Being in Latin America. Brazilian people are incredibly creative and know how to solve their problems, they are a great country (probably the best in Latin america), but they can't be better because of their surroundings.
>>554172 This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, coffee today is still one of Brazil's big exports. Not the greatest anymore but still good. Second, coffee declining prices didn't fuck up Brazil so much by the late 19th century because they had other resources to export. Third, there were 3 different government forms between the first republic and until the military takeover of the 60s. It wasn't as simple as that.
>>554199 >First of all, coffee today is still one of Brazil's big exports. Not the greatest anymore but still good.
I never said they didn't grow coffee anymore, thanks for putting words in my mouth
>Second, coffee declining prices didn't fuck up Brazil so much by the late 19th century because they had other resources to export. >Although the coffee economy may have accounted for no more than 16 percent of Brazil's gross domestic product (Leff 1982), it was the mainstay of the national economy. At its peak, the coffee industry generated three-fourths of Brazil's export earnings.
>>554081 Brazil couldn't compete with Europe and North America as a center of industry in the Atlantic area, during the cold war it also needed military rule to stop the commies. Now new technology means industry need not be so centralized and the temperate areas in the South are seeing fast economic growth alongside Argentina and Chile.
The Old Republic is what went wrong. A republic that no one wanted and thus had no stake in, and subsequently decades of political power being entirely in the hands of coffee barons with no interest in industrialization.
Basically the end of the Empire paralyzed any and all possibility of reform or internal growth.
Right now: our politicians decided to listen to Post Keynesian economists. We got a stagflation as a result of Post Keynesian policies. Hired a Chicago economist to fix this mess. He found out that with our current populist congress, it is impossible to fix this mess. He quit.
>>554917 Pedro II was a great leader. Launching a coup to install a republic was fucking disastrous.
Well, if current Brazil's problems are due to military rule imposed by a threat of communism, as >>554313 claimed, what would it be like had one not been installed? Even more corruption and less economic freedom?
[SPOILER]I don't know what kind of communists he's talking about, that's why I'm asking. Stalinists, Maoists, local populists?[/SPOILER]
I'm assuming Brazil is a pretty multicultural country - could the issue be just that; multiculturalism? On every fucking stat I've ever seen homogeneous nations are more prosperous and less violent. When South Africa started mixing people violence exploded, expected life span plummeted. Same goes for Sweden & violence since they opened the gates to middle eastern immigrants. The examples are endless but you get the point.
if you to have a thrieving economy and finally be the "country of the future" start exporting your women (and i mean your women - not your "half" women) portugal will be looking for those raw materials
>>555084 >I'm assuming Brazil is a pretty multicultural country - could the issue be just that; multiculturalism? It's not exactly like that. Brazil has people who come from different cultures, ethnicities and backgrounds, but once they enter the country they are forced to assimilate. They are not handed any benefits. People will not hesitate in making fun of your culture, although, at the same time, you will feel welcome. You have to learn Brazilian culture in order to survive.
>>554081 Deeply rooted culture of destructive, exploitative extractivism, massive racial and socio-economic splits (despite the relative mixing), populism, crushing bureaucracy, american and european meddling since pretty much Pedro II, very little order despite what's on the flag thus limited planning all across the board.
Unloading a bunch of greedy portuguese, italians and spaniards in a land full of riches and too big to keep a tight check tends to end badly >>555084 cuck detected. multiculturalism is actually one of the few strenghts brazil has. It's really nice to walk a round and see a full pallette of humanity; a true melting pot instead of the usual anglo salad bowl
>>557653 It also spent way more money than it needed in any of these things. Accrued a ridiculous amount of foreign debt, sent Brazil into a corkscrew of inflation and then left the mess for the civillians to fix.
>>555084 >>555084 Can you name any prosperous homogenous nation that isn't Japan? When you look at the image what do you come up with? Historically, can you think of any prosperous state that was racially or culturally homogenous?
>I-It's the culture guys! The corruption we never fixed! No, better yet, let's blame the Portuguese! The U.S. had a period where they had so much corruption that they ended up paying more for a court house than for all of Alaska due to bribes n' shit. Yet look at them now.
The reason Brazil didn't grow as much as it could have was because they industrialized far too late. Brazil is like a U.S.A. where the south always dominated.
