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.
There is a notion among some Latin Americans, not just some Argentineans, that if they would had been colonized by the English they would be developed. That is obviously false, but it’s based on the fact that the most developed countries in the Western Hemisphere tend to be Canada and the USA, plus in other parts of the world there are the cases of Australia, New Zealand, etc.
Anyone that closely studies the different aspects of the British Empire will notice that most countries that were a part of the British Empire are found in Africa and Asia. Outside of there, the Caribbean area is where many countries that were part of the British Empire are found too. Most countries that were part of the British Empire are not rich and developed like the USA or Australia. Kenya, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, India, etc are some of the countries that were a part of the British Empire. In fact, you make a comparison between the development of them and many Latin American countries and you will find the Latin American ones are richer, have longer life expectancy and overall are better countries than those places. In the Caribbean you have former British colonies such as Barbadoes that are doing relatively well, but then there are places like Jamaica or Belize that are doing worse than even Argentina, let alone the rest of Latin America with the exception of places like Venezuela or Cuba.
Another point that msny don’t seem to grasp that the notion Anglo-Saxon North America is wealthier and more developed than all Latin American countries is really a recent phenomenon. Throughout the 1500’s, 1600’s, 1700’s and even part of the 1800’s the Western Hemisphere most developed cities were not NYC or Los Angeles or Chicago or Toronto. It was places like Mexico City, Lima, Quito. Spanish American cities were symbol of wealth and many of refined culture and it was in Spanish America and not in English America that it was seen as economically, culturally, etc more advanced. After the Industrial Revolution things began to favor countries like the USA, but not before.
In the future the most developed and advanced societies will not be Anglo-Saxon ones, but from some other place as the only thing certain in history is change.
Argentina became one of the world’s richest countries at the beginning of the 20th century and its Spanish/Italian roots were not an impediment for that. Many Argentineans may not be aware that despite everything that has happened to Argentina, they still live in a country that gives a better life to a larger percentage of its population than in most countries today that were part of the British Empire. Places like the USA are more exceptions than the rule.
If you do a comparison between all the countries that were part of the Spanish Empire and all the countries that were part of the British Empire, the first group are better off by a long shot.
So your thesis is that THE seminal cause for Argentina’s decline is that the Brits failed to conquer it. I mean, OK, but I feel like that may be some sort of fallacy. It’s kind of like saying “the reason I’m poor is that I didn’t win the lottery”. That may be technically correct, but do you NEED to win the lottery in order to achieve prosperity? Can you achieve prosperity with hard work and ethics, like everyone else? If not, why not?
And here’s another point: if a failed British conquest is the main reason, why isn’t Uruguay also a mess? Why is Uruguay now in much better shape than Argentina? In terms of the DNA, the two countries are basically identical. It’s like identical twins adopted by different families.
I'm not saying that the defeat of the Brits at Buenos Aires in 1807 is the whole reason of why Argentina has declined markedly from its place in the early/mid 20th century and has become a mess. Once 1807 passes and time marches on, there are a whole bunch of complicated and interacting social, political, economic, geographic, and other factors particular to Argentina (and not even necessarily to Uruguay) that come into play - something that would have added quite a few more words to the article and would have made it more unwieldy to read. And there has been a whole series of bad decisions and policies, whether Peronism or various coups or whatever else, that has put Argentina through a downward spiral, regardless of whether or not there would have been a British invasion earlier on.
Nonetheless, the events of 1806 and 1807 are a critical starting point - one which doesn't directly lead to Argentina being in the mess it’s in, but one which gets the ball rolling. What I mean is that without a British formal presence (as in real life) the Spanish-style land distribution system is left more or less intact, while with a British formal presence, that system is mostly superseded by a fairer, Homestead Act-style system. In the latter scenario, all of that leads to less inequality than in reality, which in turn means less polarization between the pro-immigration liberals and the anti-immigration conservatives, which in turn means no 1930 coup, which in turn means no Peronism to put Argentina through a downward spiral which compounds itself decade by decade. (The Pampas - including Mesopotamia and Uruguay - are pretty unique in Latin America [with far southern Brazil being the other big example] in that the unequal land distribution system really kicks into high gear after, not before, the early 19th century. And the Pampas - more than many other Latin American regions - is essentially one giant ranch or has been treated as such.) In real life, Argentina has been a messy, not neat, cross between the US, Canada, and Australia on the one hand and the other Latin American countries on the other hand.
While it is true that Uruguay isn’t nearly as much a mess as Argentina, its per capita income isn’t as high as in the developed countries (even though it is substantially higher than Argentina’s nowadays), and it did go through lapses of democracy in its own right in the 1970s and 1980s just like most of the rest of South America (but, again, unlike at least most of the developed countries). The same thing is true of Chile. It’s every bit as mired in bureaucracy as countries like Spain or Italy, maybe even more so, and certainly much more so than Northwestern Europe, the UK, the US/Canada, Australia/New Zealand, etc. And it has at times been hard hit itself whenever Argentina has been in severe crisis mode. Even if Argentina weren’t in any more of a mess than Uruguay or Chile, it might still be in a middle income trap or, at most, might be a low-level developed country along the lines of Portugal or Greece.
