Underperforming south america

What are the historic reasons that Hispano-portuguese America is so under-performing compared to Anglo-America?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_brazil
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colonial_universities_in_Hispanic_America
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Hispaniards mixed with the natives instead of killing them like based Anglos did.

It will experience a renaissance

The west is dying and latin america will be the phoenix to rise out of its ashes

Spengler thought it would be eastern europe. And it may be in the short run. But only the short run. It just doesn't make sense for any longer.

Expplain Argentina then

Spengler said Russia, not eastern Europe.

>What is Chile
Don't worry, sweetie. We are coming to Europe soon!

renaissance would indicate that south america was great once, but it was always shit, and according to most predictions always will be.
Now the question is, why is south america so shit when they had the head start.

Nope, Argentina, Cuba and Venezuela were pretty good 60 years ago

But, the problem of southamerica as a whole, can be related to the downfall of the Spanish Empire in XIX century, and the influence of EEUU with the Monroe doctrine

>Nope, Argentina, Cuba and Venezuela were not completely shit 60 years ago.
ftfy
still doesn't eplain why the whole of south and central america is shit today?
Spanish colonial structures? Climate?

Monroe Doctrine. South America was basically one big old proxy for US interests.

>paraná
Fucking slavs

This

And the fact that south america was 'colonized' completely differently than N. America. N. America was made into a place where people wanted to be, s. america was just a place to go take shit and then bring it home.

>in during people blame the yankees for the problems and not the basic fact that 1700s British culture was better than 1500s Spanish culture

Yes but why? Why didn't develop south America faster then the US?

Just take any South American country and read the history from the beginning. Then read the history of the USA and compare.

Because it was busy getting gang raped by spain and portugal for most of it's history

Race

B-but most South American countries are led by white people

Thats asked a bit to much. Why didn't Gran Colombia or Brazil develop as fast as the US? They where reasonably big entities with resources and enough people by the 1800's.

top answer lad!

Brown mooring rape babies aren't white

You're the pashtun guy, aren't you?

Some days I honestly wish I was racist. Imagine how easy it would make history. Instead of having to research the history, economy, geography (especially mineral and agricultural capacity) I could just see if the people who occupy that country are a shade darker than me. Then it's as simple as saying their subhuman or whatever.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_brazil

I think it's because of lack of liberalism in the classical sense. Brazil for example likes to centralize power too much. It doesn't give much autonomy to the other states. It also hates the free market.

Because the US didn't have as many external actors attempting to exploit or destabilize it. Most of it's concerns were more internal and easier to manage.

Take and then add in the US a bit later on and it starts to become easy to see why South America did poorly.

Brazil was pretty stable compare to the US torn apart by civil war.
I really don't get it, large fertile lands, enough population, all speak spanish or portuguese, why didn't they make more out of it?

I'm not him but I think the answer is lack of economic freedom. Brazil is in the place 140th in the heritage index.

>Barriers to entrepreneurial activity include burdensome taxes, inefficient regulation, poor access to long-term financing, and a rigid labor market. The judicial system remains vulnerable to corruption.

>The personal income tax rate is 27.5 percent. The standard corporate rate is 15 percent, but other taxes, including a financial transactions tax, bring the effective rate to 34 percent. The overall tax burden equals 32.8 percent of domestic income. Government spending has amounted to 39.5 percent of total output (GDP) over the past three years, and budget deficits have averaged 6.4 percent of GDP. Public debt is equivalent to 73.7 percent of GDP.

>Organizing new businesses remains cumbersome and bureaucratic. It is costly and time-consuming to launch or expand a business. Rigid and outmoded labor regulations undermine employment growth, and the nonsalary cost of employing a worker is burdensome. The new government has pursued more orthodox policies than its predecessor and plans to cap increases in budget spending and eliminate automatic indexation of entitlements.

While Chile, the country that has the highest HDI in South America, is in the 10th place in the ranking.

Yes thats today, but was this also the case in the 1800's?

Portuguese and Spanish colonialists were there more to exploit the land rather than to settle there and build it up.

When it was the Empire of Brazil it was growing.
>Development on an immense scale occurred during this period, anticipating similar advancements in European countries.[200][201] In 1850, there were fifty factories with a total capital of Rs 7.000:000$000. At the end of the Imperial period in 1889, Brazil had 636 factories representing an annual rate of increase of 6.74% over the number in 1850, and with a total capital of approximately Rs 401.630:600$000 (which represents an annual growth rate in value of 10.94% from 1850 to 1889).[202]

>Even though the last four decades of Pedro II's reign were marked by continuous internal peace and economic prosperity, he had no desire to see the monarchy survive beyond his lifetime and made no effort to maintain support for the institution.

