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.
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
We, Panamanians, are not comparing ourselves to nobody and that includes Chile. We know we are behind Chile in many indicators, but we are working to better our country so we can have a much better life and we don't look at what the neighbor is doing.
Did you know that the biggest tax haven in the world is the USA?
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).
"More temperate" doesn't make any sense. Climate is classified as temperate if the coldest month has a mean of -3 to 18 degrees Celsius. Most parts of Costa Rica are too warm for that. Other cities mentioned qualify as temperate because they have the subtropical highland climate due to their very high altitude despite being located close to the equator (low latitude). These places normally have very small temperature variations between their hottest and coldest months. The climate can be considered a plus, of having pleasant "spring-like" weather all year round, but as we're talking about economies here, there's are disadvantages as well. Most of these cities are far from the coast and will have disadvantage in freight costs (with sea/ocean freight being relied to transport large volumes of goods at a lower cost). Temperature might be constant, but high elevation can also cause altitude sickness among those who are not used to it.
Anyway, due to their latitudes, Santiago de Chile, Buenos Aires and Montevideo should have more similar climate to that found in Europe, and what Europeans are used to. Whether that contributes to countries having a higher HDI or per capita GDP is another question. It's just one of the theories and possibilities that have been thrown out in this discussion. You don't always have to discredit everything. Yes, we know that there are other cities in Latin America that are "temperate" but almost the whole countries of Argentina, Uruguay and Chile are in the temperate zones, whereas those cities you are citing belong to countries that are mostly tropical. Yes, we know that there are cities/countries with lots of white or people of European descent, but when you look at the statistics, these 3 countries in the Southern Cone are definitely whiter than most of the other 17 Latin American countries (definitely within top 5). We know that there are other countries/cities within the course of history that were richer than these countries, but last 25 year of data still shows these 3 countries are "richer" than most of the other Latin American countries (save maybe one or two). We know that Argentina is currently facing an economic downturn, but recent data still hasn't shown Colombia, Mexico or Peru are surpassing its GDP per capita and that any of these 3 countries will overtake it consistently in the near future.
"More temperate" doesn't make any sense. Climate is classified as temperate if the coldest month has a mean of -3 to 18 degrees Celsius. Most parts of Costa Rica are too warm for that. Other cities mentioned qualify as temperate because they have the subtropical highland climate due to their very high altitude despite being located close to the equator (low latitude). These places normally have very small temperature variations between their hottest and coldest months. The climate can be considered a plus, of having pleasant "spring-like" weather all year round, but as we're talking about economies here, there's are disadvantages as well. Most of these cities are far from the coast and will have disadvantage in freight costs (with sea/ocean freight being relied to transport large volumes of goods at a lower cost). Temperature might be constant, but high elevation can also cause altitude sickness among those who are not used to it.
Anyway, due to their latitudes, Santiago de Chile, Buenos Aires and Montevideo should have more similar climate to that found in Europe, and what Europeans are used to. Whether that contributes to countries having a higher HDI or per capita GDP is another question. It's just one of the theories and possibilities that have been thrown out in this discussion. You don't always have to discredit everything. Yes, we know that there are other cities in Latin America that are "temperate" but almost the whole countries of Argentina, Uruguay and Chile are in the temperate zones, whereas those cities you are citing belong to countries that are mostly tropical. Yes, we know that there are cities/countries with lots of white or people of European descent, but when you look at the statistics, these 3 countries in the Southern Cone are definitely whiter than most of the other 17 Latin American countries (definitely within top 5). We know that there are other countries/cities within the course of history that were richer than these countries, but last 25 year of data still shows these 3 countries are "richer" than most of the other Latin American countries (save maybe one or two). We know that Argentina is currently facing an economic downturn, but recent data still hasn't shown Colombia, Mexico or Peru are surpassing its GDP per capita and that any of these 3 countries will overtake it consistently in the near future.
History does matter based on the nature of the arguments you've presented above. 1. The southern cone has not become "whiter", more "temperate", or had increased European immigration in the last 25 years. 2. Argentina is the largest and most populous country in the region and has had a variety of serious economic problems starting in the mid-twentieth century. It is in a better state now, but is still in a currency crisis 3. Therefore, it's reasonable to be skeptical that ethnic makeup, climate, or immigration profile are responsible for the current economic upturn in the region.
History does matter based on the nature of the arguments you've presented above. 1. The southern cone has not become "whiter", more "temperate", or had increased European immigration in the last 25 years. 2. Argentina is the largest and most populous country in the region and has had a variety of serious economic problems starting in the mid-twentieth century. It is in a better state now, but is still in a currency crisis 3. Therefore, it's reasonable to be skeptical that ethnic makeup, climate, or immigration profile are responsible for the current economic upturn in the region.
