Why Canada succeeded & Argentina failed?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12906
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 14:34
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Why Canada succeeded & Argentina failed?
Posted By: flyingzone
Subject: Why Canada succeeded & Argentina failed?
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 23:33
|
Argentina began the 20th century as one of the worlds 10 richest countries. In fact it was the fifth richest following by close distance the leaders in the 1940s, the United States, Canada, Britain, and Germany. At that time people in Argentina were slightly richer than the Australians, and more than 3 times richer than the Japanese. However, today, Argentina is a Third World country with two-thirds of its population living in poverty.
Initially, there were a lot of similarities between the Canadian and Argentine economies. Both countries had enormous areas of virgin grasslands (the prairies and the pampas - the title of a book written by Carl E. Solberg on which some of my subsequent arguments will be based). Both had vast natural resources. The volumes of their exports (mainly to European markets) were similar. In both cases, the indigenous people and their decendants were either destroyed, absorbed, or replaced by European immigrants. However, after 1930, while Canada retained its export markets and moved on to industrialization and eventually became one of the world's richest and most democratic countries, Argentina sank into economic decay and political chaos.
How does one account for Canada's success and Argentina's spectacular failure? Before I start bringing up ideas mentioned in Solberg's extremely influential book, I would like to hear from you guys.
|
Replies:
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 08:56
|
First, start with Canada's representative political tradition unimpeded by interference from the army. Second, Canada as a society had no daliance with fascits, or with Nazi ideals. Third, Canada was an active participant in the Second World War, and a geographic partner of the winners. Her resouces and industries were the beneficiaries of participation and of partnering. Argentina was not only remote from the war, she reaped mostly the effects of the war's economic dislocation rather than any benefits. The cereals and livestock of the Pampas had a more difficult, expensive and dangerous route to northern markets while Canada was attached to them.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 13:54
|
Pikeshott's points are reasonable, but Argentina's decline started before WW2 and Peron, didn't it?
I don't have any data on the timing of the economic decline of Argentina. Did the fact that it was heavily dependent on British investment pre-1914, investment that dried up after (and because of) the war, have anything to do with it?
Or the between-wars British emphasis on imperial preference, pushed so hard by Beaverbrook, who was, perhaps not coincidentally, Canadian?
Just suggestions, I don't really have any view. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 14:06
|
Argentina, along with most of Latin American, flirted with marxism after World War II. The military juntas attempted to order around the economy like an army, resulting in economic stagnation and enormous poverty. Argentina made a little bit of progress during the 1980's after the junta was removed following the Falklands debacle. Some mild market reforms were implemented and the economy soared. Unfortunately for Argentina, the government artificially pegged the Peso, taxed like hell and spent like lunatics. The economy crashed to pieces in 2001 and the resulting socialist victory has condemned that sorry nation to further stagnation. Canada, while no libertarian paradise, has more or less stuck to its capitalist roots.------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 16:53
|
Simple, Canada has a huge market for its produce just a click to the south and it has had a stable government. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2006 at 23:41
|
I would also add that perhaps the presence of certain valuable resources has benefitted Canada, such as uranium, while I don't know of any special resources which are also held by Argentina of comparable value. The political situation does have alot to do with things because in many new world nations the key to economic prosperity has often been to enjoy secure long term investment. As an English speaking (remember, the US and UK have been massive investors in the 20th century) country with a stable government, Canada had this. Argentina was not so politically stable and even managed to lose herself a war against Britain, a turn off for investors. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2006 at 04:41
|
The turning point in Argentine development seems to have been 1929 and the crash.
Up till then Argentine gowth had depended almost exclusively on British investment in the country: after 1929 that source dried up, because of the depression followed by the war, and Britain's relative impoverishment after it.
