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.
You've been reading too much Leftist U.S. hating conspiracy propaganda. There's not one single thing the U.S. has done that has kept South American countries down. None. And last time I checked, having resources is a good thing. Certainly beats not having any. Of course it all depends on what you do with it and if you are incompetent like many of the South American countries are, well then you see the results.
And that gets us back to what I said earlier that you quoted, which is when you reward people on the basis of a race or other identities other than merit such as competence, knowledge or achievement, then the country as a whole will never be high achieving.
We did support a few coups and authoritarian leaders who promised to say no to Soviet friendly Communism.
You've been reading too much Leftist U.S. hating conspiracy propaganda. There's not one single thing the U.S. has done that has kept South American countries down. None. And last time I checked, having resources is a good thing. Certainly beats not having any. Of course it all depends on what you do with it and if you are incompetent like many of the South American countries are, well then you see the results.
And that gets us back to what I said earlier that you quoted, which is when you reward people on the basis of a race or other identities other than merit such as competence, knowledge or achievement, then the country as a whole will never be high achieving.
I don't think I have been reading much of any leftist US hating conspiracy propaganda. I do like to read a lot of history books and economics literature, but most of them wouldn't really be considered leftist. I don't subscribe to the idea that the evil gringo country came in and ruined a perfect utopia if that's what you're thinking, and that isn't unlikely, because you're pretty bad with nuance and details
The US isn't necessarily trying to keep any South American countries down--only that it has intervened on many occasions and perhaps the largest ramifications are the very pivotal support it gave to regime changes in the vast majority of South American and Latin American countries. This isn't a conspiracy, but simply what was part of US foreign policy and very well documented. There's no crystal ball as to what might have happened, because perhaps things could have been worse under those governments. However, one thing for sure is that the actual effects are enormous whether or not it was for the better or worse. This would make any kind of idea that the contribution of any government reparations policy be significant in comparison pretty ridiculous and that's what I responded to originally.
The same with having resources--this isn't a good or bad thing. It is simply one of the primary driving forces behind how South American countries got to where they are now that is far greater in effect than any government reparations policy. Now in regards to how resources can be good or bad for the overall health of an economy, the primary issue is if that national economy is especially dependent upon a certain resource which means that market shocks for one or a small basket of goods creates massive disruptions. The Dutch disease, which various studies have pointed to that resource dependence as causal rather than just corresponding to lack of competitiveness in other sectors, is already pretty evident in countries with strong governmental institutions, established other sectors of the economy, and a more diverse economy, so you can imagine how this plays out with the various South American countries that also gets a shot of foreign intervention which generally sows at least a bit of chaos.
You've been reading too much Leftist U.S. hating conspiracy propaganda. There's not one single thing the U.S. has done that has kept South American countries down. None. And last time I checked, having resources is a good thing. Certainly beats not having any. Of course it all depends on what you do with it and if you are incompetent like many of the South American countries are, well then you see the results.
And that gets us back to what I said earlier that you quoted, which is when you reward people on the basis of a race or other identities other than merit such as competence, knowledge or achievement, then the country as a whole will never be high achieving.
The US has awarded things to white men legally up until the 60s or 70s. No one else could enter top universities, go into politics, etc.
Ditto South American nations until the 1990s. The affirmative actions programs were fine because Blacks and Natives lived in utter poverty and were essentially excluded from the society because of the history of colonialism and slavery.
Nations like the Dominican Republic and Brazil were set up under colonialism to be sugarcane slave based economies. There was no need for the Spanish and Portuguese to properly build up public institutions when all they wanted was the sugar. The Spanish conquered Mexico and Peru ave literally looted their gold and carted it off to Europe.
There wasn’t a major push for infrastructure until the 90s bad had that point no modernizing nation can afford to live half or more of the population functionally illiterate or without basics like running water. So governments had to step in a d address the poverty among Blacks and Natives specifically created by Spanish imperialism. Which were really crimes against humanity. Conquering large numbers of people and steaming their gold? Enslaving people a d selling the sugar and boozed produced by then in Europe and not laying them anything? What would the be but poor? These firms of exploitation went along until the 20th century.
The US has awarded things to white men legally up until the 60s or 70s. No one else could enter top universities, go into politics, etc.
Ditto South American nations until the 1990s. The affirmative actions programs were fine because Blacks and Natives lived in utter poverty and were essentially excluded from the society because of the history of colonialism and slavery.
Nations like the Dominican Republic and Brazil were set up under colonialism to be sugarcane slave based economies. There was no need for the Spanish and Portuguese to properly build up public institutions when all they wanted was the sugar. The Spanish conquered Mexico and Peru ave literally looted their gold and carted it off to Europe.
