News & Analysis
Are Inclusive Nations Successful Ones? Bill Gates Writes a Book Review ...
Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (Book Review) ... Review by Bill Gates .... The book goes back in history to talk about economic growth during Roman times. The problem with this is that before 800AD, the economy everywhere was based on sustenance farming. So the fact that various Roman government structures were more or less inclusive did not affect growth. The authors demonstrate an oddly simplistic world view when they attribute the decline of Venice to a reduction in the inclusiveness of its institutions. The fact is, Venice declined because competition came along. The change in the inclusiveness of its institutions was more a response to that than the source of the problem. Even if Venice had managed to preserve the inclusiveness of their institutions, it would not have made up for their loss of the spice trade. When a book tries to use one theory to explain everything, you get illogical examples like this. – TheGatesNotes
Dominant Social Theme: Nations fail because not enough people get along.
Free-Market Analysis: Wow, Bill Gates writes a book review on his site, TheGatesNotes, and we get a glimpse of how the great man thinks about major issues of our time.
Gates hits a lot of the right notes in his review, from our perspective. Of course, we haven't read the book so we are not going to critique it directly. Instead, we offer our readers a critique of Gates's review.
One thing stands out right away. Gates apparently believes in complexity. We are much more simple-minded than Gates (and a helluva lot less wealthy). Thus, we do believe that there is a single theory that can explain the rise and fall of nations.
That theory is competition, the utilization of the Invisible Hand. The more a "nation" makes use of the Invisible Hand, the better off that nation will be. More of that in a minute. First, a little more from Gates on the larger theory, which he finds unpersuasive.
Normally, I'm fairly positive about the books I review, but here's one I really took issue with. Why have some countries prospered and created great living conditions for their citizens, while others have not? ... It makes an argument that is appealingly simple: countries with "inclusive" (rather than "extractive") political and economic institutions are the ones that succeed and survive over the long term.
Ultimately, though, the book is a major disappointment. I found the authors' analysis vague and simplistic. Beyond their "inclusive vs. extractive" view of political and economic institutions, they largely dismiss all other factors—history and logic notwithstanding. Important terms aren't really defined, and they never explain how a country can move to have more "inclusive" institutions.
Another surprise was the authors' view of the decline of the Mayan civilization. They suggest that infighting—which showed a lack of inclusiveness—explains the decline. But that overlooks the primary reason: the weather and water availability reduced the productivity of their agricultural system, which undermined Mayan leaders' claims to be able to bring good weather. The authors believe that political "inclusiveness" must come first, before growth is achievable. Yet, most examples of economic growth in the last 50 years–the Asian miracles of Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore–took place when their political tended more toward exclusiveness.
This is interesting because we have suggested the same sort of thing regarding the Mayans. We've suggested that warring between various kingdoms was institutionalized and this was the reason for the Mayan populace abandoning their great cities. The average citizen simply didn't want to live in fear of having his still-beating heart removed by remorseless priests with obsidian knives.
It is true, as well, that we have suggested competition between nation-states is the key to a region's initial prosperity. Italy's Renaissance, Greece's Golden Age, the first efflorescence of the United States all came about because people lived under separate regulatory regimes but in close proximity. If one government got oppressive, people could move – but still remain within the ambit of their own culture and language.
Of course, there is a myth that empire is what makes a nation "great." But this leaves us with several questions. First, what is an "empire" and second, what is a "nation." In fact, there are no empires or nations. There are merely people bound together in various ways by power, fear and culture.
Most normal people, however, don't get up in the morning intending to build a power-based political empire via war and stealth. Most people, normally ambitious, want to succeed in the normal course of things by creating something that is in demand.
It is usually governmental competition that generates this sort of possibility. What the authors call "inclusion" – the creation of empire – is actually a failure of competition. It is the harbinger of a centralization that inevitably brings higher taxes, more regulation and, increasingly, corruption and creeping authoritarianism.
Gates does understand that the "inclusion" paradigm is insufficient to explain various epochs of prosperity and creativity. He seems to believe as well that "strong leadership" can create national "greatness" – whatever that is. He writes:
The authors ridicule "modernization theory"–which observes that sometimes a strong leader can make the right choices to help a country grow, and then there is a good chance the country will evolve to have more "inclusive" politics. Korea and Taiwan are examples of where this has occurred. The book also overlooks the incredible period of growth and innovation in China between 800 and 1400.
