Comment by DrBazza
5 hours ago
No mention of survivorship bias, or observational bias - framing it as the most 'effective' empire of the time, rather than it was simply 'less bad' than the others. I'd like to have read about maybe the Belgians or French in comparison, and what they did that was 'less effective'.
It ends with this American-centric paragraph:
> Would modern societies work better if their local and national government were conducted by a tight-knit community of extremely rich and successful people? Maybe not: the downsides are obvious. But the problems would be interestingly different from those that they have in reality. Imagine a San Francisco whose Board of Supervisors featured Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Sam Altman and Mark Zuckerberg, each feeling this responsibility to be the greatest glory of his career, each hoping that he might one day attain the greater glory that is the House of Representatives. It might not be paradise. Maybe it would be a disaster. But it would certainly be interesting.
Well, the Chinese Politburo is 21 people that run a country of (maybe) 1bn people. The progress of China and the lifestyles of a billion people over 40 years is pretty remarkable.
I think this isn't about ethics at all and I wonder why you think it is. It is about size, economics and power of the UK empire in the 1800s. Not being (as much of) a cruel tyrant tends to help with all of these, though.
I didn't once mention ethics, and I wonder why you think I did. Perhaps my last comment? That simply states, and nothing more, that there is a small number of powerful (if not rich) people in control of what might now be the largest empire on Earth today if you measure it by economic output and control (sorry USA), which is what the article talks about: a small group of people, in the 1800s British Empire. History repeating itself, but differently. Power is always concentrated.
Also the article starts with an implicit assumption of survivorship/observational bias, the title being 'Why were Victorian elites so effective?' - the assumption that they really were 'effective' or was the rest of the world simply worse and they were simply the 'least worst'? That line of enquiry was not even discussed.