May 31, 2023
Why nations fail
I have just read circa 150 pages of an essay entitled “Why nations fail: The origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty”. For the interested ones: the book is interesting but also a doorstep with more than 500 pages.
The authors are fervent defenders of a rather classical liberal idea: the free market. In that sense, it draws its ideas from the classical liberalism. Some of the readers can think, “so what, this is nothing new. Why all the fuzz?”.
The two writers combine the aforementioned concept with the ideas of “extractive” and “inclusive” institutions. They promulgate the idea that the main culprit behind failing and impoverished nations is the preponderance of “extractive” institutions within the country. This kind of institutions either foster the welfare of a small layer of the society or is not able to break the inertia from the past working in that sense. In doing so, individuals usually have no incentives to work, then it is a common situation that any kind of surplus is confiscated in favour of the upper class. The only incentive is the survival.
The authors argue that this situation can explain the difference in richness of virtually all the nations. Other typical explanations such as natural resources, raw materials or even religious creed don’t give an adequate explanation of this problem. The thesis is illustrated by several examples.
Reviewing some critics of this book in internet, I realized that some people are of the opinion that this thesis is very reductionist due to the fact, that nearly excludes the influence of external factors. It seems that some critics consider this explanation as incomplete and, above all, unfair. Another controversial point is the “level of repetition” of the aforementioned thesis. All these examples of the same idea seem to exhaust some readers.
Why nations fail
I have just read circa 150 pages of an essay entitled “Why nations fail: The origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty”.
For those interested ones: the book is interesting but also a doorsteop with more than 500 pages.
"ones" seems unnecessary and not quite idiomatic.
As for "doorstep," I'm not sure if you've misspelled "doorstop" or are using a comparison that comes from your language. If you're trying to say the book is big and heavy, "doorstop" might be better?
The authors are fervent defenders of a rather classical liberal idea: the free market.
In that sense, it draws its ideas from the classical liberalism.
Some of the readers can think, “s"So what, this is nothing new...."
Quotes are almost always capitalized, unless the quote is split.
Why all the fuzzss?”.
The two writers combine the aforementioned concept with the ideas of “extractive” and “inclusive” institutions.
They promulgaote the idea that the main culprit behind failing and impoverished nations is the preponderance of “extractive” institutions within the country.
"Promulgate" might suggest that the authors are highly involved in popularizing this idea, rather than simply making a claim in their book. "Promote" or "propose" might be better options in this context.
Thisese kinds of institutions either foster the welfare of a small layer of the society or isare not able to break the inertia from the past working in that sense.
plural agreement
In doing soAs a result, individuals usuallyoften have no incentives to work, then i. It is a common situation that any kind of surplus is confiscated in favour of the upper class.
"In doing so," is an unwieldy transition here, as it suggests the subject is still the extractive institutions above, rather than the objects they are extracting from. "As a result," or a similar transition would be better. You could also write something like, "In doing so, the institutions often remove the incentive to work..."
"Then" is used to denote one clause following the next, either in time or as a consequence of an if/then statement (Ex. If the extractive institution confiscates surplus from the lower classes, then individuals often have no incentive to work.). Breaking up the sentences avoids that issue.
The only incentive is their survival.
The authors argue that this situation can explain the difference in richnesswealth of virtually all the nations.
"richness" isn't necessarily wrong, but "wealth" would be more appropriate.
"the nations" can be simplified to just "nations."
Reviewing some critics of this book inon the internet, I realized that some people are of the opinion that this thesis is very reductionist due to the fact,, because that nearly excludes the influence of external factors.
"on the internet" is more idiomatic for most dialects.
"due to the fact" can be simplified to "because" or "as" here. Alternatively, you can write something like, 'This thesis is very reductionist, due to the fact that this thesis nearly excludes the influence of external factors."
It seems that some critics consider this explanation as incomplete and, above all, unfair.
Another controversial point is the “level of repetition” of the aforementioned thesis.
All these examples of the same idea seem to exhaust some readers.
Feedback
Great work! Your grammar is great, though you seem to add "the" in places where it's not always necessary. It doesn't make your meaning less clear, but it does suggest you're not a native speaker. I suspect you're trying to translate some grammar from your native language to English, but it doesn't quite work. Also, some of your word choices are a little awkward, but your meaning gets through.
If I were grading this for a freshman university course, I'd give you a solid 80-85/100.
June 1, 2023
Thanks a lot for your correction and clarifications. I find both very useful! :-)
Why nations fail
I have just read circa 150 pages of an essay entitled “Why nations fail: The origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty”.
For the interested ones: the book is interesting but also a doorstep with more than 500 pages.
The authors are fervent defenders of a rather classical liberal idea: the free market.
In that sense, it draws its ideas from the classical liberalism.
Some of the readers can think, “sSo what, t? This is nothing new.
Why all the fuzz?”.
The two writers combine the aforementioned concept with the ideas of “extractive” and “inclusive” institutions.
They promulgate the idea that the main culprit behind failing and impoverished nations is the preponderance of “extractive” institutions within the country.
This kind of institutions either foster the welfare of a small layer of the society or is not able to break the inertia from the past working in that sense.
In doing so, individuals usually have no incentives to work, thenand it is a common situation that any kind of surplus is confiscated in favour of the upper class.
The only incentive is the survival.
The authors argue that this situation can explain the difference in richness of virtually all the nations.
