Why nations fail | James Robinson | TEDxAcademy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ต.ค. 2014
- This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. Why do some states enjoy wealth, security, health and nutrition while others face poverty, unemployment, lack of health care and safety?
James Robinson is a political scientist and economist. Professor Robinson teaches Economics, History and Government at Harvard University. His main research interests lie in the study of the economies of
developing countries. He travels a lot in Latin America and Africa and spends
his summers teaching at the University of Bogota. In 2012, he was elected
Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 2007, James Robinson and Daron Acemoglu coauthored the book “Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy”. The book was considered the best book released on U.S. policy and international relations. Their latest book, "Why Nations Fail", was included in the ten best releases of the 2012 list in
Washington Post.
About TEDx, x = independently organized event In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
![ตั๋วเมีย (ຕົວະເມຍ) - SOMBATH.97 Ft. YOUD SALAVAN [ Official music video ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GV6qHagpp50/mqdefault.jpg)
James Robinson described the whole problem which torments my country. Thank you, man. You are my favorite economist.🙂
But also his partner: Mr. Acemoglu.
Don't forget about Acemoglu
So what are you going to do about it?
@@kazungugodrich6073 I think in our situation, for now, it's a success in itself if we start to talk about it and to consider
How’s that?
The main reason why my country Nigeria is undeveloped is the absence of MERITOCRACY. The Nigerian constitution has something called federal character principle which means that ministers is and all government appointees must be appointed equally from all the states of the federation. People vote for the president based on what tribe they come from rather than their competence and the least educated tribes have the highest population. In business also, the wealthiest are the people with the most connection to the government. In high schools and universities people are admitted based on where they come from and this ensures that the best almost never get to run the country
Meritocracy is a myth… as it’s largely subject to human determination which is not reliable. What the govt should provide is a level playing field where education & other rights provide most w/the opportunity to improve their lives!!!
In poor countries who you are and who you know are fundamental whereas developed ones first set up a system where what you are is more important (the illustration with the patent system)
Wrong...
Nations are made to fail...
Reasons: wars , inequality , hegemonic ambitions , discrimination , capital flights , and rises and fall of capitalism economic system that shift between nations and people..
Yet a one world government wouldn't have that problems..
I agree with the 1st part but how do you make sure the poorer, most populous places are represented? Why not have a technocrat in charge of their education and the employees of welfare agencies come from more educated backgrounds? I.e, they get the same representation in parliament, but they don't control implementation?
Sounds like INDIA with its famous CASTE based RESERVATION system.
His co-authored book, "Why Nations Fail", should be a must read in every economic class of all universities. It explains so well what ingredients make a nation prosperous, with research to back it up. I have changed the way I see things on a macro level because of this book. Thank you for writing this book to enlighten us all.
All points are agreeable. I hope reading the book "Why Nation Fail" would be really fascinating and helpful to the development of my small organization (practically) and see how it will impact it.
I got his Book! Why Nations Fail. And yes, he talked about my country, Peru, in it! 👏👏
"La MITA"
Today's more than ever...
What's funny is Edison didn't invent the damn light bulb. He was better versed in patent law, and got the original Inventor's patent disqualified on a technicality.
What is funny to me how people want to use Tesla's inventions and give him respect only once he died in poverty.
Doesn't really matter as soon as it's not Donald Trump.
Edison was in fact a business man and marketer. He hired a team of researchers to do the innovation who then enjoyed a fraction of the economic benefit form their hard work.
I did not know that, James Robinson's thesis is still not descredited tho
@@SladkaPritomnost dude nobody cares
Poor nations are poor because rich nations don't want any competition. Rich nations succeed in kicking away the ladder (protectionism) which they used to develop their economy. I suggest you read a book by Ha Joon Chang titled The myth of free trade and the guilty secrets of rich nations.
The guy talked so much about monopolies but fails to recognise that the western world is the biggest monopoly there is.
Thank you Mr Robinson for your effective speech
Interesting that I don't think he mentioned corruption once, yet he appears to be drawing a comparison between relatively corrupt institutions and non-corrupt ones.
I Created An Account For This even corruption itself is a product of the system.people over-attribute their intrinsic goodness as the cause of their actions, it's nearly all environment.
corruption is rampant from rich to modern countries... worse in poor countries where state is weak enforcing laws
REALLY INSIGHTFUL TALK !!
Brillant, strong institutions, respect law, inclusivism institutions, freedom, political power distribution, no monopolys
I agree with practically everything he says, but there are at least two omissions:
1. The patent system serves mainly the mega-companies and not the individuals in two ways: The simplest one is that they buy patents from individuals at a nice price but it is cheap compared to its value to their revenues. It may be called fair trade, but here comes the second way: if the patent holder tries to develop the idea independently, a big company will look into its implementation and will find that the inventor was unaware of using some patents without paying royalties. If it is not a patent of the mega company, they will try to buy this patent, and then make their claim - it will mostly end up with the individual selling his parent to the mega company :-(
2. He forgot (?) to mention that MS is a monopoly, acts like a monopoly, and it was not divided to independent companies like the oil tycoons and like Bell company, the latter is probably the last real case of the anty-trust law in action.
