>serious discussion thread
Why and when did the Southern European countries start to fall behind the Northern/Western European countries? The countries I'm talking about are mainly
All of them were powerful and rich up until a few centuries back, but they started to fall behind. Hell, Spain was pretty unharmed in WW2 and they still managed to fall behind the likes of Germany and France.
>Hell, Spain was pretty unharmed in WW2 and they still managed to fall behind the likes of Germany and France.
Man, there was a fucking civil war here you know.
The fact that Germany and France were so damaged during the war also assured a lot more foreign help from America and co.
Aside from that, Italy is the 4th largest economy on EU and Spain the 5th, with almost 50% unemployement.
>Spain was pretty unharmed in WW2 and they still managed to fall behind the likes of Germany and France.
Spain was rekt by the civil war and had suffered decades if not centuries of political turmoil.
Because we decided it, we sided with the protestants in the 30 years war.
For us it was the instability of of the early 20th century kinda fucked us up in terms of being on the same level with the rest of europe the our fascist regime didnt help seing that salazar was pretty mutch a super conservative guy form the in land he pretty mutch sealed portugal tight to any western influence hell the fucking slogan for our empire was proudly alone so we stayed pretty mutch stuck in the 40s until 1974
To much or to little of an effective government that failed to effectively cooperate with merchants to create a modern economy
Behind on what? I mean I know they are not as wealthy as northern countries but that does not mean that much.
Spain is shit on economics and we have the second largest life expectancy, only behind Japan. And a few days ago I read that Malaga, on Andalucia, one of the poorest regions on Spain, was ranked on top 10 of best European cities.
Yes we are behind, but I don't see that huge difference.
Here is an older one but it features several other countries.
There was a shift of power from the mediterranean to the north sea round the age of enlightenment and proceeded to claim this with help of industrialization. Late 17th century or so when Spain, Portugal and Venice started to decline.
Good to see you can cherrypick. Can do the same for every country.
Just leave the thread then. Can't believe I seriously have to justify the claim that these Southern European countries are not on the same level as Western European countries (apart from Lelgium maybe). This is a generally accepted fact.
Italy is not bad by any means, Spain isn't eithe, but the government is very corrupt as compared to say, Germany. Many regions of those countries are undeveloped.
>shift of power
merely GDP per capita and wage growth due to the rise of lowlands manufacturies, increase in free trade and northern trade in general and importance of manpower post the black death
The seat of power was still very much in Istanbul :^)
Well look at Europe in 1550
Italy was just finished being violated for half a century.
They got new colonies, loads of gold, habsburg rulers and a few really competent generals. But behind all of this there was no economic powerhouse, most of Spain was extremely rural or desolate.
Lad, Lombardy is 1/6th of Italy's population and about 1/3 of North Italy's population.
Did a Ferarri driving Fabiano steal your council house gf?
Initially, the mid 80's, due to widespread fall in demand of consumer goods, outsourcing of industry. (more then Germany, due to relatively high costs of labour combined with strong unions.)
Realistically, with the adoption of the Euro as the EU's standard currency. If anything the current Eurocrisis isn't a debt problem, its a monetary policy crisis which underlines the problems of a Northern European dominated currency in a Garlic border country.
The Reason why the French Franc, Italian Lire, Greek Drachma and Spanish Peso weren't worth shit was due to the relatively high inflation, which in turn was a result of a policy of defecit spending caused by poor tax willingness in most Southern European countries. Hence, inflation in France from 1950- 1980 was approx 5% per annum, essentially taxing any income and wealth a person has. Combined with the fact the currency was "cheap" made Southern Europe attractive for some forms of labour. Likewise, relative high interest rates on bonds kept the amount of credit fairly low in these countries.
Fact is that the Euro is essentially the D-mark with a different name, with the ECB following the exact same policy goals as the Bundesbank did before the Euro.
This in the South led to a huge credit bubble as every Juan, Fernando and Maria could get credit on German rates (which are considerably lower), leading to a huge bubble in private and government debt.
In short, the biggest problem currently for Southern Europe is that if things are good, Credit is too cheap, while at the same time, the current policy is too tight in crisis, forcing mass unemployment.
Actually the entire territory was shit, even if the North was already better. It's stupid to say that Italy was left behind because it actually improved a lot, at least in the North, and more slowly in the South.
>make serious thread
>"lel did your gf get stolen bro? xDDD"
Shameful display. 1/6th of the population is still cherry-picked.
Also, your point is stupid. The fact that there is SUCH a massive disparity between North and South only strengthens my point (of Italy being behind Western Euro countries) and my question.
Not him but in our case it's because many in the south are a bunch of dumb bible thumpers who prefer not to read any books besides the bible and watch NASCAR over anything educational. What's the cause in Italy?
>insists on stereotypes and memes
Italy is a good study case on one of the divergences (the 19th, early 20th century one i.e. the industrialisation one).
