Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "What if Latin America was Rich?" video.

@quisqueyanguy120 But they share the same civilization and so what hampered them was their governmental system which is the only real difference. On paper they should be as wealthy and powerful as the US. They should have been much like northwestern Europe. But it's poor and has been poor the entire time. And it's been around while being independent and exposed to the west for far longer. Basically everyone else who isn't wealthy is because they haven't been independent and have only very recently been exposed to industrialization. Thus, they're only poorer by not having enough time to grow. But Latin America, which has been around longer than Anglo America, is still poor. We know the factors of why Eastern Europe isn't rich and it's because of the Soviets really which hampered a lot of that growth. The Asian countries aren't rich because they industrialized in a generation and the only one which started to industrialize earlier is already rich. They'll almost certainly be rich before Latin America is as they always have been. Turkey will likely drag in much of the Arab world along with it as it's largely already industrialized. And then some parts of Africa are industrializing and growing very quickly such as the newly formed EAF which was a region entirely under British rule
2
I'm going to push back on the US being weaker here for one reason: the US still has its heartland and everything it inherited. And with competition with other American powers it seems like it'd be arguably stronger unless the Spanish states are getting lots of foreign immigration as well. The US with still controlling much of the Great Plains (the breadbasket of the world), still having the industry of the northeast, martial tradition of the southeast, and then actual naval access Sonora would mostly lack, I don't see Sonora competing as well and feel like it'd be eaten in a Great Power war on the north American continent. Since most of the population of Sonora would be on the west coast and on the edges of the Great Plains with lightly populated desert in-between, it's pre-disposed toward division and until rail and air conditioning it would mostly be not great. We can also likely assume a gold rush with Americans flooding the region basically colonizing it before it even starts a great power war. At which point it would integrate the population effectively after its annexation. Thus putting the US in a position as basically the Hegemon of North America and allowing it to build up mostly unmolested after since likely not even the Spanish states would be able to project power there. A continental hegemon is a pretty good starting place and basically gives the US its current status as just a mega Britain even if can't control South America.
1
@kirilll7806 Yeah no way to expand north when you're already desert and hard to control. Even with extra wealth there was just no expansion against the very hostile natives and even more hostile desert.
1
@kirilll7806 For me it's been over a year. However, while Sonora may not be completely uninhabitable, it's really only inhabitable in the modern day with extra technology and much better irrigation. So much so we can grow cotton there. Outside of that, it was basically unsettled with incredibly isolated pockets crowded around small water sources. Most of Texas's population is in the green East, and most of Mexico's population is in Central Mexico around Mexico city. There's almost no reason to settle in Sonora and the borders are still pretty natural as it's a big fuck off desert which is hard to live in.
1
@kirilll7806 The problem here is that even the Europeans probably wouldn't have figured it out. Comparatively wealthy nations aren't necessarily as inventive and it's simply the Americans who were able to pull that off. Wealth doesn't mean they know how. Nor have the desire for expansion.
1
The point is that it should have been rich And honestly it hasn't advanced much with even Africa starting to explode and get richer and a few African states being as wealthy as the Latin American ones. Realistically it should've been like the US.
1
@k.t.5405 That's so wrong I don't even know where to begin. First off slave societies are almost always poorer than any other society. Also that's flat out WRONG as they both imported slaves and also didn't exist 350 years before Britain and America outlawed slavery. Next much of the protestants' wealth came not from slaves, but from industry and robust trade which is why the North of the US was so much wealthier than the South of it. Even more so South America (especially Brazil) relied on it far longer than the US did. In fact it's part of why Brazil is so poor today. The Spanish and Portuguese were also the first to import slaves as they started to settle before the British did. So overall... you're just wrong. On every level.
1
@k.t.5405 It became a safe haven because it was a foreign country and thus did not have justification. That's why Canada was ALSO a slave haven. The laws are only enforceable within your borders. Also you completely have missed out on how the prosperous sections of these countries were NOT the slave parts. Which is why the northern US was also a very strong slave haven. 300 years of slave-free labor? This is 1820 and 200 years earlier in 1605 you had slaves strip mining gold and silver which contributed to high inflation in Spain because of it all flowing back there. Btw Spain only banned slavery in 1811 and Cuba straight refused to ban it.
1
@k.t.5405 King Charles V was the holy Roman emperor and thus that only applies to the Holy Roman Empire which Spain was never a part of though he did ban it during his time as king of Spain only on the Iberian peninsula and took until 1811 to ban it across the Empire as the ban applied only to the native Americans and Asians, not the Africans. Even then the underpaid labor of the native Americans was coerced. Oh and what's even funnier? Holy Roman Empire is Germany. So Germany got wealthy entirely without slaves.
1
@k.t.5405 Number 1: That anti-slavery tradition is nonexistent. Completely nonexistent and they were enslaving and buying slaves the entire time. Number 2: While it was outlawed in name it was in limited capacity and so slavery was still practiced even if not just in the strict sense. Number 3: Central and Northern Europe, with 0 slave trade, still came out wealthy and the slave dealing parts of the countries came out much poorer. Oh also Japan is still more wealthy even though it only started in the 1850s. Your reasoning is erroneous and easily explained away. Stop.
1
@k.t.5405 One: Slaves will as long as it is outside the jurisdiction since the law literally can't be enforced Two: I'm just going to send you the link here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_colonial_Spanish_America Read all about how slavery manifested in Spanish America Three: Well France didn't even really have slaves except in Haiti so jot that down. But the wealthiest territory? Then that would be the Northeastern US, Prussia, or Austria within the Holy Roman Empire. Spain would not be on the list with its large colonial empire. Also you have completely failed to acknowledge how I've brought up Germany and Japan which ran completely without slaves. Hell even the Soviet Union was more wealthy and was a backwater under serfdom. Your entire argument is moot and ridiculous.
1