There is a notion among some Latin Americans, not just some Argentineans, that if they would had been colonized by the English they would be developed. That is obviously false, but it’s based on the fact that the most developed countries in the Western Hemisphere tend to be Canada and the USA, plus in other parts of the world there are the cases of Australia, New Zealand, etc.
Anyone that closely studies the different aspects of the British Empire will notice that most countries that were a part of the British Empire are found in Africa and Asia. Outside of there, the Caribbean area is where many countries that were part of the British Empire are found too. Most countries that were part of the British Empire are not rich and developed like the USA or Australia. Kenya, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, India, etc are some of the countries that were a part of the British Empire. In fact, you make a comparison between the development of them and many Latin American countries and you will find the Latin American ones are richer, have longer life expectancy and overall are better countries than those places. In the Caribbean you have former British colonies such as Barbadoes that are doing relatively well, but then there are places like Jamaica or Belize that are doing worse than even Argentina, let alone the rest of Latin America with the exception of places like Venezuela or Cuba.
Another point that msny don’t seem to grasp that the notion Anglo-Saxon North America is wealthier and more developed than all Latin American countries is really a recent phenomenon. Throughout the 1500’s, 1600’s, 1700’s and even part of the 1800’s the Western Hemisphere most developed cities were not NYC or Los Angeles or Chicago or Toronto. It was places like Mexico City, Lima, Quito. Spanish American cities were symbol of wealth and many of refined culture and it was in Spanish America and not in English America that it was seen as economically, culturally, etc more advanced. After the Industrial Revolution things began to favor countries like the USA, but not before.
In the future the most developed and advanced societies will not be Anglo-Saxon ones, but from some other place as the only thing certain in history is change.
Argentina became one of the world’s richest countries at the beginning of the 20th century and its Spanish/Italian roots were not an impediment for that. Many Argentineans may not be aware that despite everything that has happened to Argentina, they still live in a country that gives a better life to a larger percentage of its population than in most countries today that were part of the British Empire. Places like the USA are more exceptions than the rule.
If you do a comparison between all the countries that were part of the Spanish Empire and all the countries that were part of the British Empire, the first group are better off by a long shot.
A few points to consider:
1. I'm not sure if you, AntonioR, carefully read the following part of my article: "One must bear in mind that the British settler colonies like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, to which Argentina would have been similar, were quite different from the extractive colonies in the British Empire like Belize, Jamaica, Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe, or India." While it is true that Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Panama, and Costa Rica are in many ways better off than the British extractive colonies, countries like Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua, and certainly Haiti are as underdeveloped, if not more so.
Also remember that even in the British extractive colonies, the British colonial overlords at least built infrastructure like railroads, things that were more lacking in the extractive colonies of other European empires. As well, at least the British left their mark in places like Barbados and St. Lucia in terms of providing the locals the skills to build good governance and maintain orderly societies, in contrast with something like Haiti. For more, take a look as follows: https://aristotlefoundation.org/colu...ritish-empire/
2. The fact that the likes of Mexico City and Lima were more prosperous than their early United States counterparts is a reflection of the greater inequality between the cities and the rural areas in Mexico or Peru than in the Thirteen Colonies. It's just like the US South being more prosperous than the US North prior to the US Civil War, in that the US South had much more inequality between the plantation owners and the slaves and other rural workers than was the case in the US North. Furthermore, the US as a whole already surpassed Mexico and Peru in per capita income by 1700 or shortly thereafter - take a look as follows: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/g...ry=MEX~PER~USA
3. Argentina did become a rich country in the early 1900s despite its Spanish/Italian roots; this is true. Nonetheless, it became rich primarily because of the enormous investments that British firms and individuals had in infrastructure like railroads; this level of investment, in absolute numbers, approached dominion levels. And the wealth of the country didn't last so long beyond that era, and it was built on a rather shaky socioeconomic and political structure.
1. I'm not sure if you, AntonioR, carefully read the following part of my article: "One must bear in mind that the British settler colonies like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, to which Argentina would have been similar, were quite different from the extractive colonies in the British Empire like Belize, Jamaica, Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe, or India." While it is true that Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Panama, and Costa Rica are in many ways better off than the British extractive colonies, countries like Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua, and certainly Haiti are as underdeveloped, if not more so.