But instead of looking at the factors and whatnot you insist on being upset for some reason.
The whole north of italy (yes, the cherrypicked half, where half the population lives) is South East England tier in development and no amount of your butthurt will change that.
You may try to understand why, but please don't get upset, you silly brit.
can you explain pic related to me?
Is it just the natural geography?
That map shows average disposable income by person. I've always seen the Netherlands lower than their surroundings on these kind of disposable income/purchasing power maps. Look at Denmark too, it's yellow because taxes are very high there. And of course people in Extremadura aren't on the same level as Bulgaria... (yet)
they didnt get behind. They still live much better and happy lives than most """"civilized"""" northern european countries. Hence why most europeans flock to the south instead of the north
Shitty goverment of the Bourbons and feudalism before the union, shitty government of Italy after, mafia and corruption now. There's also a mentality that values family too much and society too little, but it won't survive the next generation.
We are just too lazy to emigrate. We should have done the same as the rapefugees are doing right now in the 80's.
>Why and when?
The reformation and individualism will have helped England, Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia and other protestant regions to innovate and flourish economically.
>Why still shit?
Portugal and Spain had dictatorships for a long while. And Italy for a bit. I guess the Eurozone has fucked them up recently too.
what about Nebraska/Colorado vs Idaho/Arizona
Is it just because of the desert and the Rocky Mountains?
Also, the South is basically mountains and hills, while the north river Po valley is an infrastructure wet dream.
Neaples was actually more industrialised in the beginning of the 19th century, when industry was still smaller scale.
Sardinia-Piedmont & friends fucking over the south and Garibaldi and investing into North Italy also played a role later on....
I'd also point out that a lot of the poorer areas have a lot of mountains and desert. Colorado does have mining though but it doesn't really have any sort of production. New Mexico has the Navajo who any worth a damn leave to find work. Basically I think it's lack of industry, terrain and being tied to natural resources but its completely a guess since their culture varies a lot.
All these states are very different in their situations on why they're poor or rich. Some have large populations, some small, some are deserts or mountainous, some have huge cities, some are just rural, etc.
There's no defining label, but if there was I'd say it has to do with out-of-state migrants, native reservations and economic diversification.
It's Beastman. Some weeks ago insecam was a thing on 4chan. People scared babies and trolled people. This particular guy is some kind of retarded japanese. He faps and sleep the whole time. For some reason they stopped making threads so I presume they got banned.
>Why and when did the Southern European countries start to fall behind the Northern/Western European countries? The countries I'm talking about are mainly
Italy had a facist dictator who broke their economy.
Spain had a civil war, and a facist dictator.
Portugal, I mean really, the country is called 'poortugal' for reason.
And most of them need to take siestas from 11--16 pm
Depending on who you ask, they'll either say the Mediterraneans started falling behind either during the euro, during the spanish civill war, some day they've always been behind.
I've been to plenty of British schools and elements of Chav culture permeate British youth culture in general. Bullying, as in physical bullying, is huge in British schools for instance, and so is abusing teachers. The atmosphere is generally aggressive and primitive. It shares traits with Black American youth culture where one actively needs to be on the social and sometimes physical defense from their peers.
Southen Italy is not worst than Andalucía, is even worst than Extremadura. Because of that, despite the rich Northen Italy (richer than Northen Spain), both countries are in the same level.
>there was a fucking civil war here you know.
>what are the 3 guerras carlistas
>what are the different coups during the XIX century
>what are the magnicides commited at the end of the XIX century
>what are the 2 republics
That is so fucking wrong that I didnt even read the rest
We have had many civil wars and political instability. Plus during the Franco dictatorship we didn't received a shit of the Marshall Plan. Oh and almost all our gold went to the Soviets thanks to the commie republican government.
Northern Italy, the Benelux, Switzerland, Southern Germany, France and England are the most populous and economically relevant in Europe. It has nothing to do with north and south.
Campania, Calabria, Sicilia...
Think that Spain and Italy have practically the same GDP per capita and IDH.
Who says it doesn't? :^)
I'd say some have figured it out as well, but we don't have sea or as much sun, leading to sense of deprivation. People from winery regions tend to be more laid back, regardless.
When the Mediterranean stopped being the centre of the world, and technology made the Atlantic Ocean more safe. Notice that many traditional centres of wealth and power, like the Ottomans, began to see their decay with the discovery of oceanic routes that bypassed them. Before then, they held the keys to the wealth of Asia. After then, they weren't so important anymore.
>ruled by Turks for 500 years
And maintained our unique cultural identity, gained national conscious, kicked the turks and build a strong and powerful empire. Meanwhile Britbongs are French villagers, later Roman province.
Ugly retarded mutants irritate me. I can't help myself. You probably work as a toilet cleaner for a Bulgarian company, if you're lucky they`ll send you here to head their offices. Britbong. Im actually surprise you know how to type, given your low literacy levels.
