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.
Argentina had a horrible history of economic collapses and dictatorships and regimes falling, and currency meltdowns. It is no better than any other Latin American country. Infrastructure development is so poor only Buenos Aires has a metro. At least multiple Brazilian cities have metros.
I'd say Chile and Uruguay are more stable politically and economically. Lots of Argentines have bailed out of Argentina and are in Spain or Italy.
Argentines put out propaganda that they are wealthy, but the reality is they are hardly wealthier than Peru with basically the same problems.
Congratulations, you just have earned the prize for the troll post of the month. My god! the things one have to read sometimes on CD, at the point that they may wrote things without thinking for one second in the failures they're about to just throw out for free.
The highlight is the bolded: it has to be the most ludicrous line i have ever read about my country so far here.
Southern Cone has more agreeable climate for Euros, so more Euros moved there during Colonial times, and Great Migration period. They brought with them their economy.
That is the most uninformed comment that I've read in a while. Spain, Portugal and Italy have Mediterranean weather. It's hot, dry and it can get cold especially in the northern areas. Lima and Mexico city mimic the Mediterranean weather. All of the coast of Peru is basically Mediterranean type weather.
The Portuguese had to put up with the most drastic change since most of Brasil is tropical and the Portuguese are Mediterranean people.
People who came to the United States basically got stuck with the most unwanted areas of land and climate. Those areas; were areas where neither the Spanish nor the Portuguese wanted to settle. Too harsh even for the native Indians. For the most part, the north and northeast were areas where the native people resided temporarily. They were transient and nomadic due to the weather and food supply.
People, no matter where they are from, have to adjust to the circumstances. Look at the British who went and settled in Australia of all places, a harsh and blistering hot desert. But they came from a cold, wet and artic environment.
There are really two Argentinas - the European-oriented one, which includes especially Buenos Aires but also other areas along the coast and in the Pampas (including secondary cities like Rosario), and possibly Patagonia; and the classically Latin American one, consisting of the interior (especially the Northwest and the Northeast). The former Argentina, facing the coast and thus direct European ship traffic, was able to develop quite a bit (at least when the economic cycles allowed it), benefit from European immigration, and have successful agriculture. Whereas the latter Argentina has been geographically handicapped in many ways, and many of the people have been mestizo, thus no different than many Latin American countries like Peru or Ecuador. In recent decades, the Argentine interior has encroached upon the Argentine Pampas/coast economically, politically, and socially, thus contributing to the never-ending cycles that have paralyzed Argentina for more than 60 years now.
In general, what makes the Southern Cone the most prosperous region in Latin America? I'd say a combination of white population (more like North America, Europe, or Australia than the rest of Latin America), temperate climate (again, more like North America, Europe, etc.), and economics (especially early in the 20th century, with Argentina being economically linked with the British Empire). In Chile's case, at least as much Chicago Boys economic reforms as anything else.
If Argentina is now considered a success story in South America (let's give the country the benefit of doubt here), then it must have transcended decades of currency crisises, hyperinflation, and swings in government between military dictatorships and populist authoritarians. I've always been more impressed by the stability, good government, and general quality of life in mestizo and tropical Costa Rica then in white and temperate (subtropical really for most of the population) Argentina. Uruguay and Chile are better examples for successful "southern cone" countries although Chile has had far more variability and instability during the last 30 years.
As title says, what makes the Southern Cone region the most prosperous part of Latin America? Southern Cone refers to Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Southern Brazil. What makes this region have higher HDI and GDP per capita than the rest of Latin America?
Also, Argentina was the heavyweight in this region but has recently been surpassed by Chile and Uruguay. Aside from some bad government decisions, are there any other reasons for this? Cultural or otherwise? Looking at some rankings, Chile and Uruguay rank very high in lack of corruption, while Argentina is perceived as very corrupt. While the region as a whole has good safety statistics, there are many instances of theft, burglary, swindling and warnings that tourists and other visitors need to be wary about in the region, with Chile and Uruguay not seemingly better than Argentina in these regards. And if Argentina has it so bad recently, are lots of Argentines moving to Uruguay or Chile?
You don't know how far Argentina could have come, without the corruption, not to mention the military take-overs. Argentina at one time was THE economic powerhouse of the region, and of South America. If it had maintained that trajectory, it would have been a First-World nation long ago. And who knows what Chile might have achieved, without *ahem* "outside interference"?
If Argentina is now considered a success story in South America (let's give the country the benefit of doubt here), then it must have transcended decades of currency crisises, hyperinflation, and swings in government between military dictatorships and populist authoritarians. I've always been more impressed by the stability, good government, and general quality of life in mestizo and tropical Costa Rica then in white and temperate (subtropical really for most of the population) Argentina. Uruguay and Chile are better examples for successful "southern cone" countries although Chile has had far more variability and instability during the last 30 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
You don't know how far Argentina could have come, without the corruption, not to mention the military take-overs. Argentina at one time was THE economic powerhouse of the region, and of South America. If it had maintained that trajectory, it would have been a First-World nation long ago. And who knows what Chile might have achieved, without *ahem* "outside interference"?