We have the temerity to disagree with the Great Gates here. We do not think it is "leadership" that makes a difference, or at least it ought not. We are believers in individual human action. The greatness of a region – its true creativity and human progress – is engendered by freedom and the operation of a free market.
Left to their own devices, people will take care of themselves, usually without confrontation, or at least not violent confrontation. Most people instinctively want to take care of each other without government intervention. Even infrastructure can be created via the Invisible Hand and without the heavy hand of the state.
Conclusion: The best leadership leaves us alone.
Posted by Danny B on 05/03/13 12:30 AM
Dear Bell, in the final analysis, it appears that the nation state is too un-natural. It appears that Obummer is worried about the future of the nation state.
Click to view link
Posted by Leviathanfighter on 03/10/13 07:57 PM
As a Libertarian, I define success as living in peace with a high standard of living. Failure is the opposite.
Of course, one can safely assume from the outset that Gates is not going to contradict the dominant social theme by which he lives, i.e., that the "state" is god. How could he, in light of all those years behind closed doors with the elites, and the enjoyment of immense, monopolized wealth, and what they have made him?
When one strips away the surface details (which in each case are unique, non-repeatable events), I am confident that in a significant majority of cases, the main cause for success or failure of nations revolves firmly around the extent to which the ruling elites, government, etc., permit free markets.
Those elites which do not permit much free human action become rigid, authoritarian, destructive, irrational, wasteful, and inclined to perpetual warfare. According to recent theory, the Mayans were engaged in constant warfare.
Such city-states, or nation states are thus totally hostile to invention, change, or natural transformation, and, therefore, they stagnate. When nature challenges them with a drought, crop failures, etc., they cannot adapt, so they wither and die.
As Mises wrote, "The powers that be do not like new ideas, new ways of thought and new styles of art. They are opposed to any kind of innovation. Their supremacy would result in strict regimentation; it would bring about stagnation and decay." (The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, p. 108). A better epitaph for the Mayans could not be written.
Predictably, Bill Gates posits "leadership" as the driving force behind civilization.
Libertarians disagree. In my opinion, writing this review was an unwise move for Gates because the rudiments of his thinking and political orientation can be detected in it, and what they reveal about his thinking is ominous.
As you acknowledge, it is purposeful, individual human action, for better or for worse, which is the driver of civilization, as well as the cause of its successes and failures, not "leadership."
Posted by 1776 on 03/09/13 10:36 PM
Ron Paul: A History - For Those Who Want To Learn More About This True American Hero!
Click to view link
Posted by IndyLyn on 03/09/13 10:50 AM
Oh good grief... I am well old enough to remember clearly Billy Gates tinkering in the garage, and then watched closely as he 'developed' his MicroSoft/Windows govt backed monopoly over these years. What the heck is he doing writing a book review, and who the heck would want his endorsement of their book anyway???? It is obvious he should stick to his computer-ing and leave any economic history reviews to those who know better.
Posted by 1776 on 03/08/13 06:15 PM
Published on Mar 5, 2013 Ben Swann Interviews Christina Tobin of Free and Equal Elections about top 2. Prop 121 in Arizona was defeated last November after this interview but now Top 2 is now spreading to Montana.
Click to view link
Posted by Danny B on 03/07/13 09:29 PM
The Maya have always been cursed with BAD land. Not one lake,, Not one river,, NO water storage. Almost no topsoil. Pure limestone. Like the residents of Mesa Verde, one of many periodic droughts wiped them out. They had no where to go because they were hemmed in by the Aztecs. The Maya are still there.
Yo soy Maya,, tengo una cabeza como la luna.
Successful societies must keep their population growth even with their growth in productivity, especially food. They also must have a minimum of corruption. Good water and soil are a must if an agrarian society expects to produce a surplus. Without a surplus, there can be no artisans to create weapons and utensils. A good society is built on cooperation and division of labor.
BTW, there is reasonable speculation that Stonehenge originally had a dome.
Click to view link
Posted by JustAnotherGuy on 03/07/13 06:20 PM
DB, been following you for about 5 years now and you have taught me quite a bit - thank you!
Now, a little off topic, but was this a dividend payment?
Click to view link
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 03/07/13 05:54 PM
Lefties pretending to think, as usual.
Posted by 1776 on 03/07/13 03:18 PM
In his book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962) Milton Friedman (1912-2006) advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom.
An excerpt from an interview with Phil Donahue in 1979.
Click to view link