Core Insights - The article emphasizes that the true revolution in Britain during the Industrial Revolution was not merely technological but fundamentally institutional, which allowed innovation to become profitable and risks to be shared and priced [7][10]. Group 1: Historical Context - In the mid-18th century, the combination of technological advancements, such as the steam engine, and institutional reforms, like the establishment of the Bank of England, marked the beginning of the mechanization of energy in Britain [2][3]. - By 1850, Britain dominated global coal production and textile exports, with its population and GDP experiencing significant growth [2]. Group 2: Institutional Reforms - The Glorious Revolution of 1688 established parliamentary control over taxation and legislation, fostering a trust in the government and enabling the development of a capital market [3][4]. - The introduction of the modern patent system in the 17th century allowed inventors to profit from their innovations, leading to a surge in technological advancements [4]. Group 3: Capital, Land, and Labor Mobility - The establishment of the London Stock Exchange and the implementation of the Bubble Act laid the groundwork for a regulated capital market, allowing companies to raise funds through shares [5]. - The enclosure movement privatized land, increasing agricultural efficiency and providing food for urban industrialization [5][6]. - The migration of displaced farmers to cities created a labor market, transforming workers into free wage earners and enabling the emergence of a modern economy [6]. Group 4: Comparative Analysis - The article contrasts Britain's institutional success with the stagnation in China and the Ottoman Empire, where rigid systems stifled innovation and economic growth [8][10]. - The lack of inclusive institutions in China and the Ottoman Empire led to a failure to capitalize on technological advancements, resulting in significant disparities in economic performance [8][10]. Group 5: Long-term Implications - The article highlights that institutional differences manifest over time, leading to significant economic disparities, as seen in the GDP growth between Britain and the Ottoman Empire from 1500 to 1900 [12]. - The evolution of British political institutions allowed for continuous self-correction and adaptation, contributing to long-term stability and prosperity [12][16]. Group 6: Critical Reflection - While the article acknowledges the successes of Britain's institutions, it also points out the darker aspects of industrialization, such as exploitation and inequality, reminding that progress often comes at a cost [15][16].

以下文章来源于格隆 ，作者万连山 格隆 . 一个游走于资本市场与佛祖之间的浪子。我可以生，可以死，我大笑，由天决定！ 作者：万连山 来源： 格隆（ID： guru-lama ） 《安娜·卡列尼娜》中有一句名言： 幸福的家庭都是相似的，不幸的家庭各有各的不幸。 这句话换个对象也成立：成功的国家都是相似的，失败的国家各有各的失败。 那么，决定成功/失败的根源是什么？ 10月14日，麻省理工学院教授西蒙·约翰逊、德隆·阿西莫格鲁，与芝加哥大学教授詹姆斯·A·罗宾逊， 三人共同诺贝尔经济学奖，以表彰他们"对制度如何形成以及如何影响繁荣的研究"。 后两者合著的《国家为什么失败》中强调： 包容性制度 。 权力分散、鼓励创新和投资、保护产权，能快速建立起自由市场机制和现代法治，刺 激当地经济走向国际化和繁荣。 汲取性制度 。社会等级分明，法律到了一定阶级以上就不再生效，故意建立不平等规则维护利益， 阻碍自由市场的成长。 在当下混乱的舆论氛围中，必须要明确一点：这并非基于意s形态而拍脑袋的结论，它是经过大量事 实和数据证明的科学。 同样的民族、同样的文化、同样的时间、同样的地缘，只是因为选择不同，最终的差异极可能是天翻 地覆 ...