Controlling for distance to the equator doesn't make sense because it's a roundabout way of controlling for race, which is what we were trying to get at with ancestry adjustment.
Distance from the equator may cause a population to evolve higher IQ, which causes higher technology score, which causes higher prosperity. But distance from the equator doesn't affect GDP directly.
In other words, distance from the equator acts mostly through ancestry, so it doesn't make sense as a control in a regression with ancestry.
You can tell the coefficients on Landlocked are typos because the given t stats are negative
"doomed to absolutely poor today." Maybe the missing "be" got left on Econlib. I kind of hope so.
Controlling for distance to the equator doesn't make sense because it's a roundabout way of controlling for race, which is what we were trying to get at with ancestry adjustment.
Distance from the equator may cause a population to evolve higher IQ, which causes higher technology score, which causes higher prosperity. But distance from the equator doesn't affect GDP directly.
In other words, distance from the equator acts mostly through ancestry, so it doesn't make sense as a control in a regression with ancestry.