Why some nations fail and others succeed

What instils poverty in some nations and persistent wellbeing in others? Is it climate, culture or is it due to politics?
✔ GET NORDVPN ► nordvpn.com/caspianreport
✔ USE COUPON CODE ► caspianreport
✔ USE THE CODE SO YOU CAN GET 75% off 3-year plan + 1 month free
Support CaspianReport
✔ Patreon ► / caspianreport
✔ PayPal ► www.paypal.me/caspianreport
✔ Merchandise ►teespring.com/stores/caspianr...
✔ Amazon ► www.amazon.com/shop/caspianre...
BAKU - Why is South America so fundamentally different to North America? What instils permanent poverty in some nations and persistent wellbeing in others? How is it that Germany managed to rebuild itself twice in the 20th century? Is it climate, culture or is it due to the decisions of policymakers? In Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, the authors Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson weigh in the discussion and identify the role of political and economic institutions as the most decisive factor that traps societies in cycles of bankruptcy or wealth.
Crypto endorsement
✔ Bitcoin ► 1MwRNXWWqzbmsHova7FMW11zPftVZVUfbU
✔ Ether ► 0xfE4c310ccb6f52f9D220F25Ce76Dec0493dF9aA0
✔ Bitcoin Cash ► 1BKLti4Wq4EK9fsBnYWC91caK7NZfUhNw9
Follow on social media
✔ Twitter ► / caspianreport
✔ Facebook ► / caspianreport
Stock footages
✔ Motion Places ► www.motionplaces.com
Soundtrack
✔ Over soon ► CO.AG Music
✔ Case Files 1 ► CO.AG Music
Licensed under Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/...

[@CaspianReport]

✔ GET NORDVPN ► nordvpn.com/caspianreport ✔ USE COUPON CODE ► caspianreport ✔ USE THE CODE SO YOU CAN GET 75% off 3-year plan + 1 month free

[@mattelollol1]

Could you maybe make a video on the impact the refugee crisis had on sweden or europe as a whole? Maybe some predictions on the future of cultural hegemony in europe. Dont get me wrong I dont want some anti migrant propaganda, just a well made video on it.

[@ravenkk4816]

I don’t think Roma is a good example, they lasted almost a 1000 years, longer than any current modern political system.

[@Dichtsau]

shirvan, u totally miss the 1 point that explains it all. u just blabber after the 2 authors. u wanna know the 1 point? yes? really? really-really?? it's about "being allowed to make debts in dollar". just look at it. all the countries lending money from the usa go up, all the others stay where they are, more or less.

[@singesinge23]

It looks like the authors only consider the intrinsect dynamics of the states without considering the interstates relationships. It seems to me that almost all succeeding states are warmongering, colonialist states...

[@mattelollol1]

@Obiwank Keb34 Are you trolling? I hope so... if you say that the migrant crisis hasn't impacted scandinavia or sweden then I must correct your ignorant mind. Since 2015: rape and gun violent crime has risen to an extreme whilst in some parts of sweden grenade attacks have become a staple of the "no go zones" in where goverment issued services won't go in anymore at least not without support from the police. And lets not talk about how migrants are putting a huge strain on the Swedish welfare system.

[@Trambo1997]

In my sophomore year at the University of Miami we had a class, Econ 379: Why Nations Fail. We literally read and discuss the book. Absolutely fascinating and best class I have taken in college. I think it's crucial non-economics majors take that class to understand the status of the world as we know it.

[@jineshwarnariani8966]

What course did you do?

[@johnlane8053]

I don't drink coffee so I feel relieved now that you've told me that I am impervious to hacking >:D. Keep up the great videos Shirvan!

[@apacheglider]

I drink a shit tone of coffee, so no matter what I do ... please hackers, be nice :)

[@qwertyuiopzxcvbnm9890]

Shirvan surely has all kinds of humour

[@cookiecola5852]

I do drink coffe but i never buy it so:P

[@sidrashahzadi9112]

Is there is any -ve impact of coffee on memory?

[@jongrover8763]

I have just started drinking coffee. I guess I know what to expect.

[@richardtaylor6341]

This book is important to me. Its depressing in some ways, but necessary to understand especially for those in nations that need fundamental change.

[@danielgarcia9371]

The only issue I have with CaspianReport is that his voice makes me phase out. It's so calming that I stop paying attention and have to rewatch the video and force myself to pay attention.

[@arijitpalit2756]

A trick: increase video speed.

[@ihsankamil6279]

Same lol

[@Hans-qi3wq]

I like it, at least for short videos. It's a fresh change to everyone else who tries to shout loudest, be funny, wave hands around or otherwise "edutain", as if teaching kindergarten.

[@JesusHernandez-kz6xk]

Okay, it’s not just me😂 No problem tho, it’s his style

[@justinpachi3707]

Yeah my major critique with this book is that it describes republics and Democracy as some sort of magic solution that automatically results in higher development. This was not the case far from it. In Italy for example where their Constitutional Monarchy was similar to that of Britain rather than say Germany, they stagnated and became and industrial backwater compared to other countries in Europe. The South's economy collapsed after unification and was treated as a conquered province with its wealth and resources exploited to pay off the debts of the North. The other businesses in the South collapsed as a result of this. This led to a massive brain drain from Italy where many fled to South America and the US seeking better opportunities. The Parliament was prone to factionalism and regionalism and was impotent when it came to creating solutions for the issue. Although the Bourbon Kings in the South were absolutists, they encouraged scientific and technological development in Italy. They even built the first railroads in Italy. This is why they are viewed fondly in the South. Keep in mind Germany which was much more monarchical than the UK. Germany's economy was soon set to surpass that of Britain and it was also set to become the leading continental hegemon. They only lost this because of WWI. Spain stopped being relevant after the Napoleonic Wars. They were plagued by instability and civil wars not to mention the expensive wars to hold on to their collapsing Empire. Also the Carlists in Spain who favored an absolute monarchy was a mass movement that drew in support from all groups. A huge bulk of its members were from the poor and working class. In Portugal the liberal revolution that called for a Constitutional monarchy proved disastrous for the Portuguese Empire. After Napoleon took over the Country the Royal Family moved to Brazil. The Brazilians were under the Kingdom of Brazil and the revolutionaries in Europe wanted the Royal family back. They then demanded that Brazil be reduced back to a colony status which pissed off many in Brazil. This promted the independence movement and deprived Portagul of its largest and most valuable colony. Brazil flourished under the monarchy. Dom Pedro II is considered to be Brazil's greatest statesman. He encouraged development and raised literacy rates among the poor and fostered science and innovation. He was very popular and he was a stabilizing influence on the nation. Brazil was a secondary power well on its way to becoming a great power. It was under him that Slavery was abolished. Yet a cabal of the slave owning aristocracy overthrew him and created a Republic that no one asked for. It was kleptocracy that set the nation back. It was also called the Republic of the Sword due to its brutal suppression of dissent and pro monarchist support. The Republican governments in Brazil led it to ruin and its now seen as a third world nation full of corruption and crime. Brazil had the monarchy been intact would have likely emerged as the Great Power rivaling the US in a multipolar world. The Brazilian fleet under the Empire was also better than the US fleet as well. Also Austria is not a good example to critique since they were reeling from many wars that bankrupted them. The Napoleonic Wars utterly thrashed them for example and left them near bankrupt. Also most of the world was monarchical up until 1918. Had the Central Powers won instead of the Entente as they almost did, the world would have been more monarchist. The whole idea that democracy and republicanism were somehow inevitable and the be all and end all cure for a nation is ludicrous. Many other nations flourished. And in regards to the Roman Empire, the absolutist Easter Roman Empire for most of the Middle Ages was the most powerful and economically developed state in all Christendom up until the 13th century.

[@3MAR443]

The one thing is, if country leaderships (not just president or king) want make their country strong they need human resources at least he need good approval rate (1/3 of population) to build factories, science research, agriculture, water security. (This is for country that doesn't have much of nature resources, like Japan) If they want this the Throne they could be puppet for bigger Crocs like Saudi Arabia that have so much of great minds who will work for it for free (look at Islamic history)

[@jorenvanderark3567]

Except that there are studies comparing the poorest democracies vs the wealthiest dictatorships (in GDP per PPP) in access to electricity, clean drinking water, hospital beds, education etc. etc. and the democracies almost always outperform the dictatorships, it's almost as if a democratic government has to keep it's people somewhat happy no matter how poor while dictatorships simply don't have to.

[@danielborza4399]

Also Austria (the Austro-Hungarian Empire)was on its way of democrititation and becoming more inclusive when the war broke out. I agree that the book's arguments are really simplistic and don't consider a great many other factors. It's not exactly a fresh book either, I have it for yeas now, it must be at least 10 years old, if not more.