>When it was the Empire of Brazil it was growing.
Thats why I'm asking. Like there where several entities in the Americas which had the basics to become great powers. Some of them worked even for some time, but in the end all fucked up only the US ( & Canada) succeeded Why
Where the US just real lucky or where the Latinos just shit?

m8, argentina was a top ten nation for quality of life before ww2

>was

and stagnated (but never really bombed out) due to shitty aministration

I'd say a fair amount of latin america's stagnation since ww2 is due to americans countering the spread of communism by appointing nutjob dictators across south america

What went wrong?

I don't know. It's complex.
Monarchy then IIRC the rich landowners got mad because they ended slavery the coup happened. Shitty republic by positivists with no good background like the US takes over. Fake federation.
>Although it was theoretically a constitutional democracy, the Old Republic was characterized by the power of regional oligarchies and the seldom broken alternation of power in the federal sphere between the states of São Paulo and Minas Gerais. The vote in the countryside was often controlled by the local land owner, and less than 6% of the population had the right to vote due to literacy requirements.

they stop that and put dictatorship. End of that and then dictatorship again because of some communist threat. dictatorship ends in the 80s the socialists come back with full force and make a very socialist constitution.

Latins who colonized south america were and are lazy and expect things to just fall into their hands.

see

Natives and niggers

Venezuela was more developed than the US before Bolivar's great chimp out.They just replaced a stable colonial goverment for a bunch of caudillos that wanted their own share of power

protogommunism (franciscans spreading their BS around)
gommunism (soviets spreading their BS around)
postgommunism (south conners and brazilians spreading their BS around)

>EEUU
What?

USA

Catholicism

When communism dies in Venezuela it dies in the whole South America then and only then will it have a chance to surpass Anglo-America.

Corruption, lack of institutions, legacy of rigid class structure based on origin, infatuation with communism

3 factors - all important

1. The differences between the culture in the US being that mainly of the english - who desired to settle and build the land, as opposed to the spanish, who wanted to rape and pillage the land for gold and convert the natives to be catholic (unlike the english, french, and americans who basically treated them as savages to be driven off when needed)

2. the amazon and the andes dominate the central portion of the continent and were much more impassible than the rockies...creating isolation

3. Post manifest destiny/ fuck the natives, the US, Canada, and Mexico all startegically are connected to both the pacific and atlantic oceans for trade...or an for bonus points, the US has a very large and convensient river system connectign the Missisippi river from the gulf up to actually useful (not jungle shitlands) famrland, and also greatlakes are usefull blah blah>

TLDR: geography and killing the indians for daring to take the white man's land

Having been to Latin America my guess is the lifestyle and attitude is completely antithetical towards the hyper-competitive nature of the Anglo world.

Thus their services (fast food for example) are absolutely lazy and useless, but their nightlife and general enjoyment of life is GOAT. Hard to care about GDP when you're surrounded by cheap coke and bunda.

Part of it was definitely education. The Portuguese didn't put a single university in Brazil during colonial times, and the Spaniards were late in putting in universities in Hispano-America.

this
t. vuvuzelan

You sound like a high school student that just read gunsgermssteel and now shows off his newly acquired wisdom.

>were late in putting in universities in Hispano-America
Spain founded their first university in America in the XVI century.

Chronic instability, limited immigration, no funding to infrastructure.

They are literally dumber then Europeans.

colonial universities mostly teached 2 things: catholic religion and law
so we got more than enough priests and lawyers

>implying based inca empire was shit.

> limited immigration
> latin america
what is this meme

>no data on Santa Cruz
la concha de tu madre Cristina

Inherited dysfunctional laws and governmental structure from the Spanish and Portuguese.

T. Fukayama

Common law > civil law
US had religious pluralism so no priesthood or Popery to interfer with the State

English property rights >>>>> Spanish ones at the time

More navigable water ways in the US then most of the rest of the world combined.

Huge flat plain good for agricultural development by small farmers rather than plantations growing cash crops on economies of scale and enriching a small elite as in the South and Latin America

Can you elaborate on that? Like colonial structures? Didn't they change that during revolutions?

>The Indian farmer is poor but free. Their situation is much better than the peasants in northern Europe, especially Russians and Germans. The number of slaves is practically zero
>"This must be known in Europe! The Mexican miners are the best paid in the world, they receive six to seven times more salary for their work, than a German miner. "
>New Spain has a notable advantage over the United States, and is that the number of slaves, both African and mixed race, is almost nil. The number of African slaves in the United States exceeds one million, which is the sixth part of their population
>Among all the kingdoms Mexico occupies the first place, as much by its territorial wealth as by the favorable of its position for the commerce with Europe and Asia.
>No city of America, including those of the United States, can exhibit such large and solid scientific institutions as Mexico City. The capital and other cities of Mexico, have scientific establishments that will lead to a comparison with those of Europe.
Alexander von Humboldt. A protestant German geographer.The people that keep blaming Spain or Portugal after more than 200 years is by all means retarded

that's the fucking point you retard, it would be a renaissance because it WAS great and now its shit

Gran colombia failed because of tribalism and Bolivar's probably justified worry that a united states of south america with a soverign federal government would struggle with the same infighting that ultimately killed it.

revolutions were meant to take over those structures from the spanish, not much really changed

>revolutions were meant to take over those structures from the spanish, not much really changed
How is a colonial council (consejo de las indias) similar to presidential republics? Some morons will clinge on anything to not blame the shit rulership that the South American countries had

Ok, then why is Mexico today poor and US is rich?

