I was visiting Brazil, Argentina on maps.google.com and noticing how different the towns-cities are from the US. They seem to have all blocks of low level homes very close to each other, anyone know for sure ?
But generally they don’t seem that poor from looking at some infrastructure, I am not sure. But why is it that South America is poor ? I know the old explanations of USA-CIA intervention, capitalism gone brutal on poor people etc. but is this really the whole story ? why does the US have so many large malls, and everyone has their home and in South America no ? After all even Portugal and Spain were once poorer but in 20 years they pulled it off and became relatively well off. So South America has a similar culture, couldn’t they pull it off too ?
Easy to blame someone else (the US) as usual. But maybe these countries don’t have enough will power, maybe the people should try harder themselves, maybe the local rich classes there should be more modern and pay better.
Maybe much more people should emigrate there; why keep on coming to the US and EU when there is loads of room there ? Why can’t they build highways all over the place, homes all over there and MALLS and become good consumers, since consumerism is really what makes countries rich!
I don’t know by what standards Brazil or Argentina could be called poor countries, they both have higher GDP’s per capita than China or India. Many South American countries were lead by military juntas until very recently, and that helped spread corruption. Some of the democratically elected leaders have also recently made some bad decisions on monetary policy. Those factors have hindered economic development a bit, but I think that freedom and civil society have taken root quite well over there recently so the outlook should be good in the long term.
in my line of work, plus living in florida, i come into contact with my fair share of south american immigrants. since i be a curious type, i eventually ask them about politics and their take on its comparison with that of the U.S. the answers are usually the same.
these S.A. immigrants don’t mind the corruption in the U.S.
they don’t mind the taxes.
they don’t mind the lies.
all of this they think is quite acceptable … compared to their native country. these S.A. nations are so corrupt politically that they pay more in taxes and would be lucky to see 10% of the results we get here in the U.S.!!
their economies are much more socialistic than our own. many more social programs and favorable laws for the poor. take for instance a common law in most S.A. countries for renting rights. by law, landlords are not permitted to evict a tenant, for not paying rent for example, until over a year’s worth of paperwork and waiting periods.
and as history has shown so far, the more socialist a society the worse of economically the common people are. less incentive to work harder and be innovative. more poverty.
corruption and socialism combined in many of the instances in S.A. to cause this. granted, this is all in addition to such things as U.S. (et. al.) interventionism.
I’m from the Dominican Republic, the same can probably be said there. But then again, there is also a point of view difference. Most people down there are happy the way things are because they know no difference. I’ve noticed that people that come from the middle class on up usually look down upon their lifestyle.
“Wow, they are so poor.”
But they ignore the fact that they don’t really care for the things others might care about. So they don’t strive to get all the things that might make their lives “easier”.
Any take on their homes ? the maps.google.com site shows that most South American (and Mexican) cities-towns have a similar structure! what exactly are all those long straight buildings with very dark roofs and very close to each other ?
On the political-social side, it seems that the countries are not that poor, but many people are because of corruption and bad laws and because they don’t build MALLS and homes…
Delboy, as far as dictatorships w/ capitalism economies (does one truly exist like this?) compared to republics w/ socialistic economies, i think the overall effect is the same. from my readings i have encountered many more of the republics than the dictatorships, in south america. unfortunately, due to the corruption in the republics and the dictators being communists typically and thus a creating a socialist leaning economy, it all ends up right back to square one. a corrupt government with lots of poverty.
this is the basic mantra of reasons given for socialist societies failing. when everyone owns everything there is no personal ownership anymore. without this personal attachment to property, goods, or a persons own future, then those in that society cease to work as hard. lack of ownership and responsibility is an incentive. a negative one towards working specifically.
for example, if i create 100 widgets a day and can walk out to the street and sell them for $100 i am going to recognize that my income is based on my own effort. if i make better widgets by coming up with a better quality process i can increase the price. if i improve the speed of the process or just work harder then i can sell more quantity. either way, there exists incentive.
on the other hand, if i make receive $100 every day of work where i am in a factory and expected to make 100 widgets each day, i have little incentive to go above and beyond that expectation. socialism rarely rewards raises or bonuses to individual employees. if your neighbor is slacking of and only producing 60 widgets and getting his $100/day, why would i continue kicking out my 100? this downward spiral results in massive drops in productivity and efficiency.
i hope this not only explains what i originaly meant, but also that it answers your question.
The US does so much crap in the world. I think it’s fair that we blame them.
maybe the people should try harder themselves
When the US is giving subsidies had over fist to its farmers and protecting its steel business from imports, how do you expect smaller ( poorer ) countries to compete? The World Bank says these countries can’t give subsidies or introduce trade tariffs!
their economies are much more socialistic than our own
This is a recent trend in many places, Chile, Argentina to name some. These were ruled by right wing fascists until recently.