Also remember that even in the British extractive colonies, the British colonial overlords at least built infrastructure like railroads, things that were more lacking in the extractive colonies of other European empires. As well, at least the British left their mark in places like Barbados and St. Lucia in terms of providing the locals the skills to build good governance and maintain orderly societies, in contrast with something like Haiti. For more, take a look as follows: https://aristotlefoundation.org/colu...ritish-empire/
The whole notion of extrative economies is just a theory, not written in stone. There is a basic premise underneath it all and that is that things such as the work ethic from the Protestants and a few other thibgs explain the economic success of countries like the USA. Yet, that is also assuming that the USA has always been developed, which it wasn’t. In fact, several places in Latin America were wealthier by the time the 13 colonies became independent and much of this notion had existes in those places for several centuries before.
Another point aften ignored about the proponents of things like the “extractive economies” is that it’s a theory that was invented in the USA and many of its current proponents are either Americans or foreigners that have lived for a long time in the USA.
The entire notion that “Argentina would had been similar” is simply based on the large white population thst migrated there, despite the white population that migrated to places like the USA overall were from a different extraction than those that largely peopled Argentina. As was said before, Uruguay is very similar to Argentina in this front and yet, it’s much more stable. If that was the case, then Argentina and Uruguay should be just about the same on all fronts.
The other proponent which goes along the population argument is the assumptions that the Spanish didn’t settled in their territories, but rather were a type of enterprise to become rich and then return to Spain. In reality, the Spanish did treat their territories in the Americas as extensions of Spain. Many institutional aspects from Spain were estsblished up and down Latin America. To give one example are the universities. You mention Haiti, but it was a French colony which was run more like an enterprise to make money. The French never established any universities in Haiti or any of its other colonies. Tertiary education was obligatory to be received in France, particularly in Paris. Yet, across the border the Spanish had founded two universities in the 1500’s, one being the first university ever created in the Western Hemisphere. This was over 200-300 years before Saint-Domingue became relevant. The same was established in other places by the Spanish such as in Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú, Chile, etc. With the case of Haiti it wasn’t a case of the French leaving many institutions there and then the Haitians destroyed them, but rather most of those institutions never existed there. You can’t destroy what doesn’t exist.
If you want another exampke out of many others, the notion that lead to the creation of the United States (taxation from the British crown to the North American colonies when they had no representation in London) is womething that never dould happen in Spanish America. Each American Spanish territory was represented by a Diputado in mainland Spain. How many Diputados represented each territory depended on the population size of its citizens, with those places that had a total population less than necessary to receive its own Diputado had to be represented by the Diputado of the geographically closest Spanish territory. The only place that was given an exception was Santo Domingo which was allowed to be represented by its own Diputado regardless of its population size of citizens. Technically, Santo Domingo was supposed to be represented by the Diputado of Puerrto Rico. The main reason this was the decided was that Santo Domingo was the first Spanish territory in the Americas (la primada), that’s it.
Furthermore, and this can be seen genetically, is that the impact of the Spaniards in their territory does show they greatly settled them as Spanish ancestry is significant and widespread throughout Spanish America. In Argentina Spanish ancestry is actually very similar in size as it’s in the rest of Spanish America. Rather that the typical Argentinian with at least some Spanish ancestry being mixed with Africans like in Santo Domingo or Natives in Chile, instead they are greatly mixed with Italians.
There are many other things that the theory regarding “extractive economies” ignore (maybe conveniently?) because they contradict the basic premise on which it stands. It also assumes that some things that were not true of the British Empire (such as its colonies having representation in the government in London) were also not true in Spanish America, except in reality they were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolfe
The fact that the likes of Mexico City and Lima were more prosperous than their early United States counterparts is a reflection of the greater inequality between the cities and the rural areas in Mexico or Peru than in the Thirteen Colonies. It's just like the US South being more prosperous than the US North prior to the US Civil War, in that the US South had much more inequality between the plantation owners and the slaves and other rural workers than was the case in the US North. Furthermore, the US as a whole already surpassed Mexico and Peru in per capita income by 1700 or shortly thereafter - take a look as follows: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/g...ry=MEX~PER~USA
The foncept of the wealfare state didn’t exist until basically the 20th century. Even the United States had glaring contrast between its major cities and the surrounding countryside. This began to change in the 20th century and it was a policy from the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolfe
3. Argentina did become a rich country in the early 1900s despite its Spanish/Italian roots; this is true. Nonetheless, it became rich primarily because of the enormous investments that British firms and individuals had in infrastructure like railroads; this level of investment, in absolute numbers, approached dominion levels. And the wealth of the country didn't last so long beyond that era, and it was built on a rather shaky socioeconomic and political structure.
Argentina is still one of the wealthiest and more developed countries in the developing world and that isn’t by chance. To put it another way, Argentineans don’t truly know what it’s like to live in a typical developing country because their country is way above most of the rest.
British investments did play a role in the increasing prosperity of Argentina, but it didn’t in the prosperity for centuries for places like Mexico City, Lima, etc.