Spain can't into state building

Spain kept it's native people down instead of trying to work together to build a great nation.

>but it was always shit
what a poor education

Inestability,debt and civil wars.
The natives supported Spain during the independence wars

Unironically though.

Not saying it's the USA's fault, but the majority of the responsibility lies with the Monroe Doctrine.

It's not just about how they're set up on paper. It's the system of land ownership and tax collection/expenditure.

How was the tax collection and expenditure the same?

The government gets a disproportionate amount of its revenues directly from resource extraction in place of taxation. It mirrors colonial systems of extraction and enriches the elites instead of the general populace. The people don't "buy in" to the system so the government can continue to move along even while the people are revolting (and presumably not paying taxes). This is true of Venezuela and partially true of Mexico.

Latin America was born with a birth defect.

>The Spanish colonizers established vast slave empires in the New World to extract natural resources and other commodities from the land; the vast majority of the population was not initially franchised, had no property rights, and could not participate in the political system to demand greater investments in education, infrastucture, and other factors crucial to development. This initial social hierarchy perpetuated itself even after the colonial system was dismantled, formal democracies were established, and the franchise extended to larger parts of the population.
[...]
>The path of institutional development in British America was different. Early attempts to enslave the indigenous populations failed, while climate and geography encouraged large-scale European settlement, family farming, and more equal distribution of resources. Those European settlers brought with them institutions like property rights and the common-law legal system, which they applied to themselves (but not, of course, to the institution of African slavery in the south).

Source:
Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap Between Latin America and the United States

Yeah, sure.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colonial_universities_in_Hispanic_America

>implying those were accessible to the general public

>Reading comprehension
It said greater investments in education not "invest in education at all". Latin American universities are hardly a model to aspire to.

He just wants to hear that it's race. He doesn't even care to say what's being done wrong. He only wants to hear that it's about race and that's it.

Lots of Spanish, Italian, and German immigrants

Great rebuttal, cockmuncher

Well, he will only hear it from their cattle. South-amerindians have had developed quicker and had a lot of potential even though they arrived to America 10000 years after the humans entered Europe.

Yes, the US's success was because they were so fond of natives truly.

I mean the not killing natives part. Argentina and Uruguay killed off their natives.

Such ingratitude, without the Monroe Doctrine, entire Latin America would have been conquered by Europe between the XIXth century and early 20th century.

Just look at all the interventions and crisis that happened during the American Civil War, when Americans couldn't enforce the doctrine. The Spanish conquered the Dominican Republic and went to war with Peru and Chile, the French invaded Mexico and made diplomatic attempts at annexing Ecuador, the British manufactured a crisis with Brazil that almost transformed into war.

Without the Monroe Doctrine to protect Latin America from Europe, it would have been conquered, exploited, and be Africa-tier nowadays.

There is no better argument than "it's race", though.

Political instability
/thread

i can only talk about Brazil, but I guess Brazil would be what the Confederacy would be if the South won the Civil war. Due to the slave economy they industrialize late, and have limited investment. Lack of democratic tradition leads to political instability. Long tradition of Iberian languages which only gives them contact with shitty Iberia.

Not true. America had no power to enforce the doctrine back during Monroe's time and was merely America's attempt to discourage European intervention in the Americas. It certainly didn't stop British or French incursions in Latin America. Furthermore, the moment America started expanding its military, that Monroe Doctrine turned into the Roosevelt Corollary.

The fuck are you talking about? US in the mid/late XIX century was a fucking meme

ffs even Chile had a navy stronger than 'Murica in 1870's-1890's

Argentinas indigenous population was used as cannon fodder against Paraguay

Pedro the second was a cuck, that's why. He was leading Brazil on an okay path but then leaves and his dumbass, probably a coalburner, daughter signs a law and casts negroes upon all of Brazil which prompted the army to take over. Pedro II didn't do anything and left Brazil to a series of bad dictatorships.

Argentina is a shit example. Chile has the best economy nowadays.

South-America has been always treatened by USA's companies. They always tried to buy or rent properties to the illiterate villagers since the beggining of time.

Chile's government and Pinochet's lead, made it almost impossible to do it again.

The education managed to prevent that situation.

Also, amerindians are superior to white cattle. Keep crying, zlumpflet.

jungle and kleptocratic socialists

That's not what happened, you lying faggot

Yeah it's just that two things. 500 years of history and it's as simple as jungle and socialists

>it's as simple as jungle and socialists
You are missing natives and niggers.

Are you fucking dense? The country were run by the colonizers. Slavery ended in the 1880s. Do you think how long it took for them to get some kind of power?

As a Latino it's the people, bring back Spain who built all the universities while natives built narcos