The economic growth in South America over the past few decades has been astounding. They started out mainly exporting agriculture to Europe, but thanks to generous growth subsidies (and a wide-open US market), they quickly moved on to consumer goods. Now, Brasil and Argentina have nearly the same GDP per capita as do the US, Japan, or Western Europe. Chile is not too far behind.
Now, consider the situation in East Asia. Korea is a neo-Stalinist hellhole. Mongolia and the People's Republic of Manchuria (or whatever the hell that formerr SSR calls itself these days) are poor nations lead by tinpot dictators. China maintains the world's largest army, all the better to guard itself against the unsavory regimes on its borders. However, the quality of that army leaves much to be desired. Meanwhile, the nation has to import food every year to feed its massive 1.5 billion population, leaving it in perpetual debt. It's hard to see this changing anytime soon, either, given that China still has something like a 30% illiteracy rate--not exactly the bedrock for strong economic growth.
To be sure, there are some bright spots in the region. The Empire of Japan is the world's second largest economy, and a vibrant democracy as well. Hong Kong's average per capita income is higher than that of the US. (This explains why the HKers were so adamant not to be handed over to the Chinese government. IIRC, the British had to forgive all of the Chinese debt they held to get China to accept HK independence.) Overall, however, this populous corner of the Earth is not exactly the center of the world economy.
So what do you think, AH.commers? Did it have to be this way? Could East Asia have experienced the same growth that South America did? If so, how?