>both very populous
>both rich in resources
>both have oil
>both are far away from europe's wars
>both used to be colonies
why did one become a superpower and the other a third world country?
Because it's in the third world ie outside of the first and second world
Greenland is an overseas territorry of Canada.
Why Canada isn't red too? Don't ask me that but the way things are it probaly is some stupid democrat policy to make Mexicans look good. I mean just south of the US border there's Argentina and its red like wtf??
Greenland (Greenlandic: Kalaallit Nunaat [kaˈlaːɬit ˈnunaːt]; Danish: Gronland [ˈɡ̊ʁɶnˌlanˀ]) is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark, located between the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, east of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Though physiographically a part of the continent of North America, Greenland has been politically and culturally associated with Europe (specifically Norway and Denmark, the colonial powers, as well as the nearby island of Iceland) for more than a millennium.
How the fuck is it an overseas territory of canada? how do you come up with this shit?
Srry that map is a little inaccurate, this one should be more in line
>cold war maps
>zimbabwe is first world, austria is third
>Founded by the best political philosophers of the time.
>Followed the Anglo tradition
>Didn't breed with the natives
>Founded by Portuguese upper class that was terrified of the slave and mestizo majority.
>Interbred with the natives
>No great political philosophers
First world countries are called first world because they were aligned with the united states and it's intrests during the cold war same with second world and the soviet union
The third world is just everyone else who didnt align with either side
>No great political philosophers
To be honest there were quite a few, it's just literacy rates in Brazil are so low they never developed a cult following like in the U.S.
My theory is that people were so rich by the exports they never bothered to develop industrialization, or even other crops. There are records about how people couldn't even buy meat in the biggest cities while in the 1800s because every single farmer was producing coffe and no one was raising cattle. Also, leftism. 20 years of a "right wing " government and we got one of the most closed markets of the world, huge taxes and huge government.
And, as there are terrible schools, people think social democracy is a right wing concept and that the president doesn't need to follow fiscal laws.
wouldn't exactly call the 7th largest economy on the planet absolute shit-tier, but Brazil does have a lot more holding it back.
- about 40% of Brazil is inaccessible, with the rainforests and South American interior being immense geographic barriers, preventing the land from being used for economic gain.
There's a joke in Brazil that no one has ever met a person from Acre, and question the very existence of Acre because of how isolated it is because of the geographic barriers leaving it with little contact.
-Corruption is the name of the game in Brazil's government, crooked deals, misappropriated government funds, and just outright neglect by monitoring agencies is just a monumental task to overcome that keeps Brazil from reaching the potential it could have. The President is under investigation right now in fact for some shady dealings with the national oil company Petrobras, which such investigations are pretty par for the course for any Brazilian president.
-the interior is almost completely untapped. This is due to the first point, that geographical barriers are preventing people from travelling to and from the coast into the interior, and the threat of disease from the rainforests is incentive to keep people on the coastline.
There is logging and farming efforts going on in the interior of the country, but of course the international effort to halt that to save the rainforests isn't helping Brazil at all, so the country basically accepts that 40-60% of their own country is either inaccessible or off limits for development due to forest preservation.
There's a ton of small microeconomic factors that play a huge role as well, brazilian citizens are nickel and dimed to hell on everything from extremely high taxes to really high bus and airfare, which causes riots whenever the fare is raised because of how ridiculous it is to begin with.
meanwhile the government is too busy diverting money to Olympic and World Cup stadiums, which is not helping.
Brazil is not rich resources in the same way that the US is. US has all the right resources to become an industrial power. Brazil has the resources to become an agrarian backwaters.
t. Victoria 2 player.
>Iran is on our side
uhhhhhh what??? What did we do wrong?
It probably had something to do with America supporting a Monarchist coup in the 50s that all the population hated as it overthrew a republic, which resulted in an Islamic revolution in the 1979.
The Monarchy were pro-west, the Islamic revolution was decidedly anti-west.
America probably wouldn't have gone toppling democracies just because they weren't Super anti Russian, despite Russia being in their neighbour.
Brazil doesn't have coal or iron, has lower pop and low literacy. Also you need railroad level 2 to start putting down rails in jungles. All in all, Brazil is in a much shittier situation.
Like a weeaboo, but for China. It's not a very common word.
>"Sino-" meaning "Chinese" or relating to China; a corruption of "Qin" from the Latin, "Sinae", probably in origin from a Sanskrit corruption of 《 秦 》.