To give an example on how bad Brazil is for business.
A Hospital hired a guy. Guy was a poor worker. Hospital fired the guy. Our Labor Justice made the Hospital rehire the guy because he was a crack addict. They said that since crack addiction was a disease, firing a crack addict is a form of discrimination. Since discrimination is illegal in Brazil, they had to rehire the guy and pay the months of salary that he didn't work.
So, basically, no one wants to open new companies in Brazil.
>>557736 not Australia m8 plenty of other cultures represented here. we had a big "italians and greeks are cool" phase after they all were immigrating away from war torn europe and set up shop here. also a massive influx after Vietnam.
>communists Brazil is a Huge country. a communist revolution, like the one in cuba would be impossible, mearly due to the sheer size of the country. And we always had a conservative population (or at least a population afraid of changes), so a communist coup would be impossible in Brazil, just as it is on the USA.
>João Goulart >Communist He was a leftist, i'll give you that. but his govenrment was years away from a commie ideals. in fact, the communist party in brazil considered him a corrupt politician (which he was) and only marginaly better then the others, while the Right wing belived that since he was in favour of Worker's rights, he was a Godless Commie bastard . just as they believe today's left are commies, when they are actually quite center.
>>558802 write my words. Marci is gonna fall, because his government plan is undoing everything Krishner did (which was not all bad) and then waiting for everything to fix itself. the bunch of decrees he signed since assuming show that he does not gives a shit about anything. and the people in argentina are used to taking presidents down, he will be just another one.
>>561705 >Scandinavia has transparent governments, high levels of public trust and public participation >they try for social democracy >it works >South America has corrupt governments, a public that hates and fears one another, and a tradition of government by a well-born elite >they try for social democracy >it doesn't work
>>561736 Argentina is literally the go-to example people point to for how to fuck up a country.
>never bother investing in rule of law or strong institutions because you get by fine selling beef to gringos >oh fuck commodities prices are down >oh fuck, a military coup >oh fuck, populists feeding off of all the poor, disenfranchised people >oh fuck, another coup
>>554626 >digitize literally every financial transaction by the government, and have this information publicly available to crack down on graft >try to create a Korea style commodities boom to get all of the favela dwellers into real jobs >hang Dilma from a lamp post >do every conceivable thing that you can to move up the Ease of Doing Business Index >birth control everywhere
>>561735 Scandinavia has also some of the freest markets in the world and a huge concentration of wealth. Still, their system is already crumbling and reforms that reduce government welfare are on the way.
Brazil could do with a healthy dose of nationalism. The cost of a decently integrated 'multicultural' ethnic composition has been a near total elimination of integrated national cultural identity (other than in futebol). Nationalism has its downfalls, I'll agree, but a great and necessary strength is giving the individual a sense of giving to the community. In my experience, there is no such sentiment here. Everyone is out for themselves and their loved ones, and that's it. Pretty sure this is one contributing factor to the corruption. There is absolutely no sense of guilt and betrayal because nobody sees the nation as your own people. Particularly not young people, which is worrying for the next generations.
>>554081 Both the historical right-wing (military regime) and the left-wing (PTB, PT, PDT) promoted centralization of power, control of the state over the economy (oil, natural gas, electricity, infrastructure, banking), and have repeatedly resorted to inflationary economical policies.
To give you some perspective, all telephone communication was state-owned until 1998, by Telebrás. You had to wait months to get a residential line, "middle-class" neighbors used to completely rely on payphones well into mid 90s.
Another element that is more particular of the current crisis is political fragmentation. There are more than 25 parties with seats in the parliament. No party has more than 70 out of 513 seats, the opposition is very small, almost all politicians prostitute and have prostituted themselves to support the ruling party, in exchange they are legally authorized to direct some part of the federal budget to the place where they got elected, they can nominate people close to them, even their family, to posts inside public companies (more than 100k posts in Brazil are politically nominated), posts in ministries (there are more than 30 bullshit useless ministries in Brazil). Politicians don't defend anything, they are there to practice traffic of influence. The ruling party not only did buy the parliament to support their projects, but also to prevent them from investigating them, since they're all getting something in return and involved. So it serves as protection.