There's something of a chicken-and-egg situation about economic stagnation/deflation and political instability/dictatorship. Each leads to the other, but I suspect here the political developments followed from the economic ones in the first place. ------------- |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2006 at 19:14
|
gcle is definitely right in pointing out the fact that Argentina's decline started before the Second World War. Carl Solberg, in his monumental book "The Praire and the Pampas: Agrarian Policy in Canada and Argentina, 1880 - 1930", used the differences in the agrarian policy in the two countries as a plausible explanation for the divergent path of development. Specifically, he emphasized the role of the state and its interaction with class interests. For example, in Canada, under John Macdonald's Conservative party (that represented in Ottawa the merchants and nascent industrialists), policies that favoured the interests of these groups were enacted. One of the most remarkable policies was the insistence that immigrants had to be settled on their own land (in a Canadian version of the Homestead Act of the United States). As a result of that, they were able to produce staples for export and become consumers of Canadian industry. Also, in order to obtain a homestead grant, immigrants to Canada accepted citizenship and organized themselves into rural cooperatives. The result of that was of course the emergence of a mass democratic electorate powerful enough to exert pressure on Ottawa. Hence both political and economic reforms.
In Argentina, on the other hand, the most influential political players were the landed elites, specifically those cattle barons whose origin can be traced to the late eighteenth century. In order to secure a market for exports and obtain credit and luxury import, they entered into alliance with Great Britain. Workers from Spain and Italy, attracted by employment opportunities in Argentina, would work there in the off-season and returned home with their wages. Assimilation of immigrants (i.e. those who did stay) into Argentine politics was therefore a lot slower than their counterparts in Canada. Moreover, instead of exerting their (limited) power by votes, the Argentine tenant farmers would use violence and strikes, leading to repression by the elite. Hence the stunted political development.
Of course Solberg's view is not without its critics. I am just presenting one particular point of view based on political economy.
------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 17:27
| Canada crashed in 1929 too, but on the other hand, it saw economic benefits and the buildup of heavy industry from the war, while Argentina did not. Also one must keep in mind that in the interwar years Canada was a key member of the world's largest trading bloc (the Commonwealth) and in the postwar years, Canada and the US formed the world's (probably history's) largest bilateral trading partnership. |
Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 17:50
|
I always thought Argentina was somewhat of an oddity. Moreso than any
other South American city, Buenos Aires reminds me of a European
capital. Stereotypes of prosperity, of course, come with that. I discovered quite some time ago that Argentina was once a very wealthy country but I assumed it has simply remained at the level of wealth it had attained back then - a lack of progress, but no degression. I think these sorts of things are dictated by a variety of factors - interest rates, currency value, trade surplus and deficit, and so on. If I had to choose a likely reason, the ones you've discussed here seem as good as any to me. I also think there's a cultural element at play. Countries that are similar tend to work together so it's no surprise to me that the successes in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia served to further bolster each other. Argentina, on the other hand, was culturally linked with a less successful region and even formed unofficial links with even less successful countries overseas (Nazi Germany, for example). ------------- |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 19:11
|
Just to bring up an entirely different perspective to this question. A guy called Bernard Cloutier brought up the issue of Argentina's national culture (which he called the "Argentine character") as an explanation for the country's economic problems. According to Cloutier, the "Argentine character" is an extension of the Spanish absolutist heritage and it consists of excessive individualism, egocentrism, and lack of civic discipline. This is what he has to say about the "Argentine character":
http://berclo.net/page04/04en-argendebt.html - http://berclo.net/page04/04en-argendebt.html
