phelics’s Reviews > Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty > Status Update
phelics
is 55% done
9.1 When the Portuguese first reached Southeast Asia via the cape of good hope they instantly tried to monopolize clove, mace and nutmeg trade (these regions were rich because of these spices). They failed. The Dutch then did this, killing locals and monopolizing trade. Locals destroyed their own crops (all of them) to keep the Dutch away. These regions had no chance to adopt the Industrial Revolution and remain bad
— Oct 29, 2025 01:22AM
Like flag
phelics’s Previous Updates
phelics
is 56% done
9.2 Africa did not turn to serfdom, as Europe did, but kept working with slaves. The biggest slave trade happened across the Sahara. When in the Caribbean the plantations exploded, a lot of slaves were sold to this region, followed by the US and Europe. After slavery was forbidden in England and then in the US, it did not disappear. Trade with Africa surged and slaves were used within Africa massively.
— Oct 29, 2025 01:45AM
phelics
is 55% done
8. There is a variety of reasons economic growth does not happen. In Austria and Russia (trains), China (sailing) and the Ottoman Empire (printing press) rulers actively forbid innovation, to stay in power. Other countries are simply too extractively ruled and some countries, especially African and Asian ones, may be inclusive but lack state centralization and therefore property rights and law and order.
— Oct 14, 2025 12:33AM
phelics
is 46% done
7. There is no singular reason as to why the industrial revolution happened in England. There have been a bunch of junctures that lead to it.
From the Black Death ending serfdom, to a variety of civil wars several things lead to ultimately more inclusive institutions in England resulting in a parliament and elections from 1688 onwards. Petitions enabled more people to participate in policy making
— Oct 13, 2025 01:42AM
From the Black Death ending serfdom, to a variety of civil wars several things lead to ultimately more inclusive institutions in England resulting in a parliament and elections from 1688 onwards. Petitions enabled more people to participate in policy making
phelics
is 40% done
6. States like Rome and Venice had economic success due to their inclusive institutions. They turned back to extractive institutions, when their remaining elite realized, that creative destruction would crush their families influence. This led to lower population numbers and less successful economies and no more innovation, in Romes case leading to the end of the empire and the creation of serfdom.
— Oct 12, 2025 12:02PM
phelics
is 33% done
5. Extractive Institutions and Economic Growth
It is possible for extractive institutions to create economic growth, it is even necessary, so that they have something to extract. They cannot let creative destruction happen, so there is no innovation in subsequently no long term sustained economic growth. The basis for that is a centralized state. Such states make infighting very likely.
— Oct 10, 2025 04:28AM
It is possible for extractive institutions to create economic growth, it is even necessary, so that they have something to extract. They cannot let creative destruction happen, so there is no innovation in subsequently no long term sustained economic growth. The basis for that is a centralized state. Such states make infighting very likely.
phelics
is 29% done
5.1
Extractive institutions can generate economic growth. It’s just not sustained.
The Soviet Union was able to achieve this, by reallocating resources towards factories. Though not being efficient, it was more efficient than just farming. Their economy grew, just without innovation. They simply lacked incentives. They started paying ‘bonuses’, to create these, though they didn’t lead to more innovation.
— Oct 10, 2025 12:21AM
Extractive institutions can generate economic growth. It’s just not sustained.
The Soviet Union was able to achieve this, by reallocating resources towards factories. Though not being efficient, it was more efficient than just farming. Their economy grew, just without innovation. They simply lacked incentives. They started paying ‘bonuses’, to create these, though they didn’t lead to more innovation.
phelics
is 24% done
4.3
The English parliament had no monopoly on cross-Atlantic trade, which resulted in some tradesman gaining power and influence ultimately lowering the power of the crown. This was not the case in France or Spain, resulting in less inclusive institutions and less economic success.
— Oct 09, 2025 12:18AM
The English parliament had no monopoly on cross-Atlantic trade, which resulted in some tradesman gaining power and influence ultimately lowering the power of the crown. This was not the case in France or Spain, resulting in less inclusive institutions and less economic success.
phelics
is 23% done
4.2
The glorious revolution in England ended with the founding of the constitutional monarchy, making king and queen rule under a parliament. This more inclusive political system resulted in a more inclusive economy ultimately founding the basis for the first industrial revolution.
Incentives like financial wealth and security through patents were created
— Oct 09, 2025 12:02AM
The glorious revolution in England ended with the founding of the constitutional monarchy, making king and queen rule under a parliament. This more inclusive political system resulted in a more inclusive economy ultimately founding the basis for the first industrial revolution.
Incentives like financial wealth and security through patents were created
phelics
is 22% done
4.1 the Black Death was a changing point in European economy. While the eastern peasants were less organized and lordships were bigger than in the west, the lack of Labour lead the less rights for peasants. In the west, peasants threatened to stop working and by that gained more freedoms and right. This lead to a more inclusive economy leading to more wealth.
— Oct 08, 2025 11:46PM
phelics
is 10% done
1. So close and yet so different
The difference in wealth between the US and South America can be explained by the way they were colonized. While SA was exploited (gold and labor), that was not possible in the US. Trade started and democracies formed.
For economic success, a state must provide reliable institutions and certain incentives for people to build pursue certain careers. Politicians must be controlled.
— Jul 29, 2025 09:59PM
The difference in wealth between the US and South America can be explained by the way they were colonized. While SA was exploited (gold and labor), that was not possible in the US. Trade started and democracies formed.
For economic success, a state must provide reliable institutions and certain incentives for people to build pursue certain careers. Politicians must be controlled.
