Causes of the backwardness of Latin America

[unmerged(10423)]

Re: Weber et alii

Originally posted by Aryaman
And for Germany, Browning, think that the western, catholic Germany is, and has always been, the more developed part of that country.

Well, this is diffucult to say. The most economically active part of Germany now isthe Catholic South. The most economically active part of Germany during the most of the XX century was the West, partially catholic, and the North. During the most of the XIX there was nothing like a "center" of activity. There were some regions lagging behind, such as Bavaria or Prussia, but this is clearly due to their perceived role as agricultural regions than to anything else, and you cannot say that Silesia was not a developed region.

And as for Weber being outdated, well some people claim that the economical theories of Adam Smith are also old fashioned.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Well, as for Adam Smith, his theories are indeed outdated.

Same with Newton, for example. Which means they aren't wrong, just need slight rework

And well, your examples show that it wasn't religion actually. The main impact, in Germany at least, was if there was coal or iron underground.

 

[King]

Re: Re: Weber et alii

Originally posted by Browning


Well, this is diffucult to say. The most economically active part of Germany now isthe Catholic South. The most economically active part of Germany during the most of the XX century was the West, partially catholic, and the North. During the most of the XIX there was nothing like a "center" of activity. There were some regions lagging behind, such as Bavaria or Prussia, but this is clearly due to their perceived role as agricultural regions than to anything else, and you cannot say that Silesia was not a developed region.

It was part social, Prussia was held back by Junkers who feared the industral working classes. The Prussian army of 1914 was still primarlily recruited from rural areas to ensure it could be used to surpess urban discontent. It was also party due to resources. Sileasia and the Rhur where both near coal and iron ore fields. Prussia and Bavaria were not. It is the same when we look at Beligium and the Netherlands. Belgium had large Coal and Iron ore fields, the Netherlands did not. So Belgium devolped and the Netherlands did not. We look to the Dual Monarchy, it was Bohemia-Movaria and Gallicia that had the coal and iron ore fields so they devolped ahead of the rest fo the monarchy. It is the same pattern through out Europe.

Originally posted by Browning

And as for Weber being outdated, well some people claim that the economical theories of Adam Smith are also old fashioned.

which why most counties use Keynes or Friedman for economical insperation.

 

[unmerged(8399)]

Weber´s theory is very simplistic, it doesn´t explain many irregularities, there were a number of catholic countries much more developed than other protestant countries, in fact reform didn´t change significantly the geography of development in Europe, the band from North Italy to England, was already in the XIV century the economic heart of Europe, and still is. Denmark, Sweden or Prussia reamined backwards for centuries after reform, while Belgium and France remained at the top. The opposition of the catholic Church to interests had already been bypassed in the XIV century, when the Florentine Banks were the first international financeorganizations, (lending big sums to the Popes, by the way)
Wallerstein´s acumulative advantage theory is a much better answer, and a great deal more ellaborated, not an answer to everything, but at least not the simplistic, deterministic approach of Weber. For instance, it take into account the geographical factor, not as a deterministic one in relation to resources, in that regard Latin America has plenty, while Japan has none, for instance, but proximity to markets, economic zones, etc. We have an example today, with the crash of the financial system in Uruguay, of which the Argentina crisis is the main responsible.

 

[unmerged(3420)]

I think you're missing a critical element here: that element is enterprise

The Spanish colonies were ruled by the Council of the Indies in Madrid. All important decisions regarding construction, investment, development and settlement were made far from the scene. Naturally, the Council relied upon the "men on the spot" for advice and implementation, and such men were capable of greatly influencing any decisions made. But such influence depended on things such as personal connections and family ties. Concepts such as merit meant little.

The English colonial experience was much different. From the beginning, most English colonies were enterprises. They were financed and manned by private citizens seeking something better. The government in London was hardly involved; officials were appointed from the local gentry, provincial assemblies raised funds for militia and fortifications, etc.

