A recent catalog from Princeton University Press includes the following, all self-recommending:
Ken Rogoff, The Curse of Cash.
Joel Mokyr, A Culture of Growth.
Jason Brennan, Against Democracy.
It also includes James E. Campbell’s book on polarization, which is Tyler-recommending.
Emphasizing culture over institutions seems to be becoming a popular thesis: McCloskey, Phelps, and now Mokyr. I would like to see a discussion between the three.
Yuval Levin too, a little. But beware ‘social optimism bias’. People really want to believe there are easy answers to curing stubborn poverty in much of the developing world and revitalizing growth in the developed world. A narrative in which the answer is mostly about norms and/or institutions (especially the ones one likes) is very alluring. It would mean ‘all we have to do’ is return to the true faith at home, and root out corruption and install and teach these cultures abroad, and the prosperity engine will start humming again, and everywhere.
In contrast, any message of fundamental and insurmountable limits (and biological and technological determinism) is both very depressing and quite taboo.
Who wants to read that? Who’s going to fund or publish that? Whose agenda does that further?
Installing and teaching a new culture abroad did not work very well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether or not this is due to biology, in whole or in part, is a matter of speculation. Thus, to say that culture is the key to solving problems does not necessarily lead to social optimism. Even if you start with a functional, productive, humane culture, a decline can start that nobody knows how to reverse. That seems to be where Western societies are now.
The culture explanations seem to be quite distinct from the institutional explanations (e.g., Acemoğlu and Robinson). I think the former views the problem as much more intractable than the latter.
I was initially excited reading the blurb about Brennan’s book. However as soon as I learned he would like to see Democracy replaced with rule by arrogant technocrats, I despaired. I could scarcely think of a worse idea for replacing Democracy than that.
> However as soon as I learned he would like to see Democracy replaced with rule by arrogant technocrats, I despaired.
Indeed, although the cynic might argue that this is already the situation we have. If so, the question remains whether it would be for the best if this truth was formally acknowledged.
If there were Term Limits on bureacrats, I could see how it might not be so bad:
After 5 years, wages & salaries of non-military gov’t employees can no longer be increased, including no inflation adjustment. After 10 years, the salary is reduced by 1% each quarter, until the employee leaves.
This should be done even without changing the democracy much.
The real issue is that voters want “magic money” — benefits from the gov’t in greater amounts than they pay for. And those politicians who promise more free benefits most often win. Gov’t spending is the big problem.
Are there no books on the recent history of Venezuela? What policies were done, what were the results?
This should be one of the most important books of 2016. Maybe something exists in Spanish?
Try this site: devilexcrement.com. It is an excellent, first-hand chronicle of the whole disaster over the past 14 years.