I hear there is lot of corruption in Brazil and Argentina could that be why there is a lot of poverty and social inequality.
What happen to Brazil and Argentina that they not like Sweden or Denmark and other first world countries.
Also the government seems really poor and have little money unlike first world countries.
And same problem in Brazil and Argentina is in Mexico.
What happened to Brazil, Argentina and Mexico that didn’t happen to “first world” countries?
“First world” countries happened, that’s what.
Well put.
Based on GDP, it can be argued that Argentina is the one with all the problems, while Brazil and Mexico (that could do better) are not too far from other developed nations. “*”
For example, Brazil’s gross GDP of almost $2 Trillion in 2022 was just ahead of Australia, Mexico was not too far behind with almost 1.5. Real GDP in Argentina was estimated to be $580 Billion US dollars at the end of 2022.
When looked as a percentage for the world, Brazil share of the world economy is 1.91%, Mexico 1.41% and Argentina is 0.63%.
“*” And yes, Argentina was not among the top 20 in 2022.
You know how the old saying goes: there are three kinds of economies in the world – developed, developing, and Argentina.
Same thing that is happening to Russia and China and many other poor countries in Africa, South-East and Central Asia, Eastern Europe and Central and South America: lack of middle class, no civil society, no government governance, corruption, endemic violence, concentration of power and ressources in the hands of a few oligarch families, no independent system of justice (Rule of Law or Rechtsstaatlichkeit), excessive reliance in extractive industries, and too many badly educated, often illiterate underclass slaves or almost slaves with no rights or the means to enforce them. That is for starters. Oh, yes: and the first world, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are not useful. Never ever. Capital flight and brain drain is a problem too. Both completely logical and understandable (I mean: what would you do?) but extremely unfortunate. And the rules for intellectual property and patents put them at a disadvantage too.
This is what is happening in Brazil, Mexico and Argentine? Can you elaborate on this?
These are former Spanish or Portuguese colonies. For most of their existence their society consisted of a tiny European elite class (in the colonial era literally from Europe, being of European descent but born in the Americas didn’t count), with the rest of society being impoverished (or enslaved) rural masses.
This isn’t new, especially for Brazil. It’s an enormous country with a large indigenous population that has been exploited for cheap labor for a long time. The large cities were a draw for people trying to find a better life, but most ended up living in favelas (Brazilian for ‘slums’), which still exist. Bolsonaro continues to be a polarizing president, which doesn’t help things, and corruption is rampant.
Does Brazil lack factories and jobs in the city unlike first world countries?
Did Brazil, Mexico and Argentine industrialized?
Is the indigenous population still exploited today?
I am afraid that elaborating on the points I sketched would fill a long and controversial thread each. But just concerning the inequalities in those countries searching for GINI coefficient there would illustrate the general point. So yes, I claim that inequality and wealth concentration is a major problem. El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua etc. suffer from the same affliction, just like Congo, Sudan, Kazachstan, and many others. Does the problem have historical roots? Yes (see the post #7 about Spanish and Portuguese colonialism), but knowing that does not help solving it.
People say there is concentration of power and ressources in the US but the US has a strong middle class.
So the concentration of power and wealth in the US is also a problem but the US has a strong middle class.
Some how the US, UK and Canada got a strong middle class and good paying jobs but some thing happen to Brazil, Mexico and Argentine.
Argentina has been called “the poorest rich country in the world”. (I heard the line over 40 years ago and don’t know if it’s still used, but AFAIK it’s still true) In other words, with its natural resources it should be rich. But corruption and mismanagement have kept it poor.
Its neighbor Chile, on the other hand, has been doing better for decades.
The minuscule indigenous population isn’t that much of an issue in Argentina. There aren’t many of them; I think most were killed in the 1800s. In other words not too many of them to exploit.
Was it the Spanish and Portuguese where different than the US, Australia and Canada where they exploit the resources and send all the resources and money back to their country. Where the US, Australia and Canada set up colonies so lot of the low income and middle income moved to the US, Australia and Canada and set up colonies and work there.
Where in Brazil, Mexico and Argentine it was just land owners and slaves working on say plantation and mining. Unlike the British and a French that set up colonies and people moved there and worked there.
So in way the economy of Brazil, Mexico and Argentine was base on slaved workers working on plantation and mining. Where US, Australia and Canada was base on people moving there and setting up colonies and working there and living there.
Clearly, its Soccer.
The actual saying is that there are four kinds of economies in the world: advanced, developing, Japan, and Argentina.
Not really, inequality and populism clealy predate soccer. Your hypothesis would struggle to explain England/UK too (and in the end, Germany used to win), I would consider it hereby falsified.
Both also had plenty of the other kind of colony, too.
Wasn’t Argentina one of the richest and most developed countries in the world at the beginning of the 20th century? I remember reading that it was on par with Western Europe at the time.
If so, what happened?