Colonialism and wealth transfer

[kalm]

DEI > than domination and extraction.

“Three US-based professors, including two UK-born academics, have been awarded this year’s Nobel prize in economics, for showing how the political and economic systems introduced by colonisers can determine whether a country is rich or poor today.

The explanation put forward by Turkish-American Daron Acemoğlu, Sheffield-born Simon Johnson and Briton James A Robinson, suggests that inclusive institutions set up for the long-term benefit of European migrants ended up resulting in more prosperous societies in the long term.

However, they found that in countries where the aim was to exploit the Indigenous population and extract resources for the colonisers’ benefit, the impact has been detrimental, and resulted in far poorer societies, leaving some countries trapped in low economic growth cycles.

“The laureates demonstrated that this led to a reversal of fortune. The places that were, relatively speaking, the richest at their time of colonisation are now among the poorest,” the Nobel prize announcement said……….

However, the academics said the effect can be reversed if a country can “break free of its inherited institutions to establish democracy and the rule of law. In the long run, these changes also lead to reduced poverty.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... fLRKnjeZ9g

[kalm]

[GannonFan]

DEI > than domination and extraction.

“Three US-based professors, including two UK-born academics, have been awarded this year’s Nobel prize in economics, for showing how the political and economic systems introduced by colonisers can determine whether a country is rich or poor today.

The explanation put forward by Turkish-American Daron Acemoğlu, Sheffield-born Simon Johnson and Briton James A Robinson, suggests that inclusive institutions set up for the long-term benefit of European migrants ended up resulting in more prosperous societies in the long term.

However, they found that in countries where the aim was to exploit the Indigenous population and extract resources for the colonisers’ benefit, the impact has been detrimental, and resulted in far poorer societies, leaving some countries trapped in low economic growth cycles.

“The laureates demonstrated that this led to a reversal of fortune. The places that were, relatively speaking, the richest at their time of colonisation are now among the poorest,” the Nobel prize announcement said……….

However, the academics said the effect can be reversed if a country can “break free of its inherited institutions to establish democracy and the rule of law. In the long run, these changes also lead to reduced poverty.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... fLRKnjeZ9g

I'm sure it was meant to be provocative, but DEI does not necessarily equal democracy and the rule of law, the last two being the main point the Nobel laureates were pushing in their research.

[kalm]

DEI > than domination and extraction.

“Three US-based professors, including two UK-born academics, have been awarded this year’s Nobel prize in economics, for showing how the political and economic systems introduced by colonisers can determine whether a country is rich or poor today.

The explanation put forward by Turkish-American Daron Acemoğlu, Sheffield-born Simon Johnson and Briton James A Robinson, suggests that inclusive institutions set up for the long-term benefit of European migrants ended up resulting in more prosperous societies in the long term.

However, they found that in countries where the aim was to exploit the Indigenous population and extract resources for the colonisers’ benefit, the impact has been detrimental, and resulted in far poorer societies, leaving some countries trapped in low economic growth cycles.

“The laureates demonstrated that this led to a reversal of fortune. The places that were, relatively speaking, the richest at their time of colonisation are now among the poorest,” the Nobel prize announcement said……….

However, the academics said the effect can be reversed if a country can “break free of its inherited institutions to establish democracy and the rule of law. In the long run, these changes also lead to reduced poverty.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... fLRKnjeZ9g

I'm sure it was meant to be provocative, but DEI does not necessarily equal democracy and the rule of law, the last two being the main point the Nobel laureates were pushing in their research.

It was.

And DEI is adjacent to the other two.

[UNI88]

I'm sure it was meant to be provocative, but DEI does not necessarily equal democracy and the rule of law, the last two being the main point the Nobel laureates were pushing in their research.

It was.

And DEI is adjacent to the other two.

DEI in it's pure form might be adjacent to the other two. DEI as practiced by the woke left in the US, not so much.

[kalm]

It was.

And DEI is adjacent to the other two.

DEI in it's pure form might be adjacent to the other two. DEI as practiced by the woke left in the US, not so much.

Depends on how you define woke. I know the negative stories but there are some positive ones too.

My SiL is a facilitator at Expedia and the work she does on behalf of disabled and neurodivergent populations within the company is amazing.