[@justinpachi3707]

Dániel Borza The Democratization of the Austro-Hungarian Empire wasn’t necessarily a positive either. The government was notoriously inept as well. The Ausgileich pissed off the other minorities. The Hapsburgs had they not lost the War against Italy or against Prussia would have been able to properly reform. The model of the Absolutist system was that all people are united under the personage of the Kaiser. That’s how people like Franz Ferdinand and even Metternich thought. Had Metternich got his way and laid the way for Austria to federalize into an absolutist empire where Austria would properly use its land and size, it could have been second of the Great Powers and initiated a Hapsburg resurgence.

[@kabalangakababunga7655]

The one thing you forget is that democracy isnt presented as a "magic pill" by the book but rather as a "potential precipitant" that creates inclusive institutions at a faster and more efficient pace. The examples all of you have given are in fact correct and indeed proof that democracy isnt the only/absolute way of providing wealth and prosperity to a nation. Also when it comes to wars, they have been some of the greatest causes of depression and backpedalling on a global basis. No matter how you were governed, in a war especially if you lost, you lose prosperity and valuable institutions. The main argument of the book is basically forming political and economic bodies designed to include The People and encourage them to produce and utilize the resources via the oppurtunities a government can/must provide. The better the co-operation, better the results.

[@HxH2011DRA]

This book is proof that ideas don't spread based on how true they are but on their use value to individuals & groups (a subtle but important difference)

[@3MAR443]

This exactly happened in the Islamic history

[@AndrewVasirov]

True, that's why some ideologies fit a country better than the other, while the least benefiting ones for that country can fit better for another country.

[@Variecs]

Ah, this nickname

[@HxH2011DRA]

@@Variecs lol it's pretty good right~

[@AfghanHearts]

@@3MAR443 unlike all other ideologies or religions, islam is the only one that stood for 1400 years and still stands both politically, socially and sprititually, on individual and congregational level. That proves that islam is both the truth and beneficial for the creations

[@chebbou69]

But then why did Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore became developed countries under very authoritarians regimes? If you look at developed countries like France, Germany or Japan, almost all of them developed under authoritarian rulers. Western Europe's rose to great power status was engineered by absolute monarchs and autocrats like Louis the 14th, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Bismarck and their influential advisers, none of whom were democrats.

[@theinternetsavedmylife]

These authoritarian regimes where necessary to break the already established power structures and impose a new one. This is where the phrase "benevolent dictator" comes from. In Japan, the authoritarian regime pursued land reforms, taking land away from rent-seeking landlords and giving them to peasant to work on, enabling property rights for thousands of poor people and easily destroying any special interest that would have risen up and worked really hard to remove the party in power if it were a democracy. South Korea under Park's rule created self-sustaining communities by empowering local people to build their own projects. These are just a few instances of how authoritarian regimes can allow inclusive economic institutions to co-exist with extractive political institutions (P.S. there regimes were also kept small, as in, there wasn't large scale expansion of government, so they caused very little harm. In contrast, Nigeria for example, has millions of people on the government payroll some with useless offices and titles and thousands of "ghost workers" who never show up for work, but remember Nigeria has (supposedly, lol) inclusive political institutions, so yeah.

[@TheHojsimpson]

You didn't get the point and you lack some knowledge of history. 1st thing mentioned on the video is geography and culture. If you look at those developed countries you mentioned they included "inclusive institutions". Economic liberalism allowed farmers to own land, under the idea that they will take care of the land because it benefits them, whereas the nobles of Europe rejected the new farming technologies. All those countries changed noble ownership of the land towards farmers. The burghers, who represented a huge part of the poor population benefited from their new rights and industrialization. Then, fascism is complicated and doesn't have a set of rules in regards to the economy but definitely wants to seek the wealth being of everyone(of their same race).

[@joepacheco9077]

Projecting military power was part of the reason but it didn't necessarily translate to being a stable economic power long term. As it was noted in the video, authoritarian states take over other states and exploit them for the benefit of their own country. The main reason France, The UK, Spain, Japan etc., become more powerful than they really were was through invasion and exploitation of other countries natural resources. France and the UK would have been 3rd rate powers without their overseas empires. It worked for quite a while but was obviously not sustainable. Singapore and South Korea were guided through a tumultuous period by the US and the UK at an opportune time in history. Otherwise they could have easily been one the many failed states mentioned.

[@him3zz]

Intelligence, military and culture have a factor.

[@Moepowerplant]

Britain and America were pioneers of inclusive institutions. Remember, though, that it took centuries since the Magna Carta for England/Britain to gain prosperity, and decades for America. Once they got to the lead, the rest held them up as role models, but to shorten the time span, a heavy hand was needed (with inclusiveness still as the goal). So inclusive institutions lead to general prosperity, no matter how long it takes, but extractive institutions never do.

[@swanky_yuropean7514]

Isn't the US turning more and more into an extractive economy? More and more wealth accumulates at the top and is pulled out of the country into tax havens while the poor and middle class stagnates.

[@shyshy4273]

Nolynox to be fair the South was extractive institutions (legacy of slavery)

[@Originalman144]

No.

[@baladonian]

This, and especially the principle of “inclusive institutions” - when in the US money is everything in the political system, it is being systematically rigged in favor of the wealthy. We aren’t there yet - there is still some modicum of popular influence in how the rules of the game are shaped - but very rapidly we are moving towards the scenario of the elite allowing the empire to collapse in order to improve their own short-term profts. Rome fell not through invasion, but through gradual privatization, so that it became nothing more than an idea, and then a memory.

[@johnbohler6504]

Widening income inequality doesn't necessarily mean extraction, it could mean that the economic pie is growing faster in certain areas than in others. "A rising tide lifts all boats" and I believe that is happening everywhere in the United States except in Healthcare and Education. The concern with an "extraction" mindset being implemented in the United States should be focused on the Democrat candidates who wish to fundamentally change the energy, healthcare, and education sectors of our economy with the Federal Government. The Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and Free College along with massive tax increases on the productive sectors of our economy are tell-tell signs of an extraction mindset.

[@NordeGrasen34]

@@johnbohler6504 Quite the opposite.

[@miketacos9034]

The U.S. has had elements of an extractive economy for about 40 years now, and look how life expectancy, etc., has deteriorated.

[@faroukelsallak2932]

I think the reason U.S has a low expectancy compared to other delevepoded countries is because of its huge army expense.

[@moshow93]

Guesse what group took over from the wasp elite in the 60s.

[@Nabium]

American wages has stagnated while the economy has kept growing the past 30 years, creating an decreasing culture felt throughout society, and leads to less inclusive institution. The frustrated people who fall in-between the cracks seek authoritarian measures in hope, as it's well known fear drives people towards authoritarian figures, and meaninglessness decreases rational thought and makes people more emotional - which will only make the divide in the American society larger and larger, causing the failure of the entire state. The absurd situation is that it's the ones the rich and powerful fear the most, and the media ignores or paints in a bad picture, are the only ones trying to bring back a more inclusive society.

[@moshow93]

@@Nabium I used to think like you.

[@Nabium]

​@@moshow93 It's just common sense. Greed devours everything it comes across. Once you give more power to the rich and few - by legalised corruption, allowing them to buy up politicians - your society is going straight down to shit. That's why the US hasn't seen increased wages while the US economy has grown steadily. The US economy grew steadily all throughout Obama, yet people still felt desperate enough to vote for Trump. It's because people are struggling. What you see today in the Rust Belt, is the future for the entire USA, unless someone reverse the trend. It doesn't matter that the US economy is doing good, when it doesn't benefit the American people. This greed is tied up to everything. For example the person who blamed US military spending earlier on this thread. Military spending is just a part of the problem, but it's done because the Weapons Industry is paying huge amount of money to politicians and their campaign, leading to an increased incentive to use war as a way to solve every problem. And it's the common American who has to send their sons and daughters to die in a war that has nothing to do with them, just so the Weapons Industry can sell more weapons, and make more money. Increasing the escalation of conflicts throughout the world so they also sell more weapons abroad, such as in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a nation so brutal that the most developed nations on earth have banned the selling of weapons to them. So many of the problems we see throughout not only the US, but the entire world, is tied up to this non-stop greed and corruption we see in DC. And the few - we're talking about 50 congressmen - who refuse to accept money for their campaigns from the rich and powerful are continually being shunned by media, due to media being just another part of business. The press is just as corrupt as the politicians, owned by a few corporations who do not have any regards for the state of their nation, all they have on their agenda is their own greed. Take AOC for example, one of these few who don't take corporate money, and also the pet villain in many news organisations, continually being smeared and attacked by the media. Even MSNBC which is supposed to be a "liberal" news source has continually tried to say senator Sanders has no chance to win this race and should be forgotten, even though he's been number two on the polls on over 90% of the polls done the last 6 months. And as we all know, Americans are among the most ignorant and undereducated among all the developed nations, so their people are just plainly too dumb to see the writings on the wall, even though it's staring them right in the eyes. There is no other candidate to vote for but those who pledge to not accept any corporate money, it doesn't matter what party they are from, the greed and corruption has to stop or America will soon find itself a third world country. Because once the negative feedback loop starts to take pace, there's no stopping it. Either America stops it now, or it's completely fucked in the future.