If you're American or British, I advise to not complain so much about your 2-party system.
You are one of those Brazilian underdogs? The Brazilian government is stable and not even close to chaotic.
I'm not going to explain the advantages of a big country.
Brazil is not an US simply because it isn't. The reasons go from culture, language, religion to geography, climate and political structure of the last 200 centuries. It's easy to just point fingers at some historical period and say that's it.
You're not going to get a concrete answer to what "went wrong" in Brazil, here on an anonymous board.
>>564424 Yeah, but that is true for almost every country on Earth. Specially for countries the size of Brazil. One could say the same about France or Germany, sure there would be less differences, but nobody can possibly claim a Corsican and a Norman have the exact same culture neither could one claim they aren't French.
>>561705 >What went wrong in every Latin American country? Huge socialist states. Same thing with Africa and some Asian countries. Soon: USA and Europe. Except asian countries developed with huge amounts of state intervention, and the african countries that are basically coerced into orthodox economic policies by the imf went to absolute shit (not that they weren't shit already).
that is used as leverage to defend the chimera of self-subsistence, leading to closed economy, huge import taxes, deindustrialization, almost nonexistent innovation and low standards of living. Of course this is supported by the highest oligarchy, since they don't want to compete with foreign companies, and the so-called "progressives", dumb (or dishonest) people who think they are fighting against the status quo when they are doing precisely the opposite.
>>557736 >Portugal until very recently. Never prosperous, not as far as most of the population was concerned. And the rich were sustained by our own brand of politically correct "blanda-up" brand of colonialism that spawned Brazil.
Our own nationalistic, conservative, fascist government endorsed the ideology of "luso-tropicalism" that stated the Portuguese were better colonialists (read: fuckers) than the Dutch and the Anglos.
>>554081 From what I remember, historically Brazil was a lot like the ante-bellum American South for a long time in the sense that it was an agricultural society run by a landed, slave-owning elite. Because there wasn't much of a counterforce like in the USA, both the abolition of slavery and Brazilian industrialization didn't come until much later, like the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Industrialization was stifled because there wasn't a large source of cheap wage labor like the USA had with immigrants. Immigrants didn't go to Brazil because 1) it was costlier to get there, and 2) being former slave-owners, many Brazilians were absurdly cruel employers. I don't remember why the former slaves couldn't just become the wage labor pool, maybe they weren't willing to work for their former masters again?
There was also a string of military coups/dictatorships throughout the 20th century that probably destabilized things, and let's not forget the rampant corruption and crime down there that likely drives the costs of doing business with Brazil through the goddamn roof, so foreign investment shrinks.
As for the resources, the Amazon rainforest is right there, but I think I remember reading somewhere that harvesting the Amazon's resources is (or least was, for a long time) ridiculously costly due to things like the heat, the climate, the hyper-dense foliage, local fauna, etc. On top of that, in this current age of environmentalism, I would imagine there'd be considerable political opposition to further deforestation.
>>565681 Brazil has 9 neighbors. Of those, only 2 are more violent. Therefore you're dead wrong. Most cocaine production happens in Peru and they're not close to being as a murderous hole as Brazil is.
>>565758 >Le /pol/ boggiee man Ever considered latin america is poor because most people descend from slaves and injuns? or are you too brainwashed to consider the idea?people have nothing to do in the fate of a nation! only trivial shit like climate and the amount of seeds available are valid explanations.
>>565690 > Industrialization was stifled because there wasn't a large source of cheap wage labor like the USA had with immigrants. True, but we did get immigrants, it just pales in comparison with the USA. The biggest problem was the lack of internal market due to slavery
>As for the resources, the Amazon rainforest is right there What kind of resources are you talking about here? The only really important resources from there I can remember of are the huge iron mines in Pará and water for hydros, even then it's suboptimal
>>565806 how do you explain East and West Germany or South and North Korea, then, retard? Their culture is similar, their genetic make-up is similar, their economical policies were radically different and the results are visible to everyone.
>>565782 >What kind of resources are you talking about here?
Idk, I would just imagine that such a huge rain forest would have a number of natural resources around, from ores to plant-based resources to local fauna. I haven't actually looked into what's out there and I freely admit my ignorance on this point.
