Latin America is just too hot with poor topsoil. The Land is the most important thing in a country.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
This a vast generalization. The humid Argentinian pampa is one of the most fertile regions in the world, comparable to the American Midwest...
Everybody was a latecomer to the industrial game compared to England.
What's the relationship between German industrialization and LA lack thereof? If you follow the path of industrialization in the World, you'll see that after England, it jumped to the continent: Belgium, France, Germany, and so on. Germany was an early beneficiary of English industrialization (workers, journeymen, etc. moved from England to the Continent). LA was relatively isolated at the time. Just look at a map and you'll have your answer.
Also, read my other posts about climate and resources. Germany had the requirements for industrialization, as did the US (free labor separated from the means of production and from the land), LA did not.
It is. I am angry because I see countries squandering their resources in the name of economic progress.
My point is that every country has had an opportunity to industrialize, but LA didn't. Brazil, for example, has a small (143 million tons) coal reserve, but it is high-quality coal. They had a rather large labor force, and have a large iron field in southern Brazil. Since that country had natural resources, and a large labor pool, not to mention that it was one of the more stable LA nations, why did industrialization come later to that region than others??
No, not every country has had an opportunity to industrialize, unless you can prove that all non-industrial nations either through omission or commission let their chances pass them by.
Industrialization has some requirements: coal and iron are two of them, but not even both of them are sufficient.
As for labor, you need something more than a "large labor pool", you need a "large free labor pool" which Brazil did not have at all throughout the XIX century. Although a latecomer, Brazil is now an industrial nation, with a GDP that puts them in the top 10 list.
One other necessity: demand.
Two things that are nice to have but not necessities: financial markets and an entrepeneurial class.
Two things that are nice to have but not necessities: financial markets and an entrepeneurial class.
That is my exact point, Brazil is a big time power now.(relatively) Why did it take them so long for them to take their place on the world stage?? Brazil seems to be the preeminent power in LA since the time of Bolivar, so external threats didn't seem to destabilize investments in the country. Did it take large foreign investment to bring the Brazilians to the table, or just a longer period of time compared to other nations??
I don't believe that industrialization is a neccessary economic path. A nation can stay agrarian, or become a service economy through tourism or finance. My point is that the LA nations have gone the traditional four-tier economic route. Destabilization of governments can't hold the answer for the lack of industrialization throughout LA. LA also had a relatively large idle class who had the opportunity to provide industrial capital but did not. Can the reason for this lie in cultural differences from the Anglos, or is there a more finite reason??
I think that I replied to your question about Brazil. Brazil could not adopt industrialization until the XX century. Slavery was abolished in 1888, the last country to do so in the Western Hemisphere (Cuba did it in 1883, the US in 1865). Latifundia were abundant in the countryside, so the urban centers did not have an overflow of free labor to rely on. Even if the investments had been forthcoming, you need workers for the factories. Most LA countries of the time simply didn't have them.
Brazil had relative stability compared to other LA countries, but stability is only part of the equation. You can have unstable nations with rapid growth, like France during the XIX century.
The "idle class" had no incentives to invest in industries. Why would they free their semi-servile labor and move them from the hacienda to the factory, when they could enjoy their lemonade? You wouldn't expect Southern slaveowners to free their slaves in order to employ them in brand new textile mills, would you?
Interesting discussion.
However, I am a true believer that no serious discussion of Latin American "backwardness" can proceed without first introducing Joseph Konrad's novel "Nostromo."
He hit the nail on the head.
Too much wealth. Not enough desire to use it for public good, only greed.
This counts for both Latin Americans and the Europeans who wished to extract the wealth from the (I love this) "Queen of Continents."
However, I am a true believer that no serious discussion of Latin American "backwardness" can proceed without first introducing Joseph Konrad's novel "Nostromo."
He hit the nail on the head.
Too much wealth. Not enough desire to use it for public good, only greed.
This counts for both Latin Americans and the Europeans who wished to extract the wealth from the (I love this) "Queen of Continents."
I would say that pretty much qualifies any capitalist
? When was "public good" ever a concern ? And what is "public good" ?
Better yet, let's ask, "What is not the public good?"Originally posted by Oexmelin
I would say that pretty much qualifies any capitalist
Theft. And there is a wide gap between capitalism and colonialism. The legacy of colonialism, stripping resources without developing the economy, left a big imprint on the world view of many in Latin America. After independence, many of the native rulers took after their former colonial masters at the expense of their nations.
In a way, their actions were more criminal then the Spanish.
Exactly, in my very first post I remarked the geographical/climatical hypothesis but I also highlighted that only this factor couldn't be so decisive, and I still think that the causes, whatever they are, are extremely interrelated, so a clear analysis is very, very difficult. All of you have raised very interesting points, though I still think that the differences catholic/protestant can't explain much of the situation.
BTW,
I've finally found the quote. It's from Eduardo Galeano's book Las venas abiertas de América Latina (I don't know how it was translated in english, but it's more or less "The open veins of Latin America").
A public good is one in which the marginal social utility is higher than the marginal private utility.
Then you end up having to define "social utility", or even trying to figure out what differenciates "social" from "private" (or from other, equally debatable terms like "class"). Isn't that the endless struggle between societal groups, trying to list their interests under the label "public good" ?
Well, in the case of Latin America, I'd say that the two Latins' political advisors from 1st world nations encourage the Latins to escalate the situation until it becomes a civil war.
And the marginal social utility is much higher then the private utility when "El Presidente" is squirling the wealth of the country away in his retirement account.
Private utility is axiomatic: it's whatever makes you happy, as measured by individuals' willingess to purchase goods or services in the market.
But the rest you're absolutely right about.
If only this were true. Take a look at the history. They all declare independence in the early 19th century, then spend the next 100 years (of solitudeOriginally posted by Heliumgod
Well, in the case of Latin America, I'd say that the two Latins' political advisors from 1st world nations encourage the Latins to escalate the situation until it becomes a civil war.
) hacking each other up.The US and USSR did NOT invent Latin American political polarization out of whole cloth.
I know this is stretching the limits of resources, but I would like to know the ratio of slaves compared to day laborers in the countryside. If there was enough of a population of day laborers, there would be an opportunity for urban migration, as happenned in England, France, the US and Germany.
I wouldn't expect the landowners to leave the hacienda to move to a dirty city and become an industrialist. However, Prussian Junkers did, in some instances, capitalize the German Burghers, in order for them to build railways and/or factories. It seems, in hindsight, that the idle class would have done well to create railroads to bring their products to market, especially export-heavy commodities like sugar and coffee. The US South did have a small rail infastructure, for the express purpose of moving products from the Deep South, to the east where they could be shipped north or to England.
Pirate Scum,
thank you for your answers so far.
An interesting role in the development/lack there of of LA is the Catholic Church. The Church was very interested in helping the underclasses through charity and social justics, but also were very interested in keeping oppressive regimes in power that held back the under classes.