[@archosfanguy]

I don’t believe inclusive institutions are irreversible, I think that’s a bit naive

[@meh23p]

They argue that in the very book. Venice and Rome are named as examples of societies that went backwards.

[@Ryan-wx8of]

America has definitely become more extractive over the last several decades.

[@Canessa1298]

@@Ryan-wx8of how many are several decades, the country is only 20 decades old

[@skipperhun7580]

Definitely, Afghanistan is a great and recent example. Lybia too.

[@cudatom9290]

​@@Canessa1298 I think several is 7, give or take a few.

[@MaziarYousefi]

Keep up the good work Shirvan. You make differences, educating people is the seed of the plant of growth and harmony. Regards from the country in the south of yours.

[@gabrielmontufar5238]

Why Nations Fail was influential in my understanding of why some countries are poor while others are better off, even if they're next door neighbors. Glad you read it. Everyone should read it

[@InspectHistory]

Great Book, and great review too! Caspian Report ;)

[@iammanarua]

It is one of my favorite book !!!

[@InspectHistory]

@@iammanarua yappp mimin juga :))

[@Dichtsau]

shirvan totally missed the 1 point that explains it all. he just blabbered after the 2 authors. u wanna know the 1 point? yes? really? really-really?? it's about "being allowed to make debts in dollar". just look at it. all the countries lending money from the usa go up, all the others stay where they are, more or less. no need to read a book to see that.

[@syarifht5929]

@@Dichtsau U know loan didnt solve anything right? Especially on developing country soooo u need to read a book and research a lot

[@jyashin]

@Alex Mercer The book was published back in March 2012, and was essentially another one of those "coming collapse of China" narratives that update yearly since '98. It's no surprise given that the authors were an American and Brit. There is considerable evidence against the claims. For example, countries almost always rise as a result of totalitarian governments (only exception I know is Botswana). Poor nations must always pursue centralized economies to grow due to basic math - they do not have the economic size to actually have their hand in every cookie jar. Better to be a master of one than a novice in a thousand. And as for China, I'll take 5000 years of actual historical evidence over a British conjecture based off a clear agenda. China has always suffered when power was decentralized, and prospered when the power was concentrated.

[@rea8585]

Hurrah for inclusive institutions and a new book on my to-read list! 😀

[@cryptarisprotocol1872]

I hope you are not mistaking this for Progressive "Inclusivity" because that is not, the type of inclusion this book is alluding to at all and I suggest while you read that book, you listen to interviews by the authors of this book.

[@whispersofveracity63]

@@cryptarisprotocol1872 Thats what she actually meant. Lol She is one dimentional thinker. Let her read the book, her imaginary castle will collapse..

[@Dichtsau]

shirvan totally missed the 1 point that explains it all. he just blabbered after the 2 authors. u wanna know the 1 point? yes? really? really-really?? it's about "being allowed to make debts in dollar". just look at it. all the countries lending money from the usa go up, all the others stay where they are, more or less. no need to read a book to see that.

[@MartinDeHill]

@@cryptarisprotocol1872 It absolutely definitely means "Progressive Inclusivity", it just doesn't mean the ridiculous caricature of it. Giving people opportunities to develop themselves and to allow people from lower socioeconomic positions to take on ambitious careers *is* the point.

[@cryptarisprotocol1872]

@@MartinDeHill Ugh, I read that book. Because I heard about this book about three years ago from a KZbinr called 'The Academic Agent' proceeding to buy it and this book is nothing short of screaming 'if you are not even remotely close to an English Common Law, Propertarian society in principle and action that might be ONE MAJOR reason as to why your society is failing...' Personally? I don't take this view, I lean more to a geographical, cultural and cyclical view geopolitical when I analyse such situations about nations. But this book isn't some "Progressive Inclusivity" read giving way to those inclinations. "Giving people opportunities to develop themselves and to allow people from lower socioeconomic positions to take on ambitious careers is the point." We have a word for that already, it's called Equality of Opportunity; not Progressivism. Progressives demand far more than Equality of Opportunity and you know that including the many Progressive leaders of it that call for Equality of Outcomes nowadays.

[@kmvenezia4337]

Very enjoyable as always Shirvan. I suggest you read "confessions of an economic Hitman" by John Perkins, in that book you'll also see why Nations fail

[@Inthemeanwhile]

Read this book years ago. This was a comprehensive and refreshing summary. As always you do good work on interesting subjects. Thanks

[@SharkanKuthoshqea]

One flaw I can see with this theory, based on what Shirvan shared, is that it assumes that each nation is able to act independently from outside influences. Britain's and the US' institutions may have facilitated the growth of wealth but so did their exploitation of other nations whether through the extractive economic policies or by the theft of indigenous lands. In Shirvan's video about Françafrique we actually see how a more powerful country (France) can effectively prevent economic development in weaker countries (former West African colonies) through interventions and controlling their finances. Bearing this in mind, can economic success really be solely attributed to inclusive institutions? This isn't to say that they don't play a part but it's important to recognise that exploitation also played a huge part in it. Again I want to stress that I haven,t read the book and I'm purely going with what's shown in the video

[@tdreamgmail]

Exactly. Physical resources such as fossil fuels are a non zero sum game. The powerful institutions of America are imposing their will on lesser developed countries, keeping their economies extractive and their people poor. That's why South America is still largely in poverty, too close to America and it's influence. Who else is going to supply the US with drugs and coffee?

[@kerimozdemir4009]

@johl kohl if you think england somehow prospered because of a parliment and not colonial empire in india i dont know what to say

[@user-jp7tw3sd3x]

I would also like to point "CGP Grey" video "Rules for Rulers" (adapted from 'The Dictators Handbook'). One of the points there is that countries that could extract huge profits from natural resources (using few people) do not have to invest in their citizens and do not need inclusive institutions. Countries with less profitable resources have to be more inclusive in order to be more profitable. I'd do not want to refute the point of this book&video. I think that it actually complements (adds more meaning to) it.

[@kerimozdemir4009]

@johl kohl yeah dont mention the TWO WORLD WARS and other small wars between them :D

[@kerimozdemir4009]

@johl kohl remember when after ww2 english go bankrupt ? and cant maintain its forces begin to rely on mainly american forces for security its just that simple if you go bankrupt after that you will grow in economy by the way you are not counting india during both ww1 and 2 they started independence movements and probably before that too so its a factor to counter that england spend more to security so after a while security spending exceeds colonial exploitation. That is how evey colony is independent now but that doesnt change the fact in first 50 or 100 so years of exploititation they made a fortune that is why they cling on their colonies

[@GorgonDrageil]

This is a very important question to ask right now. As previously "undeveloped' countries steadily rise out of poverty, while certain developed nations seem to be backsliding into it.

[@jojobabok9373]

This has been a very important question to ask forever, my beautiful fool. This current time period is by no means the only one in human existence where technological & economic asymmetries have reversed... We've never grown evenly across the planet. You are not the wise one. 🤔

[@GorgonDrageil]

@@jojobabok9373 If this has been an "important question to ask forever," then, why are previously successful nations backsliding? Because they're ignoring this question altogether, *despite* its importance. Doesn't matter if its been important "forever" we're living in the here and now, and need to align with the truth here and now. Which failing countries are not doing. Just because I ate my vegetables yesterday doesn't mean I can conveniently neglect eating them today. We all have to learn. Being a fool is not necessarily a problem, but *staying* a fool definitely is.

[@jojobabok9373]

@@GorgonDrageil These turn of events are all largely cyclical in nature, my most resplendent fool..! No question you "ask right now" is going to change that. You are _not_ the wise one. 🙃

[@andrei1637]

I was reading the book, took a break and this notification comes up, what a time to be alive.

[@robertclifton5795]

His best video yet in my opinion , great presentation , fact and it's so simplistic the it's confusing for most people to understand . Huge fan of this channel .

[@Xandalfo]

Wanted to buy this "Why Nations Fail" Book a while ago, but it's not available here atm :( Love your channel dude, keep it up!

[@HeadsFullOfEyeballs]

I think it's worth noting that England during the Industrial Revolution was probably the historical nadir of human health and well-being, as averaged across the whole of society. Technological progress initially made life worse for the majority of people, but was pursued because it enriched those in power. It was very much extractive. I mean, this was the age of the colonial empire. The Luddites weren't smashing looms because of some superstitious fear of technology. They were craftsmen who (correctly) predicted that automation would destroy their livelihood. A small elite was getting wealthy but the new urban poor, the people actually working in the factories, were living in utter squalor. It was mostly a redistribution of wealth towards the top, with relatively few middle class property owners replacing a broader class of skilled craftsmen who were put out of work by automation. Working-class people meanwhile were so sick and malnourished that the military had to keep lowering the minimum height for recruits, because boys were growing up stunted. The largest difference in average height between members of the upper and lower class ever recorded was in Victorian England. Prehistoric hunter-gatherers and medieval peasants lived like kings compared to your typical 19th century factory worker.

