freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 9:59am:

Ah, see: you think private wealth means efficiency!

You are defining 'efficiency' as money going into private hands!!

Quote:


Property rights are necessary for a functioning economy. This is demonstrated over and over again.

Quote:


It is not the definition, just the reflection of reality.

Quote:


That's what happens when the government runs a business. It becomes bloated and inefficient. We also see this demonstrated over and over again. Politicians concern themselves with the political consequences of firing people. Private companies concern themselves with the economic consequences. It is inevitable that people with different motives will act in different ways that reflect those motives. If a person is only influenced by the political but not economic consequences of a business's employment policy, they will only be motivated by the political consequences, and their actions will reflect political but not economic motives.

It "follows" because the politician will ensure that it does. Unless you are prepared to argue that the profitability and political popularity of employment policy (among other things) go hand in hand, then it is inevitable. If you do want to argue that, you have a mountain of reality to overcome.

What 'resources' are you referring to? Minerals, or businesses?

In economics, efficiency normally refers to providing the service people want at the lowest price, or matching the marginal cost of supply to the marginal value of demand.

Millions of people find it interesting enough to spend years studying economics and even more years working in the field. This is a good thing, as there are enough people who understand economics to prevent idiots ruining our economy with short sighted, simplistic ideas that appeal to the ignorant.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 1^st, 2015 at 9:35pm:


I wasn't aware that the theory was around at the time for him to debunk it. In any case, we are fortunate enough to have another two and a half millennia of history to make a judgement on, and the evidence clearly supports the theory.

I'm not surprised that a Muslim would trawl so far back into history to find someone to support such a view.

Was the theory described by Acemoglu and Robinson around at the time? How exactly was it debunked?

Do you disagree with it, and if so how do you explain the strong relationship between modern wealthy nations and freedom and democracy?

Quote:


Are you denying it?

Quote:


And this also lead to their demise. The wealth of Rome started to fall as soon as it became a dictatorship.

Quote:


And you base this on only two examples, neither of which were actually democratic by modern standards, but both of which were unusually successful due to being more politically and/or economically inclusive. One of them remained at the top for two millennia, until very recently in history. That looks like a pretty good track record to me Gandalf.