U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Americas
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-07-2019, 08:41 AM
 
142 posts, read 26,236 times
Reputation: 28

Advertisements

also, it would be good if you read the reply by Balaji-Viswanathan to the Quora post. He explains it better than me:https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-s...ji-Viswanathan


How come the power shifted to colder zones:???
Agriculture is no longer the biggest component of economy: Since the industrial revolution, agriculture became a smaller portion of the economy. India has the world's largest agricultural land. But, economy is not longer solely measured through agricultural output. Thus, it is a poor nation as it didn't industrialize. Until the arrival of mechanized agriculture in USA, India and China together contributed to more than half of world's food production.
Why didn't industrialization happen: For a variety of reasons Europe was able industrialize at the start of the modern era. There was a strong push for this. The reasons ranged from drastic population drop from Black Plague [that weakened the feudal systems & increased mechanization] to the fall of Constantinople [that forced Europeans to seek new routes]. Meanwhile the older powers were going stale with not as much survival threats. When the old and new powers came in contact, a variety of lucky events worked in favor of Europe. It was disease in Aztec & Inca America and it was internal chaos/civil war in India and China.
Populating the less dense regions: As the Europeans moved out, they found it much easier to migrate enmasse in the less populated Australia, USA or South Africa than their more dense tropical neighbors such as Indonesia, Mexico and Kenya. While migration happened in places such as Mexico, the large domestic population led to a mix rather than an outright domination of the visitors. Armed with the less dense population, Europeans were able to start with a clean slate in modern era Australia and America that was very hard in Mexico, India or Brazil. With native resistance removed, one could put a railway all the way across the coasts in US or Canada. In tropical Asia and elsewhere, you would have to cross 10 different countries and hundred million people to do the same.
Greater share of resources: In tropical zones more people compete for the same resources. Norway has greater land area than Phillipines but less than a twentieth of its population. With fewer population Norway could export most of its energy and thus could afford a welfare that Phillipines cannot. (Written by an Indian guy).

1) All I could read was someone explaining how regions with large European migration got industrialized faster
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-07-2019, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
5,802 posts, read 9,467,884 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Untasted View Post
still have a basic good welfare system or social safety net
But your claim is that this is because of "white people descended from Europeans", right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2019, 11:46 AM
 
104 posts, read 19,761 times
Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Untasted View Post
1) your supposedly figures and studies still haven't changed the fact that southern cone countries still have the highest HDI in Latin America , (now I'm the stubborn one?)

2) I (specifically ) mentioned (published by Forbes with quoara as a contributor), I'm glad you have been reading the comments . Your the type of people who just question anything even official sources and even try to change facts just because they might look cuter for you . (Example , trying to whiten up your Colombia by posting pictures of some (models ) laughable .lol

3) Forbes published about the equatorial paradox and you still think there's no any correlation? .. (eye rolls)

4) we're talking about Post European Colonism. Not about (ancient ) times, btw how are the Mayans , Egyptians and Indians doing in today's world ??? (Oh poor )

5) what????? ((((Mexico, which is just wealthier and has much better conditions for its working class population.)))) ??????
, Go tell this to the millions of inmigrants still crossing the USA/Mexico border .

6) speaking of (correlation) isn't it ironic that another country from the southern cone area is the most developed in Latin America ??
this argument is just stupid,

-for 3 decades Cuba had the highest HDI, does it has it today? NO. Will Argentina have it in the near future? probably not.

Forbes published all source of stuff, and it was actually Lenin the first one to notice the correlation, and " correlation does not imply causation". And basically all economist believe is just that, a temporary coincidence.


The net migration from mexico is actually negative, all those people crossing are from central america.

Chile could be the most develop but is not by a big margin, and when the Caribbean is included Chile falls to 5th place. Chile is a poster child of US backed economic policy, something they wanted to sell as model for the region and found the right dictatorship to achieve it. nothing else. And as was explained here, Chile is not culturally part of what its culturally understood as the southern cone even if geographically is there. Chile is just too different to Angetina, Uruguay and souther Brazil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 01:38 AM
 
142 posts, read 26,236 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grabandgo View Post
this argument is just stupid,

-for 3 decades Cuba had the highest HDI, does it has it today? NO. Will Argentina have it in the near future? probably not.


1) Blah bla past sentence past sentence !!! All over again

Forbes published all source of stuff, and it was actually Lenin the first one to notice the correlation, and " correlation does not imply causation". And basically all economist believe is just that, a temporary coincidence.

2) Nobody cares who noticed this correlation first (in fact I noticed it on my own by looking at the world map) , what it does matters is that this correlation is true


The net migration from mexico is actually negative, all those people crossing are from central america.

