind of system should be exported to somalia; after all, the british people spent a fair amount of time tearing it down.
i'm not going to fact check everything this guy said, but he made a very large number of questionable, misleading or false assertions. i'll just tag it with _caveat auditor_ and leave it at that.
that said, the basic dialectic he's presenting is exceedingly useful. i've made my own biases towards the german variant of anarchism known, but let's not pretend it was unique - it was just the most recent example of a process that occurred in rome, in greece and probably in sumeria (where our records are a little less reliable), where you have these anarchist northerners coming into contact with these settled southerners, and seeing different kinds of economic organization throw thesis and antithesis against each other. this dialectical process really repeats in history - it's not just a europe v china thing. and, what seems to be the significant difference in china is that the mongols were never an antithesis to the chinese, so the synthesis never formed out of it.
so, i'm not going to endorse anything this guy says; i'd instead suggest significant caution in listening to him. but, i'm going to suggest watching it, nonetheless, as the framing is actually exceedingly relevant.
that happens sometimes - you have a good idea, and bad or insufficient deductions drawn from it.