Of course, in a parallel universe where the British intervention of 1806-07 goes a different way, Argentina is an ex-British country along the lines of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; is bicultural and bilingual not unlike Canada or white South Africa; and is as affluent and well-governed as Australia, Canada, and the United States. Then the Southern Cone would tower over the rest of South America (and Latin America in general) in terms of HDI, political stability, etc.
In the absence of such a wealthy and stable Argentina in our world, a brilliant economics professor at Johns Hopkins proposes that Argentina should be dollarized with full controls (or at any rate, better controls than what existed between 1991 and 2001 with the Argentine peso being pegged to the dollar). If dollarization has worked in countries like Panama or Ecuador, which had witnessed severe currency problems before they were dollarized, why not in Argentina?! See here and here.
Of course, in a parallel universe where the British intervention of 1806-07 goes a different way, Argentina is an ex-British country along the lines of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; is bicultural and bilingual not unlike Canada or white South Africa; and is as affluent and well-governed as Australia, Canada, and the United States. Then the Southern Cone would tower over the rest of South America (and Latin America in general) in terms of HDI, political stability, etc.
In the absence of such a wealthy and stable Argentina in our world, a brilliant economics professor at Johns Hopkins proposes that Argentina should be dollarized with full controls (or at any rate, better controls than what existed between 1991 and 2001 with the Argentine peso being pegged to the dollar). If dollarization has worked in countries like Panama or Ecuador, which had witnessed severe currency problems before they were dollarized, why not in Argentina?! See here and here.
Dollarization was a disaster in Ecuador! It caused more inflation in the beginning, which caused a mass migration phenomenon from Peru, by workers taking Ecuadoran jobs, that suddenly paid much better than in Peru. It also caused an influx of money-launderers from Columbia. The Ecuadoran poor and the struggling middle class saw their money, and whatever savings they had, become worthless against the strong dollar. Dollarization only benefitted the upper-middle class and upper classes, and the power elites. Ecuadoran workers were still abandoning the country in droves, to seek work illegally in Spain, the US, and Canada, in the early years of dollarization. The country's economy didn't stabilize until Correa was elected in 2007, and began a program of economic development. At that point, many Ecuadoran expats returned home.
The problem for Ecuador now, is how to phase out dollarization, without causing further economic disturbances. Dollarization is not a panacea for a developing country's economic problems.
Argentina had a horrible history of economic collapses and dictatorships and regimes falling, and currency meltdowns. It is no better than any other Latin American country. Infrastructure development is so poor only Buenos Aires has a metro. At least multiple Brazilian cities have metros.
I'd say Chile and Uruguay are more stable politically and economically. Lots of Argentines have bailed out of Argentina and are in Spain or Italy.
Argentines put out propaganda that they are wealthy, but the reality is they are hardly wealthier than Peru with basically the same problems.
This is oversimplification, the two countries are pretty different. Only thing they really have in common is that both are dominated by one city. Argentina as of now is way wealthier than Peru, with much higher salaries too. That said Peru is on an upward trend while Argentina has stagnated. In a decade Peru could easily become a much more attractive destination than Argentina
We're starting to see a turnaround, with Argentina stumbling, while countries in other parts of LatAm are starting to break out of their post-colonial cycle of derpiness. Comparing Chile to Panama is a bit flawed. Panama is way smaller, it's a tax haven, and it really lags behind Chile in most social indicators
Simon Whistler, from Visual Politik, did a video trying to answer a question similar to the topic of this thread.
He concluded that the rulers of the poorer Latino countries, the elite class, descended from a culture of lazies who didn’t have much of an entrepreneurial spirit and didn’t value hard work. They just exploited the human resources and natural resources, leading to generations of corruption and etc.
If Argentina is now considered a success story in South America (let's give the country the benefit of doubt here), then it must have transcended decades of currency crisises, hyperinflation, and swings in government between military dictatorships and populist authoritarians. I've always been more impressed by the stability, good government, and general quality of life in mestizo and tropical Costa Rica then in white and temperate (subtropical really for most of the population) Argentina. Uruguay and Chile are better examples for successful "southern cone" countries although Chile has had far more variability and instability during the last 30 years.
Costa Rica's Central Valley weather is more temperate and stable than that of, say, Buenos Aires, which has very hot climate during summer.
It's not true that the Southern Cone cities have more temperate weather than other areas of Latin America. The weather in Bogota, Quito, Cuzco, Merida (Ven) and other Andean cities, and for most Mexican cities, is more temperate than that of cities like Bs As during the summer. The average temperature during the year is lower in Bogota or Quito (15ºC) than in Bs As (18ºC) or Montevideo (16.7ºC).
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.