[@spencerhardy8667]

Are you talking about the short period before the railway development? Once the rail system was up and running, health, especially in cities improved dramatically. The ability to transport fresh food hundreds of miles in a day alone saw unprecedented improvement in general health. No more isolated pockets of famine or disease as distribution and communications went high speed. There was a reason people flocked from the farmlands to the mill towns. It would not have happened if the lifestyle was worse.

[@SuridAkhand]

Thank you for selecting the book. I have been waiting for this.

[@paulh2468]

Thanks Shirvan, excellent report. Each of your videos is better than the last one.

[@danmorgan3685]

By this point I am suspicious of anyone who tries to apply trends that lead to ancient Rome's collapse to modern times. For example they didn't understand the concept of inflation so increasing the amount of currency seemed like a perfectly viable solution. Their cities were not productive compared to the resources they consumed. Most importantly they relied on the extraction of resources from conquered territory. Conquest of Carthage and Gaul (to name two examples) injected huge amounts of resources. Gaul had something like 200 active gold mines at the time of conquest. When they were no longer able to expand due to geography, sheer distance they started to have problems. Even when they could expand places like Germany and England didn't offer them anything they didn't already have. Except rebellious natives. The Germanic people didn't even have cities that the Romans could occupy. These are not issues faced by Empires and nations in the modern era.

[@SamuelChac0n]

Yea the roman comparison threw me off too.

[@Lyle-xc9pg]

Wth, they did have a concept of inflation kid

[@maxmacfarlane9890]

Absolutely amazing once again, one of my favourite channels on youtube.

[@appleslover]

Fuck me you're so handsome

[@JMM33RanMA]

Another great video. Unlike a mere book or movie review, these reports apply and explain the sociopolitical theories, but without neglecting the theories' strengths and weaknesses. Keep up the excellent work!

[@najam.isloogian]

Amazing concept! Cycles within cycles. A new way to look at the history of nations.

[@TheSciuzzo]

Nice point but there are still cases where more inclusive nations with rich natural resources fail (like Venezuela) with respect to less inclusive ones (Saudi Arabia).

[@akshitdadhwal]

Bro Saudi's location is very good ..it's located near europe india and China which is advantageous for supply of fuel into the refineries...

[@TheSciuzzo]

@@akshitdadhwal Well Venezuela is located near the Panama canal so geographically speaking that should also be an advantage.

[@Dichtsau]

shirvan totally missed the 1 point that explains it all. he just blabbered after the 2 authors. u wanna know the 1 point? yes? really? really-really?? it's about "being allowed to make debts in dollar". just look at it. all the countries lending money from the usa go up, all the others stay where they are, more or less. no need to read a book to see that.

[@bonek6993]

Venezuela doesn't have inclusive institution systems it still favors the 'elite'. It can be on paper but implementation of the inclusive system didn't take off, it was still on the negative loop. Same case with India and China. India is a democracy but the supporting institutions that brings growth are on the negative loop, so institutions of justice and security for example still favors the rich and the elite also other crucial institutions like infrastructure also suffer from the already established negative loop where the institution is used for extracting process. China on the other hand is not as Democratic but the crucial supporting institutions are on a positive feedback loop i.e security, jistice, financial and infrastructure favors the general citizen more. The 'positive feedback loop' in China might go on economically until some point where there will be demand for inclusive political/leadership institutions. It might be a smooth transition or a more vocal and active revolution, that is to be seen.

[@bball767]

Venezuela is not very inclusive? At least, it might be more now, but it isn't just about what they are now, but what they are across their history. Hundreds of years of very extractive institutions cannot be made up for in a short period of time.

[@MrMdhaas]

corruption index is more important than wealth distribution.

[@khadrtrudeau1662]

Turns out they follow each other.

[@annoloki]

@@khadrtrudeau1662

[@khadrtrudeau1662]

@@annoloki Big problem is the poor vote. They vote for Santa Claus. Just watch Argentina go down the tubes one more time. This nonsense of forcing democracy on these broken countries has got to stop. A Pinochet could work wonders for the poor.

[@thebebopbengal8273]

@@khadrtrudeau1662 Maybe don't jump straight to "the electorate is dumb and we need an enlightened leader", especially using the example of Pinochet who enforced his policies through torture and shock. That's not how you build inclusive institutions for one, and also, growth in Pinochet's Chile was fueled by nationalization of the copper mining industry, in large part.

[@khadrtrudeau1662]

@@thebebopbengal8273 " nationalization of the copper mining industry" No he cleared out the communist/socialist/Pope Francis trash. Then implemented free market capitalism. (The Chicago School). He lasted long enough so a generation went through his schools. He left Chile strong enough to withstand the crap that has been elected since he left. Natural resource can be a curse, look at some of these oil counties. It's the culture and Pinochet was able to change that. Argentina is inclusive. Dead beats sitting around saying, give me.

[@vengefulavenger422]

“Inclusivity”- isnt this just a fancy word for “growing the middle class”?

[@bball767]

Growing the middle class is very often a result. But it's more about involvement and how power is distributed and can change

[@isunlloaoll]

More like upper middle class...

[@annoloki]

No, more the recognition that growth of a single class will be limited... growth of only upper and a middle class will be less limited, but growth of the whole population has the greatest chance to endure.

[@MarkVrem]

The bourgeois as the communists who hate the middle class like to call it.

[@jascrandom9855]

It means that that Public services and rights are available to the majority, if not all, of the population.

[@taufiqutomo]

"If you spend more money on coffee than on cybersecurity, you will be hacked" Well, Shirvan, I haven't had a cup of coffee for so long, I forgot when did I have my last cup of coffee

[@MMire-qo7vk]

The book isn't the ultimate solution neither does it identify the roots of the poverty collectively but it is a very interesting book with helpful insights so it's very important to read it

[@olivermacke838]

Sounds interesting, I might buy it. Although I am usually quite hesitant, when I see American authors coming forth with a conclusion that promotes free markets and predicts the unevitable fall of China...

[@theonlydkdreng]

It's a fear years since I read the book, but I can highly recommend it. It is by far the best book I have read on a political subject. They don't say that china will inevitably fail. They say that china rightly figured out that free market (economic liberalization) is a short term solution to increase growth. However they fear that political freedom - secured through inclusive institutions - will not develop, for a variety of different reasons. Without inclusive institutions, there will come a point when the political elite will either stop or reign in the economic liberalization, for fear of losing their their grip on power. Since this has historically been the greatest threat to chinese rule (internal instability) the elite will propably be slow to create these inclusive institutions. This was a very short summary based on what I remember from the book :)

[@Claxiux]

That book sounds like more ideological propaganda. I wouldn’t spend a minute reading it.

[@jwddwj9]

@@Claxiux 💯

[@theonlydkdreng]

@@Claxiux it is not. It is peer-reviwed research published in book form.... The authors are both highly regarded economists. I know this sounds crazy, but reading the book might widen your horizon

[@theonlydkdreng]

@Alex Mercer I am not an american, but thanks for the rant, I guess?

[@fluorescentblack4336]

This is actually the best most informative youtube channel I am subscribed to Thanks so much for making these vieos

[@jonacacarr3839]

another excellent review. The quote by Adam Smith at the end is so relevant to today

[@vaibhavsingh2475]

Negative feedback loop is very prominent in india

[@randomdude9135]

How?

[@ryandaverayla4910]

I use this book in my development economics class.

[@JulioAvalos3000]

Thank you for the wonderful report.

[@enta_nae_mere7590]

"an extractive structure did not take hold North America" - with the exception of the institution of slavery. The underlying theory does have some merit but ignores how more inclusive states prevented and forced extractive methods upon those in the global south

[@annoloki]

...yes, but mostly done by propping up those nations ruling elites beyond what their own ability to prop themselves up would allow them to do. I think the biggest difference between N and S America was how much of their native populations survived the arrival of the Europeans and notable, the diseases they brought along. This made slavery in the north entirely dependant on imported slaves. This had an effect due to racism - the northern American colonies were more "white nationalist" than the southern "white supremacists", and this motivated them to not have slavery, because they wanted "their" country to be for white people, without a black population, and slavery was creating a demand for a black population. By the time of chattel slavery in the N.American colonies, the extractive industry of S.America was already extremely mature, as over a century of mining the silver had already been happening.

[@jojobabok9373]

@@annoloki Those nations ruling elite would have been brought down if dissatisfaction among the masses increased. Such is the case throughout humanity. The artificial "propping up" slowed down (sometimes made it downright impossible) the natural political transitions that they would have gone through (like the West did).