Even Havana, which in the later half of the 1800’s had begun to be affected (positively) by America investment was already one of the wealthiest and more developed places before the American influence became relevant over there. Development of certain things that are an indirect measure of wealth would be the fine arts. The largest theatre in the world was built in Havana before the Americans became relevants. Some with other symbols of sophistication, such as Paseo del Prado which already existed in the 1860’s and probably in decades before. There is a book by Samuel Hazard titled “Cuba Past and Present.” He lived in NYC but visited Cuba in the 1860’s and describe many things he witnessed there including several chapters on Havana. As stated before, this was from before Americans were relevant. In fact, in the 1860’s is when the Civil War took place and I think when American slavery was outlawed.
In my analysis, Argentina was 100 years ago what the rich countries of the Persian Gulf are today, rich per capita, but with wealth based on a single commodity, they are not diversified economies (although they are trying), if for some reason oil loses much of their value or importance suddenly they will quickly impoverish.
Argentina had a small population and relatively large production of some agricultural commodities, which gave it a large per capita income in that time.
The great advantage that the British settlement colonies had over the Iberian ones was the fact that they could have pioneered industrialization together with the UK.
People and their capital moved between the UK, the USA and the other British colonies, even with the USA already independent.
These people had industrial knowledge whether as workers or entrepreneurs. They had access to industrial technologies. So the industrialization and enrichment of the British colonies was a continuation of what happened in the UK.
The south of Brazil has many small mechanical and weaving factories founded by immigrants from central and northern Europe (most Germans).
They came with this knowledge that Iberians and southern Italians did not have.
My great-grandfather came to Brazil from northern Italy with a contract to work on a coffee farm.
Arriving here seeing that most poor Brazilians didn't have money to buy shoes because there wasn't much local production, most were imported from UK, not even from Portugal, and as he had already worked in a shoe factory in Milan, he started making shoes by hand, then he had a small factory. The US had this at a much higher rate
And here’s another point: if a failed British conquest is the main reason, why isn’t Uruguay also a mess? Why is Uruguay now in much better shape than Argentina? In terms of the DNA, the two countries are basically identical. It’s like identical twins adopted by different families.
Here is an updated version of the same article, including not just an update from last month (March 2024) but also a new section (right before the conclusion) on why Argentina is now not just behind the developed world but also its neighbours Uruguay and Chile, something that addresses fair criticisms that igorcarajo and 1-2 other readers of the article made a couple of months ago: https://medium.com/@YafehDov/can-mil...r-609ac4553f74
For those who don't know, during the 80s after the world oil crisis, until the beginning of the 90s Brazil and most South American countries suffered from hyperinflation like Argentina suffers to this day, but they managed to stabilize their economies.
At the beginning of the 90s, Argentina and Brazil had the same policy of fixed exchange rates with the dollar to stabilize inflation, but unlike Brazil, Argentina did not follow the steps forward (public debt control, inflation targets and floating exchange rates and increase in international reserves). Although I think that the fact that Argentina is less industrialized than Brazil forces them to import more and ends up not having foreign currency surpluses like Brazil.
From what I see, Milei is trying to implement something similar in Argentina to what was the ''plano real'' (real plan) for Brazil.
For those who don't know, during the 80s after the world oil crisis, until the beginning of the 90s Brazil and most South American countries suffered from hyperinflation like Argentina suffers to this day, but they managed to stabilize their economies.
Brazil and Argentina seem to be in reverse synchronization. A right-wing government is succeeded by a leftist/populist government. Now it's our turn to be the far right with Javier Milei and Brazil the populism of Lula. Consequently, we are always at odds with each other, since our governments do not coincide except in very short intervals of time. I hope this synchronization is broken, because going back on populism and undoing everything Milei is doing would be suicidal.
Brazil and Argentina seem to be in reverse synchronization. A right-wing government is succeeded by a leftist/populist government. Now it's our turn to be the far right with Javier Milei and Brazil the populism of Lula. Consequently, we are always at odds with each other, since our governments do not coincide except in very short intervals of time. I hope this synchronization is broken, because going back on populism and undoing everything Milei is doing would be suicidal.
I support Milei's policies, so far, because something drastic had to be done to reverse the hyperinflation in Argentina. I do not think all state involvement in the economy is wrong though as Milei seems too. The state should provide for defense, education, criminal justice, fire protection, and some very basic level of welfare that is designed to prevent utter destitution and starvation. Argentina though had moved far beyond that. It had nationalized entire industries. It was subsidizing everything from internet services to gasoline purchases.
What I would hope for is that economic conditions stabilize and Argentina and other countries in Latin America are able to pursue moderation rather than going to extremes.
Last edited by markg91359; 04-30-2024 at 09:05 PM..
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.