>>565817 Communism can ruin high potential societies because it goes against human nature and undermines the individual worth of the people. How do you explain haiti and dominican republic? only difference between the two is amount of european admixture.
>>565801 >>565806 >Scandinavia, Canada, Norway, Australia All suffered somewhat from dutch disease and are a little bit too primarized, compensated through other factors.
>despite being the most scientifically sound viewpoint :^) Do you want me to quote intellectuals saying japanese were a bunch of retard when they weren't developed? Or maybe the same with germans? Or with southeast asians? Or what romans thought of celtic and germanic tribes? Etc. Culturalist and racial explanations are always post hoc rationalizations.
>>565841 >Do you want me to quote intellectuals saying japanese were a bunch of retard when they weren't developed? >when they weren't developed? 19 century intellectuals? kek Japan was a high IQ country regardless of the state they were in the past,just like China is a high IQ country despite the shitty state they are now,however their biology will triumph over their material condition and they will develop. > Or maybe the same with germans? Again high IQ people under harsh condition. >>565854 So you're saying all races have the same intellectual capabilities? are you aware of the average IQ of Africans and Injuns? you people love science until it goes against your ideology.
>>565879 Yes, i'm aware you consider those people smart, which is why i talked about post hoc rationalization. Before they were developed they were considered a bunch of retarded savages by the civilized world, that's the point. Your point of view is completely unoriginal and has been held by the relatively developed countries in regard to the relatively undeveloped ones through history, even though the groups of developed and undeveloped has changed constantly. The rationalization is particularly obvious when you read racists talk about history, and the huge mental juggles they do regarding egypt, greece, african and arab empires, etc. Especially compared to how northern europeans fared.
>>565879 IQ has very little to do with the development of a nation. You never ever need high average IQ for a population to develop, just several men who either invent or trade technologies, a powerful enough force to reign over several countries or regions, etc
IQ overall is still, and remains, a dubious way to classify people according to their intelligence. It's improper to call it a "science", and it doesn't represent intellectual capabilities, only a potential to improve.
>>565826 >>565841 >>565854 Well every now and then there is also some low IQ mulatto autist like yourself who thinks he is smart, because the mongrelization process is unstable and all sorts of bizarre brain shapes(cognitive types) are relatively common as a result.
>>565932 >Before they were developed they were considered a bunch of retarded savages by the civilized world You're implying modern Germans are genetically indistinct than the tribesmen that lived around the area in ancient times,even if they were which is impossible then its their harsh condition that put them down,people with potential eventually overcome their burdens,meanwhile countries with tons of potential resource wise but populated by people that have none never develop. Why is human biology such a taboo in the study of human groups? this is Orwellian. >>565933 > You never ever need high average IQ for a population to develop Which is wrong,the only exceptions are oil exporting giants which are the macroeconomical equivalent of a trailer park trash winning the lottery. > and it doesn't represent intellectual capabilities, only a potential to improve. Well I said POTENTIAL a lot so we are in agreement. >>565947 This is actually pretty far from the truth,IQ is genetic in the most part and environmental(proper nutrition,etc),education has little to do with it. IQ=education is a texbook fallacy in this kind of argument.
>>565984 >environmental(proper nutrition,etc),education has little to do with it Education comes factors into environment.
Look outside schools, into agricultural populations with low literacy. They don't think differently just in quantitative terms, but also in a qualitatively distinct fashion. Like, when asked to pair objects, they tend to pick different criteria than school-taught children. And so, their tests scores are less of a measure of general intellectual development and more of a measure of literacy.
>>565989 >Stop using science to try and make sense of my worthless major! Back to /his/ oh wait, >>565990 >Genetically evolved Why do you need to put words in my mouth to make your argument? Germans from the 2 thousand years ago are not the same people as Germans from today,humans migrate and reproduce with each other they are not static,your historical comprehension is too antiquated gramps. >>566003 Depends.
>>566006 Have you ever taken an IQ test? its abstract problem solving,you dont even need to be literate. If the IQ test you are familiar with has words in it then its not mensa approved and nobody takes it seriously.
They are lazy. Very lazy. This fact is corroborated by both Brazilians themselves, and anyone who has to conduct business in Brazil for whatever reason.