Other typical explanations such as natural resources, raw materials or even religious creed don’t give an adequate explanation of this problem.
The thesis is illustrasupported by several examples.
Reviewading some critics' reviews of this book in internet, I realized that some people are of the opinion that this thesis is very reductionist due to the fact, that nearly excludes the influence of external factors.
It seems that some critics consider this explanation as incomplete and, above all, unfair.
Another controversial point is the “level of repetition” of the aforementioned thesis.
All these examples of the same ideaThe repetition of these examples seems to exhaust some readers.
June 1, 2023
Thanks a lot!
Why nations fail
I have just read circa 150 pages of an essay entitled “Why nations fail: The origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty”.
For the interested ones: the book is interesting but also a doorstep with more than 500 pages.
The authors are fervent defenders of a rather classical liberal idea: the free market.
In that sense, it draws its ideas from the classical liberalism.
Some of the readers can think, “so what, this is nothing new.
Why all the fuzz?”.
The two writers combine the aforementioned concept with the ideas of “extractive” and “inclusive” institutions.
They promulgate the idea that the main culprit behind failing and impoverished nations is the preponderance of “extractive” institutions within the country.
This kind of institutions either foster the welfare of a small layer of the society or is not able to break the inertia from the past working in that sense.
In doing so, individuals usually have no incentives to work, then it is a common situation that any kind of surplus is confiscated in favour of the upper class.
The only incentive is the survival.
The authors argue that this situation can explain the difference in richness of virtually all the nations.
Other typical explanations such as natural resources, raw materials or even religious creed don’t give an adequate explanation of this problem.
Reviewing some critics of this book inon the internet, I realizsed that some people are of the opinion that this thesis is very reductionist due to the fact, that it nearly excludes the influence of external factors.
depends if you are writing in british-english or american-english, the spelling is slightly different of realised :)
It seems that some critics consider this explanation as incomplete and, above all, unfair.
Another controversial point is the “level of repetition” of the aforementioned thesis.
All these examples of the same idea seem to exhaust some readers.
Feedback
almost 100% correct! well done!
May 31, 2023
Thanks a lot for your correction!
|
Why nations fail This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
I have just read circa 150 pages of an essay entitled “Why nations fail: The origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty”. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
For the interested ones: the book is interesting but also a doorstep with more than 500 pages. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! For those interested "ones" seems unnecessary and not quite idiomatic. As for "doorstep," I'm not sure if you've misspelled "doorstop" or are using a comparison that comes from your language. If you're trying to say the book is big and heavy, "doorstop" might be better? |
|
The authors are fervent defenders of a rather classical liberal idea: the free market. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
In that sense, it draws its ideas from the classical liberalism. This sentence has been marked as perfect! In that sense, it draws its ideas from In that sense, it draws its ideas from |
|
Some of the readers can think, “so what, this is nothing new. This sentence has been marked as perfect! Some of the readers can think, “ Some Quotes are almost always capitalized, unless the quote is split. |
|
Why all the fuzz?”. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! Why all the fu |
|
The two writers combine the aforementioned concept with the ideas of “extractive” and “inclusive” institutions. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
They promulgate the idea that the main culprit behind failing and impoverished nations is the preponderance of “extractive” institutions within the country. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! They prom "Promulgate" might suggest that the authors are highly involved in popularizing this idea, rather than simply making a claim in their book. "Promote" or "propose" might be better options in this context. |
|
This kind of institutions either foster the welfare of a small layer of the society or is not able to break the inertia from the past working in that sense. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! Th plural agreement |
|
In doing so, individuals usually have no incentives to work, then it is a common situation that any kind of surplus is confiscated in favour of the upper class. This sentence has been marked as perfect! In doing so, individuals usually have no incentives to work,
"In doing so," is an unwieldy transition here, as it suggests the subject is still the extractive institutions above, rather than the objects they are extracting from. "As a result," or a similar transition would be better. You could also write something like, "In doing so, the institutions often remove the incentive to work..." "Then" is used to denote one clause following the next, either in time or as a consequence of an if/then statement (Ex. If the extractive institution confiscates surplus from the lower classes, then individuals often have no incentive to work.). Breaking up the sentences avoids that issue. |
|
The only incentive is the survival. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! The only incentive is their survival. |
|
The authors argue that this situation can explain the difference in richness of virtually all the nations. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! The authors argue that this situation can explain the difference in "richness" isn't necessarily wrong, but "wealth" would be more appropriate. "the nations" can be simplified to just "nations." |
|
Other typical explanations such as natural resources, raw materials or even religious creed don’t give an adequate explanation of this problem. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
The thesis is illustrated by several examples. The thesis is |
|
Reviewing some critics of this book in internet, I realized that some people are of the opinion that this thesis is very reductionist due to the fact, that nearly excludes the influence of external factors. Reviewing some critics of this book depends if you are writing in british-english or american-english, the spelling is slightly different of realised :) Re Reviewing some critics of this book "on the internet" is more idiomatic for most dialects. "due to the fact" can be simplified to "because" or "as" here. Alternatively, you can write something like, 'This thesis is very reductionist, due to the fact that this thesis nearly excludes the influence of external factors." |
|
It seems that some critics consider this explanation as incomplete and, above all, unfair. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Another controversial point is the “level of repetition” of the aforementioned thesis. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
All these examples of the same idea seem to exhaust some readers. This sentence has been marked as perfect!
This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
You need LangCorrect Premium to access this feature.
Go Premium