'Long term, I cannot see how Argentina can find a durable solution to its financial problems without a serious reduction of the excessive individualism of its citizens, and the development of a sense of collective responsibility that I think are required to win the struggle against the corruption that I feel is the principal cause of the country's problems. Nations don´t change their national characteristics easily. The northern Europeans persist being reserved and those of the south remain expansive. North Americans are still chauvinistic and manicheist, the Chinese remain industrious, the Japanese, workaholics, and so on... It is not very likely that the egocentric Argentines will suddenly discover the collective values, civic discipline and sense of nationhood that would be required for their country to rid itself of the corruption and extreme social inequality that prevent its development. It will not be easy for the Argentine people to escape the Spanish absolutist heritage that legitimate power comes from the top of the pyramid and not from its base. As seen from the outside, the country seems to be fated to remain as unstable and vulnerable to periodic military dictatorships as it has been since its independence from Spain. The Argentine CharacterIn two months I met a lot of people in 16 towns and cities but I met none of the powerful oligarchy that control the country. The ordinary citizens I met from upper middle class to poor reminded me of frightened adolescents in a strict boarding school trying to look brave but secretly terrorised by the headmaster. I have come to see them as victims of the greed of the elite to whom they look for leadership. A succession of cruel dictatorships has undoubtedly left its trace on the national character. Argentine egocentrism, seen as the manifestation of a survival instinct, draws understanding and sympathy. Now that argentine egocentrism has been examined it is only fair to mention two other widely recognised components of their unique personality; their considerable self esteem and their marked tendency to be hospitable to strangers. Argentines like to joke about their inflated ego. I have heard dozens of these jokes but I'll share only one with you “What is the most common mode of suicide in Argentina?” – “To jump into into the void from the top of one´s ego!” Unfortunately the South American neighbours who are the object of Argentine disdain do not appreciate this trait at all and qualify Argentines of being haughty, aloof, superb and a number other less printable expressions. After all these critical comments on their character, I am pleased to emphatically mention the remarkable cordiality and hospitality with which Argentines spontaneously greet strangers. This tradition of hospitality is said to come from the early gauchos that roamed the pampas living off wild cattle before the land was partitioned to landowners. Somehow it was transmitted through the ages and maintained even in city life. I have visited many people in many places but few have greeted me as warmly. Finally, sharing with you the analysis of the Argentine Character emailed to me by argentinean reader of this page might help understand the contradictions that hamper the development of this country. Let me add however that people are more loveable through their defects than through perfection and that Argentina is definitely a country I will be happy to visit again.' What do you think? Do you think the national culture of a country could be determinant of its economic and even democratic development? Is that too culturally-deterministic?
------------- |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 19:25
|
Oh, I forgot to mention that my good friend Juan, an Argentine (of Basque origin actually) immigrant to Canada told me that, even when Argentina's economy hit rock bottom, when the country's inflation rate hit 1000%, and when people were basically either bartering or pawning their possessions for survival, there were still many Argentines, never having travelled outside their country, who believed that Argentina was the best country in the world to live. Maybe there's indeed some truth to this "Argentine character" thing that this Cloutier guy talked about.
------------- |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 21:38
|
Canada also got immediate access to the Pacific - direct routes to markets into the Far East.
There isn't a lot Argentinians can sell to Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific.
|
Posted By: thedude
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 22:50
|
Canada were lucky to have strong bonds with Great Britain and the USA. Both were superpowers and Canada were allowed to grow with their help. The States invested alot in Canada and Canada became very close with the States. Also Canada gained alot of respect when entering the Second World War because unlike the First, they had to choice to go and they showed great loyality. After World War 2, Canada were now considered a power.
At the beginning of the 21st century, Argentina faced considerable economic difficultiesIn the 1990s the government changed the primarily state-controlled economy to one that was mostly privately controlled.
|
Posted By: Killabee
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 19:22
| I have to admit that countries with anglo-saxon heritage are the most democratic, efficient and incorrupted in the world. Argentina, like the rest of Latin American, is laden with dictartorship, corruption scandal, bureaucracy, which culminated in economic downfall. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 11:25
That's just a myth. I can mention thousands of scandals and corruption cases in the U.S., Britain or Japan as well.
First, people should realize what is the mood of Argentineans. They are our neighbours (I am Chilean and I know them well) and I tell you: They love to cry! They are a people that love to complain how badly life has treated them. They call it Tango
 In comparison, an anglo-saxon can be very poor, exploited at work, or abussed in any manner and he will always be very proud of its country and its job. That's a matter of psycology.
The realities of Argentina are quite different. Argentina IS NOT a poor country. Comparing it with Ghana or Vietnam is making a big mistake.