There was never that feverish rush to greatness that the United States encountered with its boatloads of people ready to hit the ground running and make their fortune, or the core principles of government that the Constitution enabled
>>566017 >Have you ever taken an IQ test? its abstract problem solving,you dont even need to be literate.
there are frequently problems such as "Recompose <bunch of shuffled letter like 'DARAR'> into a word", which depends on memory and vocabulary. Try taking an IQ test in a language you only have intermediate level of understanding.
>If the IQ test you are familiar with has words in it then its not mensa approved and nobody takes it seriously. I used Weschler's. It's one of the most respected.
And the study I was refering wasn't an IQ test itself. It used pictures and was meant to see what kind of criteria people with different backgrounds used to categorize objects. People with formal education, all around the world, think differently from people without, even if they are closely related. Most illiterate people can't even get into formal logic (stuff like syllogisms concerning nonsense).
>>566009 I didn't put words in your mouth. You say modern germans are genetically different to old germanic tribes, which can be the result of either mixing or evolution. Given that you are a racist i assumed you weren't defending race mixing. So, which one is it? Did race mixing lead to intelectually superior germans or was it evolution?
>>566009 >>Stop using science to try and make sense of my worthless major!
Science is a process involving experiments and numerical observations which test conjectures. This does not have any relevance to IQ test surveys. Science is also incapable of making judgement values and has no relevance to the argument that this or that major should be pursued.
In this case that major happens to be mathematics.
>>566014 That's my point, anon. Romans considered them retarded savages because, as i said "culturalist and racial explanations are always post hoc rationalizations", not because they were actually inferior.
>>566039 That's not a valid IQ test,did you even read the second line of my post? >>566041 Have you considered iliterate people are iliterate because they are intellectually inferior biologically? its 2016 (I mean come on people.jpg) there is no excuse left. >>566044 > Given that you are a racist I will stop replying to you now,but yes I implied mixing and migration lead to modern germans which is true whatever you like it or not. >>566047 >Psychology I'm a doctor,I think I know a little about human biology,more than a Freudian pseudoscientist mind you.
>>565834 Basically, it's easy to harvest wood, fruit, meat, and farmland from the rainforest - but once you take the wood out and make the farmland, it's not a rainforest anymore. The soil you get is great at first but significantly declines in agricultural yield over time IIRC. So the highest profits came from clearcut/slash/burn/farm/move cycles, which aren't conducive to growing long-term wealth for the workers. Workers are most of the people, so if life is kinda suck for them life is kinda suck for the nation.
>>565837 I'm seeing reports that Haiti and the Dominican Republic had fairly similar economies around 1950. Since Haiti didn't just suddenly turn black in 1950, I suspect that the actual cause of the difference is Papa Doc mismanaging the government. Authoritarian states suffer from the problem that whenever an idiot gets put in charge of something important they can arrest anyone who doesn't appreciate their greatness, and political patronage=lots of rich idiots running ministries they don't understand as their personal piggybanks.
>>566073 >dismisses psychology as "Freudian pseudoscientist" >uses IQ in arguments
Come on man, at least try and pretend you're not making this up as you go along.
Also, blunt question: do you think white people, or a certain tribe/ethnicity/whatever of white people, are innately genetically superior to, let's say, Africans? A straightforward answer would be appreciated.
>>566073 >Have you considered iliterate people are iliterate because they are intellectually inferior biologically? I didn't imply the study was done in 2016.
I said these differences existed between people that were closely related (same villages, same tribes).
These sort of trans-cultural studies usually target people that are less immersed in global culture for the purpose of comparison. Many of them don't have access to formal education, some receive the bare-bones. Nonetheless, those that do receive formal education usually have close relatives that didn't and these cases are useful for study.
>>566073 Who did they mix with to become superior? Also, you may want to write a paper about how evolution changed retards into intellectually superior people in something like 50 generations, you may win a nobel prize.
While i'm at it, psychology isn't psychoanalysis.
