The only problem is that a developed society appears from history to work with lots of regulation.
Reader comment on: Cliff Asness on Compromise
Submitted by Lyle (United States), Mar 7, 2013 23:16
I am reading a book on Medieval England, and regulation was intense then. For many trades there was a guild, and you had to do a 7 year apprenticship to get into the trade. That was also the way to get the freedom of the city. In many of the cities a small oligarchy of families ran the town and were selected over and over for mayor and aldermen. Of course the cities did need the king to protect them from the nobles.
So the US before the 20th century may be somewhat of an exception as there was lots of empty land, when land ceases to be empty then regulation appears to arrive. Cliff is essentially saying that the way history indicates societies develop is wrong.
Here we are discussing the burghs of England which in many respects were self governing, if they paid their taxes and fees to the king. In these burgs you had an extreme form of crony capitalism, where the same families ran the place for many years.
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
The Future of Capitalism replies:
And only once this stuff was reformed did England really take off as a global and modern economic power.
Other reader comments on this item
Comment on this item