[@augustokonrad3572]

Slavery in Brazil makes slavery in the US look like child's play.

[@jacobdarling1524]

I think that the US is also trending towards a more extractive economy.

[@hailmaary8616]

I agree

[@SuperShiki666]

An outlier of this is Indonesia, for 30 years it is ruled by an extractive dictatorships but in 5 years it managed to forge a democracy with a rather inclusive political system with multiple parties

[@christophertito8118]

Indeed. I'm surprised that Shirvan doesn't do an in-depth report about my country.

[@iamgreat1234]

2019 not ending yet but China already has 129 conglomerate in Fortune Global 500 with the largest Sinopec (3.5 trillion YUAN @ 450 bilion USD). USA has 121 conlomerate with the largest Walmart (500 billion USD). Han chinese which make 98% of China able to turn China into world no. 1 economy within 30 years.

[@shyshy4273]

Shiki Samekto hope Indonesians continue to support KPK and vote for moderate leaders (aka not Prabowo).

[@butsukoy69]

Good quality content as usual. CaspianReport never fails to impress.

[@Gtfbijg67]

Great narration and book which i plan on buying soon. This is a topic i have pondered many times

[@tiaramoore3729]

Neo-Colonialism & the Subversion is why Nations fail...China Beat the Neo-Colonialism & the Subversion trap and so they are now winning!

[@TicketToKnow]

What a difficult topic to tackle! Nice video though - the 'Extractive Institutions' are a really interesting way to view things like colonialism and other external exploitation.

[@sqdtnz]

I think it's not just external, but also the internal ruling class.

[@noeticjustice1535]

Extractive vs. non-extractive institutions go a long way toward explaining the vastly different outcomes of, for example, former British colonies when compared to Spanish colonies.

[@freddy4603]

Colonialism doesn't have to be extractive... But most colonise to extract and not to make their country bigger, soI guess it's not that different

[@jaskarvinmakal9174]

It was a pretty good summary of the book, but the book it's self goes into way more detail on the subjects.

[@MarkVrem]

Well, Britain was extractive out of India and China pretty much destroying their industry to build their own at home. But to this author Britain is just being inclusive of China and India lol Same goes for France in Africa. The United States did extract as it colonized the rest of North America. Fur trade, gold rush, most importantly land sold off to settlers to fund the government.

[@reazulzannah738]

Great timing. I can have lunch and enjoy the narration at the same time!

[@zachary9925]

I'll have to check this book out. A couple of things that come to mind, though: 1. The US spent the 20th century interfering a great deal in the politics of other countries, many of which are still trying to gain their footing after our coupes. 2. Colonization. In North America, the rich Europeans came and they stayed. In South America the rich Europeans came, destroyed the systems, vacationed, then went back home. You saw this is South Africa with the Dutch to some extent. Where the "Settlers" stayed became rich, where they left was destined for poverty.

[@jongrover8763]

Some pairs of countries for comparison: Columbia vs Venezuela, Dominican Republic vs Haiti, S Korea vs N Korea, Chile vs Argentina, Spain vs Morocco, Lithuania vs Belarus, Romania vs Ukraine, Thailand vs Myanmar, India vs Pakistan, British Empire vs Spanish Empire.

[@neverluckym8728]

The only reason why China, a communist/socialist nation is thriving, is because it is a newly developing nation who uses communism. As we saw, the USSR also had it's golden age, but less like China, as it was devastated by the second world war, and isolation. China, is a more sharing nation that knew how to rebuild itself, even with dictatorship leaders such as Mao Zedong. While the USSR kept their economy and development interior, China is sharing it's development with the outside world, and making their technology better by looking at other nation's technology [most of the time, by stealing them information], another difference between the USSR and China, is that China had a greater population, and a nation with one similar people, the Han, while the USSR had Russians as a majority, but also Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Ukrainians, and Livonians [Estonians, Latvians]. It also had internal problems such as the Caucasus, and it focused too much on space and the army. China also makes it's economy focused on the army, but also on the technological advancement in cyberspace. China also suppressed any demonstration by use of hard force [army] and made the people scared of the government, while the USSR still use brute force, but the people never gave up. China, slowly grows it's influence by stabilizing the few countries around it [mostly poorer nations], then moving on, while the USSR moved quickly and made it's influence in nations that could go against the USSR, such as Yugoslavia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. The USSR also did not help most of the people, and was a poor nation to begin. Although, China is a very rich nation, with much greater power. It also has clear geographical superiority, with it's enemies much smaller [in area, or power], or farther away. The US has close army bases in Japan, and South Korea, but these are nations China can afford to battle with, so it's technology can advance. India, is a strong enemy, except it's behind the Himalayan mountains, it does not really pose a threat, as the Indian army would have to get through the Himalayan mountains, Tibet and down the mountains, before getting to the closest large city of China, Chongqing, or Lanzhou. By then, China would have already mobilized, and would ask it's ally, Pakistan to join. India would feel cornered and would not risk a war with China and Pakistan. Another threat to China is ASEAN, but China clearly sees this, and is the reason why it is influencing the SCS [South China Sea]. By building bases in the SCS, it has naval superiority, and can easily flank the ASEAN nations as Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia. But these actions, are also worsening the relations it could have gotten. If China have not been so aggressive against ASEAN, it might have had a strong alliance with them, or a friendly one. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are both strong powers compared to their region, but are both weak compared to China. However, Uzbekistan is bordered to China by the countries of Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, Uzbekistan does not feel threatened by China, and China needs Uzbekistan for it's new "Silk Road". The prime minister of Uzbekistan, Abdulla Aripov, firmly supports China, so it brings China into the central Asian theater. However, Kazakhstan is more leaning towards Russia, another world power. The relations between China and Russia are both part of the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organisation], and relations are both great. This does not pose any threat to China, except if the relations go down. If they do, China will have a world power [debatable] at it's front door, however, the Russian Siberia is sparsely populated, so it is not really a threat, they are both nuclear powers, so war does not seem likely. They both have a common enemy, the USA. Comparing this to the USSR, it is easy to see why China is still thriving. It's growing influence in Africa, also brings the nation closer to the west, a warning sign for the US, France, and the Commonwealth, as they all hold a foothold in Africa. ~~~~~Edit: Sources/Credit: [NOTE THAT SOME VIDEOS MAY NOT BE CORRECT AS SOME ARE VERY OLD (Before 2016)] [I MIGHT HAVE FORGOTTEN SOME VIDEOS] -Wendover Productions: =kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIK5kHeBhtCHbtE =kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZnunoJ-ibbR4fKc =kzbin.info/www/bejne/fZqld2msarp0d6c =kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJ6npJRjdtaBmbM =kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2itl6WwoNKtr8U =kzbin.info/www/bejne/bGqoh6uCgc2Wn7M =kzbin.info/www/bejne/rGSmkGiYqMmEjck -RealLifeLore =kzbin.info/www/bejne/o163d3iEiNp9a7c -AlternateHistoryHub =kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYaZhnWOhK2betk -Geography Now =kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqukdoaXi9acrpI -Vox: =kzbin.info/www/bejne/e6e7g4KOnq6jrLM =kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqa3gYB-eJytfrs -WonderWhy: =kzbin.info/www/bejne/gYK3paqeZ6yFg6c -Yan Xishan 閻錫山: =kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5SWm396mamoepI -EmporerTigerstar: =kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5SWm396mamoepI =kzbin.info/www/bejne/j6bSonSbaZl-mcU -brain4breakfast: [does not upload anymore] =kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnLNnGqOqJl8e7M -Binkov's Battlegrounds: =kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppubaH-jgKx8rM0 -CGP Grey =kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppqokqyHZblgp6M -OverSimplified: =kzbin.info/www/bejne/f2ichaN6mpinaMk =kzbin.info/www/bejne/hXq8qmZoh9p7l9E -John D Ruddy =kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYfUq5yEi5yXfbs

[@WingsHype]

Your comment distracted me from watching the video. 😂😂

[@canyuewang7096]

well said

[@GorgonDrageil]

The longest damn KZbin comment I ever read.

[@GorgonDrageil]

I agree, China's playing an advanced game on all fronts. Their potentially biggest asset is all of the resources they are acquiring in Africa through business relations, and ownership within the continent. In combination with having the most technology advanced manufacturing sector in the world... They are looking very strong. Their economy is skyrocketing as major companies flock to them and new companies innovate from them. (Through their loose regard of Intellectual Property Law... Lol) Politically, its always a guessing game as to where allegiances really stand, but they also seem to be staying on good terms with the right countries. All I know is, I need to learn about Mandarin, AI and Robotics by next year...

[@neverluckym8728]

@Gulaid M Yes, I agree, but I also described China as a "socialist" nation. But Zedong created "Maoism", a variant of communism, which, even if it destroyed any Chinese culture, and their population growth, you still have to see Mao Zedong, with his desire to have power, and not care about the people, he still made China survive through the Cold War, and split China from being dependent from the USSR. He fought against the powerful Nationalist China and won against them. Although, they did change ideology into a more "capitalist" way, they are still far from the capitalism from the west.

