Would Mexico have become a world power if they had held their territory that is now part of the USA...

Would Mexico have become a world power if they had held their territory that is now part of the USA? Or is that land not really that valuable? A lot of it just seems to be desert.

California and Texas are the two biggest state economies in the US.

This being said, the per capita GDP of Mexico is less than a fifth of the US's, so they'd probably have ended up as a mismanaged, bandit ridden wasteland like the rest of Mexico.

Probably worse since Mexico was worse at setting new territories than the US was.

You are retarded

Yes.
>modern comparisons
Nope.

Well, the gold in California, and then the oil in Texas, would have helped.
But Mexico suffered the same cancer all of Spain's former colonies died, criollos infighting, civil war and lots of social problems.
If it had stayed an Empire, then perhaps, because the emperor was seen as a symbol by the people, he was really popular. But also big on centralism, which the landed elite and local governments farther away from Mexico City didn't like. And he dissolved congress, another big no no.
That land was populated by American slave owning migrants, which triggered the Mexican government; aggresive natives, which triggered the Mexican government, and they were unable to fully control that situation, relying on American aid. The natives were too far away from Mexico City, in an empty land that didn't have much of interest for the government in Mexico City.
Let's say they get the land, their act together, properly populate that region, the USA stays out of their affairs, both clay-related and politics-related, then maybe, but only if there was a stable government that pleased everyone, which is actually the most unlikely of the requisites.


tldr: It would take more than clay for Mexico to be a world power.

Here are the axioms I'm using to form my conclusions here

>America has higher labor productivity primarily as a result of industrialization
>Industrialization in the United States was possible due to a legal and political environment that was conducive to enterprise, and due to effective public services such as transportation and education infrastructure
>Mexico has generally had a political culture based on patronage, with relatively unfree markets, insecure property rights, and ineffective public services
>these factors would prevent the growth of economic systems capable of fully utilizing any extra land, with the end result being that Mexico would have a relatively small economy even if they had more land
>political power in the industrial era and later is strongly a factor of economic strength, as an industrial military is extremely resource-intensive
>Osaka is best girl

>Osaka is best girl
This is correct. But you failed to take into account that modern USA had the resources while Mexico did not so modern comparisons do not apply.

Mexico has oil, a large amount of fertile agricultural land, thick forests, and probably some other bullshit I'm forgetting.

The problem is that their social system can't use resources effectively.

One simple way to measure this is to measure how well they use human capital; by measuring per capita GDP.

A society with a highly efficient system will produce people that are highly educated, and well integrated into international markets via private sector companies.

This is how places like Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan manage to exist. They have almost no natural resources, but they do manage human capital extremely efficiently.

Pouring more water into a leaky bucket isn't going to get you as much as you'd think.

>tfw no free and independent Oregon Country that goes on to inherit the northern parts and Alaska
why

>Would Mexico have become a world power if they had held their territory that is now part of the USA?

No.

Spain/Mexico was in control of the region for hundreds of years and did fuck all with it, then the U.S. got ahold of it in 1848 and in a couple of years, it was thriving.

Simply being in being in possession of the land doesn't matter, if you don't do anything with it.

Territory is just economic potential.

Institutions, good governance, culture and human capital are what creates wealth.

So no... Mexico lacked (lacks, still) the political institutions, culture and educated population that could have exploited that land to its maximum potential.

wh*Toids ruined mexico

The US industrialized due to grain growing temperate regions in the northeast, among other things, and it happened quite early in tandem with Britain. US institutions supporting industry were a consequence of this.

>Spain/Mexico was in control of the region for hundreds of years and did fuck all with it, then the U.S. got ahold of it in 1848 and in a couple of years, it was thriving.
It definitely seems that the US had a greater drive and ability to utilise that land, when you consider the incredible growth in the region after the Mexican-American War. On the other hand, didn't most of that growth come from people who were recent immigrants from Europe anyway? They could just as easily have immigrated to Mexico, had that been Mexican land at the time.

Is this a case of the US just having a better system for immigrants to come in and make a living for themselves, more freedom of enterprise along with better infrastructure like railroads etc?

the californian gold rush cemented the capital for the Ny development.

Mexico has a shitload of resources but an incompetent spic population. Put whites in Mexico and it becomes a first world country.

No. They would still be eating each other, beheading anyone who looks at them funny, shitting in their pants, and producing lethal bouts of flatulence. M*xicans aren't even human. It would be like asking if a cluster of cockroaches would be a world power if they overran california.

How do we rate his action? Conquering large territory in the west and opening the access to the Pacific helped USA develop into a global power but it was a war of aggression. An immoral act.
I've always had problems with this guy.

That's some fucking border gore. Glad we imperialized the shit out of them.

Whites have been ruling over Mexico for 5 centuries now. The solution is clear. White genocide now.

The only immoral thing he did was not going ahead with the annexation of the rest of Mexico, and Cuba while he was at it.

He didn't go far enough.

What I have never understood is Why did americans had such a big apetite for new land when they still had such a low population density?

I expected such answers but I was hoping for at least some real ones.
A politician X does something really wrong but it benefits his own country. How do we rate such politician if he's at the same time good for helping his country and bad for doing something evil? We draw the line at things like genocide but warmongering?

Probably not. The Mexicans are fine people, but at the end of the day their Spanish blood would stop them from doing anything useful.

One of the best presidents, did everything he promised in campaign, then left after 4 years

And died immediately after this should be mentioned too because that's also impressive. A political machine did its duty.

Unconstitutional "imperial" president but he left his mark.

People don't agree with you that what he did was wrong. That is what you're missing.