Although I agree capitalism is the best economic we have, it misses one point. Humans are selfish. This may sound like capitalism, a true capitalist, cares not for his country though, only about making a profit. However the “capitalist†in the US do care for their country. Therefore true capitalism doesn’t exist yet. Basically South America is poor because it plays by the US’ rules, which happen to favor them. If they want to be rich they must make a stand like China and South Korea are/have done.
The largest part of the problem in South American countries, is very similar to the problems that plague the Indian economy, (India, the country).
Corruption. Nothing is done without payoffs, government workers are paid very poorly, bribery is the currency, so crime is essentially woven into the economy. Crime = poverty.
The World Bank (and Inter-American Development Bank) attempts to control certain trade restrictive measures of nations as a condition of receiving loans. If a nation wants to establish or increase subsidies; and to do so would not violate any provisions of the WTO agreement, any bilateral or regional trade agreement, or be in with conflict the nation’s obligations as a member of Mercosur; AND the establishment of, or increase in, subsidies does not violate a contractual obligation freely entered into in exchange for low interest loans given by the WB (or the IADB), then the WB (or the IADB) will not say “these countries can’t give subsidies”.
Edit: Obviously, the WB wouldn’t have a legitimate concern if the nation only violated the conditions of Mercosur or a bilateral trade agreement, but I’m not sure our Finnish friend has considered this. Or has s/he?
I was being (almost) entirely serious when I said they are poor because we (in the US) have more money than they do. The US is an extremely wealthy nation with a standard of living that is bordering on ridiculous - as are several European and Asian nations. Not all, but almost every nation is poor when compared to us. At least all but the top 20 or 25 are beyond being just less wealthy.
Personally, though, I don’t find simply having a lower standard of living to equate to being poor. Therefore, I answered in absolute (relative) economic terms. The answers nearly everyone else gave, I think, tend to explain why they have less money than we do. But I think the term “poor” encompasses more than money.
Less so now. Democratically elected left-wing governments are more common now.
I’m not sure what you are getting at here. During the 70s, 80s and 90s South American ‘governments’ were typically (extremely) right-wing. Cuba is an obvious exception.
Maximising the efficiency of production is a problem in all of the economic models we have experienced. Money and/or power gets concentrated in the hands of a few, whilst for many their opportunity for improvement is out of their control.
Socialism isn’t communism. To me, socialism is more about the relationship and condition of the general population with regard to the owners of production.
Also, I don’t think that capitalism is concerned with optimising efficiency but rather in maximising profit.
With regard to your tale about the ‘widgets’, I understand the point you are trying to make. But do you think that ‘output’ should be the only measure we use when determining reward?
Between 1910 and 1950 the USA with about 200 million people created a very wealthy country with highways, malls and homes etc.
India, China, Africa and South America with a much larger number of people still can’t do it and get to where the USA was in 1960! I find this really odd. Can’t they just get all these millions of people to CONSTRUCT THE DAMN HIGHWAYS, HOMES AND MALLS ???
Or is there some fundamental difference today ? maybe energy costs are too high ? maybe even the USA couldn’t do it all over again ? I find it amazing that in just 50 years with much less technology and less people the entire North American continent was developed.
Two things: first, not all the world wants to be like the US. Many cultures-people-religion are happy living with alot less. Second, it was easy for the USA to build so many homes since they use lightweight materials like wood, the homes can be quickly built; in most of the world homes are built of concrete-bricks and many countries build them within larger concrete buildings, hence more time-money to build them. I think in South America this is especially the case. Anyone know for sure ?
Poor people should be able to sell their products to rich countries and work themselves out of poverty. They can’t, though, because the world trade system is unjust.
Rich countries dominate the World Trade Organisation (WTO). They make the rules under which poor countries lose out.
Rich countries also operate double standards. They force poor countries to keep to rules that they don’t obey themselves.
Here are some main issues: dumping
Rich countries spend $1billion a day subsidising their farmers. They dump subsidised products on developing countries. This pushes down the price
of local produce. Poor farmers cannot compete.
The solution
A ban on agricultural export subsidies.
An end to attaching conditions to IMF-World Bank loans.
market access
Rich countries charge high taxes on imported goods from poor countries. Poor countries can therefore only export raw materials such as cotton from which they don’t earn much money.
Poor countries are also forced to open up their countries to exports from rich countries otherwise loans will be stopped.
If Africa, East Asia, South Asia, and Latin America each increased their share of world exports by just one per cent, the resulting gains could lift 128 million people out of poverty.
Can’t they simply create an internal market for their own goods ? India and Brazil are large countries and can create large internal markets for all their goods. I still think that there are cultural factors affecting the situation. Anyways the issue is very complex-political-religious and as always is nearly impossible to pinpoint the exact problems…
…They dump subsidised products on developing countries. This pushes down the price
of local produce. Poor farmers cannot compete.
…Poor countries are also forced to open up their countries to exports from rich countries otherwise loans will be stopped.
There is no such thing anymore as an internal market, everything is global. They could setup tariffs to protect themselves but the WTO will have none of it.