[@julianadeau4090]

Interesting review... however, I feel that this book, in so far as has been presented, neglects a key factor in why certain economies are extractive and by whom. Let's take the extraction induced poverty of South America, for example. American Imperialism has had a profound effect in shaping these countries. Every time any nation in South and Central America has attempted to reverse their extractive states by democratizing their economies, the US, through the CIA, had engineered coup after coup to undermine democracy in these nations at every turn. Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba, etc, have endured coup attempts, economically-strangling sanctions and even outright invasions. It's no accident that when coups succeed, dictators loyal to American business interests (the mechanisms of economic extraction) are put in place. And when the coups fail, economic sanctions are placed upon these nations with the sole purpose of strangling these economies by cutting off vital trade and financial resources, thereby making future coup attempts more successful. And should this fail as well, there is still invasions conducted under the guise of "Wars of Liberation". "Extractive Economies" is just another term for Imperialism. Still, I might be premature in my criticism, as I haven't read this book yet. It should be an interesting read regardless.

[@OptimalOwl]

There exists a clear statistical relationship between a country's colonial history and its level of development, and it's the opposite of what you suggest it is. In general, colonies and former colonies are better off than similar countries which were never colonies. Transitioning from being a colony to being a former colony predicts a fall in standard of living, not a rise. And China's efforts at modern colonialism have produced increases in standards of living. I don't know, maybe you want to argue that the US's handling of South America was uniquely bad? That the average South American country was treated worse than Leopold's Congo, or Apartheid South Africa, or the Bengal Famine? More extractively than Botswana? Or more charitably, perhaps it has something to do with the timing. The Cold War was comparatively recent. One line of evidence which I would want to look at if I were you is quantifying the degree to which various countries in South and Central America have been intervened in by Western powers, and seeing if there's a strong relationship where the less intervened-in countries are better off today than the more intervened-in countries. I might find that pretty compelling.

[@EA-bx8oc]

OptimalOwl the correlation between poverty and state failure in South American and Imperialism is constant. You wouldn’t win an election in the states if a loaf of bread costs $5 dollars more because Mexico wants to increase their standard of living. It’s by design imo, and very clear to see who stands to benefit off these constant turmoils.

[@julianadeau4090]

@@OptimalOwl The sheer success of the economies of many EU countries like Germany and France (which were never colonized, FYI) exists as a direct contradiction of your assertions. After all, while these nations were never colonized, they were colonizers. In fact, one could reasonably make the assertion that the success of these economies resulted not from a lack of colonization, but by their own imperialist policies and ruthless exploitation of Africa, Asia, Central and South Americas. Much of our economy is dependent not just upon the oil we acquire through either conquest or diplomacy, but also the vast mineral deposits which don't belong to us. Look at our "intervention" in Central Africa right now... cobalt, which is an essential mineral for the production of iPhones and other high-tech electronics... well, over half of the world's collection of cobalt is in the Congo. In fact, nearly every conflict the United States has been engaged in was because there was something there we wanted. In the case of Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Sudan and Venezuela, it's oil. In the case of much of Africa and South America, it's minerals like cobalt, uranium, diamonds, copper, gold, silver, etc. In the case of Afghanistan, is it any surprise that farmers started planting poppy fields instead of food crops? Or that we're still there? Or that we're in the midst of an Opioid Epidemic? Everything's connected and every war has been fought for the profits of our oligarchs. You could deny the truth all you like, but that doesn't change the reality of US foreign policy ever since the creation of the Monroe Doctrine.

[@stafer3]

@@julianadeau4090 So much assumptions and so much certainty and you could have just looked at European countries that had colonies and European countries that didn’t have colonies. And then look at their GDP growth during 19.century. And who could have guessed? Countries without colonies grew faster. How do you explain that? I can do that for you. Cheap stuff whether labor or resources doesn’t force you to innovate. Why would you buy expensive machines when you can throw cheap workers at it. Do you know what happened when copper got expensive while our whole telecommunication infrastructure relied on cables from copper? We made optic cables. Technological progress was made. We jump into future, because problem had to be solved. If instead of that we found some copper rich country to exploit we would still be in dial up and DSL era. And to your complaint about America’s interventions. You mentioned only poor countries. These are the richest Latin American countries per capita: 1. Panama - 28,810$ 2. Chile - 27,059$ 3. Uruguay - 24,435$ 4. Mexico - 21,412$ 5. Argentina - 20,482$ Guess what, those were all intervened by US. Panama was literally created by US and their last intervention was in 1990s. There are still few Latin American countries where US didn’t intervened, why aren’t those in top five richest countries? Why aren’t those the most prosperous countries on continent?

[@julianadeau4090]

@@stafer3 Chile- removed the CIA's puppet Pinochet in was forced out of office by massive domestic and foreign pressure in the late 80's. Since the ousting of Pinochet, they existed under Neoliberal rule, where modest increases to GDP were recorded. However, after 1990, during the Concertacion Era, which brought social democratic reforms and massive investment into the public social programs, the poverty rate dropped and the national GDP spiked considerably. This clearly occurred due to a LACK of US intervention. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Chile Panama- their economy is largely dependent upon the Panama Canal and all the maritime traffic that relies upon it. The sole reason why the Panamanian economy remained as stable as it has is due to the existence of this canal. It should be noted that the Panamanian economy's only began to grow after the US and the IMF ceased their stranglehold on them. Most of the growth which occurred did so AFTER the US ceased their meddling. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Panama Uruguay- The success of the Uruguayan economy can be attributed to this: "The number of trade unionists has quadrupled since 2003, from 110,000 to more than 400,000 in 2015 for a working population of 1.5 million people. According to the International Trade Union Confederation, Uruguay has become the most advanced country in the Americas in terms of respect for "fundamental labour rights, in particular freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike." There is no mention of US intervention, none whatsoever, and yet, despite this, they're on your list of the most successful economies in South America. Mexico- This is an extremely poor example on your part, as US intervention in the country hasn't taken place for over a century. As for the sudden increase in GDP, one only has to look towards NAFTA and the mass exodus of US manufacturing jobs to Mexico, converting the nation's economy from a predominantly agrarian economy to an industrial economy. Industrialization of the Mexican economy has resulted in a massive decrease in economic migration into the US (most immigrants come from Guatemala and Honduras, whose economies were decimated by US intervention and the mass selloff of these nations' respective public institutions to foreign corporations). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Mexico Argentina- This is another poor example. While their national GDP might still put them on your list, their economy is rife with rampant inflation (28 to 30%) and massive wealth inequality. The growth of Argentina's economy cannot be sustained, as the purchasing power of its consumer base loses more and more capacity to sustain it. The economic unrest in the country is precisely why there is a rise in right-wing populism and the flirtation with full fascism in the nation's politics. There is a massive difference in economic stability from the Peron government (which made Argentina an economic powerhouse in South America) and the military dictatorship of Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz, whose corruption and anti-labor policies have undermine all the gains made by the Peron regime. If anything, the CIA's engineered coup d'état against the Peron regime had profound negative effects upon the Argentinian economy, either through the overthrow of the state by the CIA or through the fiscal drain upon the economy by the IMF (this requires the selling off of public assets in return for economic bailouts, which in turn only exacerbates the economic woes of the Argentinian economy). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Argentina Of course, this is neglecting one very important reality, which you are clearly ignoring: GDP is a piss-poor measure of an economy's well-being. While a low GDP does indicate a troubled economy, a large GDP does not, as the extractive nature of Capitalism funnels the vast majority of these gains into the coffers of the Capitalist class and not the workers, whose well-being should really serve as the measure of an economy's strength.

[@mbathroom1]

Very interesting. I had never heard that explanation

[@fedoralexandersteeman6672]

5:50 I wonder why the Dutch republic isn't mentioned which would be an excellent example predating the rise of the British society, where inclusive institutions and a lack of a powerful aristocracy quickly led to a great increase in wealth and industriousness.

[@Sunny198325]

The irony here the negative feedback loop in most of the "failed states" was setup by the proponents of "positive feedback loop" so they can plunder and nothing is left but a failed state

[@richardfreeman724]

Absolutely , the writers of the book criminally omit the fact that USA keeps meddling in south American, removing and installing rulers that benefits the banana republic status quo. LITTERALLY impossible to create "positive feedback loop" and " Inclusive institutions", if the people that want to create those institutions are being assassinated by the CIA. BS hypocrisy

[@vincencclaustro7161]

Nations like Spain and Portugal set it up. This made it easy pickings. I love Southern Europe but they are the mom and dad of places like Argentina and Brazil. That’s why places as different from Britain like Hong Kong are so prosperous.

