''Ottoman: While the printing houses opened throughout Europe in the 15th century. and led to the Reformation and the wars of religion. The Caliphe prohibits it. Printing is only authorized from 1720, a single printer obtained a license, he would be subject to the censorship of numerous "religious experts" and only published 17 books in 40 years. He then decided to close shop. ''
That is false claim. It arrived Ottoman Turkland at the 1492 year with the help of spanish jew immigrants. It is known and open to armenians, jews and christians but forbidden to Turks only until 1727 İbrahim Müttefferika introduced. So there happened a big knowledge gap.
So Ottoman Caliphe Sultan -King whatever give the privilege to minority and forbidden the printing press to Native population for 227 years.
Trade, medicine, shipment , financial sector was all controlled by non Turks. After 15 century no Turkish advisor-Vezir seated in Palace but minority non-muslims were seated.
So it is obvious who failed the nation and fled away.
''Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson discuss this relationship in the historical process and argue that technology should be reoriented as a tool of democratization, not surveillance. economy and... '' That i agree this view full heart.
"When you end production, education, freedom, justice, merit and equality of opportunity, cultures collapse and nations fall apart." So true.
What a nice pair of thoughts, too good to be true. But he condradicts himself in real life.
He was governing Armenia economy, but he messed up worse and come back to University. Institutions and democracy he cant bring there. He condradicts himself in real life.
He is the same man, who bans printing press to mass population but gives privilege of to minority. I am sure he owns bitcoin but he clearly ignores it in public.
When I read the book, I thought he was saying that Ottoman rule was a closed order and that Attaturk led to an opening of the order. For me, Ottoman not trusting their own people and using slave foreigners as government does not open opportunities to most of the population, and led to lower alphabetization and a development trap in the 16th and 17th century, maybe this only became a more opened society only 100 years ago with Kemal Ataturk. That’s my reading, maybe not Acemoglu’s
Note that some authors can do good historical analysis and have civilisational insight while holding misguided opinions on current affairs. It seems to me that Acemoglu's view are biased by his interests as an elite MIT faculty.
His belief that more State capacity is always better or that Bitcoin is bad are inconsistent with my reading of his principles of openness. His judgement on Ottoman and Turkish history seem colored by his ambition to play a role in Armenian politics. Still, it seems to me that 16th century Ottoman was a closed order.
Similarly, I found Fukuyama’s book insightful but I disagree with most of what he says on his blog or on Twitter on current affairs.
''Ottoman: While the printing houses opened throughout Europe in the 15th century. and led to the Reformation and the wars of religion. The Caliphe prohibits it. Printing is only authorized from 1720, a single printer obtained a license, he would be subject to the censorship of numerous "religious experts" and only published 17 books in 40 years. He then decided to close shop. ''
That is false claim. It arrived Ottoman Turkland at the 1492 year with the help of spanish jew immigrants. It is known and open to armenians, jews and christians but forbidden to Turks only until 1727 İbrahim Müttefferika introduced. So there happened a big knowledge gap.
So Ottoman Caliphe Sultan -King whatever give the privilege to minority and forbidden the printing press to Native population for 227 years.
Trade, medicine, shipment , financial sector was all controlled by non Turks. After 15 century no Turkish advisor-Vezir seated in Palace but minority non-muslims were seated.
So it is obvious who failed the nation and fled away.
Daron Acemoglu hid this , distortion of history.
Anyway. Good post for the insight. Thanks.
''Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson discuss this relationship in the historical process and argue that technology should be reoriented as a tool of democratization, not surveillance. economy and... '' That i agree this view full heart.
"When you end production, education, freedom, justice, merit and equality of opportunity, cultures collapse and nations fall apart." So true.
What a nice pair of thoughts, too good to be true. But he condradicts himself in real life.
In the mean time from same man
Crypto gets a big boost from illicit activities. One academic study (https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article-abstract/32/5/1798/5427781?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=true) estimates that about a quarter of bitcoin transactions are related to illegal trades.
https://twitter.com/DAcemogluMIT/status/1660632552229728256
He was governing Armenia economy, but he messed up worse and come back to University. Institutions and democracy he cant bring there. He condradicts himself in real life.
He is the same man, who bans printing press to mass population but gives privilege of to minority. I am sure he owns bitcoin but he clearly ignores it in public.
When I read the book, I thought he was saying that Ottoman rule was a closed order and that Attaturk led to an opening of the order. For me, Ottoman not trusting their own people and using slave foreigners as government does not open opportunities to most of the population, and led to lower alphabetization and a development trap in the 16th and 17th century, maybe this only became a more opened society only 100 years ago with Kemal Ataturk. That’s my reading, maybe not Acemoglu’s
Note that some authors can do good historical analysis and have civilisational insight while holding misguided opinions on current affairs. It seems to me that Acemoglu's view are biased by his interests as an elite MIT faculty.
His belief that more State capacity is always better or that Bitcoin is bad are inconsistent with my reading of his principles of openness. His judgement on Ottoman and Turkish history seem colored by his ambition to play a role in Armenian politics. Still, it seems to me that 16th century Ottoman was a closed order.
Similarly, I found Fukuyama’s book insightful but I disagree with most of what he says on his blog or on Twitter on current affairs.