>this guy actually thinks he's some paladin of science
>>566093 >dismisses psychology as "Freudian pseudoscientist" >uses IQ in arguments Psychiatrists use IQ tests,are you saying psychiatrists are not men of science? Superior in what way? intelligence? pretty much,living under the scorching african sun ? no If you disagree please use logic and facts to support your outrageous claim. >>566111 >Who did they mix with to become superior? Also, you may want to write a paper about how evolution changed retards into intellectually superior people in something like 50 generations, you may win a nobel prize. You are putting words in my mouth again,who said something about evolution or superiority again? you are trying to dismiss me a stormfag with strawman arguments,fuck off.
>>566123 >Psychiatrists use IQ tests,are you saying psychiatrists are not men of science? Psychiatrists, historically, have more of a Freudian bend. Freud himself was a doctor of medicine.
Psychometrics, and cognitivism in general, branched from behaviorism, a school of psychology that opposed followers of Freud and Jung and tried to "scientify" psychology by reducing all of it to the study of observable behavior. Cognitivism, and psychometrics, came later.
Most research is done by experimental psychologists, not psychiatrists.
>>566123 Well, it will be easier if you tell me where do modern germans come from and what their relation to old germanic tribes is according to you. >who said something about superiority You said "high IQ people". Since high is a relative term it implies superiority. Not to mention you explicitly used "intellectually inferior biologically" in your discussions. Come on, anon, let's be honest here.
>>566148 The way you are using the word superior in your posts is not as you mentioned in relation of the quality of their IQ but a crude attempt to dismiss my side of the argument by linking it to nazi ideology which leads me to bail out of this thread because of the futility of arguing with people that believe everyone who disagrees with them is literally Hitler.This is not reddit nor your humanities college,I'm not obligated to humor your prejudice and childish disposition towards cotroversial(socially)ideas.
>>566190 I'm just pointing out that diverse groups of people have believed they were smarter than other groups of people depending on their relative levels of development, and that the same groups of people have been in both the smart and the stupid sides at different points in history. I exemplified this with the germans, and the anon has been unable to provide an explanation that wasn't extremely vague.
>>566196 >i use the term "intellectually inferior biologically" but i get offended if people use the term "superior" in the discussion That's pretty stupid, anon.
>>566073 >Have you considered iliterate people are iliterate because they are intellectually inferior biologically? its 2016 (I mean come on people.jpg) there is no excuse left.
If you, your parents, and your grandparents had never attended school, would you be literate? Available social services or lack thereof can hurt literacy without the need for any innate biological inferiority. I'll demonstrate this with a simple question of the sort you might find on an IQ test:
(Two different languages because I wanted to demonstrate both the result of a BAD education and the result of NO education - the first is close enough to English that it's reasonable to expect you to puzzle it out without resorting to translation software.)
>>565984 >Why is human biology such a taboo in the study of human groups? this is Orwellian. Really? How long did you spend in a reeducation camp for posting racist theories?
The reason it's taboo is because when low-IQ types learn that biology can influence cognition, they then come up with dumbshit theories that explain how their favourite race is the BESTEST EVER. Nazi propaganda against Jews described them as cleverer than Aryans, and therefore an exploitative evil to be purged from the German gene pool; Nation of Islam religious doctrine claims that whites are an artificially-created extra-clever race and therefore exploitative and evil.
>>554081 >a lot of resources that is it when colony, we were heavily exploited by portugal, and nowadays we only get money from commodities thats a really hard question to answer, there's probably hundreds of reasons
>I'm just pointing out that diverse groups of people have believed they were smarter than other groups of people depending on their relative levels of development, and that the same groups of people have been in both the smart and the stupid sides at different points in history. I exemplified this with the germans, and the anon has been unable to provide an explanation that wasn't extremely vague.
That may be true, but it doesn't disqualify the possibility. There is evidence in favor of a biological basis as well and I personally think it's a synthesis of biological and cultural situation.
Also, it's very difficult to try to compare the situation of ancient bronze age civilizations versus today, a globalized information age world that I would say is much more heavily predicated on intellectual ability. It's kind of hard to try to shoehorn a 1:1 comparison.
