有朋友問到我們的理論和主流理論有什麼區別，我們來和最新得到諾貝爾經濟獎的工作比較一下。他們最有代表性的工作是《為什麼國家會失敗》這本書。在這本書裡，他們用北韓和南韓的對比，證明北韓是失敗國家，南韓是成功國家。從我們的角度，北韓固然是失敗國家，而南韓的人口出生率為 0.8， 大大低於替代率 (replacement rate)。也是失敗國家。

我們的理論，是生物學和經濟學的統一理論。這個理論，和很多傳統智慧是一致的，也極具前瞻性。傳統智慧告訴我們，不要拔苗助長，殺雞取卵，不要為了經濟增長而壓制人口，特別是當人口出生率已經低於替代率。五十年前，大部分西方社會的人口出生率已經低於替代率，那個時候，他們就應該改變注重經濟增長的模式，這樣，就不會導致今天的“西降“。同樣，某些東方社會，為了＂東升＂，大量消滅嬰兒，以提升經濟，將會成為歷史上對本民族的最大災難。

有朋友會問，我們的理論，不就是常識嗎，有什麼了不起？首先，在這個專家遍地的世界，常識是非常稀缺的。很多人可能還記得，主流媒體，經常挖苦超生游擊隊，主流機構，一直在鼓勵，甚至強制墮胎。其次，我們從物理學基礎上，推導出極為簡單的數學理論，準確地描述了社會現象。這點，大家可以和主流經濟學對比一下。

https://www.amazon.com/Entropy-Economics-Living-Basis-Production/dp/0226827194

下面，是前段時間寫的，關於《為什麼國家會失敗》這本書的簡評。

Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty

This is probably the most prominent work by Acemoglu and Robinson. In this book, they elaborate on a popular theme: Inclusive institutions lead to prosperity; extractive institutions lead to poverty. There is a problem with the terminology. Do inclusive institutions engage in extractive activities?

All organisms need to extract external resources to survive and prosper. Humans, being organisms, need to extract external resources to survive and prosper. All institutions, including the so called inclusive institutions, are extractive institutions.

All people are fighting for resources. No institutions are truly all inclusive. From the definition provided by the book, inclusive institutions uphold property right. But property right is exclusive. We often notice No Trespassing sign on various properties.

The basic idea of the book is laid out in Chapter Three, The making of prosperity and poverty. The authors use the stark contrast between North and South Korea to illustrate their point. North Korea is indeed living hell. But the authors seemed not to notice that the fertility rate of South Korea was far below the replacement rate at the time of their writing. Today, its fertility rate, below 0.8 per woman, is the lowest in the world. The people of South Korea are not on the road to prosperity. They are on the road to extinction.

Inclusive institutions, being more internally cohesive, are more powerful in fighting for the control of resources. Hence an inclusive institution is more prosperous than an exclusive institution in general. An inclusive institution, whose resources are more widely shared, consumes more resources. Hence dominant inclusive institutions will suppress extractive institutions, as defined in their book, from emerging into inclusive institutions, which aspire to consume more resources and will have to compete with dominant inclusive institutions for resources.

In the book, Latin America is often used as an example of extractive institutions. That is why Latin America is mired in poverty. But according to the Monroe Doctrine, Latin America is the backyard of the US. The institutional structures of Latin America are largely shaped by US and US interests. Some countries in Latin America are called banana republics. These banana republics are institutions molded by the US to extract resources at low cost.

When resources are shared by less people, the powerful people who control the most resources are better off. This is why there is always a strong tendency for a system to become less inclusive over time during peace time. This tendency is mostly interrupted only during war time, when the need to include more people in fighting is the strongest.