This spirit of self-reliance contributed to the growth and prosperity of the colonies. England benefited greatly from this; not in taxes (the colonies weren't taxed, at least until 1763); but in customs revenue, markets for English products, a thriving merchant marine, a third of whose ships and crews were American; etc., etc., etc. Of course, this spirit of self-reliance also contributed to the self-confidance of the Americans, resulting in their eventual independance.

Spain suppressed all efforts at self-reliance in her colonies; at times, individual colonies were forbidded from trading with each other; all trade had to pass through Seville! The emphasis on personal connections, manipulating the decision-making process for personal gain, and the corruption and hypocrisy of "serving the state" whilst feathering ones nest, is an unfortunate and damaging heritage in modern Latin America.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

This might be a little OT, but if any of you could go there and say what he thinks about possible triggers, and other issues (like which area could revolt, why, etc).


This is about alternate history events for EU, mainly multiplayer. For example, if someone else (or just very different Spain) colonize Mexico, could it revolt and form something similar to USA? Or when France would colonize US coast, for example.

 

[unmerged(8399)]

about enterprise

Crooktooth, you may be right about the Council of Indies and the Virreynato system (although there was a great deal of self government at town level) but what about Jamaica, or the rest of caribean british colonies? where is the self relience and enterprise there?

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by crooktooth
I think you're missing a critical element here: that element is enterprise

The Spanish colonies were ruled by the Council of the Indies in Madrid. All important decisions regarding construction, investment, development and settlement were made far from the scene. Naturally, the Council relied upon the "men on the spot" for advice and implementation, and such men were capable of greatly influencing any decisions made. But such influence depended on things such as personal connections and family ties. Concepts such as merit meant little.

The English colonial experience was much different. From the beginning, most English colonies were enterprises. They were financed and manned by private citizens seeking something better. The government in London was hardly involved; officials were appointed from the local gentry, provincial assemblies raised funds for militia and fortifications, etc.

This spirit of self-reliance contributed to the growth and prosperity of the colonies. England benefited greatly from this; not in taxes (the colonies weren't taxed, at least until 1763); but in customs revenue, markets for English products, a thriving merchant marine, a third of whose ships and crews were American; etc., etc., etc. Of course, this spirit of self-reliance also contributed to the self-confidance of the Americans, resulting in their eventual independance.

Spain suppressed all efforts at self-reliance in her colonies; at times, individual colonies were forbidded from trading with each other; all trade had to pass through Seville! The emphasis on personal connections, manipulating the decision-making process for personal gain, and the corruption and hypocrisy of "serving the state" whilst feathering ones nest, is an unfortunate and damaging heritage in modern Latin America.

The idea that LA was ruled by the Council of the Indies is a myth. This has very little to do with the lack of development of Latin America.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Re: about enterprise

Originally posted by Aryaman
Crooktooth, you may be right about the Council of Indies and the Virreynato system (although there was a great deal of self government at town level) but what about Jamaica, or the rest of caribean british colonies? where is the self relience and enterprise there?

Exactly. There was nothing magical or intrinsically superior in England at the time. In fact, England was much more backward than Spain in 1492.

Read the Elizabethan literature. They speak with envy of Spanish industriousness(!) and with despair of English laziness.

 

[unmerged(10423)]

Enterprise!

Yes yes it is enterprise I allways wanted to point towards.

And answering the Pirate Scum, maybe the self - criticism of XV c. Englishmen led them to a better effort, while the Spaniards just rested on what they had, proud of what they got with little effort?

Uh I hate Mondays.

 

[unmerged(3408)]

The other interesting point...is Gold.

You don't have to work that hard when the Gold shipments come in regularly.

There was a different type of colonial resource harvesting going in North America, as opposed to South America.

But I think the issue of "enterprise" is linked to the investment of Capital which occurred in North American enterprises vs. the lack of capital investment occurring in Latin America during the colonial period.