Argentina is a country with lots of resources and a large and educated middle class, and the HIGEST income per capita in Latin America, which is still superior than many countries of Europe and MOST countries of Eastern Europe.
Argentina is a country thas has lots of achievements, including several Nobel prizes in science, lots of excelents artist and sportmen. Yes, Argentineans build cars for racing, design planes, and success in the most important universities worldwide.
Argentina is a dissorganized, chaotic, Italian-like country, but still is a place to be taken into account. Perhaps the more intelligent people of Latin America live in there, together with some of the dumbest politicians on the planet
In comparisson, my country Chile was very poor, and has tried during all the 20th century up today to catch up with Argentina. We are a model of success and development.... and we still lag behind Argentina
 So, please, take a second look on that beautiful country. After all, Argentina is less boring than Canada. No doubt about it.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 01:51
 Topic: Why Canada succeeded & Argentina failed?Good topic flyingzone.
The main reasons have already been mentioned in the replies above. There's also an obscure theory that climate might've been a small factor. Personally, I don't agree with the theory. The theory is that an extremely cold environment compels people to work harder. Supposedly it started with the colonists having to work harder to survive the long winters & ends with modern Canadians having to work harder to pay some additional expenses due to winter, o something like that. Again, I don't agree with the theory, but maybe it's possible that the Canadian climate gives a small boost to the economy due to the additional infrastructure & industries required in order to deal with it. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 08:20
When you consider that Canada is right beside the United States, and in many places the frontier is a imaginary land, it is not difficult to figure it out the prosperity of that nation.
Canada work in many things with the U.S., from manufacturing to natural resources explotation, and from basic research to military development. They share distribution chains and they even belong to the same beisball leages.
The weather has nothing to do with it.
As for the people, Argentineans are not much different physically from Canadians at all.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 08:26
|
By the way, do you really believe Argentina is such a disaster?
I believe it is pretty good shape. Look at Argentina's soccer team
Pinguin
 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 08:49
|
Now, seriously, things that Argentina produces:
Manufactured goods:
Toys
 Cars
 Planes
 Cell phones (Motorola-Brighstar Land of Fire)
 And tons of products from all the manufacturing range.
So, yes, Argentina is not in the shape of Canada, but things aren't like in real poor countries either. There was a economical crisis and things are improving now.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 10:33
|
Pinguin, it wasn't my objective at all to debase Argentina when I started this thread. It merely tries to seek an explanation for the inability of Argentina to realize its full potentials, especially given the fact that it started off with so much promise. The comparison with Canada is one of "convenience" because both countries indeed share some similarities.
This comparison is more an academic one (hence Solberg's study was used in the initial post). Similar comparisions between Canada and Argentina have also been done by other scholars. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2006 at 00:40
Well, the problem with American scholars that study Latin America is they hardly graps the realities of the topics. The principles they apply to theirs studies are usually quite wrong from the basic.
For instance, Argentina it was not a superpower in the pass, like certain numbers or statistics make some to believe. Yes, they have a boom or bonanza for certain years, mainly because wars and foreign demand of basic goods, like meat for example, flood the country with foreign money.
It is like the rubber or oil booming certain countries have. The technology changes or the demand goes down, and the countries sink with that.
The case of Canada is easy to explain. Canada, in economical terms, is just an extension of the United States, so enjoys all the benefits of economies of scale and access to global markets.
In the case of Argentina, the superficial prosperity of the beginning of the twentieth century in places like Buenos Aires hided the deep underdevelopment and poverty that affected peoples of the countryside. When the prosperity flied away, Argentina find itself fighting with many of those problems for the first time.
Now, if one is fair, Argentina has not done such bad job after all. Although it has have a lots of problems in recent times, the country is still progressing, and is not so far behind of places like Southern Europe like some people believe. Argentina still has a long way to go though, but it is hardly in the shape of the third world.
