Greg Rosalski

That's because the way they saw it, the death rates of colonizers was this kind of random independent factor determining which places got growth-friendly institutions and which places did not. This was the natural experiment the economists were looking for.

That's because the way they saw it, the death rates of colonizers was this kind of random independent factor determining which places got growth-friendly institutions and which places did not. This was the natural experiment the economists were looking for.

But it turned out not to be ridiculous. In fact, it ended up being Nobel Prize winning research, Mr. Distinguished Economist. Yeah.

But it turned out not to be ridiculous. In fact, it ended up being Nobel Prize winning research, Mr. Distinguished Economist. Yeah.

But it turned out not to be ridiculous. In fact, it ended up being Nobel Prize winning research, Mr. Distinguished Economist. Yeah.

When Simon shared this first round of results with Daron, he was like, wait, what?

When Simon shared this first round of results with Daron, he was like, wait, what?

When Simon shared this first round of results with Daron, he was like, wait, what?

This unlikely relationship between the rate of colonizer deaths and economic outcomes centuries later, the economists argued that the explanation for it could only be institutions. And here is a summary of the argument they made. Basically, where European colonizers were more likely to die of disease, they couldn't settle en masse.

This unlikely relationship between the rate of colonizer deaths and economic outcomes centuries later, the economists argued that the explanation for it could only be institutions. And here is a summary of the argument they made. Basically, where European colonizers were more likely to die of disease, they couldn't settle en masse.

This unlikely relationship between the rate of colonizer deaths and economic outcomes centuries later, the economists argued that the explanation for it could only be institutions. And here is a summary of the argument they made. Basically, where European colonizers were more likely to die of disease, they couldn't settle en masse.

They instead set up institutions aimed more at exploiting the indigenous population. Those institutions led to lower economic growth in the coming centuries. But where Europeans were less likely to die, they moved in and set up settler colonies with more democratic and growth-friendly institutions.

They instead set up institutions aimed more at exploiting the indigenous population. Those institutions led to lower economic growth in the coming centuries. But where Europeans were less likely to die, they moved in and set up settler colonies with more democratic and growth-friendly institutions.

They instead set up institutions aimed more at exploiting the indigenous population. Those institutions led to lower economic growth in the coming centuries. But where Europeans were less likely to die, they moved in and set up settler colonies with more democratic and growth-friendly institutions.

This paper made a huge splash. It showed other economists this really cool new way of doing research on big questions using knowledge of history, the tools of statistics, and a bit of cleverness.

This paper made a huge splash. It showed other economists this really cool new way of doing research on big questions using knowledge of history, the tools of statistics, and a bit of cleverness.

This paper made a huge splash. It showed other economists this really cool new way of doing research on big questions using knowledge of history, the tools of statistics, and a bit of cleverness.

So the economists went to work on their next blockbuster paper, aiming to shut down these sort of geographic arguments for why some nations are rich and others are poor. And they document this startling fact in the data. They call it a reversal of fortune. Before European colonization, the richest parts of the Americas were actually what is today Mexico and parts of South America.

So the economists went to work on their next blockbuster paper, aiming to shut down these sort of geographic arguments for why some nations are rich and others are poor. And they document this startling fact in the data. They call it a reversal of fortune. Before European colonization, the richest parts of the Americas were actually what is today Mexico and parts of South America.

So the economists went to work on their next blockbuster paper, aiming to shut down these sort of geographic arguments for why some nations are rich and others are poor. And they document this startling fact in the data. They call it a reversal of fortune. Before European colonization, the richest parts of the Americas were actually what is today Mexico and parts of South America.