3) let's blame it on the central Americans (after all Mexico ) is becoming a first works country right ??,,,

Chile could be the most develop but is not by a big margin, and when the Caribbean is included Chile falls to 5th place. Chile is a poster child of US backed economic policy, something they wanted to sell as model for the region and found the right dictatorship to achieve it. nothing else. And as was explained here, Chile is not culturally part of what its culturally understood as the southern cone even if geographically is there. Chile is just too different to Angetina, Uruguay and souther Brazil.
4) Caribbean tiny island tax free heavens !!
Now the USA is the savior for all , Argentina was one the richest countries in the world thanks to the USA (wow!! Ok genius ). Southern cone is (first and most ) a geographical region . Chile is right next to Argentina and close to southern Brazil , Paraguay and Uruguay (in case you haven't noticed it ) yes !? This arguments is stupid because you don't make sense
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
5,802 posts, read 9,467,884 times
Reputation: 2950
Anyway. Race and ethnicity have no correlation with economic prosperity or government efficiency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 02:17 PM
Status: "Then everything change forever..." (set 11 days ago)
 
5,166 posts, read 8,017,583 times
Reputation: 4264
I spoke too soon. SMH

I guess to the Untasted poster I must be very lucky to descend of one of the conquistadors, which should make me one of the oldest generations in all of America, even older than most Americans. I’m probably an older generation in the Western Hemisphere than the Untasted himself. lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 04:21 PM
 
448 posts, read 562,132 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pueblofuerte View Post
Chile is the epitome of a Mestizo nation yet its still the most developed.
So your "logic" says that south africa, being a mostly black nation is more developed because it's... black?

Pueblofuerte, sorry but Chile is mostly white around business and governance. You MIGHT think you are right, but your opinions are only opinions since you haven't actually traveled. Colombia has it going for them but do not attempt to compare Chile vs Colombia... your data isn't based on DNA or looks, but on "self-perception"

Btw, the Mapuche is the least producing tribe in the world. They do not pull their weight, they are completely depended on the Chilean gov. to support them with healthcare, schools, infrastructure etc...

Chile should really cut ties with them
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 04:27 PM
 
448 posts, read 562,132 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by joacocanal View Post
another genetic study showing that Colombia is more White European than Chile.


https://journals.plos.org/plosgeneti...l.pgen.1005602We then ran clustering models for K = 2 through K = 15 ancestral populations with ADMIXTURE [25] on a total of 1,233 individuals



also, notice the African admixture of Argentinians, much more significative than what many people think.





Read the stupid data collection source from that page:

"This data set contains 436 admixed South American individuals together with 204 European individuals from the POPRES stud..."

"We then ran clustering models for K = 2 through K = 15 ancestral populations with ADMIXTURE [25] on a total of 1,233 individuals"

wow a grand total of 1233 individuals were involved. idiot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 04:32 PM
 
448 posts, read 562,132 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grabandgo View Post
i will say it for the 10th time, with the exception of Chile all the richest countries in latam are in contact with the Caribbean sea.

Bahamas, Trinidad, Panama, Barbados, Antigua, Saint Kitts, Dominican R. Costa RIca and MEXICO
They are all poor countries. Same with Saudi Arabia.. It has an EXTREMELY high gdp but the micro economy, yet their full time salary is 400-600 usd/month. Barbados and the others are far away from development. Like the fr-gnea, they have a developed nation GDP and it still sucks

You need to check the picture comparisons I put up Panama vs Chile to illustrate. it's a few pages back
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 04:50 PM
 
448 posts, read 562,132 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grabandgo View Post
this argument is just stupid,

-for 3 decades Cuba had the highest HDI, does it has it today? NO. Will Argentina have it in the near future? probably not.

Forbes published all source of stuff, and it was actually Lenin the first one to notice the correlation, and " correlation does not imply causation". And basically all economist believe is just that, a temporary coincidence.


The net migration from mexico is actually negative, all those people crossing are from central america.

Chile could be the most develop but is not by a big margin, and when the Caribbean is included Chile falls to 5th place. Chile is a poster child of US backed economic policy, something they wanted to sell as model for the region and found the right dictatorship to achieve it. nothing else. And as was explained here, Chile is not culturally part of what its culturally understood as the southern cone even if geographically is there. Chile is just too different to Angetina, Uruguay and souther Brazil.

1) with 40 million or so living in the U.S, you mexicans are a disgrace and extremely bad PR for the rest of the region. Chileans are very lucky to be excluded from VISA requirements considering the amount of damage your ppl have done.

2) Barbados and the other island nations have high GDP for other reasons; not salaries, subway system, universities, etc are there. Having high GDP means american hotels in barbados for example are reeling in the cash from american tourists. The money investment increases the nation's GDP but doesn't trickle down. That's why the quality of public spaces are so vastly in different levels.

3) Chile's boom started after allende's hyper inflation was subdued. it's all over the economy books here in Sweden. Has nothing to do with america, the US backed the coup, but the Chileans themselves put the market economy in place. Please read up on the chicago boys.

4) Chile confuses everyone (including myself) for it's extremely high-tech, high tier infrastructure. Please go back a few pages and check comparison pictures. It's 100% in the southern cone. You saying that crap says more about you than you think
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Americas
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top