I am Chilean, of a country that was always poor like a rat but that today is enjoying certain prosperity. I lived in Canada, and I know Argentina since they are our neighbours. And I can tell you, sincerily, that even with all the progress our country has had during almost three decades, we still don't catch up Argentina. If things get stable in Argentina for a way, I am certain the country will grow up by inertia, because it has a lot more than the value the outside world assign to it.
Besides, if things continue like they are going today, you will hear quite a lot more about Southern South America in the near future. Brazil, Argentina and Chile are progressing, with problems but always progressing. And now these countries are allies in the manufacturing of several things, like planes.
Yes, Canada could be a rich country, but they are in trouble compiting South America in airplane manufacting, for example, particularly Bombardier can't compite with Embraer. This is an airplane manufactured by Embraer.
 So, the idea that Latin America has deep into trouble is not right. Our struggle is to compite with the developed nations, so we can made there a place for ourselves.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2006 at 01:19
|
Canada isn't an economic extension of the United States.
Economically, the US need Canada more than Canada needs the US.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2006 at 08:22
|
Yeh Hellios, tell me about it.
Canada is an independent country, and thinks very different than the U.S.
(I lived in there for a while a decade ago) However, from the commercial point of view, Canada is absolutely dependent on its neighbour, which is good for Canada because it get a scale economy it wouldn't have with its own population alone.
Now, Canada has another advantage over Argentina which is the distance to the main global markets. See how far from Canada the U.S., Europe and Japan are. Now compare the same with respect to Argentina.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2006 at 10:11
|
Pinguin, while a healthy skepticism of any "non-indigenous" scholar's "expertise" on any country is a good thing, one should also not completely dismiss the scholarly effort made by those people. Have you personally read Solberg's work? If not, I think you should really reserve your skepticism until you have done so. Unlike some scholars, I do not see Solberg having any "hidden agenda" in his research. By the way, if you had read my posts, you should have noticed that we're actually concentrating on a time frame much earlier than what you are talking about here. We are not talking about the current economic achievement of Argentina, something that you keep on bringing up. We are focusing on how Argentina failed to live up to its potential and had to face one economic crisis after another in the early 20th century. These are all objective facts, and no American scholar makes this up. I think somehow you are adopting another extreme perspective in viewing non-Latin American scholarship on Latin America - over-defensiveness. Again, the comparison with Canada made by Solberg was simply one of convenience. It wasn't his objective at all to say how "great" Canada is and how "miserable" Argentina is. His focus was on the agrarian policies of those two countries and their impact on their socioeconomic development. I think this is also something that many Latin American scholars have tried to research on. The reason why I started this thread is to bring in some real scholarship into AE instead of relying on commonsensical reasoning (not unlike the one that you brought up - geographical distance to the global market, etc., something that most lay persons would have in mind). Solberg devoted many years in his academic career trying to find an answer to the question he raised. I think his ideas deserve more than just a few dismissive comments by someone who probably hasn't even read his work. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2006 at 12:44
OK. The only think I could point out to that respect is the following: Argentina was never a developed country to start with. It has a period of luck fueled by the saling of natural resources, but it was not ground in solid development. By saling wheat and meat Argentina couldn't compite in the long term with the U.S. and Canada large scale mecanization and the abundance of lands.
Chile also has a economical boom in those times based in the sale of salpetre, which flood the country with temporary riches that were enjoyed by the upper classes, but that evaporated with the discovery of synthetic salpetre. Peru has a boom on guano and previously on silver, and it still a poor country. Brazil has a boom on coffe and rubber, and still is struggling to growth up. Today's oil producing countries worldwide could find they are quite poor if there is a technological change to hydrogen, for example.
The only thing I would like to point out is precisely that: the Argentina boom of the early 20th century is skin deep. It was not based in local development at all but in a strike of luck.
Not really. Actually what really makes me feel bad is the following: nobody cares for Latin America in the developed world. You can find thousand of reports on wonderful China, the problems of Africa or the richness of the Muslim world, but you hardly find a single report about Latin America. And when someone does something the first think they film is.... the worst favella they could find !! People in the developed world does not even known Latin America is the most urban region in the world, and that is also one that still preserves most of its nature. They also ignore that, without counting income per capita, the levels of education and health are not very far behind the developed world.