I am not saying that those are the factors in their prosperity. Just stating that we do not need to argue again that these countries are "whiter", "more temperate" or have more European immigrants. From the statistics, they are. And no need to argue if the Southern Cone is more prosperous or not compared to the rest of Latin America, because statistics show that they are too. Whether these have any cause-and-effect relationship, whether one believes these are the factors or not are the things that are very welcome in this discussion.
"More temperate" doesn't make any sense. Climate is classified as temperate if the coldest month has a mean of -3 to 18 degrees Celsius.
you probably just made up such definition. "Temperate" means "relating to or denoting a region or climate characterized by mild temperatures". A city like Bs As where climate can be over 30ºC is much less "temperate" that another one like Bogota or Quito, where temperature never goes beyond 25ºC. And, in any case, the lowest temperature ever recorded in Bogota was -5,2ºC; in Bs As, -5,4. Pretty much the same.
Quote:
Most of these cities are far from the coast and will have disadvantage in freight costs (with sea/ocean freight being relied to transport large volumes of goods at a lower cost).
That was not your argument inicially.
Quote:
Temperature might be constant, but high elevation can also cause altitude sickness among those who are not used to it.
You get used to that in a week or two, it's irrelevant.
Quote:
most the whole countries of Argentina, Uruguay and Chile are in the temperate zones, whereas those cities you are citing belong to countries that are mostly tropical.
no, as I said, most cities in Mexico are subtropical, and the yearly average weather is below 20ºC. Most of the main cities in Colombia and a good part of the most important cities of Ecuador or Bolivia are located in the mountains. And Humbold Current has a considerable cooling influence in the Peruvian coastal cities.
Quote:
Yes, we know that there are cities/countries with lots of white or people of European descent, but when you look at the statistics, these 3 countries in the Southern Cone are definitely whiter than most of the other 17 Latin American countries (definitely within top 5).
Not at all, Chile is not more "white" than many other countries like Paraguay, Costa Rica, Nicaragua or even Colombia or Venezuela. Cuba is more white. That leaves you only with Argentina (Uruguay doesn't even count).
Quote:
but last 25 year of data still shows these 3 countries are "richer" than most of the other Latin American countries (save maybe one or two).
as I said that's not true, since Panama is already richer than Argentina, and other countries are pretty much at the same level of wealth, but, why are these 25 years more relevant than the other 180 years before them?
Quote:
We know that Argentina is currently facing an economic downturn, but recent data still hasn't shown Colombia, Mexico or Peru are surpassing its GDP per capita and that any of these 3 countries will overtake it consistently in the near future.
Yes it does, Mexico can surpass Argentina easily, it's very close. Costa Rica too. Both countries probably have lower levels of poverty than Argentina already, if you take into account inflation and other factors. Panama surpassed Argentina, as I already said.
I think the climate has less of an effect in our times than it did in the past. Now we have A/C, heaters, etc that sort of makes the climate a mute issue, especially in productive areas such as office buildings, stores (at least the large and most productive ones), etc.
In fact, A/C is the only reason places such as the Florida peninsula was able to attract so many people. Sure, most people say they moved there for the weather, but you better believe all of them have central A/C. If A/C was to disappear, they too would disappear from the Florida landscape. lol
I know A/C isn't universal in Latin America and in many places its not necessary (such as in Bogotá), but the most productive people do have it in places such as Cartagena, Guayaquil, Panama City; Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, or Santo Domingo. The weather isn't as influential anymore as it once was in the development of many places.
Look at Singapore, which has the most horrible of tropical climates. Yet, its one of the wealthiest places in the world. Don't believe for a second it would had been possible without central A/C.
I am not saying that those are the factors in their prosperity. Just stating that we do not need to argue again that these countries are "whiter", "more temperate" or have more European immigrants.
This may be the case for Argentina/Uruguay but not for Chile. Costa Rica, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil and even arguably Cuba (pre-revolution exodus) could be said to be as white or "whiter" than Chile.
Chile did have some relatively recent European migration, especially towards the central-south but not more-so than Brazil or Venezuela.
Look at Singapore, which has the most horrible of tropical climates. Yet, its one of the wealthiest places in the world. Don't believe for a second it would had been possible without central A/C.
Yes it would have. When they were building up their country, they didn’t have universal AC. And I doubt most of the people there think they live in a horrible climate. Rather they are probably horrified by the annual temperature extremes of the temperate climates. Humans are extremely adaptable - it’s the reason we’ve been able to settle almost every climate zone in the world.
you probably just made up such definition. "Temperate" means "relating to or denoting a region or climate characterized by mild temperatures". A city like Bs As where climate can be over 30ºC is much less "temperate" that another one like Bogota or Quito, where temperature never goes beyond 25ºC. And, in any case, the lowest temperature ever recorded in Bogota was -5,2ºC; in Bs As, -5,4. Pretty much the same.