>Ugly retarded mutants irritate me. I can't help myself. You probably work as a toilet cleaner for a Bulgarian company, if you're lucky they`ll send you here to head their offices. Britbong. Im actually surprise you know how to type, given your low literacy levels.
how could be Mexico wealthier than us, while looking like Middle East? Have American cinema lied to me again?
Spain inflated its economy with South American gold, then you sunk their navy.
Italy has been irrelevant since Rome collapsed. Most of its history has been of separate city-states and territories, much like Germany. But unlike Germany it never had respect for ordnung and production, so unification didn't do much.
Portugal was among the first to colonize but didn't leverage their method, just like France. France set up a bunch of worthless fur traders, and Portugal sailed the world twice-over and set up a bunch of coastal trading posts. Eventually those countries kicked them out, like Japan, for being loud and rowdy (the Dutch and Americans replaced Portugal in Japan).
Overall it's a mixture of a.) not being able to replicate the glory of Rome, which admittedly is a hard thing to do and b.) being retards at colonization, which is also a hard thing to do. Technically speaking, looking at all the colonies in the world right now, I can only conclude that the British were successful.
Bulgarian whore need to be in a whore friendly country, so the most natural decision was to move to England. By the way the Bulgarian whores are all gypsies, so you just admitted to fucking a gypsy hahah which is not surprising since your mom is an indian and your dad a paki. britbong.
>new zealand defending his overlords
Go suck a sheep dick or something
nice argument britbong
>Italy has been irrelevant since Rome collapsed.
Pretty sure Italy was the richest and one of the most culturally relevant European countries until the 15th century at least, but I don't expect Americans to know basic history so it's fine.
>Have American cinema lied to me again?
No we haven't lied to you, because a big chunk of Mexico's wealth is tied up by the cartels. Poland's wealth is a lot more distributed.
You may have gopnik criminals here and there, but nothing you have compares to the cartel.
unless Russia annexes you again, maybe
Being homogeneously shit isn't something you should take pride in, Nigel
Because this became less rellevant with the discovery of America and better tools for oceanic-going travel.
>Pretty sure Italy was the richest
You didn't exist for most of European history
Venice and Milan did. That's why I called you irrelevant, because nonexistence is the highest form of irrelevance (like Belgium).
Pretty sure the Italian boot formed some million years ago and it wasn't empty after the WRE collapsed.
The fact that a big army and a ing wasn't there to declare the whole country under one ruler doesn't make it less of a geographical unit.
Mississippi river. The world's largest naturally interconnected and navigable waterway system overlaying arable land.
I did, that's why I'm posting arguments instead of being a snide smug content-less Europoor. You're on par for your region though... arrogance without accomplishment.
Go back to >>54936096 and read
>Why and when did the Southern European countries
and stop posting
The river argument lines up slightly, but here's a more accurate chart
Yup, the eastern tributaries lead to red zones (besides Illinois, a green state in a deep sea of red) and the western tributaries are generally green but eventually lead to deep red (Idaho, Montana).
I guess if you expunge those 3 exceptions, it might be a pretty good model for east/west tributaries
>about to go to bed
>decide to read muh /int/ stories before bed
>The North/South divide is extreme in Italy.
that is because of germanicism
north are more lightskinned than south so they think they are superior and south italians are stupid because they arent fair
fucking stupid bullshit
Refugee crisis shows the German government is desperate, to solve its demographic crisis, not corrupt. It's desperation.
Look at the Nordstream deal with Russia if you want to see German government corruption
>And maintained our unique cultural identity
that is because of the millets system, if ottocucks wanted to genocide you all they could have but making the gavur just pay extra taxes, provide food and devshirme children and shut up is easier
I'd sooner believe that they are bringing violent young blacks in to inoculate complacent german society with violence and will to fight in some grand social engineering experiment than that they honestly believe that a wave of rape by "syrians" will produce new steve jobs' for their economy.
I understand that elites and politicians tend to be disconnected from ordinary man's reality but this is a bit too much.
Portugal's downfall has a well defined start date: it's 1580, the year we Lost our independence to spain, and, thus, our trading superiority. More than half of the """Spanish""" Armada defeated by the English was ours. That was the beginning of the end. The lineage of kings that followed the 1640 independence was, so to say, subpar, and when monarchy fell in 1910 we were largely in debt. The Primeira República made things way worse, and when Salazar appeared we were virtually bankrupt. Over the next decades,he did fill our vaults with gold, but the civilizational delay and the poverty in which the average Portuguese lived in 1974 when the regime fell more than outweighted the gold.
Between 74 and 86, we had 2 FMI interventions thanks to our great left governments post-dictatorship. After 86, when we entered the CEE, it was a mix between our politicians misusing european funds on useless public works made by their friends's companies, and the EU effectively paying our farmers/fishers/etc not to producproduce anything, so that we could feed France's and Gewmoney's economy.
For a better analysis, look for "Causas da decadência dos povos peninsulares".