[UNI88]

DEI in it's pure form might be adjacent to the other two. DEI as practiced by the woke left in the US, not so much.

Depends on how you define woke. I know the negative stories but there are some positive ones too.

My SiL is a facilitator at Expedia and the work she does on behalf of disabled and neurodivergent populations within the company is amazing.

I'm all for real diversity, equity & inclusion.

I'm opposed to attempts to use it to shame/punish whites and/or males for what people did in the past. I'm also against attempts to use it to exclude/silence conservative or religious viewpoints. I've seen both happen.

[Caribbean Hen]

"Ours may become the first civilization destroyed, not by the power of our enemies, but by the ignorance of our teachers and the dangerous nonsense they are teaching our children. In an age of artificial intelligence, they are creating artificial stupidity."

Thomas Sowell

[UNI88]

"Ours may become the first civilization destroyed, not by the power of our enemies, but by the ignorance of our teachers and the dangerous nonsense they are teaching our children. In an age of artificial intelligence, they are creating artificial stupidity."

Thomas Sowell

That's a very insightful review of Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters' policies.

[kalm]

Depends on how you define woke. I know the negative stories but there are some positive ones too.

My SiL is a facilitator at Expedia and the work she does on behalf of disabled and neurodivergent populations within the company is amazing.

I'm all for real diversity, equity & inclusion.

I'm opposed to attempts to use it to shame/punish whites and/or males for what people did in the past. I'm also against attempts to use it to exclude/silence conservative or religious viewpoints. I've seen both happen.

[GannonFan]

I'm sure it was meant to be provocative, but DEI does not necessarily equal democracy and the rule of law, the last two being the main point the Nobel laureates were pushing in their research.

It was.

And DEI is adjacent to the other two.

Eh, that's a stretch. Heck, everything can be adjacent if you use that wide enough of a definition. And it takes away the focus of what the Nobel work actually was - basically, institutions and the rule of law matter most when it comes to allowing economic prosperity to happen. Power in the hands of the few to benefit those few does not work in the long term.

[kalm]

It was.

And DEI is adjacent to the other two.

Eh, that's a stretch. Heck, everything can be adjacent if you use that wide enough of a definition. And it takes away the focus of what the Nobel work actually was - basically, institutions and the rule of law matter most when it comes to allowing economic prosperity to happen. Power in the hands of the few to benefit those few does not work in the long term.

I’m struggling to see the stretch or where you disagree at all here.

Diversity and inclusion are the opposites of power by the few. Both are core foundations of democracy.

[GannonFan]

Eh, that's a stretch. Heck, everything can be adjacent if you use that wide enough of a definition. And it takes away the focus of what the Nobel work actually was - basically, institutions and the rule of law matter most when it comes to allowing economic prosperity to happen. Power in the hands of the few to benefit those few does not work in the long term.

I’m struggling to see the stretch or where you disagree at all here.

Diversity and inclusion are the opposites of power by the few. Both are core foundations of democracy.

I don't see how our current DEI movement of the past few years that you reference really ties into this at all. The institutions and rule of law are already there and have been there, hence the reason for our success over the past 230+ years, as noted in the work being honored here.

[kalm]

I’m struggling to see the stretch or where you disagree at all here.

Diversity and inclusion are the opposites of power by the few. Both are core foundations of democracy.

I don't see how our current DEI movement of the past few years that you reference really ties into this at all. The institutions and rule of law are already there and have been there, hence the reason for our success over the past 230+ years, as noted in the work being honored here.

Remember, as you pointed out, I was being somewhat provocative. However if you’d like a serious discussion on the good and bad of DEI not just as ideals of democracy but as a modern corporate movement, we can.

[GannonFan]

I don't see how our current DEI movement of the past few years that you reference really ties into this at all. The institutions and rule of law are already there and have been there, hence the reason for our success over the past 230+ years, as noted in the work being honored here.

Remember, as you pointed out, I was being somewhat provocative. However if you’d like a serious discussion on the good and bad of DEI not just as ideals of democracy but as a modern corporate movement, we can.

So you agree (which, frankly, you already did after I pointed it out) your inclusion of DEI into the topic of the Nobel prize winners for economic has no bearing on that topic at all. Sorry to drag it out, I should've just gone with your admittance of that and left it there.

