Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before the fall of Spain, The Latin American colonies were no slouches. They had modern (for their time) ports. The Callao (Peru), Veracruz, (Mex), Cartagena (Col). New foods were being grown in both continents.
After the fall of Spain, constant economic, and military warfare by the English and later by the US against anything Spanish became the norm. Spain lost Gibraltar to the English. Spain became very poor; never got a cent after WWII from the Marshall Plan the other European nations did.
In the Philippines the Spanish language was "deleted" after the US takeover. War between Peru and Chile was started by the English to take over the nitrate mines. (The mines ended up in English hands after the war). Colombia lost Panama. (American interests wanted the territory). Mexico lost half of its territory to the US.
And if you include the countless political interventions by the US, either covertly or overtly; that did not do much for the confidence of the region.
In addition if you also include the ineptness that exists by all governments, specially WEAK governments, then you end up with what happened in Latin America.
However things are changing now, the Latin American economies are finally maturing.
Last edited by diet1; 08-27-2013 at 09:29 PM..
Reason: spelling
Church and the crown. They got in the way of the latin american economies. Adam Smith explains why Spanish America is poor and British America is prosperous in the "Wealth of Nations". The British Colonies could trade with anyone they wanted. Free markets.!
Church and the crown. They got in the way of the latin american economies. Adam Smith explains why Spanish America is poor and British America is prosperous in the "Wealth of Nations". The British Colonies could trade with anyone they wanted. Free markets.!
Here it is.
Quote:
SOURCE: Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into The Nature and Causes- Of The Wealth Of Nations (New York: Random House Modem Library, 1937), vii, 538-51.
. . . . There are no colonies of which the progress has been more rapid than that of the English in North America.
Plenty of good land, and liberty to manage their own affairs their own way, seem to be the two great causes of the prosperity of all new colonies.
In the plenty of good land the English colonies of North America, though, no doubt, very abundantly provided, are, however, inferior to those of the Spaniards and Portugueze, and not superior to some of those possessed by the French before the late war. But the political institutions of the English colonies have been more favourable to the improvement and cultivation of this land, than those of any of the other three nations.
First, the engrossing of uncultivated land, though it has by no means been prevented altogether, has been more restrained in the English colonies than in any other. The colony law which imposes upon every proprietor the obligation of improving and cultivating, within a limited time, a certain proportion of his lands, and which, in case of failure, declares those neglected lands grantable to any other person; though it has not, perhaps, been very strictly executed, has,, however, bad some effect.
Secondly, in Pennsylvania there is no right of primogeniture, and lands, like moveables, are divided equally among all the children of the family. In three of the provinces of New England the oldest has only a double share, as in the Mosaical law. Though in those provinces, therefore, too great a quantity of land should sometimes be engrossed by a particular individual, it is likely, in the course of a generation or two, to be sufficiently divided again. In the other English colonies, indeed, the right of primogeniture takes place, as in the law of England. But in all the English colonies the tenure of the lands, which are all held by free socage, facilitates alienation, and the grantee of any extensive tract of land, generally finds it for his interest to alienate, as fast as he can, the greater part of it, reserving only a small quit-rent. . . .
Before the fall of Spain, The Latin American colonies were no slouches. They had modern (for their time) ports. The Callao (Peru), Veracruz, (Mex), Cartagena (Col). New foods were being grown in both continents.
After the fall of Spain, constant economic, and military warfare by the English and later by the US against anything Spanish became the norm. Spain lost Gibraltar to the English. Spain became very poor; never got a cent after WWII from the Marshall Plan the other European nations did.
In the Philippines the Spanish language was "deleted" after the US takeover. War between Peru and Chile was started by the English to take over the nitrate mines. (The mines ended up in English hands after the war). Colombia lost Panama. (American interests wanted the territory). Mexico lost half of its territory to the US.
And if you include the countless political interventions by the US, either covertly or overtly; that did not do much for the confidence of the region.
In addition if you also include the ineptness that exists by all governments, specially WEAK governments, then you end up with what happened in Latin America.
However things are changing now, the Latin American economies are finally maturing.
And don't forget the British got the Falkland islands and lands south of the Southern Cone area under their tutelage.
Corruption, larger percentage of indigenous people, warmer climates tend to have less social/health supports. All of these play a factor but as to why they didn't industrialize at the same time as NA, that has little to do with culture and much more to do with religion.
The countries that industrialized first and then got the upper hand on international trade, more powerful military, and an educated workforce were all protestant, and certainly non-Catholic. The Protestant work ethic made a big difference but not as much as Protestant beliefs allowed for the borrowing of money which allowed for lending to expand markets/economy/social infrastructure. This was taboo with Catholicism which still referred to it as usery.
It meant the industrial revolution took place in non-Catholic countries of Europe and they get the head start on international trade and international conquest. If you note all the Catholic countries of Europe started to industrialize after their Northern non-Catholic neighbours.
Just mostly a function of the level of corruption. We (USA) have corruption but it's usually punished when caught. In many counties such as Mexico, corruption is ingrained in their systems....you can't invest too much if you don't know who, how often, and how much you will have to pay off to do business.
I would add that countries that employ the Common Law have fared extremely well compared to those that haven't. I mean just consider the countries practicing Common Law, UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand.
The question has been asked many times in the past, and often explanations regarding intellectual, moral or inherent genetic superiority are posed. In some cases religious reasons have been proposed.
Some people see it as sheer dumb luck. If you had to logically choose which civilization would dominate the world, you would almost certainly pick China. Zheng He (1371–1433) was the admiral of a great fleet, that Europe would not build for another century. He sailed straight line distances over the ocean that surpassed that of Christopher Columbus's voyage to America in 1492. The ships were massive. Zheng He had been castrated at a young age as a prisoner of war, and distrust of eunuchs, may have been his downfall.
Unlike Columbus, Zheng He commanded a fleet of 317 ships with 28,000 crewmen. The treasure ships could carry over 500 people. He made 7 voyages in all. Inexplicably, the Chinese stopped sailing after the death of Zheng He.
It is generally believed that the rest of the story is simply momentum. The ability to sail, the existence of superior weaponry, and most critical of all the resistance to disease from living in close quarters with animals meant that the Europeans were the cause of more massive plagues than the recipients.
The sailing and colonization, led to industrial revolution, which led to financial control, which led to the imbalance of wealth.
Britain initiated the industrial revolution which spread to Germany and America. What you are characterizing as English vs Spanish is more a comparison of northern European, and Mediterranean and mixed cultures.
In the last 30-50 years, some of the traditional arrangements are breaking down. Agrarian societies such as Ireland are now among the richest in the world. Many of the Asian societies are approaching and surpassing the wealth of societies built on northern European culture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
