1) Since the majority of economic wealth accumulation has come post industrial revolution the grades for various government must be inflation adjusted to account for the fact that most countries are mearly reaping the rewards of the industrial revolution. Instead it should be measured on how much they either held back the capital accumulation or adjusted for it.

“Why? Because positive recent trends in these areas were not much caused by such political movements! They were mostly caused by our getting rich from the industrial revolution, an event that political movements tended, if anything, to try to hold back on average. – See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/02/is-pessimism-immoral.html#sthash.Q1104ZJS.dpuf” – Robin Hanson (I assume will be more familiar to Eli Dourado via Caplan)

2) If he was thinking correctly, he would have used the Athenian democracy as an example of a somewhat democracy that succeeded without the sheer might of the Industrial Revolution carrying every one. If any one has read “A Farewell to Alms’ one will note how incredible Athens of Antiquity was in that the 30 pounds of wheat/day of total income/wealth earned by common men was not even surpassed by 1800 pre-industrial London. Only post industrial revolution did it succeed Athens. This point should never be understated. The glory of Athens somehow escaping a malthusian gap is under-studied and much weight should be given to that as a valid example of solid government “Engineering” that succeeded without technological might inflating everyone’s report cards. I insist that all critiques of democracy should accomodate the glory of Athens or somehow account for why it somehow escaped the economic fundamentals that apparently ALL SOCIETIES SINCE AGRICULTURE DID NOT ESCAPE UNTIL THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. The henious crimes that ended Antiquity should always be remembered.

“Communists in the early 20th century were called ‘progressives’ and were all for more ‘democratic control.’”

Yes, this was alluded to with the Pol Pot comment. If you subjectively define democracy (although the authors break it down a bit) to keep out all the naughtiest regimes, that’s cheating.

1) Communists in the early 20th century were called ‘progressives’ and were all for more ‘democratic control.’
2) Majoritarian democracy destroyed a gentlemanly state of Rhodesia.
3) Failures of majoritarian democracy in South Africa are too numerous too list, unfortunately even mentioning them is ‘racist.’
4) In India, many of the ‘Princely states’ were well managed, and the democratic unionization movement took away all Privy purses and destroyed these local autonomous monarchies, and the result was mass poverty, not upliftment.

One can simply go on and on. Measuring between 1960 and 2004 is a joke. Would Dourado like to bet what a majoritarian democracy in a One State Solution Israel would look like?