The image of Latin America is being manipulated for political reasons by many. First, the communists wanted desesperately Latin America joined the ranks of the third world. Some even preach the ethernal friendship of Latin America with Africa and the poorest part of Asia. Well, things are not that way. Latin America is far more educated and developed that most of those regions. Second, the "West" enjoy to show Latin America as the example of failure, and a point of reference to show how better the anglosaxon culture is. Do a search in the web and you NEVER find a single article that speaks in a mature tone about the region, less in a possitive mood. The only things that matter are clowns like Chavez, or the drugs dealers or the next natural disaster. Reporters only search for poverty. That's why many people sometimes don't believe they are in Latin America when they visit zones outside Macchu Picchu or the Maya trail. We are feed up to be considered an example of methodical failure. That's simply not truth.
So, how I could be fair in judging the visions of the outsiders?
Yes, Solberg could be very right in his theories. I don't dissagre on that.
My only advice is to be careful in looking into the illusion that Argentina's ancient "development" was well founded. Actually, those measures were done in times Europe was practically wipe out of the map, and Argentina did not suffer any war or any disaster whatsoever.
What I don't like is to compare Canada with Argentina, because the situations are not the same, and in the past they were also very different.
Omar Vega (alias Pinguin)
|
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2006 at 13:08
I cannnot agree with that. The social and economic development of Latin America is an extremely hot topic in the academic circle. When I was in graduate school in the United States, even though I was not particularly interested in this region academically, I was exposed to a lot of first-class research by both American and Latin American scholars - Jorge Dominguez, Guillermo. O'Donnell, Arturo Valenzuela, Fernando Cardoso, Enzo Faletto just to name a few.
But of course if you are talking about the general public in the Western world, you are definitely right. However, misconceptions about the developing world are not just confined to Latin America. They are basically the norm rather than the exception whether you are talking about Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and even Asia. ------------- |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2006 at 13:12
No comparison is ever perfect. Comparison is only a tool in unravelling variables that may not be as easily discernible when doing an intensive case study. If social scientists are waiting for the two perfect cases to do a comparative study, then they might as well forget about it. Coming up with two exactly identical cases to do a comparison actually defeats the purpose of comparative studies itself. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2006 at 13:17
I agree on that. Now, please agree on me in the following. With this soccer team I really doubt Argentineans are losers
Best Regards,
Pinguin |
Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 11:49
|
I'm going to agree that language is one of the main factors. English speakers are far more likely to see other English speakers as someone "We can do business" with.. In international economic relations, it's less about what you can do with what you have, and more about what people will let you do with it. |
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 07:51
Not really. I always thought Argentina, Brazil (Euro) an Venuezala were all wealthyish countries. Yeh ive watched a thing on the Favelas in Rio. But the stereotype is the poorer parts of Latin America are populated by natives an blacks. Not the whole of Latin America in general. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 08:17
Yes. You say it right: the stereotype.
Most of the outside world doesn't have a clue about Latin America. Some things people usually don't know are:
(1) There are not racial barriers.
(2) Latin America is the place where more white people live in poverty !
(3) Blacks are a minority in Brazil.
(4) Most Indians live the life of the "Europeans".
(5) Latin America is the richest "Third World" region.
(6) Latin America has human developing standard close to the ones of the developing countries.
(7) The most urban region of the world is Latin America.
The stereotypes are common because of the following: the most attractive parts of Latin America are usually the poorer! People believes that Bahia is Brazil, and that the Peruvian Indian peasant is the common South American subject. But that is as ridiculous as thinking that all Mexicans wear huge sombreros all the day long.
These are the poors of Argentina, for example. As you can see, many don't look Black or Indian
   And these are from Brazil
  Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 08:27
And I forgot. Some people will assume Argentina is a failure and Canada is better because it does not have poverty. That's not true. Poverty exist in Canada and affects lots of people. I saw it directly. The most affected are Native Americans but many whites live in poverty, too.