>"-boo" meaning obsessed with a culture to the point of mimicking it; from "weeaboo," a wordfilter dodge for "wapanese" that has stuck around longer than the wordfilter did.
Britain built up the infrastructure and native institutions of its colonies much, much more than either Spain or Portugal. There was also much, more more settlement from Britain to America, whereas both Spain and Portugal had very limited and sporadic emigration to the colonies and relied on more imported slaves, resulting in smaller populations and lower population densities. It's easy to see why one was more successful than the others.
The USA was founded on Republicanism (making politics competitive) and adopted free labor much faster than Brazil.
Also the USA's ability to expand westward and create new fortunes for new generations of people made the country less beholden to its pseudo-aristocracy back east (the planters in the South and the merchants / capitalists in the North)
the only reason they became allies was because of the mutual animosity towards the soviets. The fact that china was communist and the u.s. a federal republic with democratic leanings are the reasons that they are considered second and first world respectively
Feel free to browse the primary sources too.
Your article actually says you tried 2 times.
Attempted murder is tried as actual murder anywhere.
Feel free to read the wiki's primary sources if the wiki article itself doesnt satisfy you.
Lack of Protestantism in Brazil.
Protestants valued education and literacy very highly leading the people of the northern states to be among the most literate people in the world, an extremely valuable asset for a stable republican government and upwards socioeconomic movement. Combined with a strong protestant work-ethic that put a premium on self-reliance there was always an abundance of go-getting innovative (relatively) well-educated entrepreneurs who created enormous amounts of wealth for the budding country.
It wasn't the only reason, but protestantism certainly played a part.
You can skirt around the real reason all you like, but in the end, the difference will be just that: >>575807
That is the basis of everything else. You can easily see this by how the "whitest" areas in the country are also the best ones.
or you can go the other way around
see how the south of USA, being primarily agrarian, that used blacks as a cheap source of labour, was generally less developed than the industrialised north.
In a similar fashion, the agrarian focused plantations et. al. in brazil, that used blacks as cheap labour lagged behind (not only because of raw exports being much less conductive to growth of wealth, but also because of how plantation systems empowerished the populace, which led to poor, uneducated populations, crime rise, yadda yadda)
Indeed, if the South had won the Civil War it would become an honorary Latin American country.
But you still skirt around the issue blaming it on labour relations. There were plenty of communities established by free black and mulattos on the hintherland, some were escaped slaves, some were sons of slaves and free individiduals, they had de facto autonomy and some even survive to the present day. And they are poor as fuck. Meanwhile when Europeans and/or Japanese were equally released into the jungle they built prosperous communities.
What you're ignoring is that economic systems are not set in stone. South Korea was an agrarian, feudal country 50 years ago, and now it's industrialized. The reason why South Korea was able to achieve such a rapid and successful industrialization is that it possesses the required "human capital".
ok sure, but in this context, you have to take into account that white leaders of brazil decided to "stay the course" and not bring in any unprecedented industrialisation efforts.
going into very specific details is a bit out of my league here, I don't know about the specifics of these communities, but here the thing, it's not only labour relations, the agrarian/industrial dichotomy is very real and apparent, even when "europeans were realeased into the prarie jungle" in USA as it were. The american north-west for example was, throught most of the 19th/20th century, much less developed than the industrial north-east.
I'd argue that isolated agrarian communities are even less conductive to wealth accumulation than intensive, concentrated agriculture, but at least in those examples, wealth possibly gets distributed more equally.
Also, just look at 19th century Europe for the agrarian/industrial divide or even just Russia and it's growth post 1861, and those are all white people (inb4 /int/posting)
>you have to take into account that white leaders of brazil decided to "stay the course" and not bring in any unprecedented industrialisation efforts.
And industrialization wasn't "forced" in America by the US president, it happened organically.
how can I give you a citation on something that didn't happen?
I mean, it's apparent that there wasn't any major industrialisation efforts on the scale of SK, unless you can point out something I don't know?
>And industrialization wasn't "forced" in America by the US president, it happened organically.
yes, that's the point of this thread, usa's north-east had prime conditions for industrialisation, brazil had prime conditions for an agrarian economy, in my reply we were talking about SK, where a drastic industrialisation effort was indeed "forced"
The bigger problem is that Korea had numerous advantages Brazil did not.
Brazil was not a 3 hour boatride from the worlds second largest economy, which also happened to be labor starved, and also have a reparations issue to resolve with them.
