Posted on 03/21/2012 5:59:31 AM PDT by Tribune7
But through a series of legendary — and somewhat controversial — academic papers published over the past decade, Acemoglu has persuasively challenged many of the previous theories. (If poverty were primarily the result of geography, say, or an unfortunate history, how can we account for the successes of Botswana, Costa Rica or Thailand?) Now, in their new book, “Why Nations Fail,” Acemoglu and his collaborator, James Robinson, argue that the wealth of a country is most closely correlated with the degree to which the average person shares in the overall growth of its economy. It’s an idea that was first raised by Smith but was then largely ignored for centuries as economics became focused on theoretical models of ideal economies rather than the not-at-all-ideal problems of real nations.
Consider Acemoglu’s idea from the perspective of a poor farmer. In parts of modern sub-Saharan Africa, as was true in medieval Europe or the antebellum South, the people who work the fields lack any incentive to improve their yield because any surplus is taken by the wealthy elite. This mind-set changes only when farmers are given strong property rights and discover that they can profit from extra production. In 1978, China began allowing farmers to benefit from any surplus they produced. The decision, most economists agree, helped spark the country’s astounding growth.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Rush has been saying this for decades.
I can't account for the other two, but a couple of wealthy guys I used to know said they were relocating to Costa Rica because there is no extradition treaty...
;^)
Another libertarian argument.
It is an excellent article.
Unequal Distribution of Capitalism
It's just that they miss the logic that it is better to have a war over there than over here, and fail to comprehend that it is in the rational self-interest of drug dealers to maximize their customer base, which conflicts with the rational self-interest of the rest of us.
please elaborate....
Yes, but you'd expect that in the conservative media. It's when common sense appears in The New York Times, it becomes a man bites dog thing.
Let’s start a discussion..... pre-emtive strikes are sometimes necessary, but when did we become the world’s police force?
If drugs are legal, drug dealers are out of business.
rational self interest is a libertarian policy, enforcing your own self interests through regulations and laws is a socialist / communist policy
what say you?
Good grief, you can't be serious. Using the same (il)logic: If all crimes were legal, there would be no crime and no criminals!
It really opened my eyes to the economic hurdles faced by people in most of the world. It's very well written and is aimed at the layman. No economics gobbledygook.
But you are not addressing my point.
If drugs are legal, drug dealers are out of business.
No, drug dealers just become legal.
to be truly libertarian of course we need to dump age of consent laws, legalize kiddie porn and incest. Yes, there are libertarians who believe this crap.
Good grief... everytime someone trys to start an intellegent debate about this subject, someone always goes “what about murder, what about violent crimes”... we are not talking about these things, they do not belong in the discussion, they are silly arguments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand... shifting subjects and redirecting arguments is an alinsky tactic..... lets discuss the subject at hand, intellgently
CR is a favorite place for tax exiles from the the US and UK. They are stuck there. Many other ex-pats are trying to get out but the condo market is flooded. Spend time down there and you realize that despite their wealth and education, it’s a Third World country that’s chaotic beyond what most Americans can tolerate.
The upwardly mobile Costa Ricans are well educated, nice, hard working people. Too bad their corrupt government gives them little chance to succeed on merit rather than Chicago-style cronyism. You know, the Obama model.
-— Good grief, you can’t be serious. Using the same (il)logic: If all crimes were legal, there would be no crime and no criminals!-—
The violence associated with drug trafficking would disappear, as after Prohibition. Additionally, drug users would probably move away from less expensive, legal “drugs,” like paint huffing, were drugs like marijuana decriminalized.
Counterintuitively, drug-pushing at the teenage-level might diminish, as alcohol-pushing did after Prohibition.
Overall, adult drug use would probably increase, harming marriages, children and society. The question is, How much would drug use increase?
We can take an educated guess by looking at the history of drug use prior to criminalizatuon, and by looking at decriminalization in other countries.
Combined with a ban on advertising, and an anti-drug-use ad campaign, drug use could be reduced significantly, as with tobacco smoking.
A great benefit of decriminalization would be the “de-corruption” of governments, like Mexico and Colombia.
I rest my case!
exactly, if you legalize rape.... that doesn’t mean the rapists disappear... if you legalize murder...
OK.... there are 2 types of libertarians... captial L libertarians (nut jobs) and small l libertarians.... small l libertarians are closer to conservatives than mainstream republicans in both ideology and constitutional theory... the difference is that the small l libertarian is a strict constitutionalist, whereas the republican conservative is willing to “bend” the constitution to suit their agenda..
Having said that, there are times when fighting a war is essential, and it is better to fight it over there than over here... but, what constitutes and essential war? According to the constitution, the congress has to power to declare war, not the president.
We have brave troops in afghanistan, fighting a purely political war, with ROE so damn tight, they are walking around as nothing more than targets. Is this a preemptive war, a police action, or a political sacrifice on the part of our troops?
As for drugs, i have personally seen the damage they can and will do to a person. I have also personally seen the damage that the legal system can and will do to a person. The damage from the government is far more severe than the damage the drug causes (if you manage to survive the initial swat team raid).
The war on drugs was started by nixon, it’s purpose to stop the flow of drugs into this country and to go after kingpins. Well guess what? The feds found it easier to go after the low hanging fruit, starting paramility units to go after people with a coupla ounces of pot, busting down doors and shooting people, dogs or what have you, for a coupla ounces of pot.
As with any amount of power the feds get, this is being abused, costing both lives and liberty. This does not even take into consideration the massive amounts of burocracy, overhead and money it takes to keep this thing going.
What i do in my own home is not the governments business, whether it be hookers, drugs, consuming raw milk, running my own blog, or keeping and maintaining my firearms ( if I had any ). Swat teams have raided homes for each reason listed above. This is an abuse of the constituition.
Thank you for starting an intellegent debate on these subjects.
A war that would be fought here if it wasn't being fought there.
If you want to argue that troops should not be in Afghanistan (or not be sent back to Iraq) you may be making an argument about a specific policy and not one based on principles. It is only becomes a libertarian issue if you make it one of principle.
Same thing with base closings.
Paul's problem is that he (and especially his supporters) have made it one of principle, and I am very much concerned about the wisdom of this.
As for drugs,
Again it becomes a principle vs. policy debate. If you want to argue that existing drug policy is not working or that bad effects can better minimized with less law, I'd probably be in agreement on some points. OTOH, if you start making that case you are going to very likely going to find yourself defending new and strange government regulations in violation of basic libertarian principles.
Sometimes it is better just to regulate things via law and prosecutorial discretion. Right now, if you put up a billboard saying crack cocaine for sale at this address -- even if you were just joking -- that would give authorities grounds to get a warrant to search it.
I kind of think that's a good thing which is why I'm not a libertarian.
Or consider prostitution: if made totally legal what would stop recruiters from going after 18-and-one-minute old women? That, of course, is assuming you accept the age of consent. Some libertarians want to get rid of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.