   Pinguin
|
Posted By: Peter III
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 17:29
|
One important reason is geography.
Europe and North America are situated just a sea away, and with the completion of the Panama Canal, western countries could completely bypass the country. With the completion of the Panama Canal, Buenos Aires lost importance as a major shipping hub in the Atlantic. Canada also already had strong trade relations with the UK because of its old colonial ties. Canada also had, naturally, strong economic ties with the U.S., which was a growing superpower in itself. This, along with low corruption, lead to the formation of a very economically stable nation.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 17:51
|
I had the idea that in here: (1) People don't realize Argentina is not as poor as people imagine.
(2) Canada is not as rich as people imagine either.
Yes, Canada is richer than Argentina, but the difference is not as huge as the one of a poor African country and Singapoor, at all.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 19:05
|
Where do you get those stats? Now compare Mali with Singapoor, please Pinguin
|
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 19:08
|
These?
http://www.unicef.org/view_chart.php?sid=bf796432036ffd0955d41c528e71798b&create_chart=Create+Table+%3E%3E&submit_to_chart=1&layout=1&language=eng - http://www.unicef.org/view_chart.php?sid=bf796432036ffd0955d41c528e71798b&create_chart=Create+Table+%3E%3E&submit_to_chart=1&layout=1&language=eng
Or the others?
|
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 19:14
|
The others are in here: http://www.worldbank.org/ - http://www.worldbank.org/
Click on Data & Research, then data can be cross-referenced.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 19:29
|
So what,
You are comparing a country like Argentina that is classified as Upper-Middle-Income economy with a country like Canada with is considered High Income economy.
So, the difference is not as marked as you people pretends.
 I bet these ladies does not look "underdeveloped" at all
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 19:48
|
They're fake blondes pretending to be athletes.
Now,...
 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 19:51
|
Sure, Better thin perodydes that fat blonds
Don't you know Argentine produce better "meat" than Canada? I know by experience
 Give a break
Pinguin
|
Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 07:57
|
Wow this thread degenerated quite quickly. I think you're taking flyingzone's thesis too personally pinquin. In relative terms Canada has succeeded in increasing its power in the world over the past century, Argentina's has gone backwards. It's not as big a difference as comparing Haiti and Dominican Republic but all the same, Argentina started off better than Canada and had its rate of growth kept pace, it ought to have been at least in the G7 by now. No amount of posting pictures of cheerleaders will negate that.
------------- Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 17:11
|
Canada was for most of its history nothing more than an overseas province of Britain. Don't tell me that Canada started worst than Argentina. That's ridiculous. ------------- |
Posted By: JuMong
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 09:17
|
The failure of South America is a cultural issue; crime, corruption and lack of emphasis on education. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 13:43
Sure. In the U.S. there is no corruption at all. Nobody lies and nobody make money but all are quite correct citizens. There isn't people shooting at schools and malls, and all people has a PhD.
 Now, what failure are you talking about? We are developing right now, no matter nobody pays attention to the possitive side of the countries of Americas' backyard.
------------- |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 21:06
| I am going to lean on some economists speculations on South America that the reason why their business and government institutions are so corrupt is because they are not open enough to the global market. If you look at many Western European countries and Canada and the U.S you see that they are very open with the international markets. If more South American countries become more open in foreign trade that will cause transparency and will in turn help limit corruption. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 21:18
|
A small problem there. Data is outdated.
It is true that up to the 70s Latin American countries had very close economies and they had the model of replacement of imports.
That's not true anymore. Today, countries like Chile have economies that are more open than the U.S.
Corruption has also descended quite a bit.
There are still problems, though, but the idea that Latin America is doomed because some "genetical" reason is false.
Now, for you, "Ponce", if you don't know, I have to say the following. Peru is doing a good as well. Today is the country in the region that grows faster and that country is embracing a more liberal model. I bet in the long term they will do very well.
------------- |