For me the most insightful parts were the quotes about progress in developing countries.<p>> The reason this (entrepreneurship in developing countries)
> doesn’t result in wealth is entrepreneurship is rarely an
> individual event now, if it ever was. You need social
> infrastructure; corporate, legal and financial systems.<p>I read this as saying that the whole system needs to change for development to really happen. Unfortunately, a number of rich and powerful vested interests, want to and are able to preserve the status quo quite successfully.
Oh yeah, I read the book. It is really insightful and interesting. After I finished it though, I decided to read something of the opposite point view, of the free-market economists (I would recommend "Economy In One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt). It's very simple to fall into the trap of "oh, this mans knows what he's talking about" unless you compare. Actually, the more you read, the less sure you are about things.<p>For example, Hazlitt shows how inflation, even if not too high, is harmful for the economy and basically his arguments did not seem weaker - which confuses me even more. One thing Ha-Joon Chang does really good when arguing is showing a lot of statistics. That is definitely a very strong point of this book which even the most ingenious free-market economists would find difficult to stand.
Can someone please explain to me why a site that is primarily preoccupied with entrepreneurship is filled with socialists? People start ventures to make money. To create disproportionate wealth. Are you people just compensating for your internal selfish desires that you can't come to terms with? Genuinely curious.
"George W. Bush: “The problem with the French is they don’t have a word for entrepreneurship.”"<p>see: <a href="http://www.snopes.com/quotes/bush.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.snopes.com/quotes/bush.asp</a><p>Things like this make me question the veracity of every other statement in the article.