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.
The general concept is a good one but as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am not a fan of bumper sticker political slogans: "Build The Wall" or "A US Marshall Plan for Latin America"...if the problem were so easy to fix it would have been done so long ago.
Not saying we should not continue to provide aid and build on what works but huge political promises like this are likely to disappoint big time.
Why hasn't Latin America prospered more than other parts of the world (US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan)?
1. Geography: About 70 percent of Latin America is in the tropics which makes everything more difficult. More exposure to malaria, yellow fever, cholera, etc.
2. Civil Law tradition vs. Common Law: The region's legal system is rooted in Civil Law. A common law system is more conducive to economic growth and development.
3. Colonial Agriculture/Large-Scale Plantations: In North America (USA/Canada) there was more mixed farming centered on grains and livestock, and smaller units, which led to more democratic political institutions, a more robust protection of property rights, and a larger middle class.
Why hasn't the region matched the growth of some Asian countries?
In the early 1960s, Latin America’s per capita income was more than double that of East Asia. And today the region lags significantly behind. Several Asian countries that started from low levels of income 50 years ago—such as South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong—have become developed nations. No country in Latin America can be named developed, although a few are higher-middle income.
During this period, East Asia was fully into export promotion, low trade barriers, less protectionism, and fewer controls and regulations. By contrast, the populism in Latin America during the 1950's (some of it a reaction to Yankee imperialism) led to major protectionism which by the 1980's was just a complete failure.
What can the region learn from its most successful neighbors:
Costa Rica, Uruguay and Chile are the three highest performing countries in Latin American in terms of GDP per capita and Human Development Index (HDI). What do they are share in common: a market economy and a welfare state with relatively open trade and rule of law and basic human rights, etc.
Argentina a 100 years ago had one of the highest gdp in the world. It was the Peron government that nationalized everything. Peron government was an avid fan of National Socialism.
Argentina a 100 years ago had one of the highest gdp in the world. It was the Peron government that nationalized everything. Peron government was an avid fan of National Socialism.
Argentina's dramatic decline has long puzzled economists. Simon Kuznets, a Nobel laureate, remarked: “There are four kinds of countries in the world: developed countries, undeveloped countries, Japan and Argentina.”
Decline had already set in by the time Peron came to power (though clearly populism of any kind including Peronism is/was a disaster).
Argentina may have been rich 100 years ago but it was not modern. That made adjustment hard when external shocks hit.
Lack of Education/Modern Development:
Argentina was rich in 1914 because of commodities: its industrial base was only weakly developed. Filipe Campante and Edward Glaeser of Harvard University compared Buenos Aires before the first world war with Chicago, another great shipment hub for meat and grains. They found that whereas literacy rates stood at 95% in Chicago in 1895, less than three-quarters of the residents of Buenos Aires knew how to read and write. Without a good education system, Argentina struggled to create competitive industries.
Long-run national success is built on human capital, both because of the link between schooling and technology and because of the link between education and democracy.
Protectionism/Closing Trade:
Argentina had become rich by making a triple bet on agriculture, open markets and Britain, then the world’s pre-eminent power and its biggest trading partner. Then came the 1930's Depression, which crushed the open trading system on which Argentina depended. Argentina raised import tariffs sharply in 1933. Reliance on Britain, another country in decline, backfired as Argentina’s best export market shut down.
Argentina's dramatic decline has long puzzled economists. Simon Kuznets, a Nobel laureate, remarked: “There are four kinds of countries in the world: developed countries, undeveloped countries, Japan and Argentina”
He said that before the rapid rise of the other Asian economies. Japan can no longer be seen as a unique case at all. Every country in the genetically similar East Asian group is now rich or on the way to being so. And all of them have done it in the same way - by exploiting a population genetically endowed with high spatial IQ to build a manufacturing industry that can produce quality goods efficiently and cheaply.
Quote:
Long-run national success is built on human capital, both because of the link between schooling and technology and because of the link between education and democracy.
Yes, but human capital is not built on schooling. Schools are just one of the things countries with high value human capital are able to do well. They are more effect than cause.
Kudos to Jeh Johnson for being brave enough to state the obvious.
Quote:
On Tuesday, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said he would “virtually eliminate immigration detention” by executive order. During last week’s debate, presidential candidate Julián Castro proposed decriminalizing illegal border crossings — a position other Democrats in the race rapidly adopted.
Others in the party are urging caution, saying the push toward decriminalization risks playing into Trump’s hands.
“That is tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders,” said Jeh Johnson, who ran the Department of Homeland Security during President Barack Obama’s second term. “That is unworkable, unwise and does not have the support of a majority of American people or the Congress, and if we had such a policy, instead of 100,000 apprehensions a month, it will be multiples of that.”
I agree with Jeh Johson and I am a lifelong Democrat. The party's base activists are wing nuts...sad to see most of the 20 plus "D" candidates follow the looney left out to a fringe position on this issue.
This is the intelligent humane way to address immigration and not only would it bring immigration to a halt, it would make the Americas a far better and healthier place. The USA's policies that have caused so many problems in Central America could make up for much of that with a Marshall plan.
May slow it but bring it to a halt? I strongly doubt it.
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.