[kalm]

Remember, as you pointed out, I was being somewhat provocative. However if you’d like a serious discussion on the good and bad of DEI not just as ideals of democracy but as a modern corporate movement, we can.

So you agree (which, frankly, you already did after I pointed it out) your inclusion of DEI into the topic of the Nobel prize winners for economic has no bearing on that topic at all. Sorry to drag it out, I should've just gone with your admittance of that and left it there.

No problem. It all bleeds together anyway. Positive economic outcomes are improved for everyone when economic power in a society is diverse, inclusive, and equitable.

[Bobcat]

No it doesn't

[UNI88]

So you agree (which, frankly, you already did after I pointed it out) your inclusion of DEI into the topic of the Nobel prize winners for economic has no bearing on that topic at all. Sorry to drag it out, I should've just gone with your admittance of that and left it there.

No problem. It all bleeds together anyway. Positive economic outcomes are improved for everyone when economic opportunity in a society is diverse, inclusive, and equitable.

FYP

[kalm]

No problem. It all bleeds together anyway. Positive economic outcomes are improved for everyone when economic opportunity in a society is diverse, inclusive, and equitable.

FYP

I’m fine with that.

[BDKJMU]

So you agree (which, frankly, you already did after I pointed it out) your inclusion of DEI into the topic of the Nobel prize winners for economic has no bearing on that topic at all. Sorry to drag it out, I should've just gone with your admittance of that and left it there.

No problem. It all bleeds together anyway. Positive economic outcomes are improved for everyone when economic power in a society is diverse, inclusive, and equitable.

Wrong. Equality of outcome doesn’t improve economic power for everyone. Only way to achieve equality of outcome is through a commie like coercion by govt. Will improve outcomes for some; decrease it for others, and leave us economically worse off overall.

[kalm]

No problem. It all bleeds together anyway. Positive economic outcomes are improved for everyone when economic power in a society is diverse, inclusive, and equitable.

Wrong. Equality of outcome doesn’t improve economic power for everyone. Only way to achieve equality of outcome is through a commie like coercion by govt. Will improve outcomes for some; decrease it for others, and leave us economically worse off overall.

Wrong.

You must be a Curtis Yarvin fan.

Capitalism functions best when the system is more equitable rather than a commie coercion by oligarchs and large corporations who own the government. Better wages
and benefits, entrepreneurship, competition.

[BDKJMU]

Wrong. Equality of outcome doesn’t improve economic power for everyone. Only way to achieve equality of outcome is through a commie like coercion by govt. Will improve outcomes for some; decrease it for others, and leave us economically worse off overall.

Wrong.

You must be a Curtis Yarvin fan.

Capitalism functions best when the system is more equitable rather than a commie coercion by oligarchs and large corporations who own the government. Better wages
and benefits, entrepreneurship, competition.

Wrong. I have no idea who he is.

Wrong. There isn’t better wages benefits, entrepreneurship, competition with coerced equality of outcome.

[Bobcat]

KKKalm hates successful white people.

Hes the perfect white liberal woman

[GannonFan]

Wrong. Equality of outcome doesn’t improve economic power for everyone. Only way to achieve equality of outcome is through a commie like coercion by govt. Will improve outcomes for some; decrease it for others, and leave us economically worse off overall.

Wrong.

You must be a Curtis Yarvin fan.

Capitalism functions best when the system is more equitable rather than a commie coercion by oligarchs and large corporations who own the government. Better wages
and benefits, entrepreneurship, competition.

How are you measuring "best"? Does that factor in innovation, breakthroughs (technological, medicinal, etc), standard of living, etc? By what measure are you determining the optimal functioning of capitalism?

And again, where are you measuring equity, at the beginning (i.e. opportunity) or at the end (i.e. outcomes)? You seem to be doing both through multiple posts.

[kalm]

Wrong.

You must be a Curtis Yarvin fan.

Capitalism functions best when the system is more equitable rather than a commie coercion by oligarchs and large corporations who own the government. Better wages
and benefits, entrepreneurship, competition.

Wrong. I have no idea who he is.

Wrong. There isn’t better wages benefits, entrepreneurship, competition with coerced equality of outcome.

Look him up. The people you follow love him.

So coercion be it from the government, or oligarchs, or government captured by oligarchs is a bad thing?

We agree.