Pointing to previous discussions here is not intended to discourage more questions. It is not intended to just stop discussion dead. Since these previous discussions are archived, you can reply in this thread if you have more questions, rebuttals, or other followon.

The Reddit search function is useful. In the Android app, it's a search bar at the top. In the Web interface, it's at upper right. You can also use an extra function of Google to search Reddit, but it's not necessary for "Acemoglu".

The top hit (other than yours) is As a historian, what is your opinion of Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson's "Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty"?, admittedly from four years ago.

Opinions were mixed to negative. /u/dufour's reply seems to be the most on-point:

Why Nations Fail is airport reading libertarian fan-fic in the mold of Victor Davis Hanson: They cherry-pick examples to match their prejudices. ...

From a historian's POV, the book has two main flaws: Firstly, there are enormous numbers of basic errors that could/should have been avoided by a cursory Wikipedia check. ... The more important flaw is their total neglect of context (and thus history!). ...

with more detail. /u/Industrialized agreed with an added example. /u/narcsgiving is closer to neutral, but does suggest that it's "anecdata" and thinks that the focus on elites is problematic. /u/QuirrelMan suggests that all "why did the West succeed" books should be read with a grain of salt, that they tend to reflect the zeitgeist rather than actual truth.

The book is also touched on in Is it worth it reading "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations"?

/u/Tiako has the flair "Roman Archaeology", and wrote "I haven't actually read Acemoglu's book, but I did read the chapter on Rome, which I found fairly awful." In a reply, he goes a bit more into detail.

I think that last is a major danger sign. I dimly recall a discussion of Velikovsky (I thought it was Stephen Jay Gould but I can't find it), a reviewer writing that geologists said that that the geology was lousy but the history looked interesting, but historians said that the history was bogus but the astronomy was intriguing, but astronomers said that the astronomy was ludicrous but ... He did write, "Any person with a gift for words can spin a persuasive argument about any subject not in the domain of a reader's personal expertise." So I think a reader's expertise, even if limited, may be an indication of a larger problem.