I didn't make up such definition. Actually, when people say "temperate" climate, it usually refers to the countries in the temperate zone (usually between the Tropic of Cancer to the Arctic Circle or the Tropic of Capricorn to the Antarctic Circle) having four distinct seasons, as opposed to the tropical zone or polar zone. Subtropical highland climates is borderline "temperate" and don't have four distinct seasons.
Back to the topic, someone else (not me) just mentioned that cities in the temperate zones tend to be more prosperous than in tropical zones. That is true for the most part. But it doesn't mean it is the one and only factor. And it doesn't mean a "more temperate" city will automatically be "more prosperous". New York and London are often considered the most global cities. Both don't have the best climates in the world. Just because Buenos Aires can be warm during the summer doesn't prove or disprove anything with regards to the original question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joacocanal
That was not your argument inicially.
You get used to that in a week or two, it's irrelevant.
I am just saying that the climate is just one factor as far as economy goes. And desirability of climate is just one factor when people decide to immigrate or want to stay in that city/country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joacocanal
no, as I said, most cities in Mexico are subtropical, and the yearly average weather is below 20ºC. Most of the main cities in Colombia and a good part of the most important cities of Ecuador or Bolivia are located in the mountains. And Humbold Current has a considerable cooling influence in the Peruvian coastal cities.
When it comes to climate, all that has been said is that these three countries all have temperate climates. That is something they have in common. It doesn't mean that they are the only ones. Anyway, they're still the ones in Latin America with places that have similar climate as in Europe. There is nowhere in Europe that has a subtropical highland climate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joacocanal
Not at all, Chile is not more "white" than many other countries like Paraguay, Costa Rica, Nicaragua or even Colombia or Venezuela. Cuba is more white. That leaves you only with Argentina (Uruguay doesn't even count).
I am not sure where you got your data. Are Paraguay and Nicaragua really that white? I don't know what you mean by Uruguay doesn't count?
Quote:
Originally Posted by joacocanal
as I said that's not true, since Panama is already richer than Argentina, and other countries are pretty much at the same level of wealth, but, why are these 25 years more relevant than the other 180 years before them?
Yes it does, Mexico can surpass Argentina easily, it's very close. Costa Rica too. Both countries probably have lower levels of poverty than Argentina already, if you take into account inflation and other factors. Panama surpassed Argentina, as I already said.
I asked a question, and that is my definition of "most prosperous". I am not denying that Panama has higher per capita using data coming from other sources than Chile, although in some, it's still lower. Those I am very aware already. But still, Panama has only overtaken Chile a year or two. Data still shows these 3 countries as more prosperous compared to the other Latin American countries the past 25 years. And I said except for one or two countries, and am looking for a "region" rather than just one or two countries that do not border each other. I think 25 years of data is good enough to assess the economy of a country. I don't see any reason why 180 years of data is necessary at all.
I just go by what I have known so far from reading about these countries. And what has been written regarding the Southern Cone. I just have that question if there is any specific reason. I am not Latin American. I am not white, not Native American, not mestizo. And I don't have ties with any of the Southern Cone countries, or any of the Latin American countries for that matter. I have no interest in favoring any country in the discussion.
I think the climate has less of an effect in our times than it did in the past. Now we have A/C, heaters, etc that sort of makes the climate a mute issue, especially in productive areas such as office buildings, stores (at least the large and most productive ones), etc.
In fact, A/C is the only reason places such as the Florida peninsula was able to attract so many people. Sure, most people say they moved there for the weather, but you better believe all of them have central A/C. If A/C was to disappear, they too would disappear from the Florida landscape. lol
I know A/C isn't universal in Latin America and in many places its not necessary (such as in Bogotá), but the most productive people do have it in places such as Cartagena, Guayaquil, Panama City; Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, or Santo Domingo. The weather isn't as influential anymore as it once was in the development of many places.
Look at Singapore, which has the most horrible of tropical climates. Yet, its one of the wealthiest places in the world. Don't believe for a second it would had been possible without central A/C.
It's not just how comfortable the climate is for humans. A large factor since early times is availability of water. Aside from that, what economic activities are available in the area. Some of the most inhospitable environments have people because they have valuable resources such as metal ores, minerals, petroleum, etc. Singapore's climate is not the most horrible, but that location is where many of the freight ships pass by. Same with Panama.
Having AC is a modern convenience but people have put up with horrible climates since ancient times. Egypt has even worse climate than Singapore, but it's one of the world's earliest civilizations.
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.