Just my tuppence
giving a presentation about failed countries in Greece (if you know what I mean)
@@rishabrastogi9532 greece economy was collapsed and he was giving the speech about it in athens itself
His comments and comparisons might have been a bit too romantic for some, but the theory is so well put together by the facts and history/experience thats its hard to imagine it might not be 100% true. Sure some specific situations might need better analysis, but at its core, it just makes TOO much sense, compared to other theories. My favorite "book" up to now.
I’m going through this book right now and it’s amazing in its explanatory power. I suspect that maybe his framework is a bit over simplistic, but it seems like it really should be the groundwork we build on when discussing inequality, poverty, crime, and other major problems in the world. It’s way way too underrated.
I think his comments are making extremely complex issues way to simplistic. It's not as simple as the difference in economic organisation. He also defines "rich" and "poor" countries to simplistically. He doesn't take into account that "rich" countries still have horrible inequality, and sometimes worse healthcare/governemtn services than "poor" countries. He doesn't take into account historical exploitation of the "poor" countries and instead just says its their fault their organisation is organised a certain way.
@@100Hasake Did you actually read the book lol?
I love this man point I really do and I'll defiantly give his book "Why Nations Fail" a read, my only desire was for this amazing point to have been vocalized more eloquently. The point he he's makes is surprisingly topical and something that many in the US need to better understand. If only he had a better way with words then this message would reach further.
Agreed. This was a remarkably underwhelming delivery.
Nerds never have a good way with words. Their prime stat is intelligence and wisdom, which is why they're right. The world is in tatters, because most people don't know how to listen, they just want entertainment from charismatic charlatans. If you think it can be better communicated, you take his arguments, and repackage and sell them anew.
@@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin actually they can have but they don't focus on that. Its time that those nerds that you are talking about level-up their conveying skills otherwise their ideas would br stuck with them forever and that's a problem.
He had less than 20 minutes to cram all that in. As far as I am concerned, it was a fantastic video an was really well presented. I would like to see you do better.
@@joshstephenson9711 Miaow!!!!
Excelent, I will come again to learn deeper about your speech, thanks so much Gentlemen
It is strange because in his book, colonialism is talked about as one of the main “extractive” institutions that led to the current inequality of nations today
I think that the theory put forward by James Robinson in his book is invaluable and accurate. But I think there is a conflict between what that theory could generate in practice and what it wants to generate theoretically in the book. Let me explain: at the beginning of the video Robinson says that the rules of a state should create incentives and opportunities, but reaching the end he says that is necessary a political project in which a state that enforces the rules is reconciled with democracy . All this to avoid the use of the state to promote private interests and not public interests by making clientelism for example. So what would happen if the state policies propposed by a group of politicians are sold to the population as public interests (when they are not) and people believe it? being the people unable to understand that this is harmful to society as a whole and entering a spiral of decline.
So this is where there is a hidden premise in Robinson's reasoning. People need to understand and agree with each other and with politicians about what those public interests to defend are. I think it is highly unlikely that this understanding within society will lead to conclusions that create institutions that foster opportunities and incentives. Robinson believes that nobody is going to question that what he calls inclusive institutions are the correct ones and nobody is going to doubt that they pursue the public interest (when this is a very ambiguous and politically usable concept). And it also does not take into account that it is highly unlikely that politicians are actually working to pursue the public interest. Hardly anyone in society is really looking for that.
Thats really interesting. So what do you think would be the best way to create a system that encourages productivity and efficiency to maximise economic growth?
@@thaddyopoku4214 If i knew that, i probably would be in James Robinson place and not just commenting on a youtube video
@MrFUCKINGINTERNET I love your humility. I think you can reach his place!
Since i Started to read this book, i just changed my mind about the political Issues👏👏👏👏👏
in what way?
This is basically his book condensed
I need to read the book 📖 😩
He gets part of the point, he does miss the problem of government control. Patons limit product growth, if you have a free market it makes it harder for the company to sell the product because multiple people are building it, the companies have to fight to make a better cheaper product that convinces the consumer to purchase the product.
Very informative,please keep up.
“In 2021, the top 10 percent of Americans held nearly 70 percent of U.S. wealth, up from about 61 percent at the end of 1989. The share held by the next 40 percent fell correspondingly over that period. The bottom 50 percent (roughly sixty-three million families) owned about 2.5 percent of wealth in 2021.” Please explain this using the great US institutions.
Bad policy.
The Korea example was spot on
Wow, the brilliant argument here, I never thought about why North Korea is so poorer than us South Koreans before, but it all makes sense now with the inclusive/exclusive social institutes. North Korea inherited the extremely exclusive political Insititute system from Cho Seon Dynasty whereas South Korea chose to adapt the western way of the more inclusive system which led to having a lot more commonwealth. The irony is tho North Koreans thought communism can enrich their life when they decided to remain in the north but the reality turned out to be a total opposite :(
Interesting insights into the wealth of developing countries..monopolies
Currently reading this book found it pretty interesting
your country need to be peaceful 2 you have to work on your economic 3 you have to have good military 4 you have to change the way people see your country outside of the country I hope I will my country develop Somalia 🇸🇴 am only 17 learning new things everyday hopefully I will make my country how they used to be in the 70s and 80s peaceful and develop ❤️🇸🇴❤️
A nation is the deployment of nature into institutions, human institutions. Among those institutions is the contract, the social contract. A nation fails when leaders cannot translate into practical reality the prescriptions of the contract or if that contract isn't a real one. For instance, the case of a dictatorship.
The government does not protect inventors from infringement on their patents; a patent only gives you the RIGHT to sue someone who infringes on your patent. Often the legal cost of defending your rights as an independent inventor is prohibitive. Large corporations run roughshod over inventors taking what they please with very little consequences if any at all.
the title should be "Why some nation develop while others don't". I think the talk is very limited in scope. Its seems like patent protection seems to be the road to development. If that were the case then China would have never become what is it, because it simply has no patent laws. There are other factors like demographic dividend, size, export oriented growth etc etc which lead to development not just plain patent protection
Agree, you should add an education sistem, that teach free thinking and critical thinking and doesnt just hand answer, a govermeent that is not so corrupt is an internal joke, insentivize private jobs and private industries, disinsentivize monopolies and andti trust buissnes, also do not allow mega corporation or buissnes because at the short run yes it helps, but at the long run, it destroy economies, it destroy small and mmeidum buissens.
But more important protect the middle class, do not allow the middle class be destroy
Like to hear an updated assessment for respective countries today.
The fallacy of looking at the world though only the prismat of power, while the power is included in the hierarchy of competence - it is only one means of gathering wealth.
Good reading.
Are you telling me Microsoft is not a monopoly? Lol
In an interview he said it is, but the difference between Slim and Gates's monopolies is that Gate's introduced lot of peaple to software and computing. In other words: he got his wealth through innovation.
Carlos Slim, instead, got rich only by monopoly and no by innovation. Carlos Slim bought Telmex (a state company) and got rich by passing a state monopoly to a private monopoly for decades.
I was thinking the same thing. Everytime he compared Bill Gates favorably against a monopolist, I cringed. I also don't see a lot of innovation with Bill Gates: his career was much more about copying innovations of other companies and basically using unethical business practices to get ahead. We need to stop idolizing business people they aren't worth it. They are all crooks and thieves of one kind or another, they are just good at not getting caught.
@@kevinh6008 i would love to see how you built a trillion dollar company from scratch 😂 HFSP
it came from innovation.. microsoft apple, facebook etc...
In US there are lots of laws anti monopoly, when you get a monopoly advantage you need to show the authorities that it is crucial for an important enhancement in efficiency and productivity that trickle down into the society
Let me start with a few statements:
1. Righteousness exalts a nation - there is no alternative.
2. The quality of life of the citizens of any country is directly proportional
to the quality of the leadership of that country.
Matabeleland and Mashonaland became Rhodesia. Rhodesia became Zimbabwe - all the same geographical area.
Matabeleland and Mashonaland were pretty much a trackless, disease-ridden, war-torn waste with the warlike Matabele preying on the less warlike, but more productive, Mashona.
In 1980 Cecil Rhodes sent in the pioneer column. The country became known as Southern Rhodesia - later Rhodesia. In 90 years Rhodesia became almost a first world country with great infrastructure - roads, railways, telecommunications, government buildings, schools, clinics, hospitals, hydro-electricity, etc. The economy was built on mining, farming, manufacturing and tourism. Unemployment was virtually nil, as was corruption in the government and the civil service. After some 13 years of civil war - the Rhodesian Government on one side, and Mugabe and Nkomo, with their Chinese and Russian backed guerillas, on the other.
In 1980 Mugabe and his ZanuPf party took power. Since then the country has been virtually destroyed with the poor getting poorer, life expectancy diminishing, disease becoming rife, infrastructure collapsing, and the country in almost unrecoverable debt. The ruling class have become obscenely rich, and the main development has been in the form of huge mansions for the politically connected to the detriment of everyone else.
So what are the lessons?
1. It started with tribal chaos and inter-tribal war.
2. It went through 90 years of almost unbelievable prosperity under the Rhodesian government.
3. It has now been almost completely destroyed by Marxist kleptomaniacs.
What was the difference between these regimes? Righteousness.
The Rhodesian government was a (reasonably) honest, facilitating, encouraging government.
Patents are an interesting subject, and I am not against them.
However Rhodesia had some of the best agricultural and mining businesses in the world.
The reason for this, is that every farmer or mining firm shared all their discoveries, to the benefit of all.
Food for thought.
So the underlying principle is you need a state that enforces fairness for all and not just the few.
It's always many factors that affect a society: Culture, history, institutions, religion, geography, natural resources, interference from foreign nations etc. Arguably, institutions play a major role, but do not believe in single explanations of complex phenomenon.
agree but the combination of democracy and innovation really works.
@@alfonstabz9741 democracy doesn't work in POOR developing countries.
@@fanaticcoder3320 democracy breeds innovative people that create progress. it is the only way for many poor developing countries to improve. look at countries with socialist form of economy it's horrible.
The book is more esoteric tbh. The talk is a bit frivolous, I strongly recommend reading the book. The book is a bit heavy undoubtedly but will surely address many questions.
Yeah I read it a long time ago, though I had lost the book a while ago I remembered there was a part about why China would fail so I tried find it online and that’s how I found this Ted talk
The light was actually not invented by Edison. It is was invested by a British professor, who didn't get the patent.
Wasn't that a Hungarian-Slovakian guy?
Such a Wide range of comprehensive analysis of poor and rich countries.
At first sight it was like Heisenberg giving a speech
😂😂😂😂😂😂
History shows that Art is the main factor in the fall and rise of the Nations. Human civilization is built with Art.
Art is a source of innovation and a tool to shape the word and even portrait and imagine the future. ( not patent Law )
Nations, cultures who demote or restrict the Art, no matter how rich they may end up in misery!
Currently reading this book. It makes us know how poor country and rich country depends on political institution
It needs to be the other way around
And yet another tale of some country where patents are freely given to all inventors who have original ideas and the government enforces all controlling factors of the invention to the holders by stopping anyone else who tries to steal the idea for their own use. At one time a country named the United States of America really did this and it was a very successful model for economic incentives that grew that nation into the top producing country ever existing in world history. However this country no longer exists and has been replaced by a professional circus team who still can spin the yarn fast enough to knit the needed curtain that covers their backstage of corporate boardrooms of the megalithic nations called international "businesses" and the patent procedures are the joke of the nightly after dinner drinks and camaraderie.
Such a good book, such a bad conference.
Why? I'm just curious, I have not read the book yet
@@Andrea-sl1xv Hey, try to read book...👍
Why did you not like the conference?
I think after watching this it’s important to learn about modern monetary theory , and ways to create publicly funded elections. This way the state isn’t serving private interests.
Good Analysis minus ruling out the external involvement all together. Yes, the nations fail due to their internal problems initially but after that, most of it is external.
It's explained, at large, in the book.
Countries spending big on building their economies are mostly on the way up
Countries spending big on wars and armaments are mostly on the way down
@@Ruturaj22 he’s one of the extremely weak men western democrats have created, the type that would be eaten alive if it weren’t for the police he hates so much.
so ur saying america is on the way down?
@@100Hasake america is stagnant in this case
In case of DRC it's hard not to fail with leader like Mobutu.
You have some point. But the foreign policy of prosperous countries could be one factor that makes a difference. Anyways, it is up to the nations themselves to be wise and strong internally to come out as prosperous and strong.
What about IMF loans and corporations taking resources.
Very good critique
IMF also gives loans to Europe and Corporations commit crimes all over the world. Thats not a good enough excuse mate
Mr Carlos Fabra (President of the Diputación Provincial de Castellón , somewhat of a State and a county in the USA) won the lottery around 7 consecutive times. I guess great minds think in the same ways.
Not that I'm an advocate of the Soviet regime in Eastern Europe, BUT most of the extremely poor and corrupted African countries would be more than happy with the very well organized and free healthcare, education, housing, paved roads only to mention the few of achievements including those in science. Remeber Jurij Gagarin, the first man in Space?
Well Russia with Putin is now more screwed than under the Soviets.
How about CORRUPTION ?
POLITICS IS A MYTH!
What does this mean
A country is essentially a collection of communities of people. As life experience is unique to each and every individual a country's history and power dynamics, culture, beliefs, values and the size and depth of the gap between stated values and the lived experience of its culture are likely to be unique to each and every country as well. Moreover, what is rich and what is poor? Overall such comparisons are like judging the quality of an apple by the standards of a pear. And of course, there is the area of colonialism, slavery, and exploitation - including taking away anything valuable or movable - many of such treasured items to be found in rich countries' formal institutions, e.g. British Museum. Lastly, of anything then exceptionalism and avoidance, when get disproportionate in relational dynamics, tend to yield - on encountering curiosity, creativity or innovation in others, fear of competition or threat- originating anger, arrogance that often culminates into the so-called glass ceiling phenomenon. In societies where maturity is yet to be conquered by the majority of people discrimination, invalidating and trivialising stifle any initiative easily simply because being excellent is internalised and people do realise where the boundaries are by relating to one another as well as their own selves. As they experience something missing or inadequate that even causing harm or loss but because they believe in their culture's fundamental values without thinking about them, most people tend to conclude that whatever their actual life experience is really as good as it gets so they do not challenge the Status quo. I guess these two fundamentals somewhat became sort-of Holy Cows and therefore play a part in the English's monolingualism and the English men's very limited enthusiasm around travelling abroad so those beliefs do not get challenged by contrast that, if one doesn't have the safe space to converse about exceptionalism and avoidance as cultural values or doesn't have a vocabulary even thinking about them feels almost like blasphemy.
Great! Only thing I did not understand is what is an institution.
An easy way of having a grasp is "the rules of the gamd that prevail and the fact that players abide to them and their outcomes". These rules can be laws, customs, values.
He didn't mention the role of colonialism and the exploitation and extraction of resources and labor by the former colonialists. The poor countries have failed to develop their inclusive institutions because historically they have been derailed from doing so due to the inconvenience that would cause to a few countries.
yes
he does in the book
Mm I don't think so. Surly colonialism had a bad influence on the process of developing inclusive institution but I don't think that is a determinant. Take for U.S, India or South Korea, all of them were colonies (also with different histories) and now they have inclusive institutions (at different ranges). Take instead Russia, never been a colony but it hasn't inclusive institutions
@@julianspazzi4065 it is a long run impact.......U.S got independence earlier than many developing countries and also got very educated people that flied from Europe. Southe.Korea....helped by the U.S education institution to teach sout korean.....
Western monopoly is there out in the world they can't see Asia develop lol 😂🗿
Patent creates incentive for people to innovate as their reward is safeguarded from getting stolen
It all happens today in my goddamn country Indonesia
I’m a Malaysian and I have to disagree with you. Try to look at Indonesia’s development at a bigger picture.
I’m a Malagasy and I have to disagree with you. Nation building starts with self-respect and respect for your own country. Indonesia is doing great despite multiple foreign attempts at destabilizing such a difficult country to keep together. People should have compassion for the difficult task of leading a country though the balancing act of foreign interests vs national preservation.
Its interesting seeing him try to associate poor and rich with inclusive and extractive institutions. There are SO many variables and history involved with countries that make them poor or rich, and so many other variables that you have to take into account if you'd associate a country as "poor" or "rich".
There's tonnes of inequality, poor healthcare, and corruption in "rich" countries, for example a lot of places in America can be considered third world in terms of government services, healthcare and wealth.
Additionally, its easy to say african countries are poor because of their economic organisation, when in fact it also has a lot to do with the empires who came to their continent, exploited their people and resources for hundreds of years, enslaved them. then left them with extremely corrupt governments
Go read his book, he talks A LOT about how the history (path dependence, as douglass north would say) impacts the economic sucess of a country.
Those poor places in america are likely pretty extractive, and the culture itself can be extractive at a local level (america is big; culture varies from city to city, town to town). Make any money? They want it. You don't give it, they ostracize you. People just steal. It's a common attitude and a culture. No incentive to improve one's lot. Truth hurts.
Also, setting up an inclusive society is rather complicated. It's a very specific set of variables that are very easy to get wrong. This is why pretty much 99% of history involves extractive societies.
Politicians in less developed countries like mine keep playing the blame game on our colonial past to get the population stuck in the rut, in order to preserve their own political n financial status.
I was hoping to find this comment.
“A lot” of places in the US can be considered third world is not an accurate statement at all. This is a narrative that simply is not true and undercuts the severity of third world problems. I’m not saying some people don’t struggle in the US, but look up the statistics, by historical and global standards someone in the 20th percentile of income in the US today is incredibly wealthy.
"Slaves were not considered American citizens and laws at the time prevented them from applying for or holding property, including patents." Smithsonian Magazine. It was very frustrating to continuously hear "equal" "open" and "inclusive" for a system that was absolutely not.
16:00 - 18:18 💯💯💯💯REAL LIFE💯💯💯💯
Not going to lie, I love the British, there’s slight differences between the influences of nurture vs nature in the UK environment than even their European neighbors such as but not limited to a random/arbitrary example of i.e: tendencies/etc found in Germanys society which has their own strong pros and cons of a nations tendencies of the way of thinking/influencing/etc it’s population…for example what trains or thoughts that are birthed out of nations
Who would have thought ten years later if you were to listen to him describe places out of context, that it would sound eerily similar to what's happening in the west
Does economic sanctions, coups, monopoly of international trade through u.s. dollar & wars waged by the west that destroys infrastructure plays a role in these nations being poor&failing?
Perhaps it has something to do with, when such countries use national mining, metallurgy & oil companies to keep all their resources to themselves they suddenly become undemocratic and then a coup backed by the west ensues? like the situation of Venezuela?
It clearly does and as a student of these fields I can unequivocally say that the host was biased and clearly skipped this for reasons that I do not understand. Maybe the international community sees those sanctions as legitimate.
TedTalks are by definition ‘short’, and un packaging so much in so little time is exceedingly difficult. I listens to his presentation carefully, and was left with the clear impression that way too much is over simplified, especially when dealing with the root causes of poverty. I am not impressed at all. Yes, for those who may be wondering… I bought and read his book (“Why nations fail”).
What is the difference between 'Why Nation Fail" and " The Narrow Corridor" in theoritical views and forwarded solutions ?
Wealth must be created through innovations not monopolies
of course one always need to take those theories with a grain of salt. from the 'ted talk' on may think that the US are an example in competition regulation, but one need to take into account that because the comparison is made to mexico, etc...
3:21 "does Greece has politicians like that?"
No. They have way way worst. As a greek person you can take my word for it.
The very American phenomenon of companies like Uber, Tesla and Amazon being able to run losses years on end, all the while growing spectacularly and destroying competition, is the same problem he has identified with the Carlos Slim example; here too a massive inequality is at play, the ability of these companies to access vast reserves of wealth which are unavailable to businesses in most parts of the US itself, much less the rest of the world. This of course is a direct result of the huge wealth inequality established in the US since Reaganomics. These businesses continue to make losses, hence a negative contribution to GDP, but the owners become fabulously rich. No different from Senor Slim.
Well as the official cabs system at home is somewhat a deficient licence system that keeps me out of to get cab when I need it at night. The hotel owners simply demand a better service for their clients. Our state protects the official "cabs monopoly" by banning UBER and CABIFY.
I appreciate the critical thought, but this is not at all parallel. Uber exists off private investments - people with their money on the line. They take short term loss because they expect long term growth. In Mexico it is via force (government) that this phenomenon occurs.
🔥🔥🔥🔥
Oh my goodness! Ken robinson has six siblings and his father's name is James. is this ken robinson's brother??? He kind of looks like him. He's even British! haha
There are a lot of Robinsons. Robin apparently had many sons.
His theory: a lack of meritocracy due to political institutions with a lack of democracy stifles innovation. This lack of democracy stems from a concentration of political power, which enables corruption within the institutions (as the minority with this power can promote its interests at the expense of the excluded majority), and this corruption allows the maintenance of the power concentration that allowed the corruption in the first place. An unvirtuous cycle.
Rich nations are rich because they do not fall victim to this cycle; poor nations are poor because they do.
My question: what initiates the cycle? Which came first, the corruption, or the concentration of power? For moral deficiencies in individuals to expand into institutional corruption, these individuals must already have a decent amount of power - so perhaps the latter? And if this is the case - if the concentration of political power came first - where did this come from?
In the case of Mexico, a succession of revolutionary generals stepped on the top power podium, cementing the podium and paving the way for individuals with political rather than military might to step onto it in the future (after this transition from caudillismo to era institucional). Military prowess created the positions with concentrated political power, and now, these positions are occupied by individuals who succeed in elections - elections which easily fall prey to corruption. So, perhaps it's the very existence of power positions that allows, invites and even encourages corruption.
Now, Robinson's proposed solution is that politicians have to 'build a non-clientelistic state', or in other words, to reform and remake the state so that it serves public, not private, interests. So, he's asking us to rely on politicians to make this reform...
But when elections are easily corrupted in these poor nations, how will you get non-corrupt politicians into positions of power to make these reforms? Especially considering the basic principle I highlighted earlier, that the presence of positions of power inevitably attracts corruption, by either attracting corrupt individuals, or corrupting individuals with initially virtuous(ish) intent. Even states in rich nations serve private over public interests; cronyism and successful corporate lobbying in government is rampant.
So, if states in both rich and poor nations have this shared characteristic of serving private over public interests, this is clearly not one of the ultimate causes of the wealth disparity. To holistically diagnose the difference, we have to travel further back to about the 16th century - the start of colonialism. Neglecting the colonial and imperial history of our world in attempting to explain wealth inequalities between nations is like trying to diagnose cancer by observing someone's skin. It's surface-level analysis, making the fatal flaw of missing a huge chunk of history - a chunk which is vital to understand to even begin to grasp the real roots of the world we see today, including the relative wealth of nations.
Side note: he says that economic institutions 'stem from a political process'. I'd argue that political institutions stem from an economic process: globalisation (integration of nations into the global economy). I can't be bothered to write about it now because I have a life I should probably get on with. Thanks for reading ;)
while the US is more prosperous than Mexico and is considered a rich country, its gini coefficient is also one of the highest in the world. I think the author should write a new vol. of the book perhaps to be titled: why nations are more equal
Why mexicans flee to USA
except it wasn’t about equality it was about why some nations are absolute failures
Lo que no entiendo es por qué la gente actúa en favor a los monopolios! Entiendo que es cuestión de cifras, pero en realidad, las cifras a dónde llevan? De verdad todo este lío se deriva de un juego de egos? No me cabe en la cabeza!
Very clear intro there Englishman. What you seem to have conveniently left out is that Congo in Africa, is a very wealthy nation and its thanks to many of these countries that the prosperous countries have gotten that way. Colonization, exploitation and looting backed by powerful and brutal military responses to those who dared to stand in the way of the free flow of resources from these "poor" nations to the prosperous West. Belgium, technically not even a country, brutally colinized that part of Africa.
I encourage you to read his book, its a wonderful almost 500 pager that conveys much more information, including the colonization of Africa, South America, Central America, and North America. He even goes as far to parallel how the failure of colonization in Jamestown BENEFITED the United States' development. I think he agrees with you in many ways, and although he doesn't vocalize it here - his book is wonderfully written to break down colonization everywhere.
Such a limited lot of ideas that blinds more than reveals the complexities of the world
The uk issued their first patent in tve mid 1450s.. and it had nothing todo with euality or fairness.. just look as tesler.. the ownership often goes to the employer..
I don't disagree with James Robinson, however it is part of the story. Poor countries are disadvantaged by Big corporations in that they can avoid taxes. They sell the product (usually Minerals) to a subsidiary outside the country, at a very low price, thus you have not made much profit and pay very little tax. The subsidiary then sells it at a very good price to the rest of the world from a place that has very low tax. I can understand corporations not wanting to pay taxes to a despot, Mugabe being a very good example. But there are some good African leaders too. It is also worth mentioning poor countries cannot retain their Doctors.
I think hes oversimplifying it. I think theres and he has hit on one part of it and there is more where he has missed
This is a 10-minute speech, so yea, of course, it's been simplified.
Monopolies do not block other people potential. How OPEC blocked potential of oil rich countries that are not in OPEC? No, they are benefited them.
I'll tell you why I started a new country on the west coast... in 2014!
As an Indonesians, i cant agree more. Lots of similarities here
I'd love to know his thoughts about China
A good example is Philippines. Modern and Poor at the same time.
So maybe it would have helped that companies of western historically wealthy nations had not corrupted the authorities of these countries and continue to do so in order to secure the vast resources of these countries
Great presentation James. I would argue however, that one of the fundamental differences between the examples for Bill Gates and Carlos Slim are not the individuals themselves, but the Nation State which they conduct business in. The United States is a much more Liberal Democratic state than Mexico. Much of the prosperity and distribution of wealth that was created by Bill Gates could not have been provided by Carlos Slim because Mexico does not have strong democratic institutions.
That's exactly what he said? Why would you "argue however"?
He says exactly that in the book, too
care to explain why Brexit is such an "inclusive" chaos?
mass inclusive delusion
What the speaker is trying to get at is CONSCIOUSNESS. Consciousness is primary, everything else follows. The reality we create is a reflection of our consciousness. When the collective consciousness of a country is egocentric, people only care about their own self, see themselves as separate from others, and create systems (political, economic, education, healthcare, etc) that are exclusive. What is important for each individual is that they have access to stuff and nobody else does, because they want it all for themselves. That creates dictatorships, corruption, poverty, exploitation, discrimination, lack of access to education, lack of access to healthcare, disease, lack of infrastructure, wars, environmental devastation, etc. When the collective consciousness of a country is worldcentric, or better yet cosmocentric, people care about everyone and everything in the world or in the universe, they know that everything in the world/universe is one inseparable living breathing organism and create systems (political, economic, education, healthcare, etc) that are inclusive. People honor as sacred the right of everyone and everything to exist and thrive in peace, love and harmony with everyone and everything else. That creates broadly representative political systems, no corruption, equality and respect for all, prosperity and abundance for all, education for all, health, infrastructure that doesn't harm the environment, peace, cooperation, harmony, happiness, environmental stewardship, etc. Each individual contributes to the whole and is held and supported by the whole. The harmony of the whole system is created by all and affects/benefits all. The systems we create are simply a reflection of our consciousness. What we need to do is raise our consciousness from egocentric to cosmocentric. When we do that, our systems and overall reality will also change for the better beyond our wildest dreams, reflecting that higher consciousness. If you want to live a better life, if you want to live in a better world, raise your consciousness to cosmocentric consciousness. It starts with the man in the mirror. I did it and you can too. Start today!
I agree with you, but unfortunately the society is not ready for getting conscious..on the contrary they escape from it, they wash their brains everyday with TV, consumption, fear etc.... we are far from the perfect world..far from the nature/univers.. and that's suits to the minority who rules the world, that's a sad truth
WorldLady I don't think this is the solution, this implies you strive for perfect equality and if that is what you want then the capitalist system which the West is built is not going to give it to you but communism might. So maybe the North Korean political and economic system would be better for you where everything is about 'Society' hence the name of their political system, SOCIALism. What I think Robinson suggests is that development of a country/society comes when people gain personally from creating wealth (e.g. Bill Gates), rather than gaining from diminishing the wealth of the rest of society (Carlos Slim). However, for this to happen individuals don't need to be "conscious" on a "cosmocentric" level, they simply need to be stopped if they do something that creates exclusive, rather than inclusive, institutions.
hsudog
Actually, the difference between Bill Gates and Carlos Slim is their level of consciousness. Both have accumulated wealth. Bill Gates has done it by creating something that benefits the world, including his customers and employees (see the orange level of consciousness in the charts below). Carlos Slim has done it by exploiting natural resources, employees, customers and the political system for his own selfish benefit and by killing competition (see the red level of consciousness in the charts below). Bill Gates is generously giving his wealth away to benefit all of humanity globally and these actions come from a socio-centric consciousness -- a concern for the well-being of everyone in society, not just his own self (see the green level of consciousness). Carlos Slim is selfishly hording his wealth, because he comes from ego-centric consciousness (red level). The economic system in both cases/countries is the same: capitalism. The political system in both cases/countries is also the same: democracy. The actions of these individuals are different because their consciousness is different. There are other individuals in the US with the same egocentric consciousness as Carlos Slim who do the exact things that Carlos Slim does, namely the Koch Brothers, the Rothchilds, etc. It is not about the political and economic system. It is about our individual consciousness and the collective consciousness. Our collective consciousness affects our political and economic systems as a whole, while our individual consciousness affects how each of us functions within that system. If you want to understand more about the levels/stages/altitudes of consciousness, you can check the following article and charts: www.dailyevolver.com/a-primer-on-integral-theory/ and k.lucidflow.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/aqal_map_screen.jpg and integral-life-home.s3.amazonaws.com/SteveSelf-Altitude.jpg Try to figure out which level of consciousness you are at. Different countries are on different levels of consciousness too, depending on the collective consciousness of the nation. Currently the countries of the Scandinavia peninsula have the highest consciousness. They are social democracies on the Green level. America as an idea was built on the Orange level and operated on the Orange level for a while. This is the America that James Robinson is talking about in the above video. However, in the last 70 years (after Bretton Woods) America has largely dropped to the Red level, with the exception of certain more conscious pockets of society. In every nation, there are elements (people, organizations, parties) that are operating at each level. When we raise our level of consciousness, we realize our oneness and we create a world that benefits all, including the planet and the animals. And no, it is not going to be socialism, because socialism is at the Amber/Blue level. We should be aiming much higher, at the Clear Light level (oneness with all that exists in the multiverse). Feel free to subscribe to the Daily Evolver newsletter to receive commentary about national and world events from a consciousness perspective. It is mind blowingly deep and insightful. You will never see the world in black and white ever again. Enjoy!
idiot
There is nothing to disagree with whatever you articulated. i can only wish that the world were that ideal place to live.
The word "patent" is not in the US Constitution, and innovation happens all the time without anyone registering a patent. The incentive to profit, and fear of starvation, creates innovation.
and you can guarantee profit by getting a patent.
"fear of starvation" does not lead to innovation lol
@@duruarute5445 Fear of starvation leads to work. Work is required for innovation.
I could not finish the book it's just too long,✌️😭😭
Mugabe went to MSU, East Lansing Michigan USA
He was greedy...GREED is the real problem not intellect, greed.
In the end USA created a monopoly for it's patent products in the world today. Is that the irony to Mexico's situation?
how did he go this whole video without mentioning slavery or colonialism once
Or modern banking and UK/US-sanctioned tax havens.
agree but in the new world the colonial countries get their freedom governed their own country.. they just couldn't get over with dictatorship like africa and some asean nations.. and even in american continent..
Spain -being a colonial power -should have been extremely rich...it is not
Plus, colonialism is about resource (raw materials, labor) extraction whereas economic development is about creating value
@@gabrielleonardo6656 I guess their was a point in the spains era as empire that it was rich. but unlike british and american empire spanish is not good at trade and commerce just "my be" my opinion alone.!
Neo-colonial to this day
Great presentation but there is a little bit more to the story about Bill Gates, the phenomenal growth of Microsoft and the utter collapse of many, many brilliant software companies who got either swallowed by Microsoft or squashed - I lived that era, remember Lotus, DBase, Word Perfect, Navigator, ... There was a dark side to MS and a lot of internal playing between MS, the Operating System, and MS the Office product line-up. Have things really changed? Ciao, L
"There are less educated people". Does he mean 'fewer'???
The two key words here are; Innovation versus monopoly. Simple
Poor countries have less educated people he says. By deduction rich countries have more educated citizens. We all agree. But since when the invention of the cursus studiorum was determined by the being in terms of to behave, when educated citizens is the characteristic of rich nation and if that rich nation has exploited millions others around the world, then the reason as principle of faculties isn't enough. Morality, ethics and fear of God expressed trough a quest of God's glory can also be content of definition of richness.