[@LancesArmorStriking]

@@richardfreeman724 Ironically, most of the nations in question were on the path to setting up those very same inclusive institutions. Now, it can be argued that, because of the violent nature of Communist revolution, that it was destined to become extractivr (as in the Soviet Union) but replacing it with an explicitly extractive dictatorship backed by the US was squashing any chance they had at prosperity. At least with socialist land reforms Latin America could have started to be better, and if they messed up, it was their problem.

[@DeletedDelusion]

Funny that you show pictures from Bern, Switzerland when you said that "...for a long time, many nations rejected the benefits of the industrial revolution..." Because Switzerland might not be a typical example for a nation that was for a long time rejecting the industrual revolution. Especially, after the Sonderbund war which the radicals (progressive liberal) decisively won in 1847 against the conservative cantons the already present industrial revolution gained a lot of momentum in Switzerland. If Switzerland would have been late to the game, it certainly wouldn't be one of the most prosperous nations in the world today. Of course, not having been draged into the two world wars was very beneficial and lucky was well.

[@BurningQuranDay]

There are also pictures of France as Shirvan speaks of the negative feedback loop, I'm pretty sure France isn't supposed to be on a negative feedback loop. The images are just there to have something to watch, not related to the narration, imo.

[@ilyastarar266]

I was lucky enough to have read this book before watching the video. Great video.

[@neonmanas5568]

Excellent upload. Now I will have to read the book.

[@Revnge7Fold]

Now I want to read this book!

[@swordis45]

Leadership and Accountability is big issues. That's why the Caribbean is failing

[@FR-yr2lo]

Race and culture. Not leadership. Leadership is a mere product of race and culture.

[@goyonman9655]

@conan263 There're more African Billionaires

[@EA-bx8oc]

conan263 big lies. Please stop chatting fake stats

[@swanky_yuropean7514]

@@EA-bx8oc Look at the middle ages. The roles of Europe and the middle east were practically reversed. Cultured, educated and wealthy middle east vs. backwards, uneducated and poor Europe.

[@3MAR443]

@@swanky_yuropean7514 the life is a cycle

[@kenobetrader955]

Very informative video as always!

[@anarchistalhazen7084]

That is awesome, you are a legend !

[@mustafemohamed7999]

I wish I know this site when I was doing Development Studies , everything you saide it's related to development theories. Thanks

[@achinthmurali5207]

Can we just take a minute to appreciate how amazing this channel is?

[@ahmedmustafa775]

Perfect review ❤️

[@jackryan5268]

Every book you've recommended I've bought and really enjoyed them

[@RockawayCCW]

This sounds like a really interesting book.

[@EA-bx8oc]

The theory fails to address, the international extraction effect. You can pay less in % of your disposable income in France compared to Vietnam, because of exploitation of those countries by product of colonialism. Also, please let’s not sweeten why SOUTH AMERICA is a mess, when it’s been a breeding ground for colour revolutions for 100 years, also there, there’s an extractionary system put in place, probably again as byproduct of colonialism (these lands were set up to feed their more powerful masters at the time) and even now that many have even surpassed their former chiefs, they’re still playing catch up with the greatest economies.

[@Dichtsau]

shirvan totally missed the 1 point that explains it all. he just blabbered after the 2 authors. u wanna know the 1 point? yes? really? really-really?? it's about "being allowed to make debts in dollar". just look at it. all the countries lending money from the usa go up, all the others stay where they are, more or less. no need to read a book to see that.

[@richardfreeman724]

Absolutely, "inclusive institutions" can't grow if international superpowers keep installing and removing rulers. USA is specially guilty in meddling in south American politics, they want to keep their banana republics, no way to ever progress in such situation.

[@HxH2011DRA]

>Why nations fail >no emphasis on imperialism in Africa and South America Bruh

[@thebebopbengal8273]

@@Dichtsau Im sorry, but that's just factually inaccurate.

[@omgwtfbbqstfu]

Evolution doesn't result in equality, these theories always fail to address genetics.

[@james-1110]

I cannot describe how amazing this video was

[@ahhyes1285]

You mentioned the difference between North and South America and an interesting microcosm of this is the American South where a plantation economy with slave labor developed and was left behind the rest of the United States in a similar way that Latin America was. This only reinforces the point mentioned but is interesting

[@piotrstrukiel3479]

I'd love how much fail would south america countries if USA didn't meddle down there.... I'd love to see how much fail would african countries if France / UK wouldn't meddle down there.... I'd love to see how much fail would asian/european countries if UK wouldn't meddle there...

[@someone-wi4xl]

@@MrGaters34 Ethiopia was colonized by Italy for a period of time there are more reasons than colonization .. geography for example plays huge role and Ethiopia today is a Land-locked nation and very mountainous (both are very negative)

[@piotrstrukiel3479]

@@MrGaters34 you don't need to colonize (in XIX century meaning) a country to weaken it...

[@piotrstrukiel3479]

@@MrGaters34 you compare decades long occupation to 4 years ? And even so -> not all France was occupied and used like the Africans were. Republic of Vichy does sound anything to you ? Come on...

[@syncout9586]

Many points brought up by this video echoes the points made in CGP Grey's video, The Rules for Rulers. Very interesting

[@syncout9586]

@LagiNaLangAko23 yeap. And it seems that both books, "The Dictators Handbook" and "Why Nations Fails" share the same basis of understanding on nation building. That being, when power is concentrated on top, it leads to less progress and more poverty.

[@LeagueUnionSevens]

@SyncOut I had the same thought. The two models are both very logical and compatible with one another.

[@Matrinique]

I love you. Thank you so much for sharing these insights. For free. On KZbin.

[@saturn_in_blue]

Cox sağol, another great video. Also, visited Baku last week, quite a fun city. :D

[@BellicoseNation]

One leg of the stool is having a sufficient national average IQ. There are more than a few nations whose average IQ is at the level of an American 8th grader.

[@dolphmilitia]

Exactly

[@flybekvc]

Roman empire was there for more than 1000 years. Ottoman empire for 400. There is no comparison with US or Great Britain that have been "shining" for less than half of these periods.

[@tahirates9380]

Right! But dont forget ottomans, Romans etc.. Were local power _UdSSR, britisch emp. USA are global

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

I love it when members of 1-2 century old states form analyses from - and pass judgment on - empires that, in some cases, lasted several centuries (or even millenia in the case of Rome), rather conveniently in their favor. Besides, institutions? What are those? There is no widely accepted and non-vague definition of 'institution', and most that exist tend make it overlap considerably with culture - an explanation the authors already reject. Meanwhile in their book they seem to be simply using 'institutions' as a thin veil for some form of liberal democracy and capitalism, which is really no different from the triumphalism of books like 'The End of History'. Apparently such institutions will endure, as opposed to their opposites, which flies in the face of history, but is accepted only because of a quirk of memory - even a month experienced yourself feels a lot longer than entire past centuries never actually felt by you. Also, that just pushes the question back - how do these miraculous institutions get developed in the first place? Does 'Why Nations Fail' now require a companion book, 'Where Good Institutions Come From'? And then there's China. As with so many western intellectuals, they too confidently predict China's downfall. Pretty much every nation or empire has fallen at some point, yet it's curious who people from opposing ideological choose to fixate on as the one most likely to fall (hint: it's rarely themselves). China hasn't fallen yet, despite decades of predictions that it will. At some point though, it's bound to. And when it does, all these writers will get to raise their hands and claim, "we told you so!". Except you didn't. You made a vague prediction of a vague outcome. Almost none ever publish a timeline or date for China's fall - forget years, they can't even seem to nail it down to a decade - and yet you want to call that a prediction?! If this was physics, it'd be like estimating the speed of light as somewhere between the speed of our fastest rocket engine and the initial expansion rate of cosmic inflation. What kind of prediction is that? Literally anyone can be right about anything, as long as they're vague enough about it. Considering that you're drawing parallels between societies with lifespans measured in entire multi-historical periods and those measured in a handful of generations, but in favor of the much younger ones, I suppose it's fitting that you seem to have issues with appreciating the true value of time.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@Канал Уокера If you include the eastern Roman empire (otherwise known as the Byzantines), which the people of the time certainly would have, then Rome fell only in 1453. Considering that 'institutionally' it continued along similar lines as the 'original' empire, it stands that Rome survived with its institutional makeup for a very long time. But even at your preferred figure of 5 centuries, Rome still puts to shame the authors conviction that 'inclusive institutions' (whatever that means, cos it sounds like a euphemism to me) are necessary for longevity - that's way longer than both modern Britain and the US. And if you want an even better example, consider ancient Egypt. This idea that nations need to be like, conveniently, the countries the authors themselves identify with in order to be successful is just pure triumphalism.

[@Gumardee_coins_and_banknotes]

England or the UK has been around for 1000 years.

