How can I have Latin America to be just as wealthy and to have living standards as good as Western Europe?
First world Latin America
- Thread starter Siberian Tiger
- Start date
Local Managment, Corruption, civil wars, all damage all the local chances for it. Mexico, for example, have been better organize would have defeated the Slavers in texas easily.
Colombia was always the lack of ideas how rule ourselves make a lot of civil war and lack of support to enterprisess
Not to go overboard with the military coups and countercoups of the 50's and 60's. After all, Argentina and Cuba had very good economies until they went Communist and hard-right.
Well... one thing is, that there's an incredible variety of situations when you talk about "Latin America". On most measures, the "southern cone" of South America IS considered squarely in the First World... and has been for some time. Lags on certain measures perhaps, but then things like GDP per capita have never been that good a measure of general prosperity anyway.
It has puzzled me why certain nations (Mexico, Colombia) never quite attained the status of "First World", or even a 2nd tier "Great Power" status, when they have quite a lot going for them - ample natural resources, large population base, and geographic advantages (coastline on two oceans - you can't beat that!
) . Of course there's a litany of usual culprits - endemic corruption, social unrest, unstable and often-changing governments, exploitation by First World powers, etc... but I'm not sure if that explains it all.
To bring all or most of Latin America up to European standards, I'd say the answer would have to be economic - an earlier shift from "primary-sector" activities (agriculture, mineral & natural resources extraction) to manufacturing - actually producing finished product "in-house" rather than just exporting raw goods to other countries who would then derive the most benefit from it. Now, to achieve that early enough and widespread enough, you may need to move this to pre-1900 to actually make it happen.
It has puzzled me why certain nations (Mexico, Colombia) never quite attained the status of "First World", or even a 2nd tier "Great Power" status, when they have quite a lot going for them - ample natural resources, large population base, and geographic advantages (coastline on two oceans - you can't beat that!
) . Of course there's a litany of usual culprits - endemic corruption, social unrest, unstable and often-changing governments, exploitation by First World powers, etc... but I'm not sure if that explains it all.To bring all or most of Latin America up to European standards, I'd say the answer would have to be economic - an earlier shift from "primary-sector" activities (agriculture, mineral & natural resources extraction) to manufacturing - actually producing finished product "in-house" rather than just exporting raw goods to other countries who would then derive the most benefit from it. Now, to achieve that early enough and widespread enough, you may need to move this to pre-1900 to actually make it happen.
Nope, much of the numbers are misleading, their true GINI is awful, their economies too commodity dependant, if anything just because some cosmopolitan city that are mirages in the desert
SELF DESTRUCTION
Mr. House
Banned
Post 1900? The Cuban Missile Crisis goes hot. Eurasian civilization is largely destroyed while U.S./Canada only take a few blows. The Western Hemisphere plus Oceania becomes a free trade/movement bloc lead by the U.S. while AfroEurasia becomes the ATL source of raw materials and skilled immigrants.
By ATL 2020 the entire Western Hemisphere (even Haiti! And excluding the radioactive ruins of Cuba) is what we would consider to be "First World," per the HDI.
By ATL 2020 the entire Western Hemisphere (even Haiti! And excluding the radioactive ruins of Cuba) is what we would consider to be "First World," per the HDI.
Sort of a personal anecdote, but I used to do a lot of contract work for a company that was headquartered in Montevideo... they seemed to have their act together pretty well...
Yeah, but who was benefitting the most from those very good economies? A rising tide doesn't always lift all boats, or even most of 'em...
A more successful Uruguay might be your best bet, even today the living standards are higher than their neighbors. Any more successful and the example will be imitated and probably have an effect on it's nearest neighbors like Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina. At the very least we may get cities modelling themselves after Montevideo as it will seem the model capital.
If you believe having United Sugar and the Mob control both your economy and society is a good idea in the case of Cuba. In Argentina you had the Perons. Remember, "Don't cry for me, Marge and Tina"?
Closer to real life than you can imagine. Argentina has never been "communist", unless your a Peronist.Uruguay and Chile are your best bet for South America. They historically have been the most stable in their region and currently have the best gdp per capita. They also have strong export sectors in their economies along with small populations. And finally both countries rank high on the Human Development Index.
Both countries suffered coups in the 1970s (rare for their countries) that set them back at least an entire decade. Avoid these and gdp per capita could increase by several thousand dollars. Avoiding coups would also help in fighting corruption. Uruguay also has a high population of European ex-pats and immigration from Europe, which helps as well.
Although Argentina kept pace with Europe and America in gdp per capita up until the 1940s, their country has simply too much going against them, same with Brazil.
Edit: To add to this, Chile was at it's most stable/powerful/prosperous (compared to others) during it's "parliamentary era". Keep this era around longer would help Chile tremendously.
Both countries suffered coups in the 1970s (rare for their countries) that set them back at least an entire decade. Avoid these and gdp per capita could increase by several thousand dollars. Avoiding coups would also help in fighting corruption. Uruguay also has a high population of European ex-pats and immigration from Europe, which helps as well.
Although Argentina kept pace with Europe and America in gdp per capita up until the 1940s, their country has simply too much going against them, same with Brazil.
Edit: To add to this, Chile was at it's most stable/powerful/prosperous (compared to others) during it's "parliamentary era". Keep this era around longer would help Chile tremendously.
Last edited:
Just a quick thought here(getting in a conference call in 5 minutes): Make the Empire not stagnate so much in comparison to the USA, somehow. Brazil was one of the top 3 countries in economic growth during the 20th Century... and it wasn't even close to bridging the gap(in relation to the US) that formed in the 19th Century. I suspect that you'd have to change so many things that it would almost be an ASB.
What is Jango is not couped and JK does a plan similar to the PAEG reducing the overspending after 1965? Could Brazil eventually catch up with the west?
Even if JK was able to produce a similar plan to PAEG(I doubt it), the growth that was a consequence of PAEG dies with the 1973 Oil Shock. To catch up with the West, you would need more years of growth than the 7 years of Brazilian Economic Miracle(and that's on top of the growth experienced on the Vargas and JK eras) - essentially, you need something similar to China and South Korea, at least 2 decades of sustained high economic growth.