Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (131622)	8/11/2005 12:20:18 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793877

"Nations" don't have traits. For example, when Eritrea was spun off from Ethiopia, or Bangladesh from India, did the "traits" of Ethiopia or India change somehow?

To: LindyBill who wrote (131622)	8/11/2005 12:23:15 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793877

It would make sense to talk about differences on the basis of legal systems, or educational systems, or barriers (and lack thereof) to international trade. These are broad constructs that make sense on a national level. But they are not as much fun as pretending that "Indians are good at computer programming" because of something ineffable about Indians, that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis don't have because of a line drawn on a map.

To: LindyBill who wrote (131622)	8/11/2005 1:06:28 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793877

I think the column would have been clearer if he hadn't gone into the stratification going in our culture, but this is certainly true. Global inequality widens as some nations with certain cultural traits prosper and others with other traits don't. Not. I see further on that CB brings forward the objection that nations and "cultures" are not necessarily isomorphic, a distinction Brooks should certainly have made. But he also needed to make clearer the serious debate as to what "culture" is and just how strong an explanatory factor it is. It's fair to take a side in the debate; not fair to ignore one of the central features of a scholarly area. Not even wise.