[@flybekvc]

@@Gumardee_coins_and_banknotes So what? Are they the dominant "country/empire" for 1000 years? No

[@slightlytwistedagain]

Love these type of videos.

[@Geoe423]

Fascinating ! Good job

[@khangaming5067]

Because some nation countrol money and others not....😎😎😎

[@goyonman9655]

IKR?

[@Weltenbastler2000]

You can do all you want, but if a bigger nation decides, that they want to puppet you, then they will control all the money flows and you are going to be f... ed anyways.

[@yutakago1736]

“It’s no accident that Singapore become rich, given where it started at $400 gdp per capita to more than $59,000 gdp per capita. There, power was concentrated in one enormously talented person, Lee Kuan Yew, who was the Warren Buffett of Singapore.” - Charlie Munger

[@Joe-fk6wz]

So what are you saying?

[@LeonardoCavalcante]

Nice job Shirvan. Greetings from Brazil.

[@wasilrehman6495]

Points taken. Geography and culture are not the sole determinants regarding success of nations. But following are important too Inclusive institutions (Uniform distribution within a state). Feedback loop (To ensure the free flow of public opinion which affects the public policies.)

[@MenkoDany]

The extractive mindset is why the USA became an oligarchy w/ Nixon & Reagan

[@annoloki]

The USA isn't an oligarchy, it is a plutocracy, big difference. This is why USA doesn't like Russia... in plutocratic USA, people with money can buy power, but in oligarchic Russia, money doesn't give you power, but power does give you money. If you go against the rest of the oligarchs, it doesn't matter that you have money, you gotta leave the country or they will take you out.

[@abandonedchannel281]

Stuart Bilo Dems are bad too, like Clinton. But they have some good ideas time to time

[@cte4dota]

I can't live without my coffee but hacked can.

[@charlielucai-woodsboro2167]

This is gold!!!!

[@spaceshuttledoorgunner125]

Read it a few years back. Great read.

[@thehumus8688]

Roman civilization last for Milenia, Pax Romana last for at least 200 years Modern Free market economy, democracy etc, pushed mainly by America post WW2 - but pax Americana age not even 100 years old and already seemsout of steam already Considered American is extremly lucky, being major industrial power un touched by Great war twice Can we even said, Modern Nation philosophy can truly withstand the test of time ?

[@evankurniawan1311]

Out of steam? Live has never been better before. Technology keep growing.

[@domino2560]

@@evankurniawan1311 Technology won't grow forever and life has gotten worse since quite a while.

[@tdreamgmail]

@@domino2560 Technology will grow forever because it's evolution. You can't stop it. That's why there's an AI race now. The winner will have an exponential advantage that can never be recovered from.

[@AndrewVasirov]

tdreamgmail There is a limit in technology advance due to the laws of physics and the finite resources we have on our planet.

[@domino2560]

@@tdreamgmail Aside from the limits of the laws of nature, practicality is a limit too.

[@Metalvolt]

I'd be interested to know if this theory accounts for imperialism. The two examples of geographically close countries you gave: East & Western Germany and North & South Korea, can be described by their stance towards kmperialism: East Germany and North Korea against it, and West Germany and South Korea in support of it. I find the descriptions of inclusive and extractive institutions, and how they come into being, to be odd. If it is that inclusive institutions can not be engineered, that inclusive situations only emerge when power is shared among a large amount of the population and that extractive institutions exist when inclusive ones do not, then how could we explain a country that was once prosperous who becomes weakened? For example how could this theory explain Germany in the first half of the 1900's. Finally it seems odd to suggest that the USA and the UK are prosperous because of inclusive institutions. It is very evident that power in these two countries is concentrated with the class of big business. While there does exist certain political institutions for voting, the options and candidates are constrained by what benefits big business. Even when the constraints are occasionally not applied, the wealth of big business is easily deployed to beat down any chance for progress. The reason that the USA and the UK have been prosperous is because they looted the world and because the USA got over 300 years of free labour through slavery. Any theory that does not factor this in is denying reality.

[@jon9428]

"Looted the world" "300 years of free labor" please stop commenting. You know nothing about geopolitical analysis. What you said doesnt take the most important things into account at all.

[@krpio5873]

Inclusive institutions can easily degrade into extractive ones. The book gives several examples of this occuring throughout history. The Italian city states in the 13 and 14 century were the most prosperous when they implemented democratic practices. And the argument that the US is rich because of slavery doesn't grasp the whole picture. All south american countries had way more slaves than the US and are not wealthy today.

[@danielmadar9938]

Thank. The best books on this subject that I've read, are Francis Fukuyamas' 'origins of Political order', and 'Political order and political decay'.

[@indycinema]

Nice simulation of the Andes. Really beautiful. Where do you get your assets?

[@snowsnow4231]

Production economy - people and human capital are in demand, more care about people Extraction economy - very few working hands and human capital required - very few care about people

[@01296501923654]

I was under the impression that economies based on agriculture, mining and other forms of resource extraction require lots of low-skill workers. Because of this institutions like slavery and serfdom find support as they help provide and control cheap labor. Perhaps this was true for the American slave states and the Russian Empire but not true anymore.

[@jascrandom9855]

Extraction economy- lots of natural resources, no need to invest in Human Capital.

[@knaanmohamed4305]

Nations fail because clan and corruption those are two dangerous things that make nation fail.

[@dnbuk3111]

I love your channel. I have been going through your catalog for a few months. Do you have a Patreon or any platform to throw some $$ your way?

[@fairjudgement4409]

This is assuming that all cultural inputs such as morals, work ethic, values, social norms are equal among all cultures.

[@LeagueUnionSevens]

Not it isn't. Rather, it's pointing out that even when you control for culture and geography there can still be huge discrepancies between the economic prosperity of nations (i.e. North Korea vs South Korea, East Germany vs West Germany, China vs Taiwan etc.) Therefore, there must be other variables which play a significant role in determining whether a country is rich or poor, and this video (and the book it's based on) looks at a possible theory as to what one of those variables may be.

[@mh3535]

Nonsense. Control of trade routes to vital resources alone dictates who's rich or poor. North Korea and East Germany were inclusive in that they afforded poor people higher education and had a disciplined rule of law. The Ottomans started their descent to poverty when the Spanish, Portugese and Dutch bypassed the old silk road.

[@kpcbeezy1991]

Great video!

[@Ahtisham_Aziz]

I beg to differ, the United Kingdom became rich and wealthy by exploiting the colonies it had, it has not much significance in the modern world compared to days of the empire and with Brexit now it will get even more irrelevant on international stage. Maybe the UK will disintegrate into 4 countries again.

[@tomsmith8006]

Ahtisham Aziz Give it a rest mate... England had the largest army in the world 300 years before their first colony. Plus trying to claim that they will devolve purely because of Brexit shows your lack of understanding of the current political situation... The empire helped, but it was by no means the cause of the power the UK wields today. They were the 2nd largest economy in the world after their empire was gone...

[@Ahtisham_Aziz]

@@tomsmith8006 WERE being the word to be focused on. The British manufacturing sector is dead, i have lived in UK for 6 years, the British people can't compete with immigrants from Poland, Romania or the Indian Subcontinent. Go to any takeaway shop, Gas station or fast food shop you won't find a single British person working these kinds of jobs, if you don't believe me just visit your local McDonalds. Electricians, Plumbers, Nurses, Doctors etc are increasingly Immigrants. Working a minimum wage job is considered as a time waste when you can just live on benefits. What i saw in UK and what i had heard before i actually lived there were 2 completely different things. With Brexit the UK is hurting itself in the short run but i think it would be better off leaving the EU in the long run. The simple reason that I have for Brexit is because the British are unable to compete now.

[@tomsmith8006]

Ahtisham Aziz It’s true, the British have moved away from industrial sector jobs. But they have more moved into financial sector and professional capacity jobs. This is absolutely typical of a large economy and is expected to happen across the developed world. The same thing happened in Japan before and is happening in Italy and France right now. Benefits should be scrapped however I completely agree with you there.

[@realistreset8336]

Hint : Average national IQ levels. Exceptions are : - For high IQ countries, adopt communism. - For low IQ countries, have oil. Everyone else, be smart.

[@fbluhme]

Nailed it :)

[@tauceti8341]

This is a really cool channel. In interested in learning britains rise and fall. Like one small ass nation, conquered the world so the sun never set, but then after WWII was forced to give indepenced to their colonies, THEN the SUCCEED from a geopolitical powehouse like the EU. I don't know what their economy offer to succeed without buffer. I wish the best for all citizens of the world and that stife be minimized. Thanks C.R.

[@mehdin7520]

I have this book and read it years ago. I loved it!

[@nicholasmwangangi6257]

I'm sure he won't mention meddling in other country's affairs

[@khadrtrudeau1662]

@Stuart Bilo Japan and Korea are doing more than just surviving. They are thriving.

[@josipbozic7917]

@@khadrtrudeau1662 "To know who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise."