Is why nations fail worth reading?

Is this book worth reading?

Yes. Best explanation for the subject IMO.

Thanks for informing me.

>Implying anyone here reads except me

yes if you love mental masturbation.
oops youre on pol, so that means yes.
(lots of whining about problems and blaming, but no solutions other than nostalgia and partisanship)

Niggers and Jews. There now you don't need to read it.

>a nyt and wsj bestseller

Violence and social order by North is the more academic and superior book.

Why have some countries become more successful than others? Good institutions. Rule of law, respect for property rights, etc. Why work hard, build a business or innovate, if the dictator of your shithole is just going to steal the wealth you produce in the end?

Pretty sure the answer is jews, all the rest is just citing the examples of how they do it

its a required read at most liberals classes


you think its worth it ???

KEK

I thought it was a good redpill book?

reasons for civ. fall:
- intolerance
- inequality
- lack of diversity

solutions
- tolerance
- equality
- diversity

>Is this book worth reading?
Short answer, NO.
Any book that doesn't admit to the affects of PARASITES on the system is refusing to acknowledge a prime cause of collapse.

It's a more realistic view of development than bleeding heart liberals. Liberals like Jeffery Sachs or the UN emphasize technical assistance and throwing money at the problem, which is stupid. If Haiti doesn't reform its societies institutions, you can give them all the money in the world, but it will still be a shithole. The book also had some positive things to say about colonization.

>The book also had some positive things to say about colonization
lol WHAT. It says literally the exact opposite, colonial countries tended to be established with extractive institutions that benefited the minority colonisers rather than the entire population.

The book differentiates colonial countries into two categories. Basically those with lots of brown people to exploit (like Mexico) and those without them (US, Australia, etc). In Mexico they set up extractive institutions. In America, where their weren't that many natives, white people had to build modern institutions to attract more colonists. The process doesn't even need white people. The British built modern institutions in Singapore and Hong Kong (which were basically fishing villages), Chinese flooded in, and they became modern.

Yes, reading at the moment, pretty neutral take on world history and economics.
1000x better than Guns germs and jews.

Try Mancur Olson.

The reasons the author gives are always lack of creative destruction not allowing new technologies and exclusive political domination, i.e. taxing people too heavily and not giving citizens anything back.

That makes sense you need to have certain IQ to maintain civilisation, and also pure extraxtive economy would drive smart people mad.