>>566217 Sorry I have better things to do in a saturday evening that talking to a brickwall,for example masturbating to pictures of my ex and baking a pizza. >>566226 Intelligence does not make you a superior being,the ability to adapt and survive your enviroment determines your success as a living being. You're trying to pass me as a "durp master race hurp" stormfag because it suits your argument. >>566229 So you're saying some people have potential but the circumstances keep them down,like Japan in the past, and when the circumstances are in their favor they can prosper. Congratulations you agree with me,meanwhile people and societies with all the right circumstances fail because they had no potential whithin them. Do you understand now? Also valid IQ test have no linguistic component,not a single fucking word besides the instructions that can be given orally by the test giver. >>566229 >really? How long did you spend in a reeducation camp for posting racist theories? If this was social media I could lose my job and in some countries get arrested (uk) The reason biology in history is taboo is because of afrocentrists and nordicists? that's a new one,never heard that excuse before.
>>566301 >Intelligence does not make you a superior being,the ability to adapt and survive your enviroment determines your success as a living being. Intelligence is often defined as the ability to adapt behavior to the environment.
Populism and nationalism are the two biggest factors for failure. Around 80% of the population is opposed to privatization, and thinks americans are the bad guys. Most of the population thinks social democracy is a right wing concept. Also, we have absurd labour laws, much like France, but without a productive population. There are some other factors, land was always expensive due to arbitrary government laws , while labour was relatively cheap.
Also Delfim Netto, which is the most important brazilian economist of the last 60 years, managed to simply break the country for three decades after three years of "Economic Miracle". Our president loves him to the heart.
>>557631 Why would we all get fucked? I mean, aside from medication that comes from the forest, which we can synthesize anyway, why? The Taiga and Canadian Boreal Forests produce more than 8 times the oxygen required by the world.
>>566268 We don't have to go all the way back to the bronze age anon, just go one or two centuries back and the japanese and southeast asians were considered intellectually inferior. Even regarding germans you don't need to go all the way back to the bronze age. Every country country that developed magically went from being considered inferior to superior.
It's similar to the weberian correlation of development and religion. Weber correlates protestantism with capitalism and culturalists say that catholicism is unfit for development, then southern europe develops and catholicism is suddenly good for development. When southeast asia was underdeveloped, culturalists claimed it was due to confucianism, which supposedly promoted bureaucracy and social rigidity. After the asian miracle, confucianism was claimed to favour development thanks to its emphasis on thrift and education.
Long story short, it is not impossible that racial or cultural explanations have some truth in them, but it is a mere possibility, while the bias of developed countries to rationalize the lack of development of the rest due to inferiority in some all-encompassing factor is well documented.
>>566327 Brazil should obliterate its tropical biomes,right now a disease carried by the dengue mosquito that causes anencephaly in fetuses has arrived in south america from africa and its thriving in Brazil risking to spread all over,I dont want my life quality to be on risk because greenpeace bullies Brazil to keep taht disease breeding ground cesspool.Though a disease that can pretty much make people who cannot aford advanced healthcare to reproduce could make wonders for the region.
How would you say that factor into a national policy
For example, the situation in Europe
There are those willing to say that it's entirely feasible to simply import masses of people from failed and underwhelming states in order to replace or buff the fertility rates of the native population. They cite racial and national differences in cognitive ability as primarily, if not entirely, functions of education and not lack of potential.
Now, if their premise is correct, everything goes normally. If not, you now have a very large sub-class of permanently underwhelming people draining public resources, contributing to increased crime, and shaping your national policy in terms of government, likely for the worse. Is it really progressive to stake the future of your country on this wager?
>>566335 > the japanese and southeast asians were considered intellectually inferior. According to propaganda and the opinion of the masses. How about we come back to the present for a moment shall we? is there a high IQ country that's underdeveloped? yes ,its called China,its poor but nobody considers it a country of barbarian but a country that has the potential to become great despite its troubles. The difference between correlating religion with development and INTELLIGENCE with development should be self evident to you.
>>566380 Earlier in the thread I talked about IQ being the human capital potential,it can be undermined by circumstances but given an oportunity they will prosper, on the other side of the coin there are low IQ countries with high material potential but low human capital potential and thus never develop.
>>566392 What circumstances were undermining europe when it was inferior to the arab world? How did low potential people like the arabs have such a relatively great civilization? What circumstances were undermining korea when it had an african tier economy just half a century ago? What was undermining spain in relation to, say, argentina, an inferior country that fared much better a century ago? I could ask a million questions like this. Pure rationalizations.