I think that is further linked to the Protestant Ethic and that brings us back to the discussion earlier in the thread.

 

[unmerged(10423)]

I think the idea of enterprise is more general: the ability to act on someone's own risk, without any command, and expecting a revenue out of it.

The clause "without any command" gains importance if we think of faile of Mr. Colbert to raise any funds for the Canada enterprise. He ordered the noblemen to invest in it, but therefore it did not bring much profits...

The idea of gold shipments reminds me on the chapter in Paul Kennedy's "The rise and fall..." where he discusses the decay of the Spanish industry as caused by the immense influx of gold and the import of foreign goods influenced by it.

We may add the influences of this gold flow on the, well... work ethics.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by Petrus
The other interesting point...is Gold.

You don't have to work that hard when the Gold shipments come in regularly.

There was a different type of colonial resource harvesting going in North America, as opposed to South America.

But I think the issue of "enterprise" is linked to the investment of Capital which occurred in North American enterprises vs. the lack of capital investment occurring in Latin America during the colonial period.

I think that is further linked to the Protestant Ethic and that brings us back to the discussion earlier in the thread.

Again Petrus, this has nothing to do with ethics. The English behaved in Jamaica, Barbados, Guiana, etc., exactly the same way that the Spaniards. This had to do with climate, crops, labor (free vs. slave), and other factors, not with ethics or any intrinsic "national" character.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by Petrus
The other interesting point...is Gold.

You don't have to work that hard when the Gold shipments come in regularly.

There was a different type of colonial resource harvesting going in North America, as opposed to South America.

But I think the issue of "enterprise" is linked to the investment of Capital which occurred in North American enterprises vs. the lack of capital investment occurring in Latin America during the colonial period.

I think that is further linked to the Protestant Ethic and that brings us back to the discussion earlier in the thread.

You probably mean silver. Gold was only 10% of the bullion that came from the Americas. Silver was much more important...

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by Browning
I think the idea of enterprise is more general: the ability to act on someone's own risk, without any command, and expecting a revenue out of it.

The clause "without any command" gains importance if we think of faile of Mr. Colbert to raise any funds for the Canada enterprise. He ordered the noblemen to invest in it, but therefore it did not bring much profits...

The idea of gold shipments reminds me on the chapter in Paul Kennedy's "The rise and fall..." where he discusses the decay of the Spanish industry as caused by the immense influx of gold and the import of foreign goods influenced by it.

We may add the influences of this gold flow on the, well... work ethics.

Aaaahhh, but Spanish conquistadores were the epitome of free enterprise (as it was understood at the time). 99% of them were contractors, not Crown "employees".

 

[King]

Well Pirate you seem to have all the answers. So I have a questionf or you why do people believe in the protestant work ethic if there is so little evidence supporting the theory?

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by King
Well Pirate you seem to have all the answers. So I have a questionf or you why do people believe in the protestant work ethic if there is so little evidence supporting the theory?

Trick question?

Why do people believe in God with zero evidence?

Because it massages the ego of the target countries and reinforces the idea of cultural superiority and "right to rule", the "white man's burden", and many other similar ideas...

 

[King]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum


Trick question?

Why do people believe in God with zero evidence?

Because it massages the ego of the target countries and reinforces the idea of cultural superiority and "right to rule", the "white man's burden", and many other similar ideas...

I was thinking the same thing here. We are successful because it was ment to be. Sheer luck is never what the fans want to hear.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by King


I was thinking the same thing here. We are successful because it was ment to be. Sheer luck is never what the fans want to hear.

And it's a neat reversal of the materialist (usually Marxist) interpretation, i.e., ideas determine material reality instead of the other way around...

 

[King]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum


And it's a neat reversal of the materialist (usually Marxist) interpretation, i.e., ideas determine material reality instead of the other way around...

As any God fearing Protestant will tell you, Godless Marx cannot be right. Otherwise there would be no God.