There wasn’t a major push for infrastructure until the 90s bad had that point no modernizing nation can afford to live half or more of the population functionally illiterate or without basics like running water. So governments had to step in a d address the poverty among Blacks and Natives specifically created by Spanish imperialism. Which were really crimes against humanity. Conquering large numbers of people and steaming their gold? Enslaving people a d selling the sugar and boozed produced by then in Europe and not laying them anything? What would the be but poor? These firms of exploitation went along until the 20th century.
institutionalized structural inequalities ... is one hell of a drug - to paraphrase rick james.
And of course European nations offer reparations in the form of citizenship to Holocaust survivors and their descendants, cash payouts to the survivors, etc. The Inquisition was 500 years ago and the descendants of those Jews can get Spanish or Portuguese citizenship.
Europe and South America are horrifying to right wing Americans for some obvious reasons. The US will have to address structural racial economic issues, it will have to deal with how the lack of public sector investment (little in the way of public sector investment) has Hermes all Americans.
The Democratic Party has substantially changed along those lines already.
I don't think I have been reading much of any leftist US hating conspiracy propaganda. I do like to read a lot of history books and economics literature, but most of them wouldn't really be considered leftist. I don't subscribe to the idea that the evil gringo country came in and ruined a perfect utopia if that's what you're thinking, and that isn't unlikely, because you're pretty bad with nuance and details
The US isn't necessarily trying to keep any South American countries down--only that it has intervened on many occasions and perhaps the largest ramifications are the very pivotal support it gave to regime changes in the vast majority of South American and Latin American countries. This isn't a conspiracy, but simply what was part of US foreign policy and very well documented. There's no crystal ball as to what might have happened, because perhaps things could have been worse under those governments. However, one thing for sure is that the actual effects are enormous whether or not it was for the better or worse. This would make any kind of idea that the contribution of any government reparations policy be significant in comparison pretty ridiculous and that's what I responded to originally.
The same with having resources--this isn't a good or bad thing. It is simply one of the primary driving forces behind how South American countries got to where they are now that is far greater in effect than any government reparations policy. Now in regards to how resources can be good or bad for the overall health of an economy, the primary issue is if that national economy is especially dependent upon a certain resource which means that market shocks for one or a small basket of goods creates massive disruptions. The Dutch disease, which various studies have pointed to that resource dependence as causal rather than just corresponding to lack of competitiveness in other sectors, is already pretty evident in countries with strong governmental institutions, established other sectors of the economy, and a more diverse economy, so you can imagine how this plays out with the various South American countries that also gets a shot of foreign intervention which generally sows at least a bit of chaos.
You are always so longwinded to try to make it like you know a lot but it's mostly Leftist jibberish.
I highly doubt that South America would be economic powerhouses even if the U.S. never did anything. If anything, the U.S. brought stability to most of the Americas because of the Monroe Doctrine. The U.S. is also many of these countries' biggest and readily accessible market. Those are all advantages including vast amounts of natural resources that only incompetent countries would fail to capitalize on and they fail over and over again.
Everything else is just excuses, which the Left is good at: "I failed but it's not because of me but because of so and so and this and that..."
You are always so longwinded to try to make it like you know a lot but it's mostly Leftist jibberish.
I highly doubt that South America would be economic powerhouses even if the U.S. never did anything. If anything, the U.S. brought stability to most of the Americas because of the Monroe Doctrine. The U.S. is also many of these countries' biggest and readily accessible market. Those are all advantages including vast amounts of natural resources that only incompetent countries would fail to capitalize on and they fail over and over again.
Everything else is just excuses, which the Left is good at: "I failed but it's not because of me but because of so and so and this and that..."
Like I said, you don’t do details well.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 07-03-2019 at 11:07 AM..
Using the US as a scapegoat is a favorite practice among failed governments in poor countries trying to excuse their own failed policies and bad and corrupt governance. I come from one of those countries myself.
Governments that really care about their people and want to truly develop their countries do not have these issues. Just look at Vietnam, by all rights a country that suffered horribly due to US military, and fairly recently in historical perspective. Yet, they maintain good relations with us and are on the right track to development, and do not blame the US for their setbacks, but blame their own politicians.
If any foreign government politician blames the US for their internal issues that's an immediate red flag on the corrupt crackpot meter.
Using the US as a scapegoat is a favorite practice among failed governments in poor countries trying to excuse their own failed policies and bad and corrupt governance. I come from one of those countries myself.
Governments that really care about their people and want to develop their countries do not have these issues. Just look at Vietnam, by all rights a country that suffered horribly due to US military, and fairly recently in historical perspective. Yet, they maintain good relations with us and are on the right track to development, and do not blame the US for their setbacks, but blame their own politicians.
Yep, it’s helpful to have a bogeyman.
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.