I disagree with your analysis. Japan is another example of a country which industrialized "organically" without state planning.
You seem to be implying that due to the geography of Brazil, it could not industrialize "organically". That seems, to me at least, to be an extraordinary argument which should be backed up by concrete evidence.
Because industrialization happened in a wide variety of different geographies.
Why didn't the australian aboriginals industrialize, whereas white colonists to Australia did?
>The american north-west for example was, throught most of the 19th/20th century, much less developed than the industrial north-east.
The American North-West had been inhabited for a shorter period of time than the North-East. Societies were still very functional even without the industrialisation and had the proper fundamental system for industrialisation to easily occur. It's the same thing about Europeans and Japanese in Brazil.
>Also, just look at 19th century Europe for the agrarian/industrial divide or even just Russia and it's growth post 1861, and those are all white people (inb4 /int/posting)
And look at the industrialised U.S.S.R. Conditions were just as shitty after the industrialisation due to the bad regimes and rulers. In Brazil we compare European/Japanese settlements to African/mulatt and their ability to modernise. One manages it. One does not. We should try to figure out why.
>Brazil's climate is too warm! All warm countries are undeveloped!
Australia has a warm climate
>Brazil only received the scum of Europe as immigrants!
Australia was a penal colony
>The Brazilian population is located only in the coast, which means it couldn't fully develop
Australia's population is located mainly in the coast
>Brazil has an economy based on commodity exports!
So does Australia
>Brazil has a multi-ethnic population!
So does Australia
>Brazil is located too far away from the main global trade routes
So is Australia
>Brazil has no economic freedom!
So does Aus... actually, Australia is one of the most economically free countries in the world.
I guess that settles it. Brazil's government is too big and the economy is too unfree.
>Why didn't the australian aboriginals industrialize, whereas white colonists to Australia did?
oh come on, I though we were having a non-meme discussion, if you're asking this question unironically, then I just don't know how to reply to you
And Japan actually did industrialise "unnaturally" (that is to say, specific, concentrated efforts were put in place by the state and the nation) TWICE!
And as far as Brazil goes.
>extraordinary claims of geography
dont' be dumb, just look at a map once in a while
the wiki article is corroborated by this study, so I'm gonna supply both
>The American North-West had been inhabited for a shorter period of time than the North-East
well, it was also agrarian, less wealthy and the coal deposits there were harder to reach, so I don't see how that supports the "dumb niggers" thesis, just goes to show the agrarian/industrial divide
>And look at the industrialised U.S.S.R. Conditions were just as shitty after the industrialisation due to the bad regimes and rulers.
I'm talking about 1861-1914 Russia and the massive industrial and urbanisation growth that happened after the abolition of serfdom.
implying our shit hasn't fucked up a long time ago
Most of Australia is also uninhabitable. Maybe to a worst extend than Brazil.
Illegal logging and deforestation are a problem, but have nothing to do with the lack of development.
The problem is indeed corruption and public management inefficiency, mainly due to the monstrous size of the Brazilian government.
>Lots of natural harbors with access to a river system that penetrates deep into the continent
>Primarily VERY good land, lack of jungle
>Early economy not focused on cash crops (except in the South)
>Climate more attractive to European immigrants
>More resources than Brazil
>All natural harbors sandwiched between mountains and arable land, save for mouth of the Amazon
>Early economy dependent on cash crops, shaping economic structure very unevenly
>Climate is shit for attracting the millions of immigrants the US got during the late 19th/early 20th century
Bureaucracy. Companies have to spend a huge amount of time figuring out how to fill tax and labor forms.
No one wants to invest in new businesses because of this. So, smart Brazilians want to be government workers, not entrepreneurs.
I'm a brazilian myself living in Japan. In my opinion the reason why Brazil is such a shithole but the US is a powerhouse is: leadership and culture. There is no denying the US inherited if not all, some part of the british culture, a culture that embraced capitalism and entrepreneur and would spawn the first industrial revolution.
>b-but anon, Sierra Leone was also a british colony
Fair observation, but Sierra Leone was a exploration colony, just like Brazil.
And when it comes to leadership, Brazil has had no strong leader with the exception of Getulio Vargas, a nationalistic dictator
there's your problem
government protectionism only works until you reach industrialization. After that you gotta let market forces take the reins. Governments should only intervene when the economy is doing badly.
Because the us population at the time of its founding was consisted mainly by white hard-working Protestants while huestan's majority-nigger and blanda upped population was ruled by Alberto Barbosa Catholic elites.