>>566416 >What circumstances were undermining europe when it was inferior to the arab world? The fall of the biggest empire known to man? >What circumstances were undermining korea when it had an african tier economy just half a century ago? Isolated from the world in a sandwitch between two giantic rival nations. >What was undermining spain in relation to, say, argentina, an inferior country that fared much better a century ago? Argentina 100 years ago was indistinct from Europe population wise and had loads of untapped land to boot.
>>566301 >So you're saying some people have potential but the circumstances keep them down,like Japan in the past, and when the circumstances are in their favor they can prosper. >Congratulations you agree with me,meanwhile people and societies with all the right circumstances fail because they had no potential whithin them.
Thing is, I'm considering Papa Doc Duvalier's misrule a circumstance and I think you're considering him a lack of potential.
>Do you understand now? >Also valid IQ test have no linguistic component,not a single fucking word besides the instructions that can be given orally by the test giver.
The IQ tests I've taken have all had significant linguistic components. Now, AFAIK the people trying to analyse racial or regional IQ variations usually DO try to make their tests cultureblind, but they don't necessarily succeed. How well do you think someone with no background in plane geometry and little in paper use would do on Raven's Progressive Matrices?
>>>566229 (You) >If this was social media I could lose my job Sorry, but the bossman oppresses you over lots of shit, not just race. Try posting that most people don't need or want the shit your company sells and you can get better stuff made in China for 10% less and see how long you're still employed.
> and in some countries get arrested (uk) Not unless you're shitposting a lot harder than anything I see in this thread. I've seen UK citizens saying worse under their real identities without being arrested.
Hell, you get arrested for what I've seen in this thread and I'd have to use my professional identity to say that the arrest was shit.
>>566430 >The fall of the biggest empire known to man? >Isolated from the world in a sandwitch between two giantic rival nations. There was no external force undermining europe, so i don't see how this is an argument. In their own hands they ended up worse than inferior arabs. And korea wasn't isolated post ww2. Basically if the country that now has the highest IQ was more developed, your theory is confirmed, but if it isn't your theory has (irrelevant) had hoc political explanations. Quite unscientific for a paladin of science like yourself. >Argentina 100 years ago was indistinct from Europe population wise and had loads of untapped land to boot. Argentina in the beginning of the XX century was as european as in the 1970s, and spain was pretty much the same, so you're not explaining anything. You're going to have to come up with some other rationalization. And you missed one question.
All this started with you claiming that "Human biology is what determines development". Turns out that human biology determines development except when it doesn't.
>>566519 Tenés alguna fuente para decir que el % de (descendientes de) europeos era diferente a principios y a mediados de siglo? Porque por lo que recuerdo de haber estudiado de estructura social argentina no había cambios significativos.
>>566537 >Porque por lo que recuerdo de haber estudiado de estructura social argentina no había cambios significativos. ¿Segun quien ? la inmigracion del interior y de los paises limitrofes cambio la composicion etnica de lo que se considera argentina centro. Esas cosas no te enseñan en sociales,no debes ni saber que fue el aluvion zoologico.
>>566554 Acordate que dije 70s. La información era de censos, salvo que me tires un dato duro le creo más a mi recuerdo de la info posta que a tu percepción (que por otra parte seguramente es irrelevante hablando de 40 años atrás). Si encuentro la info que tenía la posteo.
>>566641 People, yes. Anyone. It is not restricted to race. Two white persons can, and almost surely will have, different mental capabilities. Same thing between a black person and an asian person or anyone else. What I am saying is that minor mental differences between individuals are not an excuse for why some nations fail. There is absolutely no indication that white people in general are more mentally capable of developing a country than blacks, if based solely on intelligence and civility.
>>564346 >>564330 >>564246 You're both right. Brazil is much more unitary due to it's geographical nature of being a coast w just a deep forest to penetrate behind it and then there's all of Spanish America which was truly far flung and was far too large to be administered and consolidated into one national identity.
>>555084 >>557478 >It's really nice to walk a round and see a full pallette of humanity; a true melting pot Multiculturalism works in brazil because they don't come from a few countries, go to the same place and ghettoize, there are small numbers of people from dozens of different countries and everyone gets melted down and mixed together in the favelas.
In other words it works because